Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
FEROZ KHAN VS MST MALIK ZARO
Summary: Summary pending.
MST ROHEELA YASMIN VS MS NEELOFAR HASSAN
Summary: Summary pending.
Feroz Khan vs Mst. Malik Zaro
Summary: S.13 Pre-emption Act:Requirements of Talabs. if not fulfilled suit has to fail.
Feroz Khan vs Mst. Malik Zaro
Summary: S.13 Pre-emption Act:Requirements of Talabs (Talb-e-muwathibat & Ishhad)
HAJI MUHAMMAD VS ASJ ETC
Summary: The petitioner's counsel argued that the cheque was issued as a guarantee for a loan taken by another person, Luqman, who repaid the entire amount to respondent No.3. However, respondent No.3, allegedly acting maliciously, did not return the cheque and obtained the impugned order. The counsel claimed that the cheque was issued as a 'Qarz-e-Hasna' and was to be returned at the petitioner's convenience, implying no criminal liability. They sought to set aside the impugned order.The judge, after considering the contentions, concluded that the issuance of a dishonoured cheque constitutes a cognizable offense under Section 489-F of the Pakistan Penal Code. The judge dismissed the petition, stating that the constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 could not resolve the factual controversy. However, if a criminal case is registered, the investigation should include all evidence, oral and documentary, provided by the petitioner.
MIAN RIFFAT MEHMOOD VS L.D.A.
Summary: Order with signature of Judge, and that ofparties or counsel, where necessarythe initial stage of issuance of Notification undersection 4 ibid. Further, if they opt to proceed withthe acquisition proceedings afresh the same shall beconcluded within a period of six months as thepetitioners have already been suffering at the handsof the respondents since the year 1987. In thealternate, the respondents shall hand over thepossession of the land in question to the petitionersforthwith in addition to paying compensation ofRs.6,000,000/- (six million rupees) towards the costof the superstructure admittedly demolished by therespondents. The parties shall bear their respectivecosts. Since the acquisition proceedings by therespondents regarding the land of the petitionersduring currency of a status quo order have beendeclared illegal, the connected Criminal OriginalNo.2410-W of 2014 as well as the miscellaneousapplications filed during pendency of the instantpetition shall stand disposed of accordingly.Order with signature of Judge, and that ofparties or counsel, where necessarythe learned counsel representing the parties isomitted to be admired. The manner of addressingthe Court and presentation of voluminous record ina very articulate manner is not only laudable but asource of enlightenment and guidance for thebeginners in the profession.
SHER SHAMSUDDIN and otherss vs ATTA MUHAMMAD and others
Summary: Summary pending
HASSAN VS M U S A
Summary: Summary pending.
KHAWAR JAHANGIR VS AURANGZEB
Summary: Summary pending.
GUL ALAM ZAR KHAN OTHERSS VS HAIDER ALI
Summary: Summary pending.