Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 102, 103 & 117---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 5---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Oral agreement--- Scope--- Proposal and acceptance---Plaintiff was ready to perform his part of contract and he performed the same within stipulated time---Both the parties had entered into a valid contract---Written agreement could not be defeated by an oral agreement---Defendant, in the present case, had failed to prove the factum of oral agreement, and was estopped to allege and claim anything orally contrary to written commitments---Defendant had breached the agreement---Effect---Validly concluded agreement could not be revoked---Section 5 of Contract Act, 1872 barred revocation of proposals and acceptances once its communication was completed---Agreement had been concluded and offer of sale of property was accepted by the plaintiff by performing the condition of payment of 10% of sale consideration in advance---Receipt of advance payment by the defendant had confirmed that offer of sale of suit property was accepted by the plaintiff much before legal notice---Said acceptance was fully communicated to the defendant---Communication of proposal by the defendant and its acceptance was completed when advance/token amount of sale consideration was paid by the plaintiff and defendant issued receipt of part payment in writing---Communication of both proposal and its acceptance had been completed by either parties to each other prior to revocation through notice---Neither there was any occasion to revoke the offer nor notice after the completion of communication could be treated as revocation---Impugned agreement was capable of specific performance and plaintiff was entitled to the relief claimed---Defendant was directed to execute sale deed within a specified period and plaintiff be put in possession of suit property---Nazir of the court should execute sale deed in case of failure of defendant to execute the same in favour of plaintiff---Suit of plaintiff was decreed in circumstances. 2014 SCMR 1217 and 2002 SCMR 326 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 103---Exclusion of evidence of oral agreement---Scope---Written agreement could not be defeated by an oral agreement. (c) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 5---Revocation of proposal and acceptance---Scope---Section 5 of Contract Act, 1872 barred revocation of proposals and acceptances once its communication was completed.

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 30 & 33---Contract for supply of vehicles---Arbitration award in favour of defendant was remitted by the court with directions to the arbitrator to state reasons for the award, which direction was not complied with by the arbitrator---Defendant, during pendency of said arbitration proceedings, appropriated an amount lying with it, which amount was in consideration for another later contract between the parties---Plaintiff's present suit for recovery sought recovery of the said amount---Held, that the defendant's act of appropriation of amount in respect of the earlier contract from amount lying with the defendant under a contract was not justified nor lawful---Failure of defendant to pursue legal remedy for recovery of said amount once arbitration award was set aside by the court rendered the defendant liable to refund the said amount forthwith---Suit was decreed accordingly.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the de-notification order, in which the Executive District Officer (Revenue) Mandi Baha-ud-Din de-notified land measuring 142-Kanals 13-Marlas that had been acquired for the construction of a District Headquarters Hospital in Mandi Baha ud Din.The petitioner argued that the de-notification was illegal and not sustainable, as the land had been acquired for a public purpose, and the Mutation had been duly sanctioned in favor of the Health Department. Additionally, other related cases and judgments were cited to support the petitioner's claims. The petitioner also alleged that the de-notification was made without proper authority and violated principles of natural justice.The court found in favor of the petitioner, declaring the de-notification order as illegal and set it aside, allowing the writ petition. The court emphasized that the Executive District Officer (Revenue) did not have the authority to pass such an order, and the land acquisition process was for the public welfare.

Summary: The case arose from an altercation involving Muhammad Sharif, the deceased, and the appellant, Muhammad Hanif, following a dispute and prior enmity. It details the events of December 3, 1999, where Muhammad Sharif was fatally attacked, allegedly by Hanif and others, due to a situation involving suspected illicit relations between Sharif and a woman, leading to a confrontation at her house.Witness statements, including that of the complainant Muhammad Babar, supported the prosecution's case. The prosecution presented multiple witnesses, evidence of the crime weapon's alleged recovery, and medical testimony. The appellant provided his account, denying the accusations against him and attributing the incident to his efforts to discourage the deceased from his alleged actions.The judgment outlines the legal process, including the initial conviction, subsequent appeal, and the final decision of the Lahore High Court confirming the conviction and death sentence of Muhammad Hanif alias Fouji for the murder of Muhammad Sharif. The court's decision is based on the evidence presented during the trial, witness statements, and the circumstances described in the case.The judgment also clarifies the role of the accused, the deceased, and the sequence of events leading to the fatal confrontation, emphasizing prior enmity as a motive behind the occurrence. This judgment serves to confirm the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the crime, based on the evidence and statements presented during the legal proceedings.

Summary: Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C, Ss.302 & 34 PPC---Qatl-i-amd, common intention---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---No bar existed under law to grant bail at any stage, provided accused had made out a case of further inquiry.

Summary: Ss. 409, 406 & 34 PPC, S.417(2-A) Cr.PC---Criminal breach of trust by public servant, common intention---Appeal against acquittal---Reappraisal of evidence--- appeal filed by unqualified person and signed by appellant?s counsel, not maintainable.