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)
MALIK HABIB ULLAH VS L.D.A.
Summary: The petitioner owns a piece of land that was subjected to acquisition proceedings by LDA for the development of a housing scheme called LDA Avenue-I, Raiwind Road, Lahore. The petitioner challenged the acquisition of his land through this petition, contesting the validity of the notifications issued by LDA under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The petitioner's arguments revolved around the inclusion/exclusion of his land in the notifications, the non-announcement of an award, and alleged non-fulfillment of procedural formalities in the possession taking process. The LDA's response refuted the petitioner's claims, providing explanations for the absence of an award and the non-fulfillment of possession procedures. The judge, analyzed the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. The judge dismissed the petition, stating that the petitioner's claims were unfounded and lacked legal basis. The judgment clarified that the LDA was not a company under the relevant Act and, therefore, rule 10(2) of the Punjab Land Acquisition Rules, 1983, did not apply to the case. As a result of the judgment, the petition filed by Malik Habib Ullah against the Lahore Development Authority was rejected.
SAJID MAHMOOD VS ASJ ETC
Summary: [exhumation had been allowed even on simple grounds of suspicion to ascertain the real cause of death] The respondent was the paternal uncle of the deceased, had moved an application before the Illaqa/Judicial Magistrate, seeking exhumation and postmortem of the deceased's body. The petitioner's counsel contended that the respondent No. 5 had no locus standi (legal standing) to file the application for exhumation and that both the lower courts erred in allowing the exhumation. The petitioner's counsel relied on a previous judgment, 2014 P Cr. L J 1030, to support their argument. However, the court, after considering the facts and relevant provisions of the Criminal Procedure Code, rejected the petitioner's contentions. The court cited section 176 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which grants judicial discretion to the concerned magistrate to order the exhumation of a dead body to discover the cause of death. The court also referred to previous judgments where exhumation had been allowed even on simple grounds of suspicion to ascertain the real cause of death.The court concluded that the application for exhumation was rightly allowed by the magistrate and affirmed by the Additional Sessions Judge. It found no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by both lower courts and dismissed the petitioner's writ petition.
MST RAZIA BIBI VS ASJ ETC
Summary: The petitioner filed an application under section 22-A of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C) before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. The Ex-Officio Justice of Peace dismissed the application, leading to the petitioner filing a petition challenging the order. The judge heard the arguments from both sides and examined the relevant provisions of law. The judge emphasized that the Officer Incharge of a Police Station is duty-bound to register an FIR if information about the commission of a cognizable offense is received, without holding an inquiry into the correctness of the information. Additionally, the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace is authorized to issue appropriate directions to police authorities on complaints related to non-registration of criminal cases, transfer of investigation, or neglect/failure/excess committed by a police authority in relation to its functions and duties. The judge concluded that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace failed to exercise the jurisdiction vested under section 22-A Cr.P.C. and set aside the impugned order. The court directed the respondent No. 3 (police) to receive the petitioner's complaint and proceed in accordance with the terms of section 154 Cr.P.C and other enabling provisions.
Commissioner Inland Revenue VS Sheikh Manzoor Ahmad
Summary: While passing an amended assessment order under Section 122 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, expenses relating to previous tax years could not be disallowed, without issuing independent Show Cause Notices for amendment of those tax year's orders under Section 120
PETRO OIL SERVICES VSFOP ETC.
Summary: The disputed criteria required the prospective company not to be affiliated with existing oil marketing companies in Pakistan and mandated an affidavit stating that none of the sponsors/directors or their relatives were involved in any criminal case, bank/loan default, or federal taxes default. The Court analyzed the policy and held that the condition of affiliation should be interpreted to mean that the applying company must have its own infrastructure and facilities, independent of any other company. However, the Court found the requirement of affidavits from relatives to be irrational and unreasonable. It decided to read down the term 'relatives' to include only the spouses and dependents of the sponsors/directors. The Court applied the principles of reasonableness, rationality, and proportionality to assess the policy's validity. Furthermore, the Court refused to consider Article 18 of the Constitution (right to trade and business) as applicable in this case, as the trade was regulated by a license system. The Court accepted the petition in part and upheld the policy with the modification that the term 'relatives' should be restricted to spouses and dependents.
Shafqat Ali Versus Provincial Govt and others
Summary: Summary Pending
SADDAM HUSSAIN SHAMBOZAI BROHI and 2 otherss vs The STATE
Summary: Summary pending
SAADULLAH VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
Amanullah vs Mst.Israna etc
Summary: Rule-6 Family Court Ord:Govern the procedure & determine the territorial jurisdiction where the wife resides
SAQIB PAL VS MST BEENISH KHUSHNOOD ETC
Summary: The jurisdictional defect which requiresinvocation of Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court inexercise of jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of theConstitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Appraisal ofevidence is the function of courts below and if the findings arebased on proper appraisal of evidence then the same cannot beinterfered with lightly in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The partyapproaching the High Court under Article 199 of theConstitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 has todemonstrate that there is gross misreading or non-reading of theevidence or any jurisdictional defect floating on the surface butin the instant case all these preconditions are clearly missing,therefore, the petition in hand is devoid of any force which isdismissed with no order as to costs.