Loading... Account
Dark Mode
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 Bahadar Sher Khan vs Haji Shah Alam Khan etc

Citation: 2012 MLD 1062

Case No: CR.No.106-B

Judgment Date: 22/03/2012

Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court

Judge: Justice

Summary: S.12 Specific Relief Act:When time is not essence of the contract relating to immovable property,Revision-Suo moto power of court

Iftikher Khan vs Mst.Amina Bibi

Citation: PLD 2012 Peshawar 159

Case No: WP.No.1030

Judgment Date: 22/03/2012

Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court

Judge: Justice

Summary: S.17,13,5 WP FCA,S.48 CPC:Suit for maintenance & dower,maintainability of 2nd execution petition--applicability of CPC

Iftikher Khan Vs Mst. Amina Bibi

Citation: PLD 2012 Peshawar 159

Case No: W.P. No. 1030

Judgment Date: 22/03/2012

Jurisdiction: Peshawar High Court

Judge: Justice

Summary: Art. 199 Constitution of Pakistan.S.17, 13, 5 WP FC Act. S.48 CPC.second execution petition..Applicability of CPC in Family Court cases.

Faiz Muhammad Jaffar v. the State,

Citation: PLD 2012 164

Case No: Criminal Estasab Appeals Nos.50, 53, 54 of 2001

Judgment Date: 22/03/2012

Jurisdiction: Balochistan High Court

Judge: Justice Muhammad Hashim Khan Kakar

Summary: (a) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. 9(a) (iv) (vi) & 14 (a)---Corruption and corrupt practices---Appreciation ofevidence---Paying of commission---Presumption of guilt---Shifting of onus, principle of---Applicability---Prosecution alleged that accused persons received commission andreleased payments to contractors without supply of goods by them---Accused wereconvicted by Trial Court and were sentenced to imprisonment for various terms---Plearaised by accused persons was that prosecution witnesses had paid commission whichitself was illegal thus they were accomplices---Validity---Prosecution witnesses werecross-examined at length, yet nothing was brought on record which could shake intrinsicvalue of their depositions---Even no ill-will or malice was alleged against witnesses tofalsely implicate accused in commission of offence---Merely because witnesses hadpaid commissions, which was illegal, was not sufficient to disbelieve theirstraightforward and confidence inspiring evidence---All witnesses had deposed that onrefusal of payment of commission, accused persons withheld cheques, as such, they wereforced to pay commission to accused thus such witnesses could not be termed asaccomplice in commission of offence being consenting parties---After specific allegationregarding payment of commission/bribe to accused, onus under S.14 of NationalAccountability Ordinance, 1999, shifted to them to prove that they accepted or obtainedgratification not as a motive or reward other than legal remuneration---Accused failed todischarge their onus and only denied to have received any such commission, whichassertion on their part could not be believed in the light of overwhelming evidence inshape of statements of prosecution witnesses, as the same were straightforward andconfidence inspiring and fit in probabilities of the case---Prosecution had successfullybrought the guilt home against accused persons and they were rightly found guilty by theTrial Court---High Court maintained conviction and fine awarded by Trial Court butreduced sentences of imprisonment to that already undergone by the accused prior to theirrelease on bail---Appeal was dismissed accordingly.(b) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------S. 18(g)---Reference, filing of---Pre-conditions---Reference is not supposed to be anencyclopedia of prosecution case---Two conditions are to be satisfied under S.18(g) ofNational Accountability Ordinance, 1999; firstly that there is sufficient material to justifyfiling of Reference and secondly, the Chairman NAB decides that it would be proper andjust to file Reference, then the matter can be referred to Accountability Court.(c) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------Ss. 18(g) & 24(b)---Cognizance by Accountability Court---Accused persons---Cognizance by Accountability Court is taken on Reference made by Chairman NABunder Ss.18(g) and 24(b) of National Accountability Ordinance, 1999---Such offenderscan be tried whom the Chairman NAB finds liable to be tried and, therefore, names themin the Reference.(d) National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999)-------S. 33-E---Fine, recovery of---Death of accused---Effect---Criminal liability ends withdeath of convict but civil liability of accused/offender remains there and death of offenderregarding payment of fine, does not operate as discharge or satisfaction of the order forpayment of fine---Legal heirs of deceased convict cannot take advantage of death of theirpredecessor-in-interest i.e. the convict---Fine amount can be recovered from theassets/properties of deceased.Muhammad Yousaf v. Syed Ghayyur Hussain Shah 1993 SCMR 1185 rel.

DIGITAL MEDIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY VS WARID TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH FAISAL SAEED

Citation: 2012 CLD 858

Case No: C. S. No. L AND C. M. No. 260-S/2011

Judgment Date: 21-03-2012

Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court

Judge: Justice Iqbal Hameed

Summary: Summary pending.

DIGITAL MEDIAL SOLUTIONS PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH COMPANY SECRETARY VS WARID TELECOM PRIVATE LIMITED THROUGH FAISAL SAEED

Citation: 2012 CLD 858

Case No: C. S. No. L AND C. M. No. 260-S/2011

Judgment Date: 21-03-2012

Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court

Judge: Justice Iqbal Hameed

Summary: Summary pending.

NADEEM ASGHAR VS DR SHEIKH SIRAJ UL HAQUE

Citation: 2012 CLC 1257

Case No: No. 1724/2009

Judgment Date: 21-03-2012

Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court

Judge: Justice Noor

Summary: Summary pending.

NADEEM ASGHAR VS DR SHEIKH SIRAJ UL HAQUE

Citation: 2012 CLC 1257

Case No: No. 1724/2009

Judgment Date: 21-03-2012

Jurisdiction: Islamabad High Court

Judge: Justice Noor

Summary: Summary pending.

PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY LU VS HAJI GHANO TFHAN JATOI

Citation: 2012 CLC 1372

Case No: HIGH COURT APPEAL No. 157/2009

Judgment Date: 21-03-2012

Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court

Judge: Justice Mushir Alam

Summary: Summary pending.

PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY LU VS HAJI GHANO TFHAN JATOI

Citation: 2012 CLC 1372

Case No: HIGH COURT APPEAL No. 157/2009

Judgment Date: 21-03-2012

Jurisdiction: Sindh High Court

Judge: Justice Mushir Alam

Summary: Summary pending.

Disclaimer: AI/GPT is not a substitute for legal advice. The content on this website is for research only. In case of breach of T.O.S, PLDB reserves the right to revoke or ban membership at any time without notice. Pak Legal Database ® 2023-2026. All Rights Reserved. Version 4.05.2a. Designed & developed by theblinklabs.com

error: Content Protection Enabled
Scroll to Top