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)
CDA VS Mohammad nawaz Khokhar etc
Summary: Background:
The Capital Development Authority (CDA) has filed an appeal (R.F.A. No. 74/2006) against Muhammad Nawaz Khokhar and others. The matter is related to a legal dispute that requires resolution by the Islamabad High Court.
----Issues:
The court's inability to hear the case due to time constraints.
Direction regarding the next hearing date and priority of the case.
Requirement for the parties to submit their statements of costs of litigation.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome
Adjournment Due to Time Constraints:
The court noted the paucity of time and stated that the matter could not be heard on the specified date.
Relisting and Priority:
The case is scheduled to be relisted on 09.01.2023.
It was ordered that on this date, the matter would be given priority, being among the top three cases called after the urgent list.
Submission of Statements of Costs:
Both parties were directed to file their statements of costs of litigation before the next date of hearing.
Zaheem Shaukat Qureshi VS Standard Chartered Bank Limited
Summary: Background;
The case involves Zaheem Shaukat Qureshi as the plaintiff and Standard Chartered Bank Limited as the defendant. However, the specifics of the dispute are not provided in the order sheet.
-----Issues:
Request by defendant No.1 for an extension to file a reply to the application (C.M. No. 1210/2022).
Determination of the next hearing date.
-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
Extension Granted:
Counsel for defendant No.1 requested a one-week extension to file a reply to the application (C.M. No. 1210/2022).
The court granted the extension, allowing defendant No.1 to file the reply within one week.
Next Hearing:
The case was ordered to be re-listed in the next week for further proceedings.
Syed Wajid Hussain Bukhari VS M/s Taqi Developers (pvt) Ltd
Summary: Background:
The case involves Syed Wajid Hussain Bukhari as the petitioner and M/s Tariq Developers (Private) Limited as the respondent.
----Issues:
Request for adjournment by the petitioner's counsel.
Determination of the next date for proceedings.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
Adjournment Request:
The petitioner's counsel submitted a written request for adjournment.
The request cited reasons necessitating the adjournment.
The court granted the adjournment request based on the reasons provided.
Order for Re-listing:
In light of the granted adjournment, the court scheduled the case for re-listing on December 6, 2022.
The re-listing allows for the resumption of proceedings on the specified date.
Allama Iqbal Open University VS M/O Zakat & Ushar
Summary: Background:
The case involves a petition filed by Allama Iqbal Open University (AIOU) against the Ministry of Zakat & Ushr, among others.
-----Issues:
Request for time by the learned Assistant Attorney General (AAG) to prepare his brief.
Determination of the next date for proceedings.
-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
Adjournment Request:
The learned AAG representing the respondents requested additional time to prepare his brief.
The court granted the request for adjournment to allow the AAG sufficient time to prepare.
Zaheem Shaukat Qureshi VS Standard Chartered Bank Limited
Summary: Background:
The case involves Zaheem Shaukat Qureshi as the applicant and Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited as the respondent. The specifics of the case are not detailed in the provided order sheet.
-----Issues:
The applicant's request for the summoning of the Record Keeper of Standard Chartered Bank.
Issuance of notice to the defendant regarding the applicant's request.
Determination of the next steps for proceedings.
-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
The applicant, represented by Mr. Tariq Mehmood, Advocate, seeks the summoning of the Record Keeper of Standard Chartered Bank, whose name is listed as a witness.
The court ordered the issuance of notice to the defendant (Standard Chartered Bank) regarding the applicant's request.
The case is scheduled to be relisted in the next week for further proceedings.
Zaheem Shaukat Qureshi VS Standard Chartered Bank Limited
Summary: Background:
In C.O.S.No.2344/2008, Zaheem Shaukat Qureshi filed a case against Standard Chartered Bank Limited before the Islamabad High Court. The proceedings involved the appointment of a Local Commission to gather evidence. On the date of the order, the evidence collection process by the Local Commission was not yet concluded.
----Issues:
The primary issue in this order concerns the plaintiff's alleged delay tactics in the proceedings. Defendant No.1, represented by counsel Ms. Aalia Zareen Abbasi, accuses the plaintiff of deliberately prolonging the case. The court must determine whether the plaintiff's actions warrant any sanctions and how to proceed with the evidence collection process.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
The judge, Mr. Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, presiding over the case, notes the concerns raised by the defendant regarding the plaintiff's conduct. In response, the judge empowers the Local Commission to take action under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 if the plaintiff fails to produce witnesses on the next hearing date. Specifically, the plaintiff risks having its right to produce evidence struck off if witnesses are not presented promptly. This decision aims to expedite the proceedings and prevent unnecessary delays.
----Citations/Precedents:
Code of Civil Procedure, 1908
Syed Wajid Hussain Bukhari VS M/s Taqi Developers (pvt) Ltd
Summary: Background:
In CM No. 476 of 2016, associated with C.O No. 02 of 2010, Petitioner filed an application seeking the restoration of the dismissed Company Original (C.O) before the Islamabad High Court. The C.O was dismissed for non-prosecution on April 6, 2016.
----Issues:
The primary issue addressed in this order sheet pertains to the application for restoration of the dismissed Company Original (C.O). The court must determine whether to grant the restoration based on the submissions made by the parties.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
Judge Aamer Farooq, presiding over the case, considered the arguments presented by the learned counsel for the applicant/petitioner and the respondents. The applicant's counsel argued that the absence leading to the dismissal of the C.O was not deliberate and provided reasons stated in the application. Affidavits supporting the application were also submitted.
Upon examination of the application and the reply, the judge noted that the contentions made in the application were not disputed through a counter affidavit. Consequently, the court deemed the averments made in the application to be correct. Based on the above considerations, the court allowed the instant application, recalling the order dated April 6, 2016, and restoring the Company Original (C.O) to its original number.
Muhammad Afsar etc VS Collector Acquisistion etc
Summary: Background:
In R.F.A. no. 82 of 2010, The petitioner and others appealed against Collector Acquisition, Islamabad, and others before the Islamabad High Court.
----Issues:
The primary issue in this order sheet concerns the absence of the appellant during the proceedings. The court must decide how to address the appellant's repeated non-attendance.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
Judge Sardar Ejaz Ishaq Khan, presiding over the case, noted the absence of the appellant, both on the current date and on the last two scheduled dates. The court directed the office to issue notice to the appellant for the next hearing on September 7, 2022. Additionally, the court warned that if the appellant fails to appear on the next date, either costs will be imposed or the case will be dismissed for non-prosecution.
Furthermore, the office was instructed to provide a copy of the paper book of the case to the learned counsel representing respondents no. 1 to 3.
Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Tandoori Restaurant
Summary: A/y 2002-03. under Section 62 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. -
M/S Cavalier Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd VS FOP
Summary: Petitioner seeking set-asidal of orders dt. 26.10.2010 & 11.12.2010 by respondents