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)
Abdul Raheem @ Manghar (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Summary: Removal of encroachments from irrigation land.
MUHAMMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) V/S PAK. STEEL MILLS CORP. LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)
Summary: Fatal Accident (Compensation and Damages) Non-production of Departmental Inquiry Report in the evidence by Defendants has raised adverse presumption against them, as envisaged in Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Loss of consortium; that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries or death caused by a tortfeasor. Well known rules about foreseeability,causation and but for explained; if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s), then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of Care] that has resulted in causing injury and the "but for" test if simply put, means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. Legislative amendments are proposed.
Pakistan Airline Pilots (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & another (Defendant)
Summary: [Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940 Section 34)] The issue involved was that whether the Notification dated 28.4.2020 under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 has been validly issued and applied on the employees of PIA and whether the Notice dated 30.04.2020 terminating the Working Agreement has been issued validly and whether the proceedings in the Suit should be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act as there is an arbitration clause. The injunction application has been dismissed; and application under Section 34 has been allowed by staying the proceedings of Suit, as provisions of Section 41 of the Arbitration Act cannot be invoked by a Plaintiff for an interim relief who has filed a Suit for Declaration instead of invoking the provision of the Arbitration Act, and further that the notification for placing the employment of PIA under Essential Services has been validly issued.
Ali Asghar and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Summary: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)
M/s Aziz Tabba Foundation (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Summary: Contribution under the Employees Old Age Benefit Act 1976 (EOBI Act)
Shaheena Nasreen (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Summary: Service matters (Proforma Promotion)
Muhammad Tufail (Petitioner) V/S Chief Naval Staff and Ors (Respondent)
Summary: [Service matters (Bar of Jurisdiction )] Petitioner was discharged from service of Pakistan Navy vide office order dated 11.3.2014 in terms of rule 0240 of Naval Regulation. The petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court, seeking declaration to the effect that the entire disciplinary proceedings initiated against him by the respondent-Pakistan Navy, culminating into his conviction were mala fide, without jurisdiction and coram non judice, thus liable to be annulled---i) Whether jurisdiction of this court is barred under Article 199(3) of the Constitution?ii) Whether major punishment awarded by the Field General Court Martial against the petitioner was mala fide, without jurisdiction and coram non judice?iii) Whether the offence, said to have been committed by the petitioner, was a civil offence or a military offence falls under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, if so, to what effect?
M/S Saro Textiles (Petitioner) V/S IIIrd ADJ & Ors (Respondent)
Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (12 (2) CPC)]Where the jurisdiction in refusing the adjournment by the Court was exercisedproperly and judiciously, the order passed by the Court in rejecting the applicationwas also justified and the order cannot be said to have been without lawful authorityas the authority or without jurisdiction. The dismissal of the suit under Order 17 Rule3 CPC was a decree which was only appealable.
Abdul Qadir (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Summary: [Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial), Amenity Plot (Allowed)] The action of Respondent No.3 in changing amenity nature and use of reserved plots is void ab initio. Consequently, very allotment in favour of private Respondents has no sanctity in the eyes of law and it is also settled principle that transferor cannot transfer a better title then what he himself possesses, therefore, if the title of the private Respondents being purported allottees of the above subject Plots is defective then further transfers of these plots do not improve the legal status of these allottees / private Respondents vis-??-vis the respective newly created purported Plots No.261 to 265 or any other Plot(s) created / allocated in a land exclusively earmarked / reserved for amenity purpose(s).
Mst Iffat & another (Petitioner) V/S Umar Farooque & Others (Respondent)
Summary: [Family matter (CP dismissed with Cost . Maintenance of minor and her mother till iddat Period is Maintained. )] Family Matter. Filing of a Constitutional petition under Article 199 against concurrent findings of family court and Appellate Court. Not a matter of right and cannot be heard and decided as an appeal as in that case it would make such jurisdiction indistinguishable from the Appellate Court's jurisdiction which is not the intention of the Constitution makers.