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 HAMID vs The STATE and others
Summary: Summary pending
SAJEEL vs The STATE
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD SAJID vs JUDGE FAMILY COURT and others
Summary: Summary pending
CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, LAHORE Versus MUHAMMAD ALI SAQIB
Summary: (a) Civil service- -Reinstatement in service-No specific allegation proved through evidence-Orders of the competent authority as well as departmental appeal were on the basis that they agreed with the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer; they had not scrutinized the evidence available on the file themselves, but awarded major penalty of dismissal from service by relying upon the recommendation of the Inquiry Officer and ignored the fact that no specific allegation through evidence was proved against the respondent-civil servant-Prosecution was duty bound to prove the allegations for which the respondent was charge sheeted-Service Tribunal had rightly reinstated the respondent in service-Appeal was dismissed. (b) Civil service- -Dismissal from service-Inquiry proceedings-Order for dismissal from service could not be passed only on the ground that the respondent-civil servant had not joined the inquiry proceedings.
WASEEM IJAZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE LAHORE and another
Summary: Summary pending
ADVOCATE MIAN ASIF MEHMOOD vs FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Principal Secretary and 2 others
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AHMED and 5 otherss vs ARTISTIC DENIM MILLS LIMITED
Summary: Summary pending
Syed WAJAHAT HUSSAIN ZAIDI and another vs UNITED BANK LIMITED
Summary: Summary pending
Abubakar Sidique Vs The State
Summary: In Unnatural offences Juvenility is no ground for the grant of bail. Petition Dismissed.
Zahir Ullah Vs Samin Jan Khan
Summary: when the respondent No.1 has categorically stated that he was not served with any summon/notice of the case, than in such circumstances the application could not be dismissed summarily, yes, if after recording of evidence it is proved that respondent No.1 was served, the application would be dismissed. Next, submission of the learned counsel for petitioner that decree was passed in the year 2009 and application was filed in the year 2018, which is barred by time. Admittedly, respondent no.1 was party to the suit and now his application for setting aside ex-parte decree shall be seen within purview of Articles 164 and 181 of the Limitation Act, 1908, When it was alleged that he was not served and alleged in Para No.4 of the application that from the scrutiny of revenue paper, he got the knowledge, then obtained attested copy of the judgment on 28.04.2017 and filed the application on 17.01.2018, thus, till recording of evidence, the version of respondent No.1 shall be considered as correct.