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)
vs AHMAD KAMAL NASIR and others Civil Appeals Nos136 of 2011 504 to 506 of 2013 and 28 of 2014 decided on 12th March 2020
Summary: Summary pending
DEPILEX SMILEAGAIN FOUNDATION vs SECURITY AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN and others
Summary: Summary pending
SALEEM KHAN vs Mst ZEENAT and others
Summary: Summary pending
AMEER ABBAS SIAL vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB
Summary: Summary pending
MUKHTIAR HUSSAIN vs The STATE and another
Summary: Summary pending
State through RD ANF VS Safirullah
Summary: the report of FSL Exh. PW 3/12 is, no doubt, in affirmative, but the alarming point for the judicial mined is the short of necessary protocol. Neither any protocol was mentioned in the report nor any test was referred to on the basis whereof the Chemical Expert has concluded that the samples sent for examination contained Chars. While holding this view we are fortified from the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case titled as Khair-ul-Bashar v. the State (2019 SCMR 930),
2007 Hafiz Abdul Salam VS Hussan Din
Summary: Section 65 of the Code of Civil Procedure provides that where immovable property is sold in execution of a decree and such sale has become absolute, the property shall be deemed to have vested in the purchaser from the time when the property is sold and not from the date when sale becomes absolute. Similarly If a sale had been validly held, an application for setting aside can only be made under provisions of Rules 89 to 90 of Order XXI. The Provisions of Rule 89 are in the nature of indulgence to the judgment debtor they give a last chance of getting the sale set aside before confirmation upon the terms of satisfying the decretal debt and of paying compensation to the auction purchaser for the loss of bargain, whereas Rule 90 provides setting aside sale in execution of decree on the ground of irregularity or fraud in conducting it. Under this rule it is necessary to prove that the applicant had sustained substantial injury by reason of such irregularity or fraud, further no suchapplication can be entertained unless amount not exceeding 20 % of the sum realized at the sale or security alike is deposited. It is by now settled that when law requires a thing to be done in a particular manner, then it would be nullity in the eye of law, if not done in that very prescribed manner.
Land Acquisition Collector E-35 Vs Mst Resham Jan
Summary: Although the prices of neighbouring and adjacent lands are substantial factor to determine the market value of an acquired land nevertheless potential prospects, future use of land and commercial/residential activities in the close proximity should also be taken into account. The only way to determine these factors vis-a?-vis market value prevailing at the time of taking over possession is the appointment of a local commissioner to visit the spot and determine its market value according to its proximity to residential and commercial activities in the area coupled with future prospects and potential of the acquired land.
SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN VS INNOVATIVE INVESTMENT BANK LTD.
Summary: Order pertains to determination of classes of creditors in context of section 333(1)(c) and 421(1)(i) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 and also discuss the circumstances for relinquishment of security, by secured creditors under section 47 of the Insolvency Act, 1920----This case involved a petition by Joint Official Liquidators (JOLs) seeking court approval for further payments of Rs.11 million each to eligible claimants in Categories 1 and 2 of creditors, while reserving equivalent payments for claimants in Category 3. The court examined whether IFC is a secured creditor and the applicability of Section 47 of the Insolvency Act regarding the rights of secured creditors. It is determined that even if IFC were treated as a secured creditor, it has relinquished its security by filing a total claim with the JOLs. The court also addressed the power of the liquidator to make classifications among creditors and pay specific classes in full, referring to Sections 333(1)(c) and 421(1)(i) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. It concluded that the proposed classification is justified, considering the diverse interests and urgent needs of different classes of creditors. The objections raised by IFC and WAPDA are overruled, and the court approves the scheme of distribution filed by the JOLs, instructing them to proceed with the distribution of funds according to the approved scheme.
CHAIRMAN NAB through Prosecutor General Accountability NAB HQ ShahraheJumhuriat G5/I Islamabad vs ZAHOOR TAJ and another
Summary: Summary pending