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)
MST. SARDARAN BIBI ETC VS TOWN COMMITTEE ETC
Summary: The appellants sought compensation at the rate of Rs.50,000 per marla, but the Referee Court fixed it at Rs.5000 per marla. The appellant argued that the Referee Court erred in not considering the land's price at the time of the award and emphasized the importance of factoring in inflationary trends. The appellant relied on legal precedents highlighting the significance of determining compensation based on factors such as market value, potential value, and the impact of inflation on currency. The appellant contended that the impugned judgment lacks consideration of the inflationary trend, making it legally unsustainable. In contrast, the respondents argued that the reference was not maintainable due to the non-joinder of the Government of Punjab, violating Section 79, C.P.C., and Article 174 of the Constitution. The court considered conflicting judgments, noting that while one emphasized the importance of inflationary trends, another remains silent on the matter. The court ultimately dismissed the appeal, affirming the Referee Court's decision to fix compensation based on the appellants' claim at the time of the notification. The court argued that the omission of certain parties in the reference does not render it fatal, relying on the special provision of Section 20 of the Land Acquisition Act, which mandates notice issuance to the government and relevant stakeholders.
MUHAMMAD SHOAIB ARSHAD ETC VS FEDERAION OF PAKISTAN ETC
Summary: The key points included the assertion of the Banking Court's exclusive jurisdiction in cases involving "willful default" and the argument that the determination of default must precede any allegation of intentional default. Concerns are raised about the potential for unbridled discretion given to financial institutions in the recovery process under Section 15. The excerpt concluded by stating that, while Section 15 is deemed intra vires (within the powers) of the Constitution, it can only be invoked against a mortgagor after the court has determined the customer's default under Section 9 of the Ordinance. Additionally, a specific rule (3(iii) of the Rules) was declared ultra vires (beyond the powers) of both the Ordinance and the Constitution. The constitutional petitions were partly allowed based on these considerations.
Muhammad Ibrahim V. Mera Jan and 3 others,
Summary: Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-------Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Prevention of illegal possession of property---Cognizance of offence---Investigation and procedure---Scope---Petitioner filed a complaint under Ss. 3, 4 & 5 ofIllegal Dispossession Act, 2005, with the claim that the respondent along with hiscompanions, in his absence, broke the locks of his house and illegally occupied the same---Report of Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station revealed that house in question wasin possession of another person who had further rented it out to another---Trial Courtdismissed the complaint on the ground that the matter pertained to civil dispute---Validity---Petitioner had failed to make the said two persons as party in his complaint---Matterpertained to factual controversy which could be resolved after thorough inquiry andrecording of evidence in a civil court---Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.
Messrs BIOLABS PRIVATE LTD vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB and others Writ Petition No426 of 2020 decided on 9th March 2020
Summary: Summary pending
HUSEIN INDUSTRIES LTD. Through authorized representative vs SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LTD Through Managing Director and 2 others
Summary: Summary pending
SAJID PLASTIC FACTORY through Sole Proprietor vs MSC BAHAMAS through Master/Chief Officer and 9 others Admiralty Appeal No 5 of 2014 decided on 9th March 2020
Summary: Summary pending
PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION COMPANY LIMITED through Duly Authorized Attorney vs PAKISTAN through Secretary Cabinet Islamabad and 2 others C P No D6683 of 2018 decided on 9th March 2020
Summary: Summary pending
DEFENCE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY ORGANIZATION through Director General vs ARIF ENGINEERING INTERNATIONAL through Sole Proprietor Respondent
Summary: Summary pending
ASIF KAMAL vs The JUDGE ACCOUNTABILITY COURT MULTAN and others
Summary: Summary pending
CDA VS Ejaz Mehmood
Summary: CR: Against the order dated 05-09-2018 passed by Learned Additional District Judge (East) Isb