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)
MUHAMMAD NAEEM VSEDO ETC.
Summary: Held that Procedural Impropriety, effecting right of a citizen, can be judicially reviewed. PLD 2010 S.C. 878 and PLD 2014 S.C. 47 relied upon. Typing Test in absence of Transparent Prescribed Procedure was set aside. Government of Punjab prescribed procedure for conducting Typing Test vide Notification dated 20.11.2015 during proceedings.
SARDAR HUSSAIN VSMST.NOSHI GILLANI ETC
Summary: The appellant, had entered into an agreement with the respondent, in 1993, wherein he obtained exclusive rights to publish and promote the book. However, during the pendency of the suit, the respondent argued that the suit was barred by Section 14(1) of the Copyrights Act, 1962, which limited the assignment of copyright to 10 years. The court examined the legal framework around copyright and publication rights, emphasizing the significance of Section 14 of the Copyrights Act. It clarified that the Copyright Act limits the assignment of copyright to 10 years, after which the copyright reverts to the author or their representative. The court also discussed the nature of copyright as an acknowledgment of a creator's exclusive rights. Furthermore, the court considered Section 28 of the Copyrights Act, which protects the typographical arrangement of an edition for 25 years. The judgment concluded that the agreement between the parties was subject to the legal limitations set forth in the Copyrights Act, which restricted the assignment of copyright to 10 years. Since the suit was filed after nearly 17 years from the date of the agreement, it was found to be barred by law. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the original judgment that rejected the plaintiff's claim. The judgment sheet highlighted the importance of complying with legal provisions and the limitations imposed by the Copyrights Act when entering into agreements related to copyright and publication rights.
NASEER AHMED VSSTATE
Summary: The case revolved around an incident that occurred where the appellant was accused of attempting to commit rape with Safia Bibi, the sister of the complainant, Muhammad Aslam. The appellant was convicted under Section 376/511 PPC (Pakistan Penal Code) and sentenced to five years of rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 10,000. The appellant appealed against his conviction, alleging that he had been falsely implicated. The appellant argued that there was a delay of seven days in reporting the incident to the police without a satisfactory explanation. He also pointed out inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses, including the complainant and the victim. The appellant claimed that the prosecution's case was doubtful, and he should be given the benefit of the doubt. The High Court considered these arguments and found several reasons to doubt the prosecution's case. These included the delay in reporting the incident, inconsistencies in witness statements, the lack of medical examination of the alleged victim, and the absence of the alleged weapon used in the incident. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellant's conviction and sentence, and granted him the benefit of the doubt. The appellant's sentence was suspended, and he was present in the court.
HAJI ZAFAR ABBAS VSTHE STATE ETC
Summary: Report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PN) shows that colour of Charas was greenish. As already stated above, colour of alleged contrabands recovered from possession of the appellant was in contradiction with Chemical Examiner report. Such discrepancies were found to be material as the raiding party have come up with different version and it is not clear what was the colour of seized contraband. The report of Chemical Examiner (Ex.PE) reveals that seal bearing the impression of the invoice hereunto attached and received. Since the patent infirmity has been noticed in the report (Eh.PN) which is found to be fatal to the prosecution case. In such eventuality it is not possible to uphold and sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant. Criminal Appeal accepted.
MALIK AZIZ UL HAQ ETC. VS M/S. CRYSTAL LINE CHEMICAL INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. ETC.
Summary: The petitioners, who collectively hold approximately 24.905% of the company's shares, seek orders to oversee and manage the affairs of the company. The primary grounds for this petition include concerns related to a circular issued by the company under section 86(3) of the Ordinance. The petitioners argued that this circular does not accurately represent certain financial information, specifically in entry No.12 regarding profit and loss and dividend declarations. However, the court finds that these issues do not warrant the exercise of jurisdiction under section 290 of the Ordinance, as they do not demonstrate that the company's affairs are being conducted unlawfully or fraudulently. The court also noted that the petitioners had access to the company's audited accounts and directors' reports, which should have allowed them to make informed decisions despite any inaccuracies in the circular. Furthermore, the court determined that the company's actions, including the issuance of additional shares, fall within the company's legal rights and obligations. The document cited legal precedents to support the idea that as long as the company's interests are being promoted, the fact that the directors may also benefit from such actions does not constitute a breach of trust. The court dismissed the petition, stating that the concerns raised by the petitioners mainly involve irregularities that can be addressed by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) rather than through the court's intervention.
SALAMAT ALI VSSTATE ETC
Summary: There is ample evidence on record to show that the F.I.R (Ex.PE/1) was lodged with delay of 23:15 hours. The delay in lodging the report raises a considerable doubt regarding the veracity of the evidence of the prosecution and points towards the infirmity in the evidence and renders it unsafe to base any conviction. Undoubtedly, the promptly lodged F.I.R is an assurance regarding truth of the informer's version. It is also settled principle of law that severe the punishment, greater is the care to be taken to see that all safeguards provided in a statute are strictly followed. Criminal Appeal accepted.
Muhammad Shafiq and 6 others V. The State,
Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 498 & 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 337---Qatl-i-amd and hurt---Bailbefore arrest, grant of---Further inquiry---Cross version---Two FIRs---Abscondance---Accusedpersons in one FIR had been released on pre-arrest bail by Trial Court but accused persons inother FIR were declined pre-arrest bail---Validity---Cross version of occurrence and on the basisof tentative assessment of material available on record, case against accused persons with regardto unnatural death of deceased fell within the ambit of further inquiry---Further inquiry into theguilt of accused persons inter alia mala fide and ulterior motives could be assessed in bail beforearrest matters---Mere alleged abscondence of accused could not be made a basis to refuse bail ifaccused was otherwise entitled for the same on merits and case was open to further inquiry intohis guilt within the scope of S.497(2), Cr.P.C.---Complainant or prosecution witness did notsworn / file affidavit to prove allegation of abusing or misusing concession of ad interim prearrest bail by accused persons---Possibility of false implication of accused persons for mala fidereasons could not be ruled out of consideration---Intended arrest of accused persons byauthorities at the behest of complainant party out of malice and ulterior motives to create humiliation and unjustified harassment could also not be ruled out of consideration---Bail wasallowed in circumstances.Mohammad Ishfaq v. State 2012 SCMR 70 rel.
Mst RAQIA BEGUM and 4 otherss vs SAFDAR ALI and others
Summary: Summary pending
GHULAM NABI QURESHI VS MUSHTAQ AHMAD QURESHI
Summary: Summary pending.
MANSOOR AHMED VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.