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)
Azam Khan VS Chairman TBC Pesh etc
Summary: Article 199 of theConstitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Pakistan Tobacco Boards Rules, 1985. It is pertinent to mention that according to section 34(1)(c)(ii) of P.T.B Service Rules, 1985 in case of charges against any employee regarding misconduct etc, only authorized officer shall conduct inquiry as inquiry officer or by inquiry committee constituted u/s. 35 of ibid rules, before issuance of show-cause notice.
Umar Khan VS Federation of Pakistan etc.
Summary: Writ Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 read with Federal Public Service Commission Ordinance, 1977.Representation of petitioner was rejected by the competent forum of F.P.S.C filed U/S.7(3)(a) Ordinance, 1977, on 26.11.2007. Petitioner was legally required to have filed appeal within 30 days against the above decision U/S.7(3)(d) of ibid law before High Court which he failed. Petitioner filed instant petition on 24.01.2009 after delay of more than two years without availing efficacious remedy U/S.7(3)(d) of ibid law, so petition is hit by laches and is not maintainable.
SULTAN AHMED vs The STATE
Summary: Summary pending
MUHAMMAD SHAH KHESRO VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
ABDUL HALEEM VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
Muhammad Shah Khesro etc Vs State etc
Summary: S.5/6 Exp Sub ActInvestigation must be impartial (Acquitted)
Taslim Shah vs Hokhiar Shah etc
Summary: S.42 SRA:Rights of a Co-sharer in undivided property to seek, possession, declaration & injunction
Haji Malik Zakeem vs Mira Band Khan
Summary: Art.120 of Limitations Act shall be strictly followed,in case the petitioner,out of possession.
KHIZER MEHMOOD VS STATE ETC
Summary: Acquittal allowed----The case involved the murder of Babar Hussain, who was shot dead in Rawalpindi. The complainant, alleged that the appellant and his co-accused murdered his son due to multiple motives, including a land dispute and a family dispute over a potential marriage proposal. The prosecution's case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including eyewitness accounts, extrajudicial confessions, medical evidence, and the recovery of a firearm. However, the court found several inconsistencies and weaknesses in the prosecution's case. It questioned the reliability of the evidence of last seen, the alleged motives, and the credibility of the witnesses. Additionally, the court noted discrepancies in the inquest report and the location of evidence. Ultimately, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt against the appellant and acquitted him, extending the benefit of doubt. As a result, Criminal Appeal was accepted, and the appellant was ordered to be released if not required in any other case.