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)
ARIM CONTAINERS PVT LIMITED OTHERSS VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Summary: Summary pending.
MUDASSIR ALI VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
REHMAT KHALIQ VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
GHULAM QADIR OTHERSS VS SH ABDUL WADOOD
Summary: Summary pending.
M ABID VS AHMED AZAD
Summary: Summary pending.
MOHAMMAD AZAM VS AZAM
Summary: Summary pending.
Soofia Munir & another VS Judge Family Court etc
Summary: Summary Pending
Dr. Basharat Hasan Bashir VS AEDB, etc.
Summary: Summary Pending
M./S. SARWAR & COMPANY VS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL ETC.
Summary: Defination of "profit and gains", used in Clause 126 in Part-I of Second Schedule to Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, do not extend the exemption to cases falling under Final Tax Regime, Uch Power (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. ITAT and others (2010 PTD 1809) relied upon. Principles of interpreting an exemption clause discussed.
Abdul Aziz VS Azad Govt. and others
Summary: Background:Abdul Aziz appealed against the compensation awarded for the acquisition of his land for the construction of a Girls Middle School. The Collector initially assessed the compensation, which was later enhanced by the Reference Judge and further by the High Court. Cross-appeals were filed regarding the amount of compensation.----Issues:Whether the compensation awarded by the High Court was appropriate.Whether the documentary evidence presented by the landowner regarding the market value of the land was admissible.Whether the location and potential use of the acquired land were adequately considered.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court modified the judgment of the High Court, determining the compensation for the acquired land. The Court reasoned as follows:The market value of the land was reassessed based on the evidence presented. The Court found that while the documentary evidence presented by the landowner was not entirely admissible, the location and nature of the land were considered in determining a fair compensation.The Court noted that one of the sale-deeds presented by the landowner was of another village and therefore not relevant. Another sale-deed was executed after the issuance of the acquisition award, making it unsuitable for consideration. Only one sale-deed was considered, which indicated a value of Rs. 6,00,000 per kanal.Considering the location and nature of the land, the Court determined the compensation to be Rs. 4,00,000 per kanal, along with compulsory acquisition charges of 15%.----Citations/Precedents:Land Acquisition Act, 1894, Section 23Case law: Faiz Akbar Khan & others vs. Azad Govt. & others [1996 SCR 132]