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)
MESSRS TRICOM ENTERTAINMENT PVT LTD VS PAKISTAN ELECTRONIC MEDIA REGULATORY AUTHORITY PEMRA
Summary: Summary pending.
MOHAMMAD PALI VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
ALTAF HUSSAIN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
Chief Security Officer ASF and others VS Mr. Tariq Ahmed Lodhi
Summary: Summary Pending
Commissioner of Income Tax VS M/s Fahmida Hamid
Summary: Summary Pending
Malang Shah vs Muthair Shah etc
Summary: S.302,324,34,337F(V),337F(III) PPcConviction on the basis of solitary statement of eye-witness (Sentence reduced)
Sher Afzal vs State
Summary: S.9C CNSAEffect of per-incuriam judgments (Appeal dismissed)
MST. PARVEEN JAMAL HASSAN (Plaintiff) V/S MST. FATIMA BEGUM (Defendant)
Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)--- Succession Act----Ss. 284, 278 & 372---Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.), R.413---Grant of Letter of Administration in respect of immovable property of deceased---Caveats against grant of Letter of Administration---Alleged oral gift---Succession petition was supported with "no objection" affidavits of three legal heirs, however, one remaining legal heir filed caveat under S.284 of the Succession Act, 1925 contending that deceased had orally gifted suit property solely to him---High Court converted petition into a suit as per R.413 of the Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) and held that burden of proving the said oral gift was on the caveator, however, he failed to appear as a witness to prove his claim of oral gift of the property in dispute and also failed to cast doubt on evidence led by the petitioner and her witnesses in support of her claim of seeking Letter of Administration of the property of the deceased---Caveator had not disputed relationship of the petitioner and other legal heirs with the deceased and had failed to prove the alleged gift and did not produce any witnesses to confirm the contents of declaration of the said oral gift---Caveat filed by the caveator/objector was dismissed and High Court directed that Letter of Administration be issued to the petitioner in accordance with the Rules---Petition was allowed, accordingly.
HASEEB QAQAS SUGAR MILLS LTD. VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Summary: The central argument revolves around Section 36 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, which imposed time limits for making orders, and whether extensions were granted in accordance with the law. The judgment explains that while Section 36 had been omitted by the Finance Act of 2012, these cases pertain to a period before that year. Initially, the law required orders to be made within 45 days, later extended to 120 days. The judgment discussed the precedents set by the court in similar cases regarding whether questions of law can be raised for the first time at the High Court level. It emphasized that the High Court's jurisdiction, governed by Section 47 of the Act, is limited to questions of law arising from the order of the Appellate Tribunal. It cites previous Supreme Court judgments that support this interpretation and cautions against extending the jurisdiction to include collateral or ancillary issues not raised in the lower forums. Ultimately, the judgment concluded that the reference applications do not give rise to a question of law arising from the Appellate Tribunal's orders. Consequently, the reference applications are dismissed. Additionally, the connected constitutional petitions challenging recovery notices are also disposed of as they have become irrelevant due to the dismissal of the reference applications.
QAMAR ABBAS ETC VS STATE
Summary: The complainant, detailed the incident, stating that while he and others were engaged in conversation outside a residence, a group of individuals, armed with various weapons, including firearms, arrived. They proceeded to fire upon Arshad Iqbal, leading to his fatal injuries and subsequent death. The incident also involved warnings issued by the assailants to prevent anyone from leaving their homes, indicating a premeditated nature to cause terror and prevent intervention.The motive behind the incident, as per the complainant, was a grudge resulting from a previous criminal case in which the deceased and the complainant were wrongly implicated, relating to the murder of someone named Aamir alias Kala, which led to animosity from the acquitted accused.Qamar Abbas and Azhar Hussain, the appellants, were apprehended and weapons were allegedly recovered from them during the investigation. Witness statements, including those of Safdar Iqbal, Manzoor Ahmad, and Sarwar Ahmad, supported the prosecution's case, along with medical evidence presented by the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination.In their defense, the appellants denied the allegations against them, attributing their implication to their association with a previous case where the deceased and the complainant were falsely accused.