Judgements

This page is related with land mark and reported judgements which are often considered as authorities

Pakistani Law Judgments

- Mumtaz Qadri Judgment : Supreme Court of Pakistan
http://www.internationallawyer.info/2016/03/mumtaz-qadri-case-judgment-by-supreme.html

- Mumtaz Qadri Judgment : Islamabad High Court
http://www.internationallawyer.info/2016/03/mumtaz-qadri-case-judgment.html

- PLJ 2010 Peshawar 33 (DB) .. Best judgement on Khula as it shows that Khula cannot be stopped if wife is not in position to payback haq mehar. Similarly court can wave off wife's liability to pay haq mehar if she has faced cruelty from husband..

- PLJ 2009 Lahore 584 ... Firearms, weopons, dancing and many things are allowed in Marriages..
- PLJ 2008 Sh. C (AJ&K) 73... Wife is entitled for maintenance if husband is cruel and she doesn't want to live with him.
- Public Interest Litigation by Supreme Court
http://salmankhangolra.blogspot.com/2012/08/public-interest-litigation-by-supreme.html

UK Law Judgments
- HTC v Apple case
http://salmankhangolra.blogspot.com/2012/07/uk-law-judgment-in-htc-v-apple-case.html
- Judgment in HH v. Deputy Prosecutor of Italian Republic Genoa
http://salmankhangolra.blogspot.com/2012/07/judgment-in-hh-v-deputy-prosecutor-of.html
- Judgment in the case of Phillips (Respondent) v Mulcaire (Appellant)
http://salmankhangolra.blogspot.com/2012/07/judgment-in-case-of-phillips-respondent.html 

Indian Law Judgements
- Indian Court interpreting Section 235(2) of CRPC
http://thepleaders.blogspot.com/2012/07/indian-court-interpreting-section-2352.html?spref=tw
-The Pleaders: Consumer disputes redressal commission's decision
http://thepleaders.blogspot.com/2012/07/consumer-disputes-redressal-commissions.html?spref=tw

108 comments:

  1. Citation Name : 2000 PLC 161 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : SINDH ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION
    Side Opponent : SHER MUHAMMAD

    West pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 -----S.O. 10-B---Workmen's Compensation Act (VIII of 1923), Ss. 2(b) & 4---Constitution of pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition--Disability by natural cause---Death or injury---Compulsory group insurance and medical expenses---Payment of---Workman was declared medically unfit because of weakness of his eyes---Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation directed employer to pay Group Insurance amount to the workman payable under S.O 10-B of the Ordinance for the disability suffered by him and towards reimbursement of medical expenses---Contention of employer was that workman could not file claim on account of any disability suffered from .natural cause---Validity---Order of the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation was upheld by the High Court with the directions to petitioner to pay compensation for every day of delay in payment of decretal amount at the rate of 12 per cent per annum---[Karachi Road Transport Corporation v. Kajeer Khan 1993 PLC 296 and pakistan tobacco company v. Muhammad Siddique 1978 PLC 363 reversed].

    ReplyDelete
  2. Citation Name : 1970 PLC 139 WEST-PAKISTAN-INDUSTRIAL-COURT
    Side Appellant : MAHBOOBUR REHMAN CHAUDHRI
    Side Opponent : MANAGING DIRECTOR, PUNJAB VEGETABLE GHHEE AND GENERAL MILLS LTD., LAHORE

    West pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 S. 2(i}-"Workman" Sales Manager--Not a workman purposes of Ordinance. pakistan tobacco Co. Ltd. v. pakistan tobacco company Employees' Union, Dacca and others 1961 P L C 1033 and Chairman, Brooke Bond (pakistan ) Ltd. v. General Secretary, Union Karkunane Brooke Bond (pakistan ) Ltd., Rawalpindi F. A. O.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Citation Name : 2009 PCrLJ 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : M. SHOIB QURESHI
    Side Opponent : Mrs. ZOHRA ZULQARNAIN

    Ss. 380/409---Special Judge Banking had summoned the accused employees of the Bank in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent after recording preliminary evidence, regarding a theft having taken place in the Bank locker s including that of the complainant---Validity---Accused, present Manager of the Bank was not posted in the concerned Branch on the date of occurrence---Accused, who was the Manager on the day of incident at the most could be termed the custodian of the stolen property of the complainant, but he was neither alleged to have connived in the occurrence, nor stated to be involved in any manner in the theft committed in the bank---Theft, as per F.I.R., was committed by unknown persons with the connivance of the guard who was posted on the day of occurrence and used to sit inside the Branch---Said guard was not employee of the Bank and the Agency which had provided the security was responsible for the omission of act of its employee and not the employee of the Bank---Cursory statement recorded by Trial Court did not constitute any offence nor connected the accused petitioners with the said occurrence in any manner---Impugned order summoning the petitioners as accused in the complaint was set aside in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Citation Name : 2009 CLC 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHOAIB
    Side Opponent : KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY

    Ss. 42 & 54---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)(iv)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11(a)---Suit for declaration and injunction---Notice by Building Control Authority requiring tenant to remove basement illegally constructed in demised premises---Tenant in suit alleged that underground locker in his tenancy did not fall within definition of "basement" and sought regularization of such locker by Authority; and that such notice issued at his landlord's instance was without lawful authority---Landlord's plea was that tenant's suit was premature as question of unauthorized construction of basement by tenant was subject-matter of ejectment petition already pending against him---Validity--Tenant could not maintain a civil suit for determination of question by civil court of which Rent Controller was seized---No amount of difficulty or technicality would take away a dispute from jurisdiction of Rent Controller, which he was competent to decide---Tenant in his suit had neither disputed ownership or title of rented premises nor raised question of jurisdiction---Fate of rent case depended upon determination of question, whether underground locker existed since renting out of demised shop to tenant or was constructed subsequently---Until such question was finally decided by Rent Controller, cause of action of tenant in suit for seeking declaration of' regularization of underground locker by Authority would remain premature---Tenant had no subsisting cause of action to maintain such suit---Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

    ReplyDelete
  5. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKRAM BHATTI
    Side Opponent : Mst. GHULAM SUGHRA

    Ss. 278 & 372---succession certificate ---Defence Saving certificate s---Nominee, status of---Petitioners sought succession certificate on the ground that they were nominated by their deceased predecessor-in-interest, while respondents claimed their share under Islamic Law---In view of specific nomination in favour of petitioners, Trial Court issued the certificate in their favour to the exclusion of respondents---Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held the respondents also entitled to their legal shares in the amount of Defence Saving certificate s---Validity---Lower Appellate Court, before whom the matter was taken up by respondents after relying upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court, rightly declared that effect of nomination made by deceased predecessor-in-interest in favour of specific nominees was only for the purpose of receiving the amount under Defence Saving certificate s Scheme but distribution of the amount had to be made in accordance with the respective legal shares amongst all legal representatives of the deceased---Judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court was perfectly in accordance with law and the same called for no interference---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 1594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
    Side Opponent : FAISAL TAHIR

    S. 381--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 124---succession certificate ---Presumption of death---Insurance claim---Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead---succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died---Validity---After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive---It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law---Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping---High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Citation Name : 2011 CLC 1959 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
    Side Opponent : FAISAL TAHIR

    S. 381---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.124---succession certificate ---Presumption of death---Insurance claim---Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead---succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died---Validity---After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive---It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law---Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping---High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  8. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 382 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : Mst. SHADAB PERVEZ
    Side Opponent : Mst. AMBREEN PERVEZ

    Ss. 218, 278 & 372---Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS), Rr.393 & 407---succession certificate and letter of administration, grant of---Deceased having left legal heirs including a minor---Prayer for issuance of such certificate and letter to an officer of court to obtain details of properties of deceased, sell same and distribute sale proceeds thereof amongst legal heirs according to Shariah---Validity---Administrator would be obliged to administer estate of deceased by way of transfer and/or distribution in favour of all legal heirs---Administrator could not sell property under administration without permission of court---Person to be issued letter of administration had to execute administration bond---Misapplication of estate of deceased by Administrator or his neglect, if any, would make him liable for damages or loss---Person to be issued succession certificate would be required to submit personal bond with one or more sureties or other sufficient securities for rendering an account of debts or securities received by him---One of legal heirs in the present case was minor---Court in case of minor would be more cautious and obliged to protect his interest---Neither any officer of court could be issued such letter and certificate within meaning of succession Act, 1925 nor could be imposed upon him any responsibility or liability involved in administration of estate of deceased nor could he be made subsequently accountable for any person interested in such estate in future or involve him in litigation---No apparent dispute existed between legal heirs, while some of them were competent to manage such affairs---Officer of court could not be appointed as an Administrator of estate of deceased---High Court dismissed both such applications in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Citation Name : 2011 MLD 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIF SIDDIQUI
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457 & 380---Lurking house-trespass, theft in dwelling house---Interim bail, grant of---Confirmation---Further inquiry---Delay in lodging F.I.R. having not been explained, consultation and deliberation could not be ruled out---No recovery had been made from accused, though brother of accused was kept in unlawful custody by the Police---No independent witnesses from the locality had been associated in the investigation---No reason existed for accused to remove the digital cash box/locker from the cash room to the kitchen; or to break open the locks through force---Prima facie, there was no previous complaint against accused who had been climbing the ladder of management in short time, which could be as source of concern for the other employees; and a reason to falsely implicate. accused, could not be ruled out---Case against accused was a fit case for further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C. which entitled him for the grant of bail---Interim bail earlier granted to accused, was confirmed on the same terms and conditions, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  10. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 192 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mst. SAMINA SIKANDAR
    Side Opponent : PUBLIC-AT-LARGE

    S. 373---succession certificate ---Purpose of grant of succession certificate ---Scope. Details are mentioned in the commentary of section 373, succession act, 1925..

    ReplyDelete
  11. Citation Name : 2011 CLC 198 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : Mst. ANESA YAR'MUHAMMAD Daughter of Dr. YAR MUHAMMAD
    Side Opponent :

    Ss. 263, 278, 282 & 374---Petition for letter of administration of property and succession certificate ---Objection application---Counsel for objector in his application had alleged that property in question had fraudulently been shown in the schedule of property in the main petition, which should have been excluded; and that an appropriate action could be initiated under S.282 of succession Act, 1925 for allegedly committing fraud and breach of trust---Counsel for objector prayed that the grant of letter of administration should be annulled by way of its suspension without holding any inquiry or adducing evidence---Validity---Held, at such stage it could not be said that whatever the objector was stating was true; and the entire proceedings should be reversed---Whatever course could be resorted to as a remedy under the facts and circumstances, would ultimately require inquiry and evidence---Objector, in circumstances, could file appropriate application for annulment in accordance with law, subject to there being prima facie evidence in his favour to support such plea.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 108 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : Mst. UZMA REHMAN
    Side Opponent : PUBLIC-AT-LARGE

    Ss. 371 & 384---Grant of Letter of Administration---Jurisdiction---Scope---Deceased husband of applicant who was residing at place, K had left movable and immovable properties at K as well as at place K---Earlier, a succession certificate was granted on application filed at place K however application for grant of Letters of Administration for immovable property left by the deceased at place L was dismissed on ground that property in question was situated at place L and applicant should approach the court having jurisdiction---Under S.371 of succession Act, 1925 jurisdiction lay with the court where the deceased ordinarily resided---In the present case succession certificate had already been granted by the court at place K which established that the deceased resided at place K at the time of his death---No justification was available for the court at place K to dismiss the application for grant of Letter of Administration in respect of the property left by the deceased at place L---Impugned order was set aside and court was directed to proceed, with the matter accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  13. Citation Name : 2010 CLC 791 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD MANAWAR
    Side Opponent : NAZIR AHMAD

    Ss. 371 & 372---Dismissal of application for grant of succession certificate and such dismissal was upheld by the Appellate Court---Validity---Evidence produced by the respondent had proved that petitioner had divorced deceased (lady) in her life time---Trial Court had rightly dismissed application of the petitioner which was upheld by Appellate Court---Counsel for the petitioner was unable to point out any illegality or material irregularity in the judgments and decrees of both the courts below warranting interference by High Court in the revisional jurisdiction.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Citation Name : 2010 CLC 219 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mst. FAUZIA NOUREEN
    Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASGHAR

    Ss. 278 & 372---Dues of deceased government servant---Distribution---Group insurance---Deceased was employee of police department, who died issueless and survived with widow, mother and father---Trial Court issued succession certificate with direction to disburse amount in accordance with rules and regulations of police department but Lower Appellate Court modified the certificate to disburse the amount in. accordance' with Muslim shares---Validity-Out of total amount, sum payable as Group Insurance was not to be part of estate of deceased, therefore, such amount was exclusively payable to widow if duly nominated by deceased---High Court directed that remaining amount was payable to family of deceased and would be distributed accordingly amongst parents and widow---Revision was allowed accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Citation Name : 2010 MLD 1433 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SOHAIL SIDDIQUI
    Side Opponent : Mst. PARVEEN alias MUNNI

    S.372---`Debts' and `Securities'---Connotation---Word `debts' in S.372 of succession Act, 1925, means such amounts of deceased lying with any bank---Word `securities' is referable to common securities which generated profits in shape of dividends any saving certificate issued by government, the bank or any other financial institution---Letters of Administration in respect of any estate give right to administer it and release the respective share to legal heirs.

    ReplyDelete
  16. Citation Name : 2011 MLD 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIF SIDDIQUI
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457 & 380---Lurking house-trespass, theft in dwelling house---Interim bail, grant of---Confirmation---Further inquiry---Delay in lodging F.I.R. having not been explained, consultation and deliberation could not be ruled out---No recovery had been made from accused, though brother of accused was kept in unlawful custody by the Police---No independent witnesses from the locality had been associated in the investigation---No reason existed for accused to remove the digital cash box/locker from the cash room to the kitchen; or to break open the locks through force---Prima facie, there was no previous complaint against accused who had been climbing the ladder of management in short time, which could be as source of concern for the other employees; and a reason to falsely implicate. accused, could not be ruled out---Case against accused was a fit case for further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C. which entitled him for the grant of bail---Interim bail earlier granted to accused, was confirmed on the same terms and conditions, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  17. Citation Name : 2009 PCrLJ 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : M. SHOIB QURESHI
    Side Opponent : Mrs. ZOHRA ZULQARNAIN

    Ss. 380/409---Special Judge Banking had summoned the accused employees of the Bank in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent after recording preliminary evidence, regarding a theft having taken place in the Bank locker s including that of the complainant---Validity---Accused, present Manager of the Bank was not posted in the concerned Branch on the date of occurrence---Accused, who was the Manager on the day of incident at the most could be termed the custodian of the stolen property of the complainant, but he was neither alleged to have connived in the occurrence, nor stated to be involved in any manner in the theft committed in the bank---Theft, as per F.I.R., was committed by unknown persons with the connivance of the guard who was posted on the day of occurrence and used to sit inside the Branch---Said guard was not employee of the Bank and the Agency which had provided the security was responsible for the omission of act of its employee and not the employee of the Bank---Cursory statement recorded by Trial Court did not constitute any offence nor connected the accused petitioners with the said occurrence in any manner---Impugned order summoning the petitioners as accused in the complaint was set aside in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  18. Citation Name : 2009 CLC 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHOAIB
    Side Opponent : KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY

    Ss. 42 & 54---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)(iv)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11(a)---Suit for declaration and injunction---Notice by Building Control Authority requiring tenant to remove basement illegally constructed in demised premises---Tenant in suit alleged that underground locker in his tenancy did not fall within definition of "basement" and sought regularization of such locker by Authority; and that such notice issued at his landlord's instance was without lawful authority---Landlord's plea was that tenant's suit was premature as question of unauthorized construction of basement by tenant was subject-matter of ejectment petition already pending against him---Validity--Tenant could not maintain a civil suit for determination of question by civil court of which Rent Controller was seized---No amount of difficulty or technicality would take away a dispute from jurisdiction of Rent Controller, which he was competent to decide---Tenant in his suit had neither disputed ownership or title of rented premises nor raised question of jurisdiction---Fate of rent case depended upon determination of question, whether underground locker existed since renting out of demised shop to tenant or was constructed subsequently---Until such question was finally decided by Rent Controller, cause of action of tenant in suit for seeking declaration of' regularization of underground locker by Authority would remain premature---Tenant had no subsisting cause of action to maintain such suit---Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

    ReplyDelete
  19. Citation Name : 2006 CLC 810 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mst. RASHIDA BANO
    Side Opponent : Mst. SAMINA YOUSAF

    ---S. 372---Succession certificate, grant of---Commulative Deposit Certificates---Purchase of certificates in joint names of mother (respondent) and deceased son---Applicant as widow claimed that certificates were exclusively owned by deceased and respondent was a Benamidar---Respondent claimed to be exclusive owner of certificates on the ground that at the time of their purchase, deceased was a student of 20 years age having no independent source of income; that she with her income earned from abroad purchased certificates; and that she possessed the key of locker , wherein certificates were locked by deceased---Proof---Nothing was available on record to show as to who out of two contributed to what extent and proportion---Both parties had failed to establish their independent and exclusive source of such purchase---Motive of Benami had not been proved by either party---Acquisition of assets by deceased after purchase of certificates would have no retrospective nexus to prove his exclusive purchase and that respondent was a Benamidar---Money used for purchase of such certificates being family money would be deemed and assumed to have been equally contributed by mother and son---Certificates were, held, equally owned by respondent and deceased, thus, were entitled to share equally the amount with interest accrued thereon-Respondent as mother would also be entitled to 1/6th share out of 1/2 share of her deceased son, while the remaining share would go to applicant.

    ReplyDelete
  20. Citation Name : 2004 PCRLJ 464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Ch. MUHAMMAD ASIF
    Side Opponent : THE STATE

    ----S: 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/409---Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.2(d) & 5(6)---Bail, grant of---Jurisdiction of Banking Court---Scope---Allegation against accused was that because of his alleged act, the complainant had been deprived of property kept in the locker of the Bank---locker in question had been rented out by Bank to complainant lady and her articles lying in said locker were found stolen---Bank had not undertaken any obligation regarding safe keeping of goods lying in the locker ---Bank and for that matter, prima facie, accused who was employee of the Bank, could not have the knowledge of contents of the locker -

    ReplyDelete
  21. Citation Name : 2003 PCRLJ 1973 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mrs. HAMIDA ALTAF
    Side Opponent : LIAQAT ALI

    ----Ss. 417(2-A) & 249-A---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.408, 511 & 109---Appeal against acquittal---Allegation against accused was that he got prepared duplicate keys of locker s and almirahs of the college and gave the same to watchman of the College to bring out the cheque books and other documents from the same and hand them over to him---Said keys were neither used nor anything was brought out of the locker s and almirahs---Offence of attempt to commit the crime as envisaged by S.511, P.P.C. was not complete, so as to constitute the offence as mentioned in S.511, P.P.C.--Something constructive towards accomplishment of the design should have been done---Accused, in the present case, had allegedly handed over the keys of locker s and almirahs to watchman who did not commit any further act in that direction---Mere intention on part of accused though could be attributed to him but not an attempt to commit offence so as to make him liable for the abetment punishable under S.109, P.P.C.---Accused could also not be held liable for offence under S.408, P.P.C. as he being clerk or servant of the College was not entrusted with any property in his capacity as clerk and as such no question of his having committed or attempted to commit criminal breach of trust in respect of such property could arise---Accused thus, could not be convicted for such an offence---Even otherwise two main prosecution witnesses did not support prosecution version and they were declared hostile---Accused could not be convicted on evidence of third witness alone---No possibility of conviction existed even if remaining prosecution evidence could be brought on record---Trial Court, in circumstances, rightly invoked its jurisdiction under S.249-A, Cr.P.C. in acquitting the accused---Judgment of Trial Court neither being perverse nor arbitrary, appeal against such judgment, was dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  22. Citation Name : 1999 MLD 703 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
    Side Appellant : UMAR FAROOQ
    Side Opponent : SHAGUFTA NASREEN

    Succession Act 1925 ----S. 370---Scope of 5.370, Succession Act, 1925---"Securities"---Connotation--Succession Certificate---Bank locker s---Section 370 of Succession Act, 1925 indicates that Bank locker s are not included within the meanings of the word "securities" and hence, those are not heritable like benevolent fund, group insurance and pension.

    ReplyDelete
  23. Citation Name : 1999 PTD 609 MADHYA-PRADESH-HIGH-COURT-INDIA
    Side Appellant : COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
    Side Opponent : JILA SAHAKARI KENDRIYA BANK MARYAUIT

    Income Tax Co-operative society --Special deduction---Cooperative Bank---Not entitled to special deduction in respect of locker rent, house rent and interest on securities---Entitled to special deduction in respect of miscellaneous receipts attributable to banking business---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961. S.80-P.

    ReplyDelete
  24. Citation Name : 1999 PTD 855 GAUHATI-HIGH-COURT-INDIA
    Side Appellant : JAGDISH PRASAD SARAOGI
    Side Opponent : UNION OF INDIA

    Writ ---- High Court---Jurisdiction---Search and seizure operations carried out by Income-tax Authorities in Delhi on Bank locker s in Delhi---Information about locker s called for by Delhi Authorities---Authorities in Guwahati having no part in instigating search---Writ petition not maintainable in Guwahati High Court---Constitution of India, Art.226---Indian Income Tax Act, 1961, S.132.

    ReplyDelete
  25. Citation Name : 2008 PLD 152 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : GOHAR HABIB
    Side Opponent : PUBLIC-AT-LARGE

    S. 373---car riage by Air (International Convention) Act (IX of 1966), S.6---Application for issuance of succession certificate---Death in Aircraft accident---Compensation awarded by Airline company on account of death of deceased---Right of legal heirs of deceased to claim such compensation---succession Certificate was issued to legal heirs of the deceased.

    ReplyDelete
  26. Citation Name : 2009 YLR 2181 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : Mst. NURULSUBAH
    Side Opponent :

    Ss.278 & 372---Pakistan Defence of ficers Housing Authority Order (P.O. 7 of 1980), Art.5---succession certificate and letter of administration---Transfer of immovable property---Applicant was legal heir of deceased and Defence Housing Authority directed her to obtain letter of administration before transfer of property in the name of all legal heirs---Validity---High Court directed Defence Housing Authority to take car e of transfer of property of deceased in the names of legal heirs by calling two witnesses of repute who knew the deceased and thereafter to retain property for a considerable period depending on circumstances of each case without its further transfer---High Court also directed that before transfer in the name of legal heir, a public notice might be published in newspapers at the cost of applicant like High Court does in matters of letter of administration---High Court further directed that since several petitions were being filed for letter of administration in respect of properties in Defence Housing Authority and counsel as well as petitioners had shown their ignorance about the rules of transfer, therefore, Defence Housing Authority after amending its rules might publish the same in newspapers of the city to facilitate general public---High Court directed the applicant to approach Defence Housing Authority for mutation---As there was no impediment in grant of succession certificate in favour of applicant, therefore, the same was issued according to rules---Application was allowed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  27. Citation Name : 2006 YLR 2735 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASLAM through Legal Representatives
    Side Opponent : MAHMOODA BEGUM alias Mst. MAHMOODA SABOOHI

    ---S.4---succession ---Oral will---Proof ---Principles---Daughter of predeceased son---Right to inheritance---Plaintiff filed suit claiming therein that she being the only issue/daughter of predeceased son, her grandfather made an oral will in her favour to the extent of 113 of his entire land holding and that plaintiff was entitled to her share in inheritance of her grandmother---One of the two defendants resisted suit, denying oral will in favour of plaintiff, and took plea of limitation---Trial Court rejected plaintiff's claim as to will but decreed suit to the extent of her share in inheritance of plaintiff's grandmother---Appellate Court decreed entire suit---Validity---Onus of establishing an oral will was a very heavy one and it was to be proved with utmost precision and considering every circumstance of time and space---Surrounding circumstances, time, place, conduct of parties, nature of their relationship, their credibility, their expediencies and their approaches qua subject-matter were material and relevant facts for proof of oral transaction---Discrepancies in statements of witnesses as to time, date, month, year, testator's words, reasons and circumstances of oral will needed car eful and close examination and could not be lightly, vaguely or generally dealt with by Court---

    ReplyDelete
  28. Citation Name : 2006 CLC 1189 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : IMTIAZ SHAMIM
    Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD IRFAN-UL-HAQ

    ---S. 374---succession certificate, issuance of ---Order of Appellate Court ,dismissing petitioners' appeal against judgment/order of Trial Court allowing succession certificate filed by respondent in favour of petitioners and other respondents all being legal heirs of deceased owner---Petitioners had contended that original saving certificates as well as Bank pass book being in custody of petitioners, they were exclusively entitled to have Saving Certificates encashed to the exclusion of respondents as deceased owner had gifted away. those certificates to them which was evident by the fact that petitioner was appointed as a Nominee and that deceased had severed, all his relations with the other respondents because of their derogatory and disrespectful attitude towards him---Concept of nominee was alien to Islamic Law, according to which legal heirs were the only persons entitled to receive the property left by their father or husband and no Muslim heir could exclude other heir on the ground that he was holding Saving Certificates as a nominee---Nominee, if appointed, would not become the sole owner of the assets left by deceased, but he was only authorized to collect the amount from National Saving Centre or to hold property of deceased as an administrator and then to distribute same among all legal heirs---Nomination would not make nominee as donee nor nomination amounts to a gift in absence of delivery of possession of property gifted---Petitioners, in the present case, never raised the plea that other petitioner was ever appointed as nominee or amount under Saving Certificate was ever gifted to her or them---Said petitioner could not claim herself as exclusive owner of amount under disputed Saving Certificates and two Courts below, while discar ding her said claim, had neither committed any illegality nor irregularity, but had passed impugned orders in advancement of Islamic Law of Inheritance; whereunder all legal heirs of deceased had been declared entitled to receive property left by deceased according to their shares under Islamic Law of Inheritance.

    ReplyDelete
  29. Citation Name : 2006 PSC 989 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YAR PATWARI
    Side Opponent : DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL

    --Arts .199 & 212(2)---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Objection to transfers in succession within a period of two months through constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bar as contained in Art.212 of the Constitution was applicable on matters of postings/transfers, however High Court in the interest of justice condemned the directions issued by Chief Minister of the Province and act of Additional Secretary (Admn.) conveying such oral directions of Chief Minister telephonically to the subordinate authorities for making transfers/postings/adjustments of his own choice in violation of both tenure policy of the Government and rule that government servant should comply only with those orders/directions of his superior which were legal and within his competence---Civil servant's repeated transfers from one place to another in a span of few months by order of Minister concerned and car rying out of such orders obediently by Secretary of the Department concerned was highly unethical and undesirable---High Court disposed of the Constitutional petition accordingly

    ReplyDelete
  30. Citation Name : 2006 PTD 2291 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : I.T.A. No.1640/KB of 2004, decided on 24th March, 2006.
    Side Opponent : I.T.A. No.1640/KB of 2004, decided on 24th March, 2006.

    --S. 27---Capital gain---Goodwill---Assessee was engaged in manufacturing and distribution of ' non-pharmaceutical skin and beauty-car e product under the exclusive agency and licence agreement---Assessee, therefore, had exclusive right to use the trademark of ' principal company---Principal company terminated such agency and withdrew such licence agreement by stating only that service of assessee were no more required---Assessee was debarred from purchase, manufacture, sell or distribute the said products as registered users of trademark owned by the principal company---Assessee approached High Court with object to protect its main earning apparatus---Both companies arrived at an agreement and as a result of such agreement, assessee was compensated for succession of the licence and business as well as the agency agreement---Such amount was assessed by the Assessing of ficer as capital gain by treating the amount as a `goodwill'---Assessee claimed the said amount as capital receipt exempt from charge under the Income Tax law while the department treated the same as yearly earned `goodwill' and consequently the capital gain---Validity---Bringing such amount to charge under the garb of provision of S.27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by calling it a goodwill could not be supported---Goodwill was a tree sprouted from seed which in this case was agency and licence from principal company which was withdrawn from the assessee---Assessee had nothing in his hands, even the temporary injunction of the Court could not rebuild the same, it was not a goodwill but capital receipt on termination of contract--Capital assets presupposed existence of the same in a visible established and accumulated form---Some entry obtaining in balance sheet or such or similar or auxiliary and ancillary documents could be the only evidence---Strong doubt existed about holding the goodwill a capital asset in a case like the present one where it had never been established to be accumulated---If the department insisted that there was a goodwill and thus a capital asset then what had to be transferred should also have been identified which would all the more necessary as to bring the prof it and gains within the mischief of S.27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979--Such prof it and gain should have necessarily been arisen from the sale exchange or transfer of capital asset---Orders of the two of ficers below were disapproved and the addition made by the Assessing of ficer and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.

    ReplyDelete
  31. Citation Name : 2005 CLC 669 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mst. FAREEDA NOOR
    Side Opponent : Mehar MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SIAL

    ----S. 16---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---One of the terms of appointment according to terms of advertisement was that ten additional marks were to be given to a candidate if she opted to be employed in a school at the place of her residence---Petitioner opted to be employed in school at place 'C'---Petitioner initially was given ten marks, but later on same were deducted and she was not appointed---Petitioner though initially was resident of place 'S', but after her marriage at place 'C' where her husband was residing, she became resident of place 'C' and her Identity car d also had shown her permanent address at place 'C'---Provisions of S.16 of succession Act, 1925 had provided in clear terms that wife's domicile during her marriage would follow the domicile of her husband, but Authorities had completely ignored said statutory provisions---Petitioner would automatically be deemed to be domiciled of place "C" where she was married---Petitioner would be considered for appointment on basis that she was entitled to ten additional marks as she had opted to serve in school in place 'C'---High Court setting aside order of Authority directed that petitioner be considered for appointment on basis that she was entitled to ten additional marks within specified period.

    ReplyDelete
  32. Citation Name : 2003 PCRLJ 1678 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI
    Side Opponent : THE STATE

    ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Besides ocular testimony of complainant, evidence of two prosecution witnesses who apprehended the accused then and there after commission of crime, possessed a high degree, of credibility---Both said prosecution witnesses were subjected to taxing and searching cross-examination, but their testimony could not be shattered in any manner---Presence of said witnesses at place of occurrence and arresting of accused with crime weapon, had fully been established---Recovery of crime-empties from the spot had provided further corroboration to prosecution version---Recovery of motorbike of accused from crime spot was yet another circumstance fully endorsing prosecution version---Said motorbike had been attributed by prosecution witnesses to accused which version too had gone unchallenged--­Complainant whose presence at place of occurrence had fully been established had given sufficient details of occurrence and had also explained post occurrence events including the arrest of accused which took place in quick succession ---Testimony of complainant which otherwise went un-shattered, could not be doubted on any premises--Recovery of three crime empties from the spot was fairly established and facts on record had excluded possibility of fabrication and plantation--Mere delay in sending empties and pistol to Expert by itself was not sufficient to discar d their evidentiary value when no serious suggestion had been put to Incharge of Investigation about its substitution or tampering with the same---Prosecution, in circumstances, having succeeded in proving guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt, he had rightly been convicted by the Trial Court---Accused alongwith his absconding co-accused had acted desperately and in a cruel manner, not only by causing murder of deceased who was their real target, but also causing murder of another innocent person and also inflicting injuries on other innocent victims---In absence of any mitigating circumstance, death sentence awarded to accused could not be reduced--Death sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was maintained and reference for confirmation of death sentence sent by Trial Court was confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  33. Citation Name : 2002 PTD 435 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

    Income Tax Ordinance 1979 ----S.73---succession to business, otherwise than on death---Assessment in the name of predecessor---Validity---Assessment in the name of predecessor was invalid, where the business was car ried on by the successor and Return for that very year was also filed by the successor.

    ReplyDelete
  34. Citation Name : 2002 PTD 435 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

    Income Tax Ordinance 1979 ----Ss.138 & 73---Establishment of of fice of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.11---Revision by Commissioner--succession to business---Recommendation by the Ombudsman--Commissioner of Income-tax may exercise his suo motu powers under 5.138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in order to reconsider the assessment with a view to ascertain the reasonableness of the income assessed particularly in the light of the history of the case and to ascertain whether for the relevant assessment year the business was actually car ried on by the successor and if so to cancel the assessment in the name of predecessor with the direction that the assessment may be made in the successor's own name on the basis of the return filed by him.

    ReplyDelete
  35. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 1647 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : TRG PAKISTAN LIMITED
    Side Opponent :

    Ss. 158, 233, 282-J, M & 476---Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2003, R.7(1)(db)---Failure to hold Annual General Meeting and to submit Annual account and balance-sheet---Company had failed to hold Annual General Meeting for relevant year, even within extended time; and Directors of the company had also failed to lay before the company in Annual General Meeting a balance-sheet and profit and loss account for relevant year, within stipulated period---Reasons put forth by the authorized representative of the company, did not carry merit and did not justify the default---Directors of the company were responsible to hold timely Annual General Meeting for providing timely information to its shareholders in order to enable them to consider and approve the significant matters like approval of accounts, appointment of auditors, election of Directors, performance of the company and other important issues relating to the company---Past record of the company revealed that the management of the company had committed such defaults in the past as well---Directors of the company had admitted their failure to fulfil the responsibility entrusted to them in the Companies Ordinance, 1984 with respect to presenting the financial statements of the company and holding Annual General Meeting for the approval of financial statements within the stipulated period---Since the company and its Directors had been penalized on similar non-compliance in the past, company and its Directors needed to take all the steps necessary to eliminate inefficiencies in the system that prevented the company from presenting the financial statements and holding Annual General Meetings on time---Explanations with regard to company's failure to furnish copy of its Annual report and other financial statements of the company to the commission within the prescribed time as required under R.7(1)(db) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2003, did not prove that failure or contravention or default took place or was committed without the Directors' knowledge---commission , in exercise of powers conferred in terms of S.158(4), read with S.476 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, imposed penalty of Rs.50,000 on the Chief Executive and every Director of the company, and in exercise of the powers under S.282-J of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, imposed fine of Rs.100,000 on the company Chief Executive and every Director for contravention of R.7(1)(db) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003.

    ReplyDelete
  36. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 1457 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : ZAFAR MOTI CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED
    Side Opponent : DIRECTOR (SMD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

    Ss. 33 & 43(b)---Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.22---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Third Sched., Cls.A(2) & A(5)---Making short sale and purchase of shares by company through its clients---Trading data, showed that two clients of the company, who had no pre-existing interest in the shares, sold and purchased shares---Company had placed short sales on its client behalf without fulfilling prerequisites of the Regulations for such transaction---Company, prima facie, had contravened clauses A(2) & A(5) of the Code of Conduct under Third Schedule of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, and penalty of Rs.400,000 was imposed upon the company---Claim of the company was that shares were owned by a person, who gifted the shares to said two clients---Validity---Central Depository Company Account Balance report of said person and the authority letter, had clearly shown that shares were not transferred in favour of said clients of the company---Main ingredients of gift in shape of transfer of entitlement or possession was missing---Authority letters, could not be treated as a valid gift---Contention of the company that S.22 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 whereunder penalty was imposed upon the company, could not be invoked as provisions of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, were self-contained and penal provisions had already been provided, was misconceived as Rules were secondary or subordinate legislation made under S.43(b) of Securities and Exchange commission of Pakistan Act, 1997---Director of Securities and Exchange commission of Pakistan in circumstances, had rightly imposed penalty under S.22 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969---No reason being available to interfere with impugned order, appeal filed by the company, was dismissed, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  37. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 872 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : RECOVERY OF TENDERABLE GAIN
    Side Opponent :

    S. 224---Companies (General Provisions and Forms) Rules, 1985, R.16---Purchase and sale transactions, by Director of company---Failure to tender gain accrued by such transactions---Effect---Returns of beneficial ownership furnished by Director of the company had shown that Director made purchase and sale transactions within a period of less than six months and made gain of Rs.995,000---Computed in the manner prescribed in R.16 of the Companies (General Provisions and Forms) Rules, 1985---Matter of accrual of said gain neither was report ed by the Director in Part-D of the prescribed returns of the beneficial ownership filed by him with the commission of said transactions, nor its tendering or recovery was report ed to the commission as provided under S.224 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Contention of the Director that he was unaware of the provisions of S.224 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, was repelled in view of the fact that said Director was on the Board of Directors of the company since 17-5-1994 and had been filing his returns of beneficial ownership under S.222 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Said Director was supposed to be acquainted with duties and liabilities of a Director of a listed company arising out of the provisions of S.224 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---Even otherwise ignorance of the law was no excuse---Director requested for waiving the amount of tenderable gain which could not be considered as the commission did not have power under Companies Ordinance, 1984 to waive off the amount of tenderable gain---Amount in question was required to be tendered as. per scheme provided in the law---Amount of gain had been calculated in the light of manner 'Lowest-in-Highest-out' prescribed in R.16 of Companies (General Provisions and Forms), Rules, 1985 and commission did not have power to reduce the amount of gain by applying another method of calculation--Director was directed to tender Rs.995,000 to the Securities and Exchange commission of Pakistan as provided in S.224(2) of Companies Ordinance, 1984.

    ReplyDelete
  38. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 599 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION
    Side Opponent :

    Ss. 173, 476 & 492---Passing of resolution without convening meeting and giving false statement---Imposition of penalty---Supreme Court vide its order directed the Securities and Exchange commission to conduct an inquiry and submit report with regard to the Passing of so-called resolution approved by Central Executive Committee of the Pakistan Sugar Mills Association---commission after conducting inquiry submitted the report wherein it was stated that no valid meeting of Central Executive Committee of the Association was held---Record and statements of members with regard to passing of alleged resolution reflected that neither formal notice was issued to the members for any such meeting to be held nor proper minutes were recorded and circulated to the members within the time stipulated under S.173(1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984---No valid meeting was held and no valid resolution was passed-Resolution placed before the Supreme Court was false and fake, in circumstances---False resolution was presented before the Supreme Court by deliberately concealing the material facts about the lapses in calling and convening of meeting, which was material in nature; and could not be ignored which attracted penal provisions as contained in Ss.492 & 476 of Companies Ordinance, 1984---However, as no valid meeting was held, S.173 of Companies Ordinance, 1984, had become irrelevant---Acting Chairman of Pakistan Sugar Mills Association was imposed penalty of Rs.500,000 and penalty of Rs.100,000 was imposed on Secretary General of said association.

    ReplyDelete
  39. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 4 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : INVESTEC MUTUAL FUND LTD.
    Side Opponent :

    Ss. 305, 309(c), 158, 233 & 245---Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003, Rr. 37, 38, 39 & 40---Winding up of the company---Violation of various provisions of regulatory framework--Securities and Exchange commission of Pakistan, found the company to be in violation of various provisions of the regulatory framework that appeared to be prejudicial to the interests of the shareholders of the company---Showcause notice was issued to the company pointing out that the company had failed to obtain registration under R.38 of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2002; that it failed to hold its Annual General Meeting for the relevant year as required under S.158 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984; that company had failed to prepare the annual accounts for the relevant year and that company had failed to appoint a custodian with prior written approval of the commission in terms of R.40(1) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003---Investigation report had clearly established that affairs of the company were severely mismanaged, its management was guilty of misconduct and had carried out business of the company in a manner oppressive to its members and the financial position of the company was such as to endanger its solvency---Company was not only financially insolvent, but also not a going concern and had been violating Rr.38, 39 & 40(1) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003, as well provisions of Ss.158, 233, 245 of Companies Ordinance, 1984 and consequently was jeopardizing and oppressing the interests of the members of the company---commission , in exercise of its power under S.309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, authorized the Joint Registrar, Company Registration Office to present a petition for winding up of the company in High Court.

    ReplyDelete
  40. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 25 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
    Side Appellant : WAZIR HUSSAIN SHAH
    Side Opponent : ALI SHAH

    Ss. 14 & 16(c)---Suit for pre-emption---Exercise of the right of prior purchase where several persons were equally entitled to that---report of Local commission had revealed that each of the pre-emptors owned land adjacent to the suit land and that each of the pre-emptors had the right of prior purchase as pleaded by them in their respective pre-emption suits---In such circumstances the courts below should have adverted to the postulated provisions of Ss.14 & 16(c) of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993(B.K.)---Each of the rival pre-emptors, were Shall Jar as they owned immovable property adjacent to the immovable property sold---Term "owner of Mahal" . under S.16 category 'c' referred to a person termed 'Shafi Jar' as he held the property adjacent to the property sold---Judgments recorded by all the courts below, were set aside and case was remanded to the Trial Court to pass a decree keeping in view provisions of S.16 of Azad Jammu and Kashmir Right of Prior Purchase Act, 1993(B.K.)---Trial Court for that purpose would determine the proportion among rival pre-emptors to the shares which they already owned adjacent to the properly sold.

    ReplyDelete
  41. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 998 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : RAEES-UD-DIN
    Side Opponent : NASREEN ANWAR

    S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114, O.XXVI, R. 9 & O.XLVII, R. 1---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Suit for possession---Demarcation of suit land through Local commission ---report of Local commission showing suit land encroached upon by defendant to be 6 marlas---Decree of Trial Court in favour of plaintiff to extent of 4 marlas passed on basis of such report set aside by Appellate Court-Judgment of High Court in revision restoring decree of Trial Court---Review petition to High Court by plaintiff for granting him additional 2 marlas of land---Order of ex parte proceedings against defendant and acceptance of review petition by High Court ex parte---Application by defendant for setting aside order of ex parte proceedings dismissed by High Court---Validity---Defendant had not challenged judgment of High Court passed in revision, which had attained finality to extent of decree for possession of 4 marlas of land to plaintiff---Defendant had not challenged judgment of High Court passed in review petition granting decree for possession of additional 2 marlas of land to plaintiff---Defendant though objected to such report before Trial Court, but had accepted its correctness after judgment of Revisional Court---Defendant after having accepted decree to tune of 4 marlas on basis of such report could not question encroachment to extent of remaining 2 marlas---High Court in exercise of review jurisdiction had corrected an error appearing on face of record---Demarcation of suit-land had been conducted by a senior officer of Revenue Department in presence of parties---Such report was not divisible--Supreme Court refused to grant leave to appeal in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  42. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 917 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHAKEEL
    Side Opponent : State

    S. 302(b)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Qatl-e-amd---Ocular testimony was consistent and having been corroborated by other evidence, could not be discredited by the relationship of the eye-witnesses with the deceased---Crime weapon whether "Chhura" or "Chhuri" had been used in the commission of the offence and was .report ed to be stained with human blood---Defence version brought forth by the accused in his statement recorded under S. 342, Cr.P.C. was not substantiated by him---Medical evidence had supported the ocular account of occurrence---Accused had been rightly convicted and sentenced for having committed the murder of the deceased---Leave to appeal was refused to accused accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  43. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1064 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : ABDUL KARIM
    Side Opponent : Raja MUHAMMAD YOUNAS

    S. S4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.32--- Execution of decree for permanent injunction---Decree restraining defendant (owner of adjacent house) from using stair-case and dheori of plaintiff's house---Violation of such decree by defendant after using space underneath such stair case as kitchen---Defendant's plea that decree had not restrained use of such space---Appointment of Local commission by Executing Court to inspect site and submit his report with site plan---Disposal of execution petition in terms of report of Local commission suggesting closing down opening doors in lower portion and upper storey of defendant's house---Validity---Both parties had been transferred adjacent houses from Settlement Department---No kitchen existed at time of inspection of site by Local commission ---Defendant having no access to stair-case and dheori was not entitled to run a kitchen under stair-case---Defendant could approach first storey of his house through wooden ladder from courtyard---Decree did not find mention of kitchen under stair-case, but mode suggested in such report had ended hostility between two neighbours for all times to come---Impugned order was upheld by High Court and Supreme Court in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  44. Citation Name : 2011 YLR 392 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY

    Ss. 8 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--Constitutional petition ---Cancellation of transfer order, proceedings for---Appointment of Local Commission er for getting measurement of suit property in the light of Excise and Taxation Register---report of Local Commission er showing measurement of suit property mention ed in Excise and Taxation record to be incorrect---Cancellation of transfer order by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board on basis of such report without inviting on t color=red>objection s on t> of parties thereto or providing them an opportunity to prove their case---Validity---Opportunity of hearing to a party was not just a formality, rather there must be a meaningful consideration by Court or Tribunal of the submission s made by the parties---Local Commission er had travelled beyond scope of reference before him as Chairman had not directed him to further demarcate suit property---High Court set aside impugned order and remanded case to Chairman to proceed with case in accordance with law from stage of filing of report by Local Commissioner.

    ReplyDelete
  45. Citation Name : 2010 SCMR 1189 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : BACHA ZEB
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 302(b) of 460---Qatl-e-amd, lurking house trespass by night---Appraisal of evidence---Deceased had been killed in his own house at night time---Presence of eye-witnesses in the house at the relevant time was natural, but the question was as to whether they were in a position to identify the accused after ten mon ths of the occurrence in the identification parade---Complainant party was in the room and as soon as they opened the door two strangers armed with pistols rushed in, made fire shots and decamped---Time was a winter night and even if there was tube-light at the spot, eye-witnesses had very limited time to see assailants, who were seen by them for the first time in their life--Identification parade had been held after 8/9 days of the arrest of accused in the case---Both the accused were put to identification simultaneously in on e identification parade against the rule of law ---Number and description of the dummies placed for each accused at the time of identification were not given by the Magistrate in his report --Non -assignment of any role to both the accused by the prosecution witnesses during the identification parade, had damaged its evidentiary value---Two rows of the person s including both the accused having been made by the Jail Authorities and not by the Magistrate himself, was a procedural defect in con ducting the identification parade, which had made the authenticity of the identification doubtful---on t color=red>objection s on t> raised by the accused at time of con ducting identification parade admittedly were not recorded by the Magistrate---Ocular testimon y qua the assailants being not at all con vincing because of multiple procedural and factual deficiencies in the identification parade, no other corroborative evidence was available on record to con nect the accused in any manner with the commission of the offence---Accused were acquitted in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  46. Citation Name : 2011 MLD 1632 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : ABDUL KHALIQ
    Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MINCHINABAD

    S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXVI, Rr. 9 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitution al petition ---Suit for possession of land---Appointment of Tehsildar as Local Commission for demarcation /Hadbarari of suit land to ascertain actual Khata Number and Khasra Number in which same was situated---report of Tehsildar that demarcation of suit land for being situated in populated area was not possible---Rejection of report of Tehsildar by Trial Court without inviting on objections of parties---Order of Trial Court directing Deputy Collector to appoint a senior Revenue Officer for such purpose---Revision petition filed against such order dismissed by Addition al District Judge---Validity---Trial Court could appoint Commission either suo motu or at request of any party---Trial Court had passed impugned order in presence of counsel for parties---Deputy Collector had submitted report of demarcation and Trial Court had invited objections of parties thereon ---Order XXVI, R. 10, C.P.C., provided sufficient safeguards to rights of both parties in order to utilize or otherwise such report as a piece of evidence---Defendant had faded to point out infringement of any of his rights---Courts below had passed impugned orders in lawful exercise of jurisdiction ---High Court dismissed constitution al petition in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  47. Citation Name : 2010 CLC 333 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
    Side Appellant : TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION D.I. KHAN through T.M.O.
    Side Opponent : DISTRICT JUDGE, D.I. KHAN

    Ss. 3, 12, 13 & 14---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199---Constitution al jurisdiction ---Exercise of---Findings of the Tribunal were based on the bulk of evidence on record and a very casual reference had been given to the report of Commission in the impugned judgment, which also impliedly would mean that objections to said report of the Commission were not upheld---High Court would not disturb findings of fact arrived at by the Trial Court/Tribunal on the basis of evidence available on record to substitute its own finding---Marked difference was in constitutional and appellate jurisdiction ---Findings of the Tribunal were based on the bulk of evidence on record, which needed no interference as jurisdiction vested had been exercised in accordance with law.

    ReplyDelete
  48. Citation Name : 2010 CLD 549 COMPETITION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : TRADING CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PVT,) LIMITED
    Side Opponent :

    Ss. 3, 4, 28(2), 30, 31 & 32---Irregularities and lack of transparency in the tendering process-Competition Commission of Pakistan took notice of the news items that Trading Corporation of Pakistan through its tender terms for the import of white sugar had failed to provide level playing field and equal opportunity to suppliers/partners of all origins for the import of 5,00,000 MT of sugar, thereby preventing, reducing and restraining competition in the relevant market in violation of Ss. 3 & 4 of Competition Ordinance, 2007--commission appointed Enquiry Officer pursuant to the provisions of subsection (2) of S.28 of the Ordinance-Subsequent to the initiation of Enquiry, Commission received letters from different quarters wherein irregularities and lack of transparency in the tendering process of Trading Corporation of Pakistan was complained about--Enquiry Officers in their preliminary enquiry report had pointed out that certain clauses of the terms and conditions of tenders were found to be potentially of con cern---Owing to the fact that the tender terms, prima facie seemed to exclude competitors from the tendering process and was likely to result in import of sugar at a higher price which could adversely impact the consumer and the public at large, Commission issued a notice of hearing under Ss. 30, 31 & 32 of Competition Ordinance, 2007-After hearing all the concerned expressed by the Commission and the on t color=red>objections raised by the parties with regard to the terms and con dition s of tot. gender, Trading Corporation of Pakistan had agreed that tender to be opened on 13-2-2010 had been merged with the tender schedule for 15-2-2010, accordingly, the quantity of sugar for tender schedule for 15-2-2010 would be enhanced to 2,00,000 MT and would be opened on 17-2-2010; that condition s of clause 15(a) of the terms and condition s for the tenders relating to shipment, would be amended accordingly; that the terms' and condition s of the tenders would be amended to allow con tainerized shipment as an option on established internation al terms and condition s and that transshipment in the case of containerized shipment would be allowed in the terms and con dition s of the tenders---Trading Corporation of Pakistan, at circumstances, was directed to issue 'a corrigendum and to take all necessary action s in that regard---Con cerns raised by the enquiry officers in the preliminary enquiry report and the on t color=red>objection s on t> taken by the parties, having stood substantially addressed, further enquiry in that matter was not warranted.

    ReplyDelete
  49. Citation Name : 2007 CLD 613 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : Mian MUHAMMAD ILYAS MEHRAJ
    Side Opponent : COMMISSIONER (SECURITIES MARKET DIVISION)

    ---Ss. 4, 21 & 24---Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Act (XLII of 1997), S.33--Acquiring shares of company in violation of Listed-Companies (Substantial Acquisition Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002---Complaint---report of Inquiry Committee-Appeal--Date was fixed for holding Annual General Meeting, agenda of which included election of Directors of the company, but on e day before said meeting, Board of Directors of the company postpon ed Annual General Meeting---Company stated that majority shareholders had requested for postpon ement of Annual General Meeting as five nominees who had informed their intention to con test the election of Directors had acquired 39% shares of Company in violation of Listed-Companies (Substantial Acquisition of Voting Shares and Takeovers) Ordinance, 2002---Management lodged two complaints with Securities Market Division of the Commission against alleged acquisition of 39% shares of the company---Commission , in respon se to said complaints, appointed an Inquiry Committee to inquire whether or not there had been a violation of law---Inquiry Committee after holding inquiry submitted report rejecting allegation made by complainant/appellants found that respon dents had not acquired more than 10% shares of the company and there was no violation of Takeovers Law---Commission er (Securities Market Division ), exercising powers of Commission under Takeovers Law, rejected on t color=red>objection s on t> raised by appellants .and request of appellants for a person al hearing was also rejected--Appellants had alleged that by not providing them enquiry report and denying them opportunity of hearing, they had been-deprived of their right to represent against findings of enquiry---Validity--Appellants should have been given an opportunity by the Commission to present their grievance against the findings of Inquiry Committee---Inquiry order had revealed that even written on t color=red>objection s on t> filed by appellants/complainant were not considered and discussed in impugned order---Unless there were good reason s for such omission , Inquiry report should have been provided to concerned parties-Though no mala fide was found on part of Securities Market Division in not providing Inquiry report , case was remanded to Commissioner for fresh proceedings--Parties were to be given an opportunity to person ally present their case against findings of Inquiry Committee.

    ReplyDelete
  50. Citation Name : 2007 YLR 1479 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MAQBOOL HUSSAIN
    Side Opponent : ANJUMAN MASJID AL-BADR AHL-E-HADITH

    ---S.9---Civil Procedure Code (I of 1908), O.XXVI, Rr.9 & 10---Suit for possession ---Appointment of Local Commission to inspect the spot---report of Local Commission er---Filling of objections ---Dismissal of appeal without deciding objection ---Held, impugned judgment having not reflected the disposal of said objection same was violative of law.

    ReplyDelete
  51. Citation Name : 2011 YLR 392 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY

    Ss. 8 & 10---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199--Constitutional petition ---Cancellation of transfer order, proceedings for---Appointment of Local Commissioner for getting measurement of suit property in the light of Excise and Taxation Register---report of Local Commissioner showing measurement of suit property mention ed in Excise and Taxation record to be incorrect---Cancellation of transfer order by Chairman Evacuee Trust Property Board on basis of such report without inviting objections of parties thereto or providing them an opportunity to prove their case---Validity---Opportunity of hearing to a party was not just a formality, rather there must be a meaningful consideration by Court or Tribunal of the submissions made by the parties---Local Commissioner had travelled beyond scope of reference before him as Chairman had not directed him to further demarcate suit property---High Court set aside impugned order and remanded case to Chairman to proceed with case in accordance with law from stage of filing of report by Local Commissioner.

    ReplyDelete
  52. Citation Name : 2010 SCMR 1189 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : BACHA ZEB
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 302(b) of 460---Qatl-e-amd, lurking house trespass by night---Appraisal of evidence---Deceased had been killed in his own house at night time---Presence of eye-witnesses in the house at the relevant time was natural, but the question was as to whether they were in a position to identify the accused after ten mon ths of the occurrence in the identification parade---Complainant party was in the room and as soon as they opened the door two strangers armed with pistols rushed in, made fire shots and decamped---Time was a winter night and even if there was tube-light at the spot, eye-witnesses had very limited time to see assailants, who were seen by them for the first time in their life--Identification parade had been held after 8/9 days of the arrest of accused in the case---Both the accused were put to identification simultaneously in on e identification parade against the rule of law ---Number and description of the dummies placed for each accused at the time of identification were not given by the Magistrate in his report --Non -assignment of any role to both the accused by the prosecution witnesses during the identification parade, had damaged its evidentiary value---Two rows of the person s including both the accused having been made by the Jail Authorities and not by the Magistrate himself, was a procedural defect in con ducting the identification parade, which had made the authenticity of the identification doubtful---on t color=red>objection s on t> raised by the accused at time of con ducting identification parade admittedly were not recorded by the Magistrate---Ocular testimon y qua the assailants being not at all con vincing because of multiple procedural and factual deficiencies in the identification parade, no other corroborative evidence was available on record to con nect the accused in any manner with the commission of the offence---Accused were acquitted in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  53. Citation Name : 2011 MLD 677 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ASIF SIDDIQUI
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 497(2) & 498---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 457 & 380---Lurking house-trespass, theft in dwelling house---Interim bail, grant of---Confirmation---Further inquiry---Delay in lodging F.I.R. having not been explained, consultation and deliberation could not be ruled out---No recovery had been made from accused, though brother of accused was kept in unlawful custody by the Police---No independent witnesses from the locality had been associated in the investigation---No reason existed for accused to remove the digital cash box/locker from the cash room to the kitchen; or to break open the locks through force---Prima facie, there was no previous complaint against accused who had been climbing the ladder of management in short time, which could be as source of concern for the other employees; and a reason to falsely implicate. accused, could not be ruled out---Case against accused was a fit case for further inquiry within the meaning of S.497(2), Cr. P. C. which entitled him for the grant of bail---Interim bail earlier granted to accused, was confirmed on the same terms and conditions, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  54. Citation Name : 2009 PCrLJ 584 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : M. SHOIB QURESHI
    Side Opponent : Mrs. ZOHRA ZULQARNAIN

    Ss. 380/409---Special Judge Banking had summoned the accused employees of the Bank in a criminal complaint filed by the respondent after recording preliminary evidence, regarding a theft having taken place in the Bank locker s including that of the complainant---Validity---Accused, present Manager of the Bank was not posted in the concerned Branch on the date of occurrence---Accused, who was the Manager on the day of incident at the most could be termed the custodian of the stolen property of the complainant, but he was neither alleged to have connived in the occurrence, nor stated to be involved in any manner in the theft committed in the bank---Theft, as per F.I.R., was committed by unknown persons with the connivance of the guard who was posted on the day of occurrence and used to sit inside the Branch---Said guard was not employee of the Bank and the Agency which had provided the security was responsible for the omission of act of its employee and not the employee of the Bank---Cursory statement recorded by Trial Court did not constitute any offence nor connected the accused petitioners with the said occurrence in any manner---Impugned order summoning the petitioners as accused in the complaint was set aside in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  55. Citation Name : 2009 CLC 381 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHOAIB
    Side Opponent : KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY

    Ss. 42 & 54---Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S.15(2)(iv)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11(a)---Suit for declaration and injunction---Notice by Building Control Authority requiring tenant to remove basement illegally constructed in demised premises---Tenant in suit alleged that underground locker in his tenancy did not fall within definition of "basement" and sought regularization of such locker by Authority; and that such notice issued at his landlord's instance was without lawful authority---Landlord's plea was that tenant's suit was premature as question of unauthorized construction of basement by tenant was subject-matter of ejectment petition already pending against him---Validity--Tenant could not maintain a civil suit for determination of question by civil court of which Rent Controller was seized---No amount of difficulty or technicality would take away a dispute from jurisdiction of Rent Controller, which he was competent to decide---Tenant in his suit had neither disputed ownership or title of rented premises nor raised question of jurisdiction---Fate of rent case depended upon determination of question, whether underground locker existed since renting out of demised shop to tenant or was constructed subsequently---Until such question was finally decided by Rent Controller, cause of action of tenant in suit for seeking declaration of' regularization of underground locker by Authority would remain premature---Tenant had no subsisting cause of action to maintain such suit---Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11, C.P.C.

    ReplyDelete
  56. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AKRAM BHATTI
    Side Opponent : Mst. GHULAM SUGHRA

    Ss. 278 & 372---succession certificate ---Defence Saving certificate s---Nominee, status of---Petitioners sought succession certificate on the ground that they were nominated by their deceased predecessor-in-interest, while respondents claimed their share under Islamic Law---In view of specific nomination in favour of petitioners, Trial Court issued the certificate in their favour to the exclusion of respondents---Lower Appellate Court allowed the appeal and held the respondents also entitled to their legal shares in the amount of Defence Saving certificate s---Validity---Lower Appellate Court, before whom the matter was taken up by respondents after relying upon the judgments passed by Supreme Court, rightly declared that effect of nomination made by deceased predecessor-in-interest in favour of specific nominees was only for the purpose of receiving the amount under Defence Saving certificate s Scheme but distribution of the amount had to be made in accordance with the respective legal shares amongst all legal representatives of the deceased---Judgment passed by Lower Appellate Court was perfectly in accordance with law and the same called for no interference---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  57. Citation Name : 2006 PTD 2291 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : I.T.A. No.1640/KB of 2004, decided on 24th March, 2006.
    Side Opponent : I.T.A. No.1640/KB of 2004, decided on 24th March, 2006.

    --S. 27---Capital gain---Goodwill---Assessee was engaged in manufacturing and distribution of ' non-pharmaceutical skin and beauty-car e product under the exclusive agency and licence agreement---Assessee, therefore, had exclusive right to use the trademark of ' principal company---Principal company terminated such agency and withdrew such licence agreement by stating only that service of assessee were no more required---Assessee was debarred from purchase, manufacture, sell or distribute the said products as registered users of trademark owned by the principal company---Assessee approached High Court with object to protect its main earning apparatus---Both companies arrived at an agreement and as a result of such agreement, assessee was compensated for succession of the licence and business as well as the agency agreement---Such amount was assessed by the Assessing officer as capital gain by treating the amount as a `goodwill'---Assessee claimed the said amount as capital receipt exempt from charge under the Income Tax law while the department treated the same as yearly earned `goodwill' and consequently the capital gain---Validity---Bringing such amount to charge under the garb of provision of S.27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 by calling it a goodwill could not be supported---Goodwill was a tree sprouted from seed which in this case was agency and licence from principal company which was withdrawn from the assessee---Assessee had nothing in his hands, even the temporary injunction of the Court could not rebuild the same, it was not a goodwill but capital receipt on termination of contract--Capital assets presupposed existence of the same in a visible established and accumulated form---Some entry obtaining in balance sheet or such or similar or auxiliary and ancillary documents could be the only evidence---Strong doubt existed about holding the goodwill a capital asset in a case like the present one where it had never been established to be accumulated---If the department insisted that there was a goodwill and thus a capital asset then what had to be transferred should also have been identified which would all the more necessary as to bring the profit and gains within the mischief of S.27 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979--Such profit and gain should have necessarily been arisen from the sale exchange or transfer of capital asset---Orders of the two officers below were disapproved and the addition made by the Assessing officer and confirmed by the First Appellate Authority was deleted by the Appellate Tribunal.

    ReplyDelete
  58. Citation Name : 2006 PSC 989 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD YAR PATWARI
    Side Opponent : DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, SAHIWAL

    --Arts .199 & 212(2)---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Objection to transfers in succession within a period of two months through constitutional petition---Maintainability---Bar as contained in Art.212 of the Constitution was applicable on matters of postings/transfers, however High Court in the interest of justice condemned the directions issued by Chief Minister of the Province and act of Additional Secretary (Admn.) conveying such oral directions of Chief Minister telephonically to the subordinate authorities for making transfers/postings/adjustments of his own choice in violation of both tenure policy of the Government and rule that government servant should comply only with those orders/directions of his superior which were legal and within his competence---Civil servant's repeated transfers from one place to another in a span of few months by order of Minister concerned and car rying out of such orders obediently by Secretary of the Department concerned was highly unethical and undesirable---High Court disposed of the Constitutional petition accordingly

    ReplyDelete
  59. Citation Name : 2005 CLC 669 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mst. FAREEDA NOOR
    Side Opponent : Mehar MUHAMMAD NAWAZ SIAL

    ----S. 16---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Constitutional petition---One of the terms of appointment according to terms of advertisement was that ten additional marks were to be given to a candidate if she opted to be employed in a school at the place of her residence---Petitioner opted to be employed in school at place 'C'---Petitioner initially was given ten marks, but later on same were deducted and she was not appointed---Petitioner though initially was resident of place 'S', but after her marriage at place 'C' where her husband was residing, she became resident of place 'C' and her Identity car d also had shown her permanent address at place 'C'---Provisions of S.16 of succession Act, 1925 had provided in clear terms that wife's domicile during her marriage would follow the domicile of her husband, but Authorities had completely ignored said statutory provisions---Petitioner would automatically be deemed to be domiciled of place "C" where she was married---Petitioner would be considered for appointment on basis that she was entitled to ten additional marks as she had opted to serve in school in place 'C'---High Court setting aside order of Authority directed that petitioner be considered for appointment on basis that she was entitled to ten additional marks within specified period.

    ReplyDelete
  60. Citation Name : 2003 PCRLJ 1678 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT-NWFP
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ALI
    Side Opponent : THE STATE

    ----S. 302(b)---Appreciation of evidence---Besides ocular testimony of complainant, evidence of two prosecution witnesses who apprehended the accused then and there after commission of crime, possessed a high degree, of credibility---Both said prosecution witnesses were subjected to taxing and searching cross-examination, but their testimony could not be shattered in any manner---Presence of said witnesses at place of occurrence and arresting of accused with crime weapon, had fully been established---Recovery of crime-empties from the spot had provided further corroboration to prosecution version---Recovery of motorbike of accused from crime spot was yet another circumstance fully endorsing prosecution version---Said motorbike had been attributed by prosecution witnesses to accused which version too had gone unchallenged--­Complainant whose presence at place of occurrence had fully been established had given sufficient details of occurrence and had also explained post occurrence events including the arrest of accused which took place in quick succession ---Testimony of complainant which otherwise went un-shattered, could not be doubted on any premises--Recovery of three crime empties from the spot was fairly established and facts on record had excluded possibility of fabrication and plantation--Mere delay in sending empties and pistol to Expert by itself was not sufficient to discar d their evidentiary value when no serious suggestion had been put to Incharge of Investigation about its substitution or tampering with the same---Prosecution, in circumstances, having succeeded in proving guilt of accused beyond any reasonable doubt, he had rightly been convicted by the Trial Court---Accused alongwith his absconding co-accused had acted desperately and in a cruel manner, not only by causing murder of deceased who was their real target, but also causing murder of another innocent person and also inflicting injuries on other innocent victims---In absence of any mitigating circumstance, death sentence awarded to accused could not be reduced--Death sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was maintained and reference for confirmation of death sentence sent by Trial Court was confirmed.

    ReplyDelete
  61. Citation Name : 2002 PTD 435 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

    Income Tax Ordinance 1979 ----S.73---succession to business, otherwise than on death---Assessment in the name of predecessor---Validity---Assessment in the name of predecessor was invalid, where the business was car ried on by the successor and Return for that very year was also filed by the successor.

    ReplyDelete
  62. Citation Name : 2002 PTD 435 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD IMRAN KHAN
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD

    Income Tax Ordinance 1979 ----Ss.138 & 73---Establishment of of fice of Federal Tax Ombudsman Ordinance (XXXV of 2000), S.11---Revision by Commissioner--succession to business---Recommendation by the Ombudsman--Commissioner of Income-tax may exercise his suo motu powers under 5.138 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in order to reconsider the assessment with a view to ascertain the reasonableness of the income assessed particularly in the light of the history of the case and to ascertain whether for the relevant assessment year the business was actually car ried on by the successor and if so to cancel the assessment in the name of predecessor with the direction that the assessment may be made in the successor's own name on the basis of the return filed by him.

    ReplyDelete
  63. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 1647 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : TRG PAKISTAN LIMITED
    Side Opponent :

    Ss. 158, 233, 282-J, M & 476---Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2003, R.7(1)(db)---Failure to hold Annual General Meeting and to submit Annual account and balance-sheet---Company had failed to hold Annual General Meeting for relevant year, even within extended time; and Directors of the company had also failed to lay before the company in Annual General Meeting a balance-sheet and profit and loss account for relevant year, within stipulated period---Reasons put forth by the authorized representative of the company, did not carry merit and did not justify the default---Directors of the company were responsible to hold timely Annual General Meeting for providing timely information to its shareholders in order to enable them to consider and approve the significant matters like approval of accounts, appointment of auditors, election of Directors, performance of the company and other important issues relating to the company---Past record of the company revealed that the management of the company had committed such defaults in the past as well---Directors of the company had admitted their failure to fulfil the responsibility entrusted to them in the Companies Ordinance, 1984 with respect to presenting the financial statements of the company and holding Annual General Meeting for the approval of financial statements within the stipulated period---Since the company and its Directors had been penalized on similar non-compliance in the past, company and its Directors needed to take all the steps necessary to eliminate inefficiencies in the system that prevented the company from presenting the financial statements and holding Annual General Meetings on time---Explanations with regard to company's failure to furnish copy of its Annual report and other financial statements of the company to the commission within the prescribed time as required under R.7(1)(db) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulations) Rules, 2003, did not prove that failure or contravention or default took place or was committed without the Directors' knowledge---commission , in exercise of powers conferred in terms of S.158(4), read with S.476 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, imposed penalty of Rs.50,000 on the Chief Executive and every Director of the company, and in exercise of the powers under S.282-J of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, imposed fine of Rs.100,000 on the company Chief Executive and every Director for contravention of R.7(1)(db) of Non-Banking Finance Companies (Establishment and Regulation) Rules, 2003.

    ReplyDelete
  64. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 1457 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTAN
    Side Appellant : ZAFAR MOTI CAPITAL SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED
    Side Opponent : DIRECTOR (SMD), SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN

    Ss. 33 & 43(b)---Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969), S.22---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, Third Sched., Cls.A(2) & A(5)---Making short sale and purchase of shares by company through its clients---Trading data, showed that two clients of the company, who had no pre-existing interest in the shares, sold and purchased shares---Company had placed short sales on its client behalf without fulfilling prerequisites of the Regulations for such transaction---Company, prima facie, had contravened clauses A(2) & A(5) of the Code of Conduct under Third Schedule of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, and penalty of Rs.400,000 was imposed upon the company---Claim of the company was that shares were owned by a person, who gifted the shares to said two clients---Validity---Central Depository Company Account Balance report of said person and the authority letter, had clearly shown that shares were not transferred in favour of said clients of the company---Main ingredients of gift in shape of transfer of entitlement or possession was missing---Authority letters, could not be treated as a valid gift---Contention of the company that S.22 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 whereunder penalty was imposed upon the company, could not be invoked as provisions of Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001, were self-contained and penal provisions had already been provided, was misconceived as Rules were secondary or subordinate legislation made under S.43(b) of Securities and Exchange commission of Pakistan Act, 1997---Director of Securities and Exchange commission of Pakistan in circumstances, had rightly imposed penalty under S.22 of Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969---No reason being available to interfere with impugned order, appeal filed by the company, was dismissed, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  65. Citation Name : 2011 CLD 1594 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
    Side Opponent : FAISAL TAHIR

    S. 381--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 124---succession certificate ---Presumption of death---Insurance claim---Legal heirs filed application for issuance of succession certificate on the ground that their predecessor-in-interest was kidnapped 12 years ago and his whereabouts were not known, therefore, he should be presumed to be dead---succession certificate issued by Trial Court in favour of legal heirs was maintained by Lower Appellate Court---Insurance company assailed the certificate on the plea that insurer could not pay the claim unless it was established that the insured had died---Validity---After elapse of 12 years no one had claimed that he had seen the insured person and insurance company was not claiming that it had evidence about fact that the insured was alive---It was a proven fact that insured was dead, insurance policy was covered against death of insured and as such insurance company was bound to pay insurance claim to legal heirs of insured in terms of succession certificate issued by competent court of law---Insurance claim had matured from the date of expiry of seven years which commenced from the date of kidnapping---High Court, in exercise of revisional jurisdiction declined to interfere in succession certificate issued by the courts below and insurance company was bound to pay the insurance claim to legal heirs of insured---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  66. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 192 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : Mst. SAMINA SIKANDAR
    Side Opponent : PUBLIC-AT-LARGE

    S. 373---succession certificate ---Purpose of grant of succession certificate ---Scope.

    ReplyDelete
  67. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 382 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : Mst. SHADAB PERVEZ
    Side Opponent : Mst. AMBREEN PERVEZ

    Ss. 218, 278 & 372---Sindh Chief Court Rules (OS), Rr.393 & 407---succession certificate and letter of administration, grant of---Deceased having left legal heirs including a minor---Prayer for issuance of such certificate and letter to an officer of court to obtain details of properties of deceased, sell same and distribute sale proceeds thereof amongst legal heirs according to Shariah---Validity---Administrator would be obliged to administer estate of deceased by way of transfer and/or distribution in favour of all legal heirs---Administrator could not sell property under administration without permission of court---Person to be issued letter of administration had to execute administration bond---Misapplication of estate of deceased by Administrator or his neglect, if any, would make him liable for damages or loss---Person to be issued succession certificate would be required to submit personal bond with one or more sureties or other sufficient securities for rendering an account of debts or securities received by him---One of legal heirs in the present case was minor---Court in case of minor would be more cautious and obliged to protect his interest---Neither any officer of court could be issued such letter and certificate within meaning of succession Act, 1925 nor could be imposed upon him any responsibility or liability involved in administration of estate of deceased nor could he be made subsequently accountable for any person interested in such estate in future or involve him in litigation---No apparent dispute existed between legal heirs, while some of them were competent to manage such affairs---Officer of court could not be appointed as an Administrator of estate of deceased---High Court dismissed both such applications in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  68. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 368 LABOUR-APPELLANT-TRIBUNAL-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD AHMED KHAN
    Side Opponent : SINDH LABOUR COURT NO.IV through Presiding Officer

    Ss. 41, 54(3) & 55---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.O.12---termination of service---Grievance petition---Services of the employee were terminated on medical ground in view of certificate issued by Medical Board constituted by the Civil Surgeon---Medical Board had declared the employee unfit for operating heavy machine---Reason as given in the termination letter was very clear, simple and unambiguous---No objection was taken by the employee, either to the constitution of the Medical Board or to its report, which meant that employee had agreed with the report---Reasons given in the termination letter being in consonance with the provisions of Standing Order 12 of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, Labour Court had rightly dismissed grievance petition by the employee---Findings of the Labour Court could not be interfered with in appeal, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  69. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 90 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
    Side Appellant : Kh. MANZOOR QADIR
    Side Opponent : AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR

    Reglns 10, 11 & 12---Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S.42---Appointment on contract basis---Abolition of post---termination of service---Appointment of appellant as Deputy Director (Legal) was on contract basis and his services were liable to be terminated on, one month's notice or one month's pay in lieu thereof,--Appellant in circumstances was not holding a post on permanent basis or appointed on regular basis---Post of Deputy Director (Legal) was abolished and services of appellant were terminated due to downsizing of financial volume of project and other administrative decision---Writ petition filed by appellant against termination of his service had been dismissed by the High Court---Validity---Appellant had claimed that acts of abolition of post of Deputy Director (Legal) and termination of his service, were invalid---Appellant was appointed after interview and he joined the service without any reservation or objection with regard to terns and conditions of his appointment---Rules on the subject lucidly spoke that retention of contract employees was subject to availability of posts and necessity of the employer---If employer no more required service of contract employee, he could terminate services on one month's notice---Such condition was specifically mentioned in the appointment order of the appellant and appellant had not objected to the imposition of that conditions, rather had accepted the same---Appellant, in circumstances had failed to make out any case to bring his grievance within the scope of extraordinary writ jurisdiction---High Court had rightly observed that contractual obligations could not be enforced in exercise of writ jurisdiction---Appellant neither could point out violation of law nor could prove mala fide or malice on part of the respondent---In absence of any infirmity in the impugned judgment of High Court, his appeal before Supreme Court, was dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  70. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1315 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Mst. KOKAB BENAZIR FATIMA
    Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD ASHRAF

    Art. 185(2)(d) & 185(3)---Appeal to Supreme Court---Scope---Leave to appeal---Maintainability---Respondent objected to petition for leave to appeal on the ground that in the matter, direct appeal under Art.185(2)(d) of the Constitution was to be filed before Supreme Court instead of petition for leave to appeal under Art.185(3) of the Constitution---Respondent also contended that appeal before Supreme Court under Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was barred by limitation---Validity---For determination of filing of appeal or petition, amount or value of subject matter of dispute in court of first instance should not be less than Rs.50,000 and on this account judgment, decree and order appealed against was varied or set aside by court immediately below---Value of subject matter in dispute in the court of first instance had to be looked into and not the value of original suit---Value of subject matter of suit was more than Rs. 50,000 and order passed by High Court for rejection of plaint was varied by Division Bench of High Court---As the subject matter of dispute i.e. agreement to sell and quantum of damages claimed in plaint in the court of first instance exceeded Rs.50,000, judgment of High Court was set aside, therefore, petition for leave to appeal, in view of Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was barred---Only direct appeal under Art. 185(2)(d) of the Constitution was competent---Supreme Court in appropriate cases and in exercise of discretion had ample powers to condone delay caused in filing appeal provided sufficient and reasonable cause within the parameters of law had been shown for condonation of delay---Petitioner did not file any application either for conversion of petition for leave to appeal into appeal or application for condonation of delay, therefore, there was no sufficient cause before Supreme Court for conversion of petition into appeal and to condone delay---Petition was dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  71. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1244 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Sardar MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
    Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. (now KPK) through Collector

    S. 23--- Determination of compensation--- Factors requiring consideration stated.

    ReplyDelete
  72. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1244 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Sardar MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
    Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF N.-W.F.P. (now KPK) through Collector

    S. 23---Determination of compensation---Acquired land being adjacent to an Industrial Estate and located within two main roads and at a distance of 1000/1100 feet from canal---Such land had potentiality for irrigation---Acquired land consisted of one compact block situated close to inhabited area having great potential value for industrial, commercial and residential colonies etc.---Grant of compensation by Authority on higher rates to landowners of other acquired land in adjoining area---Validity---Compensation of acquired land was enhanced keeping in view the circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  73. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 1082 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : ADMINISTRATOR ZILA COUNCIL, SAHIWAL
    Side Opponent : ARIF HUSSAIN

    Reinstatement in service---Back benefits, entitlement to---Absence of specific assertion/plea in plaint and proof by employee of having remained unemployed between date of his termination from service and date of his reinstatement---Plaint containing prayer for such benefits---Validity---Plaint did not contain any averment which would have put defendant-employer on notice that same had to meet a case for payment of back benefits on account of plaintiff's alleged unemployment during period he remained out of service---Prayer in plaint merely seeking back benefits in a cursory manner could not be construed as raising such plea---Plaintiff was, thus, not entitled to back benefits in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  74. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 888 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SADIQ
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 302(b) & 324---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit Qatl-e-amd---Appraisal of evidence---Occurrence had taken place in day-light---Complainant was brother of the accused and father of both the victims and he could not be expected to have substituted the accused for the real culprit---Dispute over partition of land was going on between the parties---Record did not suggest that the firearm injury suffered by the injured witness at the hands of accused was self-suffered---Promptly lodged F.I.R. had given the complete picture of the incident, which was fully supported by medical evidence---Presence of accused at the place of occurrence with a loaded pistol with which he had fired three successive shots at his nephews on a day of religious festivities, had shown his determination and callousness---No reason was available to allow benefit of lesser penalty of life imprisonment to accused on the ground of his old age---Conviction and sentence of accused were upheld in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  75. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 837 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : ABDUL GHANI
    Side Opponent : Mst. YASMEEN KHAN

    S. 9---Age, determination of--- Probative value of National Identity Card---National identity card has got its probative value which carries sufficient weight to be considered for determining the age.

    ReplyDelete
  76. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 837 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : ABDUL GHANI
    Side Opponent : Mst. YASMEEN KHAN

    S.9---Age---Determination of---National identity card has got its probative value which carries sufficient weight for determining the age--- Mere oral assertion is not sufficient to rebut documentary evidence---Documents pertaining to education record and passport which were never contested and rebutted were supporting documents.

    ReplyDelete
  77. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 830 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : ABDUL HAYEE
    Side Opponent : State

    S. 497---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 420, 468 & 471---Constitution of Pakistan, Art: 185(3)---Cheating, forgery and using as of genuine a forged document---Bail, grant of---Case of further inquiry---Bona fide purchaser without notice---Unexecuted decree---Accused was alleged to have purchased land in question against which a decree had ,already been passed in favour of complainant---Plea raised by accused was that he was bona fide purchaser without notice of decree, for value from a person who purchased the land from person having registered sale deed in his favour---Validity---Contrary to accused complainant based his claim to land in question on unexecuted decree passed in year, 2001, in his favour---In absence of either execution/registration of decree or that of sale deed, complainant's claim to ownership needed further inquiry, adjudication and determination ---Bail was granted.

    ReplyDelete
  78. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 794 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : GHULAM RASOOL
    Side Opponent : AKBAR ALI

    S.47---Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act (XII of 1957), S.20---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Evacuee property, status of---Determination ---Confirmation of Custodian Evacuee Property---Date of operation of sale deed---Suit property was purchased by predecessor-in-interest of plaintiffs on 9-11-1946 and sale deed was registered on 3-3-1947 but authorities allotted the suit land to predecessor-in-interest of defendants treating the same as evacuee property---Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs, which decree was maintained by High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction---Validity---Registered document was to operate from time/day when it was written and signed---Such document would create right, title and interest in favour of transferee from the date of execution and not from the date of registration---Sale deed was written and signed on 9-11-1946, however it was registered on 3-3-1947, therefore, perforce of S.47 of Registration Act, 1908, it would deem to operate from 9-11-1946 and not from 3-3-1947---Target date (first day of March, 1947) was provided under S.20 (1) of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, whereafter no creation or transfer of any right or interest upon any property could have been made on behalf of any evacuee so as to confer any right or remedy on any party thereto unless it was confirmed by Custodian---As the sale deed was executed on 9-11-1946, i.e. before target date, therefore, it was neither a property left by evacuee nor required any confirmation by Custodian, as property vested with vendee before target date---As such the property did not require any confirmation by Custodian under S.20 (1) of Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957---High Court rendered reasoned judgment and Supreme Court was not persuaded to interfere in it and the same was maintained---No misreading or non-reading of evidence on record was pointed out by defendants---Appeal was dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  79. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 691 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : A.R. AWAN
    Side Opponent : CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI

    Ss. 100(2) & 64---Determination of the scale of licence fee by High Court in appeals against acquittal---Validity---Respondent had filed appeal in High Court against the order of acquittal passed by the Trial Court under S. 417(2), Cr.P.C. and the procedure and manner of disposal of appeals as laid down in S. 423, Cr.P.C. was attracted and required to be followed---High Court while maintaining the acquittal order of accused and dismissing the appeal, had determined the scale of fee payable by the accused petitioners in the concluding paragraph of its judgment, which had been assailed before Supreme Court---Said observations fell outside the scope or ambit of High Court, as court according to the consistent rule was not required to embark upon matters not directly arising for decision or not falling within its ambit of power and was expected to exercise its jurisdiction within- the parameters of the statute governing the lis before it---Respondent under S. 64 of Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, could recover the due taxes or fees---Penal liability and fiscal liability being .quite distinct could not be intermingled---Impugned observations had no direct relevancy or nexus with the criminal matter before the court and after dismissing the appeal against acquittal nothing more was to be done by the court---Observations made in the concluding paragraph of the judgment by High Court were consequently set aside and appeals to that extent were accepted accordingly.

    ReplyDelete
  80. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 554 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : TARIQ ALI BAQAR
    Side Opponent : NEW GOODWILL COMPUTERS

    S. 8---Fair rent, fixation of---Contract between parties---Rent Controller---Jurisdiction---Property in question was let out to tenant in year, 1991, and landlord sought fixing of fair rent in year, 2003---Validity---To determine fair rent, on application filed by landlord or tenant, was the exclusive jurisdiction of Rent Controller and any agreement between the parties not to seek determination of fair rent could not 'bar the jurisdiction of Rent Controller, if that had not been already done---Court would not permit one of the contracting parties to take advantage of unusual or onerously terms consideration, as it would deprive the other party from his legitimate rights---Discretion exercised by Rent Controller and Lower Appellate Court while increasing 10% rent after about 12 years was not unjust to call for interference in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---High Court in exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, without giving any cogent reason set aside the orders passed by Rent Controller and affirmed by Lower Appellate Court, by holding that landlord had surrendered his right of fixation of fair rent against the consideration---Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by High Court and confirmed the orders passed by Rent Controller and confirmed by Lower Appellate Court---Appeal was allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  81. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 442 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Engineer HAFEEZULLAH
    Side Opponent : C.E.O. (PTCL)

    R. 2 (b)---Fundamental Rules, R. 12-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185 (3)---Lien with parent department---Prerequisites---Petitioner was serving with Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Limited (PTCL) and from there he joined Public Health Engineering Department through Public Service Commission---After joining of new department by petitioner, PTCL announced Volunteer Separation Scheme---Claim of petitioner was that when the Scheme was announced he had lien with PTCL, therefore, he was entitled to all benefits under the Scheme---Validity---Lien under R. 2 (b) of Civil Servants (Confirmation) Rules, 1993, meant the title of civil servant to hold substantively a post on which he had been confirmed---Employee under Fundamental Rule, 12-A, on substantive appointment to any permanent post acquired a lien on that post and ceased to hold any lien previously acquired on any other post---For termination of lien of a permanent civil servant from his original department, three prerequisites had to be satisfied which were that the civil servant concerned had joined other department on regular basis; that the joining to other department was result of his selection; and that the selection was through a regular selection process---If above mentioned conditions were satisfied and civil servant had contested for such joining, he would have no claim about his lien in the previous department after expiry of probationary period---Lien could not be retained by petitioner in PTCL after joining Public Health Engineering Department on regular basis through Public Service Commission---Volunteer Separation Scheme could not be made applicable in case of petitioner which was launched after his joining Public Health Engineering Department which otherwise could not be availed being a regular government servant in Public Health Engineering Department---Supreme Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of petitioner and did not interfere in the judgment passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.

    ReplyDelete
  82. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 420 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Syed ZIA HAIDER RIZVI
    Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LAHORE

    Mandatory or directory statute, determination of---Test stated.

    ReplyDelete
  83. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 374 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARIF
    Side Opponent : UZMA AFZAL

    Ss. 5 & 17-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Maintenance, fixation of---Striking off defence---Father of minor son was aggrieved of the maintenance fixed by Family Court---Validity---Interim maintenance of minor was fixed due to failure of father who did not turn up and besides that interim order was not complied with---Family Court had rightly struck off defence of father of minor, pursuant to provisions as enumerated in S. 17-A of West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964---Suit to the extent of maintenance allowance was rightly decreed by Trial Court, determination whereof had been upheld by Lower Appellate Court---Suit filed by mother of minor had been decided in accordance with law and no misreading or non-reading could be pointed out in evidence which had come on record and besides that no jurisdictional defect could be mentioned---High Court after having gone through all pros and cons of the controversy had decided constitutional petition in comprehensive manner---Judgment passed by High Court was well based and did not warrant interference by Supreme Court---Leave to appeal was refused.

    ReplyDelete
  84. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 333 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : EJAZ ALI BUGHTI
    Side Opponent : P. T. C. L.

    S. 36(3)(5)---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.212(3)---Status of civil servant---Determination of---Petitioner, prior to his transfer to Pakistan Telecommunication Company, was in the employment of Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation which was Government Institution---Question to be considered was whether after transfer to Pakistan Telecommunication Company, petitioner would continue to enjoy the status of `Civil servant'---Neither anything was on record nor it had been asserted by the petitioner that he had ever been retransferred or reverted .to his original position of civil servant as envisaged under S. 36(5) of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996---Pakistan Telecommunication Company to which petitioner was transferred had no statutory rules---Petitioner, in circumstances could not be said to be civil servant---Service Tribunal had rightly declined to grant relief to the petitioner.

    ReplyDelete
  85. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 323 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : AMIN ALI
    Side Opponent : State

    Fire-arm injury---Entry or exist wound---Determination ---If metallic projectile is out of body, it is an exit wound, and presence of metallic projectile in body establishes the fact that it was not an exit wound but an entry wound.

    ReplyDelete
  86. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 323 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : AMIN ALI
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 302 & 324---Qatl-e-amd and attempt to commit qatl-e-amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Fire-arm injuries---Distance, determination of--- Medical evidence and ocular account--- Conflict--- Benefit of doubt---All prosecution witnesses deposed that deceased received three injuries and injured person received fire shot from roof of a shop---Death sentence awarded to accused by Trial Court was converted into imprisonment for life by High Court---Validity---Medical officer found six injuries on the person of deceased and one of the injuries had blackening---None of the witnesses deposed that any of the accused had caused injuries from a close range but on the contrary in site plan, place of firing was shown 8 feet from deceased---From such distance, injury with blackening on the person of deceased could not be caused from a, distance of less than 3 feet---Medical officer found one entry wound on the back of injured person with blackening and such wound could not be caused from long distance---Ocular testimony was in conflict with medical evidence, thus deceased and injured did not receive injuries in the manner as alleged by prosecution---Prosecution failed to prove case against accused beyond any reasonable doubt, therefore, they were entitled for benefit of doubt, which was given to them---Conviction and sentence awarded to accused was set aside by Supreme Court and accused were acquitted of the charge---Appeal was allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  87. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 287 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : SHEHRI-CBE
    Side Opponent : CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI

    Art. 185(3)---Petition for leave to appeal to Supreme Court---Factual controversies---Use of land-Determination -Contention of petitioners was that land in question was to be utilized for recreational facilities. enjoyed by two million residents of the area---Validity---Matter required recording of evidence before arriving at any conclusion---Proceedings in petition for leave to appeal to be decided on admitted set of facts and could not be equated with proceedings in a suit attracting entirely different procedure for recording of findings on issues after examining the evidence---Supreme Court declined to interfere in the judgment passed by High Court---Leave to appeal was refused.

    ReplyDelete
  88. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 27 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MIR SAHIB JAN
    Side Opponent : JANAN

    Ss. 8, 39, 42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11---Suit for declaration, possession, injunction and cancellation of fresh sale agreement---Dismissal of previous/first suit based on another agreement upheld upto Supreme Court---Rejection of plaint in second suit, application for---Defendant's plea was that plaintiff in second suit and earlier suit was not same person; and that second suit was not maintainable in view of previous litigation on same subject---Validity---Cause of action in second suit was based on a fresh agreement---Questions requiring determination were as to whether second suit had any nexus with first suit, and whether plaintiff was same person, who had been contesting previous proceedings---Such questions being questions of fact could adequately be resolved by granting opportunity to parties of producing evidence after framing necessary issues.

    ReplyDelete
  89. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 21 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD SHARIF
    Side Opponent : CHIEF SECRETARY

    R.12-A---Retirement age---Determination ---Grievance of civil servant was that his date of retirement had wrongly been calculated from seniority list---Civil servant relied upon his date of birth mentioned in his Secondary School Certificate, Computerized National Identity Card and Service Book---Validity---Date of birth of civil servant mentioned in Service Book could not be ignored as it was the most authenticated document---Date of birth mentioned in seniority lists could not be ,referred over date of birth mentioned in Service Book--Supreme Court accepted the date of birth of civil servant mentioned in Secondary School Certificate, Computerized National Identity Card and Service Book---Supreme Court converted petition for leave to appeal into appeal and set aside notification of retirement of civil servant---Appeal was allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  90. Citation Name : 2011 SCMR 11 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : PAKISTAN SYNTHETICS LIMITED
    Side Opponent : WAQAR AHMED

    Ss. 12 & 13---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185 (3)---Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider; whether employees' termination was simpliciter termination provided for under S.12(1) of West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, or it was retrenchment or downsizing under the provisions of S.13(2) of Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968; and whether High Court failed to appreciate that on account of strong international competition, employer company having suffered severe financial losses had to stop production of its main product thereby resorting to lay off in factory and action so taken was justified in the circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  91. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 829 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Mst. ASIA BIBI
    Side Opponent : Dr. ASIF ALI KHAN

    Relevant factors for determination of benami transaction are source of consideration; who exercised custody over the original title deed and other relevant documents at the time they were introduced as evidence in court; who undertook the consideration of the property in question who was in point of fact enjoying qua possession over the suit property and motive for benami transaction.

    ReplyDelete
  92. Citation Name : 2011 PTD 690 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Revenue Division, F.B.R.
    Side Opponent : MILLENNIUM PHARMACEUTICAL COMPANY, KARACHI

    S. 25---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)---Determination of customs value of goods---Respondent company imported the goods and consignments so received were declared under PCT heading 3003.9010 whereas the Customs Authorities applied PCT heading 2106.9090---High Court under constitutional jurisdiction had opined that goods were covered by PCT heading 2930.9000, which was different to those respectively asserted by the respondent and Customs Authorities and ordered that consignments be released under said PCT heading---Representative of respondent company was hut able to satisfactorily point out as to on what basis that respondent formed the view that assessment orders were illegal and void---On perusal of impugned order, it could not be found on what basis High Court was of the view, though tentatively, that the consignment would be covered under PCT heading 2930.9000---Question as to which of the PCT heading was relevant being disputed, required enquiry for appropriate determination ---Impugned orders were set aside by converting petitions into appeals by Supreme Court and appeals were allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  93. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 657 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : LAL KHAN
    Side Opponent : MUHAMMAD YOUSAF

    Concept---Waiver by a party---Determination ---Duty of court---Court has to scan the evidence; oral, documentary or circumstantial, as the case may be, to decide whether a party has waived his right by an overt or covert act.

    ReplyDelete
  94. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 648 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : FAQIR HUSSAIN
    Side Opponent : IBRAHIM

    S. 3---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.185(3)---Gift of land by refugee widow who was a limited owner---Leave to appeal was granted to the petitioners (collateral of husband) to consider whether they could be non-suited on the ground of limitation when the cause of action accrued to them on the making of gift of the disputed property in the year 1969, particularly so when they were co-owners of the property after the termination of the limited estate.

    ReplyDelete
  95. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 350 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MUHAMMAD ARSHAD
    Side Opponent : State

    Ss. 302(b) & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 35---Qatl-e-Amd---Reappraisal of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Quadruple murder---Aggressor party---Determination ---Concurrent sentences---Accused were convicted and sentenced to death for murder of four persons on the dispute of possession of land---Validity---Halqa Patwari admitted during evidence that actual physical possession of venue of occurrence was not delivered to complainant party---Another prosecution witness also admitted that three accused were in possession of part of land in question as tenants of remaining accused even on the day of occurrence---On the day of occurrence, complainant party was not in actual possession of entire suit land, especially the part of land where occurrence had taken place---Doubt existed about complainant being in actual physical possession of place of occurrence at relevant time and about accused persons having mounted a violent and murderous assault to dispossess them of the same; as such doubt crept into the matter and had escaped notice of Trial Court and High Court, therefore, it was unsafe to order death for four accused---Supreme Court maintained conviction of accused persons under Ss.302(b) and 149 P. P. C. but altered sentence of death into imprisonment for life on four counts---Supreme Court directed that sentences of imprisonment for life to run concurrently.

    ReplyDelete
  96. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 221 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Dr. ASMA ALI
    Side Opponent : MASOOD SAJJAD

    S. 5---Recovery of dower---Immovable property---Proof---Description, non-mention of--Dispute was with regard to immovable property claimed by wife as dower, description of the same was not mentioned in Nikahnama---Effect---If property / house mentioned in Nikahnama on account of lack of sufficient description leading to its identification then its price, if mentioned in Nikkahnama, could be awarded then in the same way value of other property (agriculture), the price of which had not been mentioned in documentation/Nikkahnama, could also be granted if evolvement of a mechanism for determination of value was possible, as the same was not in conflict with any provision of law rather in consonance with established principles for determining the value of property, then the same could be resorted to.

    ReplyDelete
  97. Citation Name : 2011 PLD 221 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Dr. ASMA ALI
    Side Opponent : MASOOD SAJJAD

    S.5---Recovery of dower---Immovable property---Proof---Description, non-mention of---Oral evidence---Claim of wife to the extent of recovery of possession of immovable property as dower was rejected by the Courts below on the ground that no description of the property was given in Nikahnama---Plea raised by wife was that she was entitled to house measuring 2 Kanals and 100 Kanals of agricultural land---Validity---Regarding the house, there was oral evidence in the shape of statements of witnesses and wife herself and in a document brought on record by husband it was clearly recorded about a house situated in a specific village measuring 2 Kanals, of which market value was given as Rs. 700,000---No successful suggestion was made to wife by husband when she was subjected to cross-examination by specifying entries made in Nikkahnama to be incorrect except a general suggestion and not specific in respect of the house and agriculture land---Against denial of husband about entries in respect of house and agricultural land, there was sufficient evidence both quantitative and qualitative, in favour of wife, who was entitled to receive as dower a house measuring 2 Kanals or its market value, she was also entitled to agriculture land measuring 100 Kanals because of overwhelming evidence---In view of absence of particulars of 100 Kanals of land, Supreme Court directed Trial Court to appoint commission by directing a member of Revenue Hierarchy to determine average price of per Kanal agriculture land in village in question and after such determination wife would be entitled to receive 100 Kanals of land or its market value so determined---Judgment and decree passed by High Court was set aside and suit of wife was decreed accordingly---Appeal was allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  98. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 307 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MAHMOOD HUSSAIN LARIK
    Side Opponent : MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED

    S. 2(xxx)---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.2(xxviii)---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)---Workman/Worker---Determination ---Test---Whether a person is a workman, test to determine is the nature of the work done by him and not the designation or title etc.---Bank employee, who was Accountant of the Branch and was an Officer Grade-III and used to supervise a number of workers, his duties were certainly not manual or clerical in nature---Such employee incorrectly approached to the Labour Appellate Tribunal for relief---Principles.

    ReplyDelete
  99. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 307 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
    Side Appellant : MAHMOOD HUSSAIN LARIK
    Side Opponent : MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED

    S. 2(xxx)---Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.2(xxviii)---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968), S.2(i)---Workman/Worker---Determination ---Test---Bank employee who was working as officer Grade III in the managerial cadre and performing the functions of signing paying slips, vouchers, debt vouchers, collection of transfer bills, cheque books as well as demand drafts etc; was not member of any trade union or workers' union registered with the NIRC; was not doing any manual or clerical work and such officers were posted as managers of the Branch, held, was not a workman doing any manual or clerical work and his grievance application before Labour Appellate Tribunal was misconceived.

    ReplyDelete
  100. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 1640 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : PAKISTAN RED CRESCENT SOCIETY, PUNJAB PROVINCIAL BRANCH
    Side Opponent : ZIA ULLAH KHAN NIAZI

    S.10---Pakistan Red Crescent Society Act (XV of 1920), S.4---Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), S.4---Appeal---Maintainability---Employee of Pakistan Red Crescent Society---Jurisdiction of Service Tribunal---Determination ---Phrase "in accordance with law"---Applicability---Case was remanded to Service Tribunal for decision afresh in accordance with law and Service Tribunal without determining the question of jurisdiction reinstated the employee in service---Validity---Service Tribunal passed the judgment merely because Supreme Court had remanded the case to it for deciding it "in accordance with law" and misdirected itself in deciding the question of jurisdiction---Employee was not a civil servant who could agitate his grievance by way of appeal before Service Tribunal---Supreme Court set aside the judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Appeal was allowed.

    ReplyDelete
  101. Citation Name : 2011 PTD 610 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : Syed ZIA HAIDER RIZVI
    Side Opponent : DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX, LAHORE

    Mandatory or directory statute, determination of---Test stated.

    ReplyDelete
  102. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 997 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : QASIM WASTI
    Side Opponent : SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, BOARD OF REVENUE, LAHORE

    R. 8---West Pakistan Tehsildari and Naib-Tehsildari Departmental Examination and Training Rules, 1969, Rr.50 to 58, 3 & 4---Seniority---Determination of---Point of time at which a Tehsildar could be said to have been appointed as such---Person cannot be said to have got inducted into service on his selection for appointment to the said post but shall be deemed to have been so appointed after he had successfully completed the prescribed training and had passed the required departmental examination and when he was actually posted as Tehsildar---As an indispensable corollary, the period spent by such a selected person in successfully completing the said training and passing the said departmental examination, cannot and would not be counted towards his service for the purposes of seniority etc.---Findings of Service Tribunal to the contrary were not sustainable in law and were, therefore, set aside by the Supreme Court---Principles.

    ReplyDelete
  103. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 660 SUPREME-COURT
    Side Appellant : MOULA BUX LEGHARI
    Side Opponent : ADDITIONAL INSPECTOR-GENERAL (AIGP) ESTABLISHMENT, REGIONAL POLICE OFFICER, HYDERABAD

    Art. 212(3)---Petition for leave to appeal---Maintainability---Controversy about the petitioner's date of birth stood resolved by the Service Tribunal---Jurisdiction of Supreme Court wits restricted only to substantial questions of law of public importance and not determination of controversial questions of fact---No merit was found in the petition, which otherwise was barred by time and no reasonable explanation existed justifying condonation of the delay---Petition was dismissed.

    ReplyDelete
  104. Citation Name : 2011 MLD 930 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : NAIMAT ULLAH
    Side Opponent : State

    S. 497(2)---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.381, 411 & 34---Theft by clerk or servant of property in possession of master and dishonestly receiving stolen property---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Articles valuing more than one crore had been stolen away by the unknown persons in absence of the complainant and his family members, but the matter was reported to the Police after more than three months---Explanation furnished by the complainant for such delay, itself was a question of further inquiry---If the articles of such a huge amount had been stolen, a man of prudent mind could not wait for three months for lodging of F.I.R.-That aspect itself required further inquiry---It was no where mentioned in the F.I.R. that as to when and after how much time of occurrence, alleged confession was made by accused---Alleged recovery of cash did not connect accused with crime---There was no probability of the conclusion of the trial in the near future---Accused who was behind the bars since 15-9-2008, could not be kept behind the bars for an indefinite period---Case of accused requiring further inquiry, he was admitted to bail, in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  105. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 53 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : TAYYAB FARID
    Side Opponent : GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB through Chief Secretary, Punjab, Lahore

    Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Scholarships, disbursement of---Principle---Petitioners were civil servant s, who had taken admission in universities abroad but government denied scholarships to them on the ground that they had become overage---Validity---Disbursement of scholarships to younger brighter cand idates who had left their studies in recent past were bound to inure better results---Such stipends must be used for relatively fresh graduates as they had potential to learn--- Preference should be for the younger cand idates, who should on completion of their master 's degree be used as master Trainers for training of rest of the department---Employee nearing the age of superannuation was not likely to improve the capacity---Sustainable capacity building required that scholarships should be disbursed in such a manner that maximum utility was got out of the money used from public exchequer---High Court declined to interfere with the decision taken by government---Petition was dismissed in circumstances.

    ReplyDelete
  106. Citation Name : 2011 PLC 116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
    Side Appellant : IMRAN HUSSAIN
    Side Opponent : WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman WAPDA

    Arts. 4, 18 & 25---Public sector company--master and servant , principle of---Applicability---Scope---Mode and manner of recruitment followed by a public sector company---Objection regarding application of the principle of "master and servant " in the matter was misconceived as matter in question was not the `terms and conditions of service'---In the present case, it had been agitated that the Recruitment Policy had been violated; that in spite of public advertisement, sham interviews had been conducted without any common and prefixed objective criterion to transparently judge and evaluate the cand idacy of the applicants; and that the process adopted by the public sector company and its Selection Board was blatantly devoid of due process and deprived the applicants of their right to lawful employment and livelihood and discriminately ousted the petitioners from the recruitment process in violation of Arts.4, 18 & 25 of the Constitution---Held, objection regarding application of principle of `master and servant ', was misplaced and without force.

    ReplyDelete
  107. This is so interesting blog. You are best listing knowledge provide at this site. I am very excited read this nice article. You can visit my website.
    judgement

    ReplyDelete
  108. nice work boss keep it up

    ReplyDelete

Contact International Lawyer

If you have any queries related with this post you can contact at internationallawyerinfo@gmail.com

Regards,
Salman Yousaf Khan
Chairperson
International Lawyer
+92-333-5339880