Qanuni Amdad urdu

Recovery of part payment  The court outlined the following procedure for cases involving part payments on cheques: 1. **Adherence to Section 56 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881**: When part payments have been made on a cheque, the payee must endorse these payments on the cheque itself. Section 56 specifically requires that any part payment must be noted on the cheque to reflect the remaining balance. 2. **Filing a Suit in a Court of Plenary Jurisdiction**: If the payee fails to make the necessary endorsements as required by Section 56, they cannot simply present the cheque for encashment or file a suit under Order XXXVII, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (which provides for summary procedure suits). Instead, they must file a suit in a court of plenary jurisdiction (a regular civil court) to recover the balance amount. 3. **Returning the Plaint for Presentation in the Appropriate Court**: In this case, the trial court should have returned the plaint to the appellant t

The unique point in this case is that the attorney did not have the authority to enter into arbitration agreements regarding the land, leading to the nullification of all related transactions. The main story of the case revolves around a dispute over the ownership of a piece of land. The petitioners claimed that their predecessor-in-interest had not authorized any transactions regarding the land and that the transfer of ownership through an arbitration award obtained by the respondents' predecessor was fraudulent. The court found that the attorney representing the respondents did not have the authority to enter into arbitration agreements regarding the land. Consequently, the court set aside all transactions related to the land conducted on the basis of the power of attorney and ruled in favor of the petitioners. The case you provided, Memon v. Mst. Irshad Begum, revolves around a dispute over property ownership. The petitioners claimed that their predecessor-in-interest had been f

In 2015, Haji Muhammad Abbas was sued by Sitara Chemical Industry for the recovery of ten million rupees. Abbas had issued two cheques of five million each, which were dishonored. Despite numerous opportunities, Abbas's counsel repeatedly failed to cross-examine the plaintiff's witnesses, delaying the trial. The trial court, observing these delays, ultimately closed Abbas's right to cross-examine. Abbas sought a review of this decision, arguing it was unfair to penalize him for his counsel's conduct. The Lahore High Court dismissed his petition, highlighting the abuse of the judicial process and the importance of adhering to the procedural rules designed to expedite summary suits under Order XXXVII C.P.C. The Court stressed that such delays undermine the purpose of these procedures and degrade the dignity of the judicial process. P L D 2016 Lahore 610 April 20, 2017 P L D 2016 Lahore 610 Before Mahmood Ahmad Bhatti, Haji MUHAMMAD ABBAS---Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DIS

In *Allah Ditta vs. The State* (2010 SCMR 1181), the Supreme Court ruled that an innocent vehicle owner unaware of its use in a crime can receive temporary custody, as "any private individual" in Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, refers only to those connected to the crime or accused. The unique point decided in the case of *Allah Ditta vs. The State* (2010 SCMR 1181) by the Supreme Court of Pakistan was the interpretation of the term "any private individual" in Section 74 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, specifically regarding the temporary custody of a vehicle used in the commission of a crime involving narcotics. The Court concluded that the phrase "any private individual" should be read ejusdem generis with the preceding specific words, "accused, or his associate or relative." This means that the "private individual" mentioned in the proviso refers to someone who has some nexus with the offe