Qanuni Amdad urdu

both the  sentences of imprisonment for life of the petitioner to  run concurrently. JUDGMENT SHEET  LAHORE HIGH COURT,   RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT  Crl.Misc.No.729-M of 2024 Sher Afzal  Vs. The State etc Date of hearing: 29.05.2024 Petitioner/convict by: Malik  Waheed Anjum,  Advocate. State by:- Complainant by:- Mr. Sajjad Ahmad Bhatti,  DPG. Muhammad Bashir Paracha,  Advocate. SADAQAT ALI KHAN, J. Sher Afzal  (petitioner) being convict seeks an order to run  concurrently his sentences of imprisonment awarded  to him in two different following trials/cases. 2. The petitioner was convicted and awarded death  sentence in case FIR No.72 Dated 26.06.2005 u/s  302 P.S. Jand, Attock by the trial Court vide judgment dated 23.12.2009, on the same date i.e.  23.12.2009, he was also convicted and sentenced to  death in case FIR No.145 Dated 30.09.2006 u/ss 302  & 34 PPC P.S. Jand, Attock.  3. Death sentence of the petitioner in case FIR  No.72 of 2005 mentioned above

 Form No.HC.JD/C-121 ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT R.F.A. No.36584/2024 M/s. Sui Northern Gas  Pipelines Limited VS. M/s. Bhatti Fabrics etc. S. No. of order/  proceedings Date of order/  Proceedings Order with signatures of Judge, and that of parties  or counsel, where necessary 10.06.2024 M/s. Faisal Yaqub Khan and Muhammad Yasin  Qadri, Advocate. C.M. No.1/2024 & Main Case Ch. Muhammad Iqbal, J:- Through this  application (C.M.No.1/2023) under Section 5 of the  Limitation Act, 1908 the applicant seeks condonation of delay occurred in filing the titled  appeal against the consolidated judgment & decree  dated 17.03.2022 passed by the learned Additional  District Judge, Faisalabad. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the  appellant/plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of  Rs.12,19,57,918/- against the respondent/defendant in  respect of consumption of sui gas as after adjustment of  deposited security, the said amount is found outstanding  aga

here's a brief explanation: The case involved disputes over income tax assessments against Masood-ul-Hassan of M/s Prism Estate and Builders for Tax Years 2010, 2011, and 2012. The Commissioner Inland Revenue initially imposed assessments which were later canceled by the Appellate Tribunal due to jurisdictional issues. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, reviewed the case and ruled in favor of the Commissioner Inland Revenue, reinstating the assessments. The court emphasized that the Tribunal had not properly considered the Commissioner's jurisdiction as authorized by a Chief Commissioner's order. This decision reaffirmed the Commissioner's authority under the Income Tax Ordinance, highlighting the importance of jurisdictional clarity in tax assessments. Stereo HCJ DA 38  JUDGMENT SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT,   RAWALPINDI BENCH, RAWALPINDI  JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT Income Tax Reference No.01 of 2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue V/S Masood-ul-Hassan Prop: M/s  Prism Es

The High Court cancelled the orders of the lower courts primarily due to several legal and factual findings that were deemed erroneous or unjustified. Here are the key reasons why the High Court overturned the lower courts' orders: 1. **Unjustified Imposition of Additional Payment**: The High Court found that the lower courts had incorrectly imposed an additional payment (Rs. 6,769,350) on the petitioner. They reasoned that both parties were responsible for the non-performance of the agreement to sell the plot, and therefore, it was unjust to solely penalize the petitioner with additional financial burden. The High Court emphasized that the concept of imposing compensation (additional payment) should be based on clear evidence of default and the resulting loss suffered by the non-defaulting party. 2. **Misreading of Evidence**: The High Court pointed out that the lower courts had misinterpreted or overlooked crucial evidence presented in the case. For instance, they highlighted tha

ORDER SHEET IN THE LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE.  JUDICIAL DEPARTMENT W.P. No.9158 of 2024. Muhammad Aslam Khan.  Vs. Judl. Magistrate, etc. S.No. of  order/ Proceedings Date of  order/ Proceedings Order with signature of Judge, and that of  parties of counsel, where necessary. 31.05.2024. Mr. Touseef Zada Khan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Fazaullah, AAG with Abdul Rehman SI. Mr. Najeeb Faisal Ch., Advocate for respondent No.6.  This petition impugns the order dated 09.01.2024 passed  by Magistrate whereby he agreed with case-cancellation  report submitted by the police.  2. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that deception  practiced by respondents No.4 to 6, cocked the petitioner to  bring the matter for a criminal action which took a course  through FIR bearing No.1781/2023 under sections 420, 468,  471 PPC Police Station Ferozwala District Sheikhpura with  the account that he entered into an agreement to sell with  respondent No.5 of one acre land situated at Mouza Goya,