Find a Lawyer

SARDAR MUHAMMAD ASHRAF D. BALOCH (PVT.) LTD. versus STATE

Section 6 516 In some cases, the order to seize and dispose of pending property is that the applicant believes that the vehicle is the sole property of the company he was representing and was not used in the commission of the crime. The Record of Validity Parcel has revealed that the applicant was a competent person for the company, and had submitted registration documents for the vehicle, including a certificate of ownership change, the complainant had filed the vehicle in favor of the applicant. There was no objection to the restoration and the applicants also submitted that the vehicle was not involved in any crime as per the requirement from Form A and Form 29 to SECP, nor was there any justification for refusal of custody. The High Court has directed the applicant to restore the vehicle and pay the applicant Rs. 1 lakh and Guaranteed guaranteed in PR bonds. The applicant was further instructed that the required modification was allowed as he prepared the vehicle before the trial court.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• SALMAN TIN MERCHANT v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE, KARACHI 2014 PTD 742
• Mrs. RUBINA ALI v. AYESHA KAMAL 2014 MLD 750
• ZARBAD KHAN v. State 2014 YLR 757
• The STATE through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau v. FAZAL AHMED JAT 2014 PCrLJ 758
• KHUSHI MUHAMMAD v. State 2014 MLD 771
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL BULK TERMINAL LTD. v. MAQBOOL ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LTD. 2014 CLD 773
• ALI GOHAR KHAN MAHAR v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2014 CLC 776
• ALI AKBAR v. State 2014 YLR 778

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

advocate from Kallur Kot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes