Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan ----Art. 199---Writ jurisdiction---Scope and limitations---Interference with ongoing criminal proceedings---Petitioner sought a writ restraining the trial court from deciding a bail application of an accused on medical grounds---Held, writ jurisdiction under Art. 199 is discretionary and cannot be exercised to interfere with ordinary criminal proceedings unless there is a violation of fundamental rights or an absence of legal remedy---Bail applications must be adjudicated by the competent criminal court, and any aggrieved party has the right to appeal as per the statutory framework---Petition dismissed. Cited Cases: • Ghulam Muhammad v. Muzammal Khan, PLD 1967 SC 317 • Abdul Rehman Bajwa v. Sultan, PLD 1981 SC 522 • Abdul Aleem v. Special Judge (Customs) Lahore, 1982 SCMR 522 • Habib Ahmed v. M.K.G. Scott Christian, PLD 1992 SC 353 • Haji Sardar Khalid Saleem v. Muhammad Ashraf, 2006 SCMR 1192 • Syed Iqbal Hussain Shah Gillani v. PBC, 2021 SCMR 425 • Muhammad Fiaz Khan v. Ajmer Khan, 2010 SCMR 105 (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497---Bail application---Discretion of trial court---Accused suffering from a critical medical condition (obstructive hypertrophic cardiomyopathy) sought bail on medical grounds, but petitioner attempted to preclude the trial court from deciding the application---Held, granting or refusing bail is the sole discretion of the concerned court and cannot be obstructed through a writ petition---Interference with the trial court’s jurisdiction in deciding bail matters amounts to a violation of fundamental rights under Arts. 9, 10, and 14 of the Constitution. (c) Specific Relief Act, 1877 ----S. 56(d), (e), (i), (j)---Injunctions---Prohibition against granting injunctions to restrain criminal proceedings---Petitioner sought to prevent the trial court from deciding a bail application, which would effectively interfere with a pending criminal trial---Held, an injunction cannot be granted to restrain criminal proceedings or prevent an accused from seeking legal remedy---Petition barred under S. 56 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. (d) Fundamental Rights & Right to Bail ----Arts. 9, 10 & 14 of the Constitution---Right to life, liberty, and dignity---Obstructing an accused from seeking bail violates fundamental rights---Petitioner sought to deprive the accused of his right to approach the competent forum for bail, despite the accused suffering from a serious medical condition---Held, right to bail is a fundamental right subject to judicial determination, and no person can be arbitrarily restrained from exercising this right---Petition dismissed. (e) Costs Imposed for Frivolous Litigation ----Frivolous petitions---Abuse of writ jurisdiction---Petitioner’s attempt to misuse writ jurisdiction to obstruct criminal proceedings was deemed an abuse of legal process---High Court imposed costs of Rs. 500,000/- to be deposited with the High Court Clinic within seven days, failing which recovery would be made as arrears of land revenue, and the petitioner’s national identity card could be blocked. Disposition: Petition dismissed with costs of Rs. 500,000/- to be deposited within seven days; failure to comply may result in legal consequences, including recovery as arrears of land revenue and blockage of the petitioner’s national identity card.

Summary: Injunction application dismissed-----The document is an excerpt from a legal case (Suit No. 778 of 2021) heard in the High Court of Sindh, Karachi, involving the Plaintiff, Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Limited, and the Defendants, Port Qasim Authority and National Transmission and Despatch Company. The Plaintiff sought a declaration and permanent injunction against the Defendants, alleging that they intended to permit the passing of a high transmission line over the Plaintiff's leased land, which could endanger their oil terminal operations. The Plaintiff argued that this action could lead to business losses and pose risks to employee health and safety. The Defendants argued that the proposed transmission line was crucial for national interests and economic development, as it aimed to provide electricity to consumers. They maintained that the transmission line would not directly affect the Plaintiff's leased land and was necessary for the country's energy infrastructure. After considering the arguments, the court dismissed the Plaintiff's application for an injunction. The court concluded that the Plaintiff had not established a prima facie case, and the balance of convenience did not favor them. The court emphasized the importance of the proposed project for national interests and public policy. Therefore, the injunction was denied, and the ad-interim order was recalled.

Summary: In this legal document, the court addresses a case involving a dispute over the awarding of a contract for the Sindh Barrages Improvement Project. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the contract was awarded to defendant No.6 without them having a joint venture partner, despite their involvement in similar joint venture projects in the past. The court noted that the defendant No.6 had submitted details of their past contracts and experience, including being a lead partner in joint ventures.The court also mentioned that 17 participants submitted applications for prequalification, and the World Bank reviewed the process, finding no objections. The defendant No.6 submitted the lowest bid, leading to the contract award. The plaintiff had an opportunity to raise objections but failed to do so. The plaintiff later filed a complaint with the World Bank, alleging misprocurement and corrupt practices.The court reviewed emails from the World Bank, which indicated that they had no objection to awarding the contract to defendant No.6, subject to certain clarifications. The plaintiff failed to provide evidence to substantiate their claims of misprocurement and corruption.The court emphasized that the procurement process was conducted in accordance with established guidelines, and the defendant No.6's bid was found to be the lowest. The plaintiff's claim that they should have been awarded the contract despite their higher bid was deemed unwarranted.The court also cited various legal precedents to support its decision, emphasizing the need for a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable injury when granting injunctions. Ultimately, the court dismissed both applications and upheld the award of the contract to defendant No.6. The decision was dated September 15, 2017, in Karachi.

Summary: Doctrine of indoor management---The plaintiff, Total Parco Pakistan Limited, sought renewal of the lease, claiming that they had a contractual agreement with the Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) for the renewal. The plaintiff's case was based on a letter issued by an officer of the CAA, which the plaintiff argued constituted a valid agreement. However, the CAA contested this claim, stating that the plaintiff had no right to seek renewal and that the lease could only be renewed through an open bidding process as per the Land Lease Policy. The CAA further argued that the letter issued by the CAA officer was unauthorized and that the plaintiff was not entitled to specific performance of the alleged contract. The court reviewed the arguments and evidence presented by both parties. It noted that the letter issued by the CAA officer did not have the necessary approval of the CAA Board, and the renewal terms did not follow the Land Lease Policy. The court also examined the lease agreement's provisions and found that the proviso for renewal did not constitute an automatic renewal but required mutual agreement. The court dismissed several applications filed by the parties, including one seeking rejection of the plaintiff's claim, an intervention application by another party, and a contempt application related to an interim order. Ultimately, the court concluded that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a valid contract for renewal and did not have a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction.

Summary: Injunction refused in fake degree case---The plaintiff seeks to declare these notices as illegal, without jurisdiction, and based on malafides. The plaintiff also seeks a declaration that their academic credentials issue is resolved and a closed transaction. The court then outlines arguments presented by both the plaintiff's counsel and the defendants' counsel. The plaintiff argues that the Show Cause Notice's allegations about forged education credentials are incorrect and that the university has confirmed the genuineness of the mark sheet. The defendants argue that the plaintiff's employment was based on incorrect qualifications and that the mark sheet provided was verified as fake by the university. They emphasize the plaintiff's failure to provide a proper degree and question the authenticity of a subsequent university letter. The defendants contend that the plaintiff's conduct, such as reluctance to cooperate with an inquiry officer, weakens his case for injunctive relief. The judge's analysis reflects that the burden of proof for qualifications lies with the plaintiff and that the plaintiff's conduct, inconsistencies in university letters, and failure to resolve the issue of credentials weaken the case for injunctive relief. The judge also references orders from the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding fake educational qualifications in similar cases and concludes that no further indulgence is warranted. The judge dismisses the applications for injunction and orders the plaintiff to pay costs.

Summary: Injunction granted for broadcasting PSL-8---The disputes primarily revolve around the rights to broadcast PSL matches, the appointment of sub-licensees (such as Ten Sports and GEO Super), and the legality of actions taken by the parties involved. The document discusses various arguments made by the legal representatives of the parties, including interpretations of the agreements, the roles of different entities, and the rights to broadcast PSL matches. The court considers the intentions of the parties, the language of the agreements, and the steps taken during the ongoing PSL tournament. The court order ultimately confirms an ad-interim injunction that had been operating in favor of one of the parties (ARY Communications Limited) and provides some reasoning for this decision. The injunction restricts the broadcasting of PSL matches on GEO Super based on the agreements and actions of the parties involved.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)---The case involved a dispute over agricultural land. The key parties included Sain Bux, the original applicant (now deceased), and respondents 1 to 11. Sain Bux had filed Suit No.36/2002, seeking specific performance and injunction against respondent No.12. Respondents 1 to 11 were later involved in the suit as they also claimed an agreement for the same property. The trial court rejected the plaint of Suit No.15/2004, but the appellate court allowed the appeal, setting aside the rejection. The court emphasized that as long as a decree is in effect, no other decree can be passed concerning the same property. Additionally, the respondents failed to exercise their rights or avail remedies at different stages of the legal proceedings. As a result, the High Court set aside the appellate court's judgment, restoring the trial court's order rejecting the plaint in Suit No.15/2004. Respondents 1 to 11 were given the liberty to seek damages if advised and permissible under the law.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure—Jurisdiction of Revisional Court: ----Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, Section 151 CPC—Temporary injunction—Jurisdictional error by Chief Court in entertaining a Civil Revision instead of directing parties to file a Civil First Appeal before the appropriate forum—Respondents, instead of exhausting the remedy of appeal, directly approached the Revisional Court—Supreme Appellate Court held that the Chief Court acted without jurisdiction, rendering the impugned order untenable. (b) Injunction—Status Quo and Restoration of Possession: ----Temporary injunction and status quo—Petitioner, operating a medical store in DHQ Hospital Astore under a District Health Officer’s order, was ejected by respondents during an unresolved legal proceeding—Trial Court allowed the petitioner’s application under Section 151 CPC, restoring possession to the petitioner—Supreme Appellate Court upheld the Trial Court’s order, affirming the status quo and petitioner’s right to possession until the final resolution of the matter. (c) Civil Practice—Exhaustion of Appellate Remedies: ----First Appellate Court’s jurisdiction—Principle of exhausting appellate remedies before invoking revisional jurisdiction emphasized—Supreme Appellate Court clarified that bypassing the prescribed appellate forum is impermissible, and actions taken without jurisdiction are void. ----Disposition: The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order dated 03.06.2016 passed by the Chief Court in Civil Revision No. 48/2016 was set aside. The order dated 25.05.2016 passed by the Senior Civil Judge Astore was maintained.