Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)--- ----Ss. 5, 11, 14, 17, 33 & 41(a)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.115, O.II, R.6-A & O.XVI, R.5---Consolidation of petitions and issues by the Arbitrator---Application of provisions of Civil Procedure Code in arbitration proceedings---Petitioner filed a petition under S.14 read with S.17 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 (Act), which was resisted by way of filing a counter petition under Ss.5 & 11 of the Act---Issue involved in both the petitions emanated out of the same cause, so order of consolidation of petitions was passed and consolidated issues were framed---Contentions of the petitioner were that provisions of C.P.C. were not stricto sensu applicable to the Act and in terms of S. 33 of the Act the civil court was obliged to decide the dispute on the basis of affidavit---Validity---Proviso to S.33 of the Act ordains that where the court deems it just and expedient, it may set down the application for hearing and other evidence also, and it may pass such order for discovery and particulars as it may do in a suit---Section 41 of the Act provides procedure and powers of the court and in terms of S.41(a) of the Act, the provisions of "C.P.C." are applicable to all the proceedings before the court under the Act---Applicability of the provisions of "C.P.C." are not meant to hamper the arbitration proceedings but for ensuring the advancement of ends of justice---In view of joint reading of above two provisions the contention of the petitioner that under the Act, framing of issues was not permissible was highly ill-founded and misconceived---Petitioner itself moved an application under O. XIV, R. 5 of "C.P.C." for framing of additional issue as such it was estopped by words and its conduct---Since there was no specific impediment in the way of the court proceeding under the Act, so consolidation of the petitions and framing of consolidated issues, did not warrant invoking revisional jurisdiction---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Qausain Faisal Mufti and Muhammad Saifullah Khan for Petitioner. Muhammad Habib-ullah Khan and Faisal Shakrani for Respondent No.1. Sardar Muhammad Obaid Khan for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 12th September, 2024.

Summary: (a) Anti-Terrorism—Meaning and scope of “terrorism” ----Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014 (AJ&K)—Ss. 5 & 6—Interpretation—Section 6 cannot be read in isolation; it operates only when the impugned “action” first qualifies under S. 5 and is designed to coerce/overawe Government or the public or create fear/insecurity in society. Mere heinousness of a homicide, multiplicity of accused, or occurrence in a public place does not, by itself, convert the offence into “terrorism” absent the design/purposes stipulated in S. 5(1)(b)–(c). (b) Criminal law—Private vendetta vs. terrorism ----ATA, 2014—Ss. 5 & 6—Where the record (FIR, challan, and antecedent incidents) shows the occurrence stemmed from personal enmity/retaliation, the case falls outside the ATA notwithstanding brutality or public setting. The ATA is a special law and is not to be stretched to cover ordinary crimes of revenge. (c) Criminal procedure—Challan carrying S. 6 ATA—Judicial review ----High Court’s writ jurisdiction—Quashment/deletion of misapplied S. 6 at pre-trial stage—Maintainability. High Court rightly deleted S. 6 ATA from the challan when the investigative material did not disclose the statutory design/purpose required by S. 5. Supreme Court concurred; re-insertion of S. 6 was not warranted. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal dismissed; High Court judgment dated 03-07-2024 affirmed; deletion of S. 6 ATA maintained. Cited Provisions: Anti-Terrorism Act, 2014 (AJ&K), Ss. 5 & 6; Cr.P.C. S. 173; APC Ss. 302, 147, 148, 149, 337, 34; ATA S. 15(2-a). Cited Cases: • Mirza Shoukat Baig v. Shahid Jamil, PLD 2005 SC 530 • Zahid Imran v. State, PLD 2006 SC 109 • Umari Arif v. Sessions Judge Muzaffarabad, 2020 SCR 222 • Ghulam Hussain v. State (SC Pakistan; cited for the proposition that the action must be designed to achieve the objectives in S. 6/5).

Summary: (a) Administrative law—Cabinet decisions—Binding effect and implementation duty ----AJ&K Rules of Business, 1985—R. 31(1), R. 15(1) & (3) Cabinet, on 08-09-2022 (following meetings of 04–05-08-2022), approved enhancement of salaries/allowances for Doctors, Paramedics, Nurses and allied staff and earmarked budgetary allocation (Rs. 1,574.484 million). Held, once a Cabinet decision is duly taken, the concerned department is bound under R. 31(1) to promptly give effect to it; failure of the Finance Department for nearly two years to implement the decision is contrary to law. Creation of a “Special Committee” on 26-12-2023 to “deliberate” upon a matter already approved by Cabinet neither alters nor suspends the Cabinet’s decision; such committee can at best make recommendations and cannot review/override Cabinet. (b) Finance concurrence—When and how required; who may overrule ----AJ&K Rules of Business, 1985—R. 15(1) & (3) Financial proposals ordinarily require prior consultation/concurrence of the Finance Department (R. 15(1)); if Finance does not concur, only the Cabinet may overrule (R. 15(3)). Bypassing this scheme (e.g., seeking Prime Ministerial or committee-level alteration of an approved financial decision) is unlawful. High Court’s direction enforcing the Cabinet decision did not offend the Rules; rather, it restored their command. (c) Public employment—Parity and accrued rights flowing from Cabinet approval ----Health personnel—Special Health Care Allowance, Medical Risk Allowance, Non-Practicing Allowance Doctors in AJ&K demonstrated Cabinet-level approval to align salaries/allowances with Federal/provincial comparators and corresponding budget provision. Such approval created enforceable/“accrued” rights; withholding implementation through administrative inaction or interposed committees is impermissible. (d) Constitutional jurisdiction—Writ to enforce lawful executive decisions ----Maintainability; scope of interference Where record establishes a valid Cabinet decision and departmental non-implementation in breach of the Rules of Business, writ directions to implement are proper. No ground made out to interfere with the High Court’s judgment. Disposition: Petition for leave to appeal refused; High Court judgment dated 07-05-2024 affirmed; Cabinet decision to be implemented in accordance with the Rules of Business. No order as to costs. Cited Provisions: Azad Government of the State of Jammu & Kashmir Rules of Business (Revised), 1985—Rr. 31(1), 15(1), 15(3). Cited Cases: • AJK Government & others v. M/s Spintex Limited, 1998 SCR 167 (Finance concurrence; only Cabinet may overrule lack of concurrence). • Major Muhammad Aftab Ahmad (Retd.) v. AJK Government, 1992 SCR 307 (writ cannot enforce an unlawful executive order; quoted in Spintex).

Summary: Bail denied ---- (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860) ----Ss. 364-A, 365-A & 34—Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S. 7—Abduction for ransom—Bail—Principles— FIR lodged promptly; abductee aged eleven years abducted for ransom—Ransom amount of Rs.2,500,000 paid and portion thereof recovered from applicant’s house pursuant to his disclosure—Applicant also pointed out the premises where abductee was detained and car used in abduction—Abductee duly identified applicant during Test Identification Parade (TIP) supervised by Judicial Magistrate and again identified him before court—Prima facie reasonable grounds existed to believe applicant’s involvement in abduction for ransom—Bail declined. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 497(1), third proviso (b)—Statutory delay in conclusion of trial—Scope— Record showed that adjournments were sought by both prosecution and defence; delay not solely attributable to prosecution—Statutory period of two years not yet lapsed—Applicant not entitled to bail on that ground but may renew request before Trial Court upon completion of statutory period. (c) Bail—Further inquiry— ----Where evidence establishes ransom payment, recovery of part of ransom, and judicial identification of accused, plea of further inquiry cannot be entertained at bail stage—Deep appreciation of evidence not warranted. (d) Judicial directions—Expeditious trial— ----Trial Court directed to conclude trial within three months and submit compliance to Registrar—Observations made being tentative shall not prejudice merits at trial. (e) Disposition --- Criminal bail application dismissed. Applicant at liberty to seek statutory bail upon fulfillment of conditions under S. 497, Cr.P.C. Trial Court directed to expedite proceedings within three months.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Family Law—Recovery of Dower and Dowry Articles:----West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 5—Right to dower—Judicial scrutiny of claimsThe petitioner sought recovery of dower consisting of 3 tolas of gold and a 5-marla house, along with maintenance and dowry articles. The Family Court partially decreed her claim, allowing the recovery of the house or its market value, but dismissed the claim for gold ornaments. The Appellate Court upheld the dismissal. The High Court refused to interfere, holding that findings of fact by trial and appellate courts should not be re-evaluated in constitutional jurisdiction unless there is a jurisdictional error or misreading of evidence.----Cited Law:• West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 5 (Jurisdiction of Family Court)• Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199 (Judicial Review in Family Matters)(b) Maintenance of Wife and Child—Quantum and Duration:----West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 17—Maintenance during iddat period and for minor childThe Family Court awarded maintenance to the petitioner at Rs. 5,000 per month from November 24, 2020, until the end of the iddat period and Rs. 5,000 per month for the minor child, with a 10% annual increment. The High Court upheld these findings, observing that the quantum of maintenance depends on financial capacity and status of the husband, and courts should avoid unnecessary interference when amounts are fixed after due consideration of evidence.----Cited Law:• Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 17 (Interim Orders & Maintenance Enforcement)• Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, S. 488 (Right of Wife & Child to Maintenance)(c) Constitutional Jurisdiction—Scope of Judicial Review in Family Law Cases:----Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199—Interference by High Court in family law disputes—Finality of appellate court decisionsThe petitioner challenged the decisions of the Family Court and Appellate Court under Article 199 of the Constitution, seeking a review of factual findings regarding gold ornaments. The High Court ruled that constitutional petitions should not serve as a substitute for a second appeal in family law cases. The Court emphasized that High Courts should not re-evaluate facts unless the lower courts exercised jurisdiction erroneously or violated fundamental rights.----Precedent Applied:• M. Hamad Hassan v. Mst. Isma Bukhari (2023 SCMR 1434)—The High Court lacks jurisdiction under Article 199 to re-examine facts already adjudicated by trial and appellate courts in family matters.----Cited Law:• Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 199 (Judicial Review & Scope of High Court's Powers)• Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 14 (Appeals in Family Cases)(d) Doctrine of Finality in Family Disputes:----Appellate court findings given precedence—Preventing litigation abuseThe Court discouraged repeated litigation in family disputes, stating that once a matter is decided by the appellate court, further constitutional review should only be entertained in exceptional cases. The petitioner failed to show any jurisdictional error or legal misinterpretation, making interference unwarranted. The ruling stressed that legal finality must be maintained to prevent unnecessary prolongation of disputes.----Cited Law:• Family Courts Act, 1964, S. 14 (Finality of Family Court Decisions)• Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Art. 189 (Binding Effect of Supreme Court Decisions)(e) Final Judgment—Petition Dismissed, Lower Court Judgments Upheld:----No jurisdictional flaw—Findings based on proper appraisal of evidenceThe High Court dismissed the constitutional petition, affirming that the trial and appellate courts properly appraised the evidence and applied settled legal principles. The Court reiterated that family cases should not be reopened unless procedural or jurisdictional violations are demonstrated.----Disposition:Petition dismissed—Trial and Appellate Court decisions upheld—No costs awarded.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan: ----Arts. 19 & 14—Freedom of the press—Limitations—Protection of dignity—Article 19 guarantees freedom of speech and expression, including freedom of the press, but subjects it to reasonable restrictions in the interest of decency, morality, and integrity of the judiciary—Article 14 guarantees the inviolability of the dignity of man—Held, while an independent media is essential for democracy and for exposing wrongdoing, its credibility is undermined when it broadcasts falsehoods or defamatory content—Court emphasized that press freedom does not permit slandering individuals, including judges and courts—Media must uphold truth and integrity to maintain public trust. (b) Contempt of Court: ----False and scandalous allegations against the judiciary—Apology and expiation—Withdrawal of contempt notices—Various television channels aired false and contemptuous content against the Supreme Court and its judges, leading to issuance of contempt notices—Channels submitted unqualified apologies and undertook to broadcast corrective statements during prime time—Held, apology and corrective action serve as mitigation and expiation of contempt—Show cause notices withdrawn, subject to compliance with the undertaking. (c) Ethical Standards for the Media: ----Self-accountability and journalistic responsibility—Court stressed that media organizations should develop internal accountability mechanisms to prevent the dissemination of falsehoods—A credible and responsible press enhances its effectiveness in highlighting corruption and wrongdoing—Held, self-regulation and adherence to journalistic ethics are essential for maintaining public confidence in the media. (d) Islamic Injunctions & Ethical Reporting: ----Prohibition against slander and defamation in Islam—Court emphasized that Islam strictly forbids scandal-mongering, slander, and spreading falsehoods—Qur’anic injunctions and sayings of the Prophet Muhammad ﷺ warn against defamation, gossip, and harm caused by false accusations—Held, broadcasters cannot absolve themselves of responsibility by claiming they merely aired someone else's statements; they must verify the truth before broadcasting defamatory content—Islamic teachings mandate expiation for defamation and backbiting, either through repentance or seeking forgiveness from the wronged party. ----Disposition: Contempt notices withdrawn, subject to compliance with the undertaking to broadcast corrective statements—Court underscores the responsibility of the media to uphold truth and prevent defamation.

Summary: Summary pending