Summary: Bail Dismissed---Bail Matters (Bail After Arrest---497)---The Applicant's main arguments for bail include the claim that he has been denied a speedy trial as directed by the court in previous instances, the recovery of the narcotics was part of a pre-planned conspiracy, the violation of certain legal provisions, and that the chemical analysis indicates a smaller amount than what would trigger the statutory provision for denial of bail. The Court acknowledged that the learned trial Court failed to adhere to the directions for expeditious trial set out by the higher courts. However, it concluded that the Applicant's assertion of statutory delay is misconceived as he has not crossed the statutory period mentioned in the applicable legal provision. Additionally, the Court rejected the Applicant's arguments regarding the pre-planned conspiracy and the alleged violation of legal provisions, deeming them insufficient for bail. The Court also discussed the third proviso to Section 497 Cr.P.C., which deals with the period of detention before trial in certain cases. The Court finds that the Applicant's reliance on this proviso is not valid due to the nature of the offenses and the statutory time limits involved. The Court dismissed the bail application, with directions for the trial Court to record evidence of remaining witnesses within a specific time frame and for adherence to court directives in the future.

Summary: The aforesaid petition is virtually against the transfer and posting order of the private respondent on Own Pay Scale basis.

Summary: [Amenity Plot] It is well-settled that conversion of an amenity plot into any other purpose is illegal and encroachment thereon cannot be allowed under any circumstances. This view is fortified by the following authorities of Honble Supreme Court and cases decided by learned Division Benches of this Court, laying down the principles regarding illegal conversion and use of amenity plots/public properties for other purposes, rights of public in respect of amenity plots/public properties and duties of authorities concerned for maintaining the status of amenity plots/public properties

Summary: The petitioner's counsel argued that the dismissal is without jurisdiction, illegal, discriminatory, and seeks to challenge the termination through a writ petition. They also raised issues regarding the disciplinary process and the violation of administrative instructions. The respondents' counsel, on the other hand, asserted that the NICVD's service regulations are non-statutory and that the petitioner's relationship with NICVD is that of "master and servant." The court considered the arguments and cites various legal precedents to establish its analysis. The court evaluated whether the NICVD can be considered a "person" and whether a writ petition can be maintained against it under Article 199 of the Constitution. The judgment discusses the distinction between statutory and non-statutory regulations and their implications for legal actions. Ultimately, the court finds that the petitioner's challenge does not provide sufficient grounds for intervention under constitutional jurisdiction. The court dismissed the petition, affirming the decision of NICVD to terminate the petitioner's services based on the charges brought against him.

Summary: We in the aforesaid circumstances hold that the recommendation of the respondent-university as well suggestion of Secretary Universities and Board to the competent authority for the appointment of Dean Faculty of Science in Karachi University as discussed supra was without lawful authority; and, we do not appreciate the conduct of the respondents in the manner they have dealt with the matter of appointment of the Dean Faculty of Science in Karachi University, in bypassing the senior professor working in grade 22 and got recommended the private respondents for the said position in violation of the principle of natural justice and seniority, which is a universal principle. It is well-settled law that if a civil/public servant is appointed in violation of any provision of law, the competent authority can look into the matter---Coming to the next point that interest of the petitioner is also being agitated in the petition, suffice it to say when we have found that every action of the respondents dubious to propose the competent authority, the names of the shortlisted candidates, in a cursory manner, thus prima facie the competent authority was not properly appraised on the subject issue, therefore, the matter needs to be looked into by the competent authority afresh, keeping in view the seniority-cum merit principle as law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court on the subject and take a fresh decision to appoint Dean of Faculty of Science of respondent-university.

Summary: [Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (Section 15 (Personal Bonafide Need) )] -Section 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979requires demonstration of elements such as (i) honesty of purpose and (ii) reasonableness. From the statement of landlord/owner for the purpose of eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need only an honest intention is to be deduced and there is no other formula to adjudge good and bad faith, for the purpose of eviction on the aforesaid count. If the Court on the scrutiny of the evidence comes to the conclusion that it was an honest intention then it would be immaterial whether he remained successful in achieving the object or not that is whether his son or daughter would join him in the business after completing their education. This requirement would be immaterial in the sense that the intention of the father in evicting the tenant was an honest one.Good faith is an abstract term not capable of any rigid definition and ordinary dictionary meaning describes it as "honesty of intention".-The primary requirement and condition precedent for invoking provision of Section 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 claiming relief on the ground of personal bonafide need of landlord in good faith is that the landlord should be honest in his approach and sincerity of his purpose should be manifested by irreversible evidence and surrounding circumstances.- Sufficiency of accommodation either for a commercial/industrial activity or for residential purpose is to be adjudged best by the landlord himself and it may vary not only on case to case basis but also on the basis of nature of business that one intends to establish an honest idea about future growth of the business and its prospects. Someone may have an idea of establishing humongous business set up and he may or may not be successful in achieving his object and plan but what is 9important, as a test, is the honesty of intention and there is nothing on record in the shape of cross-examination of the landlord/owner to demonstrate that it was not an honest and genuine intention for extending and enhancing business for himself and for his family members.

Summary: [Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 25D)] the Valuation Ruling such as one dated10.07.2008 is not applicable as the valuation is to be issued on the basisof data of 90 days, either before or after, import in terms of Rule 107(A)of Customs Rules 2001. It has not been disclosed as to what the exactdates of the clearance of the goods are however subsequent valuationrulings, as reviewed, are of 15.07.2009 and 27.04.2010 respectively. Inthe absence of a clear date of clearance of the goods, the applicabilityof Valuation Ruling of 15.07.2009 and 27.04.2010 would be farfetched.Subsection 4 to Section 25A of Customs Act, 1969 was amended byFinance Act 2010 and assented on 30.06.2010 which was subsequent tothe last ruling relied upon, hence by the time goods were cleared theregime of availability of 90% data, pre or post, was applicable as theapplicability of last issued Valuation Ruling was introduced after30.06.2010. Even the show-cause notice is silent as to the date ofclearance of the goods.

Summary: [Stamps Act, 1899 (Sections 27), Stamps Act, 1899 (Sections 57), Stamps Act, 1899 (Sections 56)] The Court had itself observed thatthe valuation done by the family Court was for a particular purpose andsince it was not a decree of a Court the valuation so carried out was notbinding. And then the Court went on to observe that even if there is adecree of the Court, the stamp duty would be payable as per ValuationTable. Though on facts the said judgment is not relevant; nonetheless,since it has been cited before this Full Bench, therefore, we arecompelled to hold that we do not approve such observations made bythe Division Bench in the aforesaid paragraph. Had it been inperformance of decree, an instrument is being registered, it ought to beon the basis of value determined in the decree and/or agreemententered into for which performance is to be made in terms of Courtdecree. In such situation there was no occasion for altering/undervaluingthe property to avoid stamp duty as the value is already determined byCourt of law or decree. It is only in case when the property has changedits status lawfully i.e. from a built-up property to an open plot or from asemi-constructed property to a fully constructed property, the value ofthe property may be altered in instrument sought to be registered. Thus,when the property sold out on the basis of a decree, which decree hasvalued the property in question, then the right of valuing the propertydoes not rest with the vendor and vendee and/or the concernedauthority. H

Summary: In this judgment, the court addressed the issue of whether notices and arrest warrants issued by the Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) for recovery of dues can be enforced against the ex-directors of a company. The petitioners argued that the coercive measures were initiated against them for the recovery of dues from the company, even though they had no direct involvement in the company's operations during the period in question. The court considered the jurisdiction of the court to entertain the petitions and examines whether the notices and arrest warrants were issued within jurisdiction and in accordance with the law. The court also discussed the applicability of Section 316 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (repealed), which required permission from the court to initiate legal proceedings against a company under certain circumstances, such as when a winding-up order or provisional manager had been appointed. The court concluded that the notices and arrest warrants issued against the ex-directors were without jurisdiction and lacked legal basis. The court sets aside the notices and warrants, emphasizing that this decision does not prejudice the rights of the respondents to pursue recovery of their dues against the company or other responsible parties.

Summary: [PROPERTY (Housing Scheme)] If a Housing Scheme is announced by Defendant No.3, primarily, for Military Personnel, then either there should be a complete embargo on transferring of land to the civilians, or, if the same embargo is not in place and civilians / citizens can purchase in a housing scheme launched by Defendant No.3, then the policy and formalities of Defendant No.3 should be equitable and fair and no one should be discriminated against. It is understandable that there are security issues, for which NOC and other formalities are to be completed, but the security concern cannot be allowed to be misused, or, under the garb of security issue, rights of citizens cannot be compromised. Proprietary rights are guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; inter alia, in terms of Article 24.Pleadings_Admission made in Written Statement (on oath) does not need further proof.Executive Action_Executive actions based on the premise of national security are justiciable on the basis of Rationale Basis Test.Sale NOC_Non issuance of sale NOC by the Army Housing Directorate, violates Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Thus, requirement of NOC cannot be given that degree of importance or significance, that it can be allowed to impinge upon a statutory and fundamental right of ownership of a citizen, who is a lawful and bona fide transferee of a property, situated in a Housing Scheme of Official Defendants.