Summary: Petitioner was not appointed as Constable as he had failed in interview despite having stood first in the written examination. Award of marks by the interview committee could not be called in question without establishing mala fide, which had not been pointed out, hence, petitioner was not entitled to any relief.

Summary: Market Value of immovable property cannot be presumed as Income Tax under Entry 47 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Section 7E of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 is read down to save taxation on Capital Value of Assets. Exclusion of persons from chargeability of tax under Section 7E is held discriminatory, therefore, ultra vires.

Summary: Before embarking upon or delving into the matter in issue, it would be pertinent to point out some of the pivotal admitted facts, which are very relevant for the resolution of controversy. Land in question was acquired in terms of award dated 25.05.1966 for the extension of Jet Airport under the "Ordinance, 1960". From the bare reading of the provisions of "Ordinance, 1960", it clearly manifests that it contains an independent mechanism for the acquisition and the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894 or the rules framed thereunder are alien to the scheme provided therein. Even if we assume that after vesting of the land in the Civil Aviation Authority by virtue of the "Ordinance, 1982", the provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894 as well as rules framed thereunder would come into play in terms of Section 5(8) of the said "Ordinance". There is yet another important` aspect, the "respondents" while filing constitutional petition did not implead the Province of Punjab in the array of respondents in oblivious of Article 174 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, which itself goes to the root of their case. There can be no cavil that every citizen has a right to acquire, hold and dispose of property in any part of Pakistan and no person can be deprived of his property, except in accordance with law as these rights are guaranteed by the Constitution in terms of Articles 23 and 24, but right to property is neither unbridled nor unlimited, but it is always subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. Article 173 of the Constitution empowers the Federal Government as well as the Provincial Government to acquire property and for the said purpose certain laws have also been framed.

Summary: Land Acquisition Act,1894 (Limitation)---The appellant subsequently filed an application for restoration, which was also dismissed, leading to the current appeal. The appellant contends that the delay should be excused due to the involvement of the government and the substantial rights at stake. However, the court cites precedent cases and principles that emphasize equal treatment of public entities in matters of delay and concludes that the appeal is hopelessly barred by time. The court further discusses the relevance of the Land Acquisition Act, CPC, and related regulations to the appeal process, ultimately concluding that the appeal should have been filed under a specific rule of the CPC. Since the appeal was not filed within the prescribed time limit and no application for condonation of the delay was submitted, the court dismisses the appeal. The judgment sheet pertains to an appeal against the dismissal of an application under the Land Acquisition Act, focusing on the timeliness of the appeal, principles of equal treatment, and the relevant legal provisions. The appeal is ultimately dismissed due to being time-barred and not having a valid application for condonation of the delay.

Summary: SHC stated that ''the income tax department does not have the authority or jurisdiction to make ad hoc additions to the income of an assesseethough they do possess the authority under the law to make additions to the income of the appellant/assessee which in their opinion are either not in accordance with law or after giving valid and cogent reasons for the same''

Summary: Fixation of subsidized price of wheat for supply to mills or increasing the said price is within policy making domain of the Government, which cannot be ordinarily interfered by with High Court unless it was manifest that such policy decisions were the outcome of arbitrary exercise of power, mala fides, patently illegal or manifestly unreasonable.

Summary: The appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Section 302(b) P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Faisalabad------------There is delay in reporting the incident and lodging the FIR-----The complainant does not explain the reason for not lodging the report with the police of the incident of murder of his sister---------Delay in lodging the first information report often results in consultation and deliberation, which is a creature of an afterthought------------The prosecution witnesses were chance witnesses and the prosecution failed to establish that the chance witnesses informed the police about the incident----------There are contradictions between the statements of the witnesses of ocular account that who informed the police about the incident---------The FIR was recorded later after due deliberations and consultations and then ante-timed to give it the color of a promptly lodged FIR---------The prosecution did not explain the delay in conducting the postmortem examination---------In such eventuality it is not possible to uphold and sustain the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellant------------Resultantly, appeal is allowed.

Summary: [Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C (Dismissed.)] Plaint will not be returned, merely because immovable property is situate outside territorial jurisdiction, when the actual relief sought is for recovery of sale price and damages against wrongful act.

Summary: Bail Matters (Bail Granted On Role of Consistency 302, 324, 353, 395, 337-H(ii), 427, 120-B, 114, 147, 148, 149, PPC & 6/7 ATA)

Summary: Once the age relaxation order issued by the appointing authority was acted upon and the service contract period was completed, the vested right accrued and the regularization of service under the relevant Notification cannot be denied under the principle of locus poenitentiae.