Summary: Effect of the judgment in Workers' Welfare Funds, M/O Human Resources Development, Islamabad v. East Pakistan Chrome Tannery (Pvt.) Ltd. (PLD 2017 SC 28) is that Fund cannot be equated with tax, therefore, not adjustable against tax refund. Nevertheless, the judgment cannot be applied retrospectively to recover WWF, allowed to be adjusted by FBR, bonafidely, at relevant time, under relevant provisions.

Summary: [Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979] In order to avail a remedy under section 14 of the SRPO, 1979 the applicant/landlord is required to establish his personal need. In that case there would be no distinction left between section 14 and 15(2)(vii) of the SRPO, 1979 and the object of scheme and the purpose for which it was provided would be frustrated. The provisions of Section 14 is meant for a particular class of a landlord and hence the burden of establishing bona fide requirement or even a requirement was lifted. Section 14 has its own barrier and it is not an un-probed provision. Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the SRPO provides that nothing in this subsection shall apply where the landlord has rented out a building after he has retired or attained the age of 60 years or, as the case may be, i.e. landlord has become widow or orphan.

Summary: CNS Act, 1997 ((No legal bar or restriction to consider statement of official witnesses))---No direct enmity or ill will has been suggested by the appellant against the complainant or any of the officials who participated in recovery proceedings during cross examination and therefore in the circumstances the police officials were good witnesses and could be relied upon if their testimony remained un-shattered during their cross-examination.

Summary: Murder Trial (Discrepancies in evidence of prosecution case)

Summary: Arbitration Act (X of 1940)---Contract Act ----S. 20---Notification SRO No. 932(I)/2012 dated 01-08-2012---Recovery of money---Transit Trade---Arbitration, agreement---Court, jurisdiction of---Effect---Plaintiff sought recovery of amount from defendant company which was operating from Tajikistan on basis of agreement between parties---Plaintiff also impleaded another person who was carrying on business in Afghanistan---Validity---Agreement, on basis of which suit was filed, stipulated an arbitration clause which fact was suppressed by plaintiff while obtaining ex-parte interim orders---Property in transit was perishable item and in terms of Notification SRO No. 932(I)/2012 dated 01-08-2012 jurisdiction of transit trade authorities was not extended to Tajikistan since no agreement existed between Pakistan and Tajikistan---High Court recalled interim order as court had no jurisdiction in terms of arbitration clause and prima facie it was a case of hardship to defendant with whom plaintiff had no direct privity of contract---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. ACT Airlines INC 2011 CLC 714 ref.

Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the amendment to Section 236D of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, introduced through the Finance Act, 2018. This amendment imposed a minimum advance tax of Rs. 20,000 on individuals receiving services or holding functions at marriage halls, irrespective of their income tax filing obligations. Petitioners argued that the advance tax was confiscatory, especially for small-scale businesses and individuals not required to file income tax returns. Additionally, a widow in a connected petition challenged the imposition of income tax on mobile services, as her income was below the taxable limit. -----Issues: 1- Whether the imposition of advance tax on individuals not required to file income tax returns is constitutional. -----2- Whether the procedure for collecting advance tax from service providers, like marriage halls, is reasonable and executable. -----3- Whether the advance tax collection under Section 236D disproportionately affects small-scale businesses and individuals. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Impracticality of Procedure: The court found that the procedure, particularly the requirement for service providers to verify if individuals are on the active taxpayers' list and the burden to wait for the Commissioner’s response for up to 30 days, was impracticable and imposed an unreasonable burden. The court ruled that the procedure under Rule 2 of the Tenth Schedule was void due to its unreasonable demands on businesses. --Confiscatory and Expropriatory Nature of the Tax: The court held that the imposition of an advance tax on individuals who are not liable to pay income tax or file returns is unconstitutional. Such taxation, without adjustment against any income tax liability, was deemed confiscatory and expropriatory, violating fundamental rights under the Constitution. --Distinction Between Taxpayers and Non-Taxpayers: The court emphasized that individuals not liable to pay income tax, such as the widow drawing a pension, should not be subject to advance tax on services like mobile phone usage. The court referenced previous judgments and international principles, highlighting that expropriatory taxation is unconstitutional when it deprives citizens of their property without compensation. The court declared the collection of unadjustable advance tax from individuals not liable to pay income tax or file returns as unconstitutional and without lawful authority. It referred the matter to the Attorney General and Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) for suitable amendments to the tax law within 90 days. Until then, the interim relief granted to the petitioners would continue. -----Citations/Precedents: Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1997 Supreme Court 582): Discussed the limits of taxation powers under the Constitution. Rai Ramkrishna v. State of Bihar (AIR 1963 SC 1667): Declared confiscatory taxation unconstitutional. Manattillath Krishnan Thangal v. The State of Kerala (AIR 1971 Ker 65): Discussed expropriatory taxation as unconstitutional under Indian law. Human Rights Case No. 18877 of 2018 (PLD 2019 SC 645): Addressed indiscriminate taxation on cellular services. The court concluded that the imposition of unadjustable advance tax violates constitutional protections, referring the matter for legislative amendment.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, father of respondent No. 2, challenged the decision of the Family Court, which partially decreed the recovery of marriage expenses for respondent No. 2, his daughter, in the amount of Rs. 150,000. Upon appeal, the Additional District Judge modified the decree and reduced the amount to Rs. 100,000. The petitioner argued that he regularly paid maintenance for his daughter and was not obligated to cover her marriage expenses. The petitioner sought the court's intervention to nullify these decrees under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Whether a Muslim father is obligated to cover marriage expenses for his unmarried daughter in addition to regular maintenance. ----2- Whether the father's obligation includes all necessary expenses related to the marriage. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Father’s Obligation: The court held that a father’s obligation to maintain his daughter includes covering her reasonable marriage expenses. The court referred to various Islamic legal principles and case law, stating that a father must ensure his unmarried daughter’s well-being and facilitate her marriage. The petitioner’s claim that his financial responsibility ended with the payment of regular maintenance was dismissed. --Financial Status of the Petitioner: The petitioner had five other daughters from a previous marriage, for whom he bore marriage expenses without issue. The court found no legitimate reason for the petitioner to refuse paying the marriage expenses for respondent No. 2. The petitioner's refusal was viewed as discriminatory, particularly given the respondent lived with her divorced mother. The court found the amount decreed by the appellate court (Rs. 100,000) to be reasonable and appropriate given the petitioner’s financial status. The petition was dismissed in limine, without merit. ------Citations/Precedents: The court referred to the following Islamic law principles and case law to support its judgment: Muhammadan Law, Para 369 & 370: Father's obligation to maintain his daughter until her marriage. Ismayil Vs. Fathima [2011 (3) KHC 825]: Clarifies the father's obligation to meet his daughter's marriage expenses. Constitution of Pakistan, Article 35: Protection of family, mother, and child. The court upheld these principles, asserting that the father’s responsibility includes bearing marriage expenses in line with social norms and financial status.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the legality of an order issued by the Additional Inspector General of Police, Special Branch, Punjab, which rejected his representation for appointment as a Supervisor (BS-14) in the Technical Cadre of the Special Branch, Punjab Police. The petitioner was initially appointed as an Operator (BS-5) on a contract basis, which was extended periodically until April 2017. In October 2015, the Punjab Public Service Commission (PPSC) advertised the posts of Supervisor (BS-14), and the petitioner was declared successful in September 2019. However, his appointment letter was withheld due to his involvement in a criminal case, which was resolved through a compromise. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner's involvement in a criminal case disqualifies him from being appointed as a Supervisor in the Technical Cadre of the Special Branch, Punjab Police. 2- Whether the recommendations by the Punjab Public Service Commission obligate the respondent-department to appoint the petitioner despite his criminal record. 3- Whether the respondent-department acted within its jurisdiction in withholding the petitioner's appointment based on his conduct and criminal history. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court dismissed the writ petition, finding that the petitioner was involved in serious criminal activities and had multiple complaints regarding his conduct. The court reasoned that the petitioner's acquittal based on a compromise did not clear his character for the purposes of appointment in the police department, which requires a high standard of integrity and an unblemished record. The court held that the petitioner failed to meet the eligibility criteria as outlined in the relevant rules and notifications governing police appointments. The appointment recommendations by the PPSC were subject to conditions, and the respondent-department was not obligated to appoint the petitioner given his criminal background and conduct issues. The decision emphasized the necessity for transparency, integrity, and adherence to legal and ethical standards in police appointments. ----Citations/Precedents: The Regional Police Officer, Faisalabad vs. Jabir Ali (Supreme Court of Pakistan) Abdul Manan vs. Provincial Police Officer (2017 PLC (C.S.) 862) Judgment dated 12.10.2017 by a Division Bench of the Lahore High Court in I.C.A. No.86949/2017

Summary: Where the plaintiff came to the Court with a specific stance regarding alleged fraud pertaining to registration of the General Power of Attorney ('the GPA') and subsequent registered sale based on the GPA, she was obligated to prove the case independently and cannot bank upon the weakness of the statement of the defendants. The plaintiff took the plea that she is an elderly and simple lady entitled to protection that law envisages for a pardanashin lady, however, such a plea was required to be proved through some cogent reasons and is not to be used as a weapon in a law suit. In the instant case, it sounds quite unbelievable and defies common sense and logic that a lady who is well settled in Europe for the last 40 years and managing the suit property on her own, prior to execution of the GPA, by frequently travelling back to Pakistan for this purpose, and signing the documents in English, would be too naive to not even ask for the contents of a document (the GPA) to be read over to her that admittedly pertains to the suit property and will not make an enquiry into state of affairs regarding the suit property particularly when, as per her own contentions, the purpose for which the GPA was given, had been completed. Therefore, the GPA executed by the plaintiff carries a presumption of truth attached to it in terms of Section 60(2) of the Registration Act, 1908, which is extension of mandate as provided under Article 129 (e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 that official acts are presumed to have been performed in a regular and legitimate manner and, therefore, the defendants, who purchased the suit property under the GPA, acquired a valid title and the findings of the learned Courts below were not in accordance with law. Civil Revision allowed.

Summary: The petitioners referenced several legal precedents to fortify their arguments against the directives issued by the Privatization Commission. Notably, they cited cases such as "Mst. Surraya Begum and others Vs. Mst. Sunhan Begum (1992 SCMR 1652)," "Watan Party Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2006 SC 697)," "Khalid Mehmood Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2003 Lahore 629)," and "Bashir Ahmed Solangi v. Chief Secretary Government of Sindh and others (2004 SCMR 1864)". These precedents were invoked to emphasize various legal points such as the protection of vested rights, the importance of procedural fairness, and the need for proper authorization in government actions. By drawing on established legal cases, the petitioners aimed to demonstrate the unlawfulness and constitutional violations inherent in the directives issued by the Privatization Commission. Each precedent likely contributed to the petitioners' overarching argument, underscoring their position that the Trust's creation and the entitlements of its beneficiaries were legally protected and enforceable. Through these references, the petitioners sought to establish a solid legal foundation for their challenge against the directives, highlighting the significance of precedent in shaping legal interpretations and outcomes.