Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Arbitration Act, 1940 (X of 1940)---- ----S. 34---Stay of proceedings pending arbitration---Scope and applicability---Disputes relating to rectification of company register, allegations of fraud, and fraudulent misrepresentation---Whether arbitrable---Petitioners challenged the fraudulent transfer of shareholding and sought rectification of the company register under the Companies Act, 2017---Respondents invoked an arbitration clause in an agreement dated 12.04.2020 and sought a stay of proceedings under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940---Held, that arbitration agreements generally do not oust the jurisdiction of the courts, and the right to arbitrate cannot be enforced by non-signatories to the arbitration clause except under exceptional circumstances---Disputes concerning rectification of company registers, corporate fraud, and mismanagement involve the rights of third parties and, therefore, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of company courts, making them non-arbitrable---Stay of proceedings under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is discretionary and not mandatory, especially where staying proceedings may cause a miscarriage of justice, delay, or increased litigation costs---Application for a stay was dismissed. Cited Cases: • M.A. Chowdhury v. Messrs Mitsui O.S.K. Lines Ltd. (PLD 1970 SC 373) • House Building Finance Corporation v. Shahinshah Humayun Cooperative House (1992 SCMR 19) • Messrs Eckhardt & Co, Marine GmbH v. Muhammad Hanif (PLD 1993 SC 42) • Karachi Dock Labour Board v. Messrs Quality Builders Ltd. (PLD 2016 SC 121) • Messrs Mastersons v. Messrs Ebrahim Enterprises (1988 CLC 1381) • Pakistan Real Estate Investment and Management Co. v. Sohail A. Khan (PLD 2018 Islamabad 115) • Eckhardt & Company v. Muhammad Hanif (PLD 1993 SC 42) • Pakistan International Airlines Corporation v. Messrs Pak Saaf Dry Cleaners (PLD 1981 SC 553) (b) Companies Act, 2017 (XIX of 2017)---- ----Ss. 126, 127, 257, 277, 278, 286, 301 & 304---Exclusive jurisdiction of company courts---Scope---Whether disputes concerning rectification of registers, oppression, mismanagement, or fraudulent transactions can be referred to arbitration---Petitioners challenged the fraudulent transfer of shares and sought an investigation into the affairs of the company, disqualification of certain directors, and prevention of further transfers---Held, that under the Companies Act, 2017, company courts are vested with exclusive jurisdiction over company-related disputes, including rectification of registers, oppression, and mismanagement---Matters concerning third-party rights, public interest, and factual controversies require court adjudication and cannot be subject to private arbitration---Company courts are empowered to frame issues, record evidence, and conduct trials, whereas arbitrators lack such jurisdiction---Petition for stay of proceedings on the basis of an arbitration clause was dismissed. Cited Cases: • Mian Javed Amir v. United Foam Industries (Pvt) Ltd (2016 SCMR 213) • Lt. Gen (Retd) Mahmud Ahmad Akhtar v. Allied Developers (Pvt) Ltd. (2022 CLD 718) (c) Contract Act, 1872 (IX of 1872)---- ----Ss. 19 & 23---Allegations of fraud and fraudulent misrepresentation---Effect on arbitration clause---Whether arbitration clause remains valid despite allegations of fraud in the main agreement---Petitioners contended that the agreement containing the arbitration clause was fraudulently executed and sought its annulment---Held, that an arbitration clause remains valid unless the contract is void ab initio under S. 23 of the Contract Act, 1872---Where allegations of fraud render a contract voidable under S. 19 of the Contract Act, 1872, the arbitration clause may still be enforced unless the court determines that the fraud allegations affect the arbitration agreement itself---However, where fraud allegations relate to corporate transactions involving statutory rights and third-party interests, such disputes are non-arbitrable and must be adjudicated by courts---Stay of proceedings was refused. Cited Cases: • Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov (2007 EWCA Civ 20) • Harbour Assurance Co. (UK) Ltd. v. Kansa General International Insurance Co. Ltd. [1992 1 LILR 81] • Fiona Trust & Holding Corporation v. Privalov [2008] 1 LI LR 254 Disposition: Application for stay of proceedings under S. 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, was dismissed as disputes involving rectification of registers, corporate fraud, and mismanagement fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the company court and are non-arbitrable.

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 406 -20 (Seeks direction against respondent to allow restoration of 50% commuted portion of their pension)

Summary: Bail granted----Background: Jurial Shah alias Jani Shah seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.16 of 2024, under Section 9(i) (3) (b) CNS (Amendment) Act, 2022, registered at P.S Kaloi. The applicant's initial bail request was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC, Tharparkar at Mithi. The case involves an incident where co-accused Gomando was found with 550 grams of charas and implicated the applicant as the supplier. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicant should be granted pre-arrest bail despite being implicated by the co-accused. 2- Whether the applicant's involvement based solely on the co-accused's statement is sufficient for denying bail. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The applicant was not present at the time of the incident, and no incriminating material was recovered from his possession. The co-accused's statement alone, which implicated the applicant, cannot be the sole basis for conviction as it violates Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order (Evidence Act), 1984. The co-accused, who was caught with the contraband, has already been granted bail by the trial court. The punishment for the alleged offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making bail a rule rather than an exception. The court concluded that the applicant's case requires further inquiry, and the statement of the co-accused made during police custody does not hold legal value for conviction. Therefore, the bail application was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 06-06-2024 was confirmed on the same terms and conditions. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380): The principle that each case should be decided on its own merits and prior criminal records should not influence bail decisions. Muhammad Tanveer vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733): The punishment for the offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making bail a rule rather than an exception.

Summary: Bail granted----Background: Anopo @ Anopchand seeks pre-arrest bail in Crime No.15 of 2024, registered at P.S Kaloi for the offense under sections 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The case involves an incident where the applicant allegedly fled from the scene while co-accused Raja was apprehended by the police with contraband. The applicant's initial bail request was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge-I/MCTC, Tharparkar at Mithi. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicant should be granted pre-arrest bail despite being implicated in the FIR. 2- Whether the applicant's alleged escape from the scene without any recovery from his possession is sufficient to deny bail. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The applicant was nominated in the FIR but no incriminating material was recovered from his possession. The allegation against the applicant is that he fled from the scene, and no contraband was recovered from him. The co-accused, from whom the contraband was recovered, has been granted bail by the trial court. The offense with which the applicant is charged carries a maximum punishment of three years, which does not fall under the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. The court concluded that the case against the applicant requires further inquiry. The allegation that the applicant fled from the scene is not sufficient to deny bail, especially when no incriminating material was recovered from him. Therefore, the bail application was allowed, and the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 06-06-2024 was confirmed on the same terms and conditions. ----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Ramzan vs. Zafarullah and another (1986 SCMR 1380): The principle that each case should be decided on its own merits and prior criminal records should not influence bail decisions. Muhammad Tanveer vs. The State (PLD 2017 SC 733): The punishment for the offense does not fall under the prohibitory clause of Section 497 Cr.P.C., making bail a rule rather than an exception. Manzoor Ali alias Mumtaz vs. The State (2001 P Cr. LJ 344) [Karachi]: Even if the prosecution proves its charge, the maximum punishment envisaged does not exceed three years.

Summary: The petitioners challenged the order of the learned Additional District Judge/Izafi Zilla Qazi Dir Lower at Chakdara, dated October 20, 2020. The contested order dismissed their civil revision against the Trial Court's decision, which allowed the application of the respondent, Mst. Saeeda Bibi, for her transposition from the panel of defendants to that of the plaintiffs. ----Issues: ---1)Whether the transposition of Mst. Saeeda Bibi from the panel of defendants to plaintiffs was justified. ----2)Whether the concurrent findings of both the lower courts involved any illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that the transposition of Mst. Saeeda Bibi was justified, as it aimed to avoid multiplicity of litigation and ensure complete adjudication of all questions involved in the dispute. The Court found no illegality, irregularity, or jurisdictional defect in the concurrent findings of the lower courts. The petitioners' contention that Mst. Saeeda Bibi could not resile from her earlier stance after submitting a written statement was negated by the Court. It was corroborated by her husband, Jehan Bahadar, and supported by her counsel, Mr. Razi Khan. The Court referenced several cases, emphasizing the broad and liberal interpretation of Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C., which allows for the transposition of parties to ensure justice and avoid multiple proceedings. The writ petition was dismissed, with no order as to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: Rukhsana Mashadi vs. Qasim (PLD 2002 Karachi 542): This case established that the transposition of parties is generally allowed liberally to avoid multiplicity of litigation and bring an end to the controversy before the Court. Central Government of Pakistan vs. Suleman Khan (PLD 1992 SC 590): The Supreme Court held that Order 1 Rule 10 C.P.C. is very wide in its scope, allowing for the liberal interpretation to achieve complete adjudication of all questions involved in the dispute. Mian Abdul Waheed vs. Mst. Amtul Hamid etc. (PLD 1962 (W.P) Lahore 114): This case supported the principle that the Court has the power to order transposition whenever the ends of justice require it. Saila Bala Dassi vs. Nirmala Sundari Dassi (AIR 1958 SC 394): The Supreme Court of India held that the court could order the transposition of parties in an appropriate case to ensure effective adjudication of the matter in controversy. ----Conclusion: The Peshawar High Court dismissed the writ petition filed by Anwar Ali and others, upholding the concurrent findings of the lower courts and affirming the transposition of Mst. Saeeda Bibi from the panel of defendants to that of the plaintiffs. The Court found no merit in the petitioners' arguments and ensured that the principles of justice and avoidance of multiplicity of litigation were upheld. Quote: ''No doubt the plaintiff is dominus litus and master of his suit. He files his suit against the person against whom he has some sort of claim, and he cannot be urged to add a person as defendant if he does not wish to do so. The court will unceasingly consider the wishes of the plaintiff before adding a third person as a defendant in the suit. However, if the court finds that addition of the new defendant is absolutely essential and cannot be avoided to enable it to adjudicate effectively and completely the matter in controversy between the parties, will it add a person as a defendant even without the consent of the plaintiff. The principle of dominus litus cannot be overstretched in the matter of impleading or transposition of parties, because it is the duty of the court to ensure that for deciding the real matter in dispute if a person is a necessary party, the court can direct the addition, striking or even the transposition of the parties from the plaintiff to defendant or defendant or plaintiff vice versa depending upon the facts of the case.''

Summary: Sentence reduced --- Background: The case involves the appellant, Gulraiz Shahzad, who was convicted for the murder of his brother, Muhammad Waqas Ali, under Section 302(b) PPC and sentenced to death by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ferozewala. The case, F.I.R. No. 1087/2019, was registered at P.S. Factory Area, District Sheikhupura. The trial court also directed Gulraiz to pay compensation to the legal heirs of the deceased. Gulraiz Shahzad filed an appeal against his conviction and sentence, while the trial court forwarded the case for confirmation of the death sentence. ----Issues: 1)Whether the prosecution has proved beyond a reasonable doubt that Gulraiz Shahzad committed the murder of Muhammad Waqas Ali. ---2)Whether the death sentence awarded to Gulraiz Shahzad is appropriate under the circumstances or if mitigating factors warrant a lesser sentence. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Proof of Guilt: The court reviewed the evidence, including eyewitness accounts, medical reports, and the sequence of events following the incident. The evidence clearly established that Gulraiz Shahzad murdered Muhammad Waqas Ali by inflicting a fatal knife wound on his neck. The testimony of Sidra Bibi (PW-4), the complainant, was consistent and corroborated by the medical examination conducted by Dr. Ijaz Ahmad (PW-2). ----Mitigating Factors: The court considered several mitigating factors, including the failure to send the knife for forensic analysis and the lack of clarity on the immediate cause of the quarrel leading to the murder. These factors led the court to conclude that the death sentence was excessively harsh. Sentence Reduction: The court decided to convert the death sentence into life imprisonment, providing the benefit of the doubt as an extenuating circumstance. The compensation amount and the sentence for non-payment of the compensation were upheld. ---Outcome: The appeal (Crl. Appeal No.69125-J of 2020) by Gulraiz Shahzad was dismissed. However, his death sentence was converted to life imprisonment. The court extended the benefit of Section 382(b) of Cr.P.C. to the appellant, meaning the time he has already served will be considered part of his sentence. The compensation amount and the sentence for non-payment of the compensation imposed by the trial court were upheld. The murder reference (Murder Reference No.03 of 2021) for confirmation of the death sentence was answered in the negative, thus not confirming the death sentence. ----Citations/Precedents: Dilawar Hussain v. The State (2013 SCMR 1582)

Summary: Bail granted----Background: The case involves a revision application filed by the applicants all by caste Pahore. They were booked under Crime No. 34/2022 registered at P.S Sindhri for offenses punishable under sections 365-B, 34 PPC read with sections 3 and 4 of the Sindh Child Marriage Restrained Act, 2013. After a full trial, they were convicted by the Civil Judge and J.M-III, Mirpurkhas, and sentenced to 2 years imprisonment with a fine of Rs.10,000 each. The applicants then filed a Criminal Appeal No. 03/2024 before the Court of Sessions Judge, Mirpurkhas, which was assigned to the Additional Sessions Judge-I, Mirpurkhas. Their application under section 426 Cr.P.C for bail during the pendency of the appeal was declined, leading to the instant revision application. ----Issues: 1- Whether the applicants should be granted bail during the pendency of their appeal. 2- Whether the impugned order dated 11-06-2024, which declined their application under section 426 Cr.P.C, should be set aside. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court considered that the sentence awarded to the applicants is of short duration (2 years), and the appeal filed by the applicants is still pending adjudication before the appellate court. Given the quantum of the sentence and the nature of the offenses, the court found merit in the revision application. Consequently, the revision application was allowed, the impugned order dated 11-06-2024 was set aside, and the applicants were admitted to bail during the pendency of the appeal. They were to be released on bail subject to furnishing one solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000 each and a P.R. Bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the appellate court. ----Citations/Precedents: Sections 365-B, 34 PPC Sections 3 and 4 of the Sindh Child Marriage Restrained Act, 2013 Criminal Appeal No. 03/2024 Section 426 Cr.P.C

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending