Summary: ''The scope of jurisdiction of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) for appointment of Inspectors to investigate the affairs of Companies, under Section 256 & 257 of the Companies Act, 2017.'' ---- The petitioner, M/s Future Vision Advertising (Private) Limited, challenged a show cause notice issued by the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) under Section 257 of the Companies Act, 2017. The notice was based on allegations of illegal deposit-taking/investment activities in the guise of SMD (Visual LED Screens) marketing. Following the notice, the SECP appointed inspectors to investigate the petitioner's affairs, prompting the petitioner to seek judicial review. Issues: Whether the SECP could initiate an investigation and appoint inspectors without a complaint from shareholders or members of the company, based solely on information available on the company's website and other complaints. Whether the issuance of the show cause notice and the subsequent appointment of inspectors were within the legal powers granted to the SECP under Sections 256 and 257 of the Companies Act, 2017. Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that the SECP has the authority under Section 257(1)(b) of the Companies Act, 2017, to appoint inspectors to investigate a company's affairs based on information suggesting possible illegal activities, even without a direct complaint from shareholders or members. The Court found that the SECP acted within its legal boundaries by issuing the show cause notice based on available public information and complaints received, not limited to shareholders or company members. Outcome: The petition was dismissed, upholding the SECP's actions as lawful and within the statutory framework provided by the Companies Act, 2017. Citations/Precedents: TARIQ IQBAL MALIK Vs. Messrs MULTIPLIERZ GROUP PVT. LTD. and 4 others (2022 CLD 468): Cited by the petitioner, interpreted Sections 256 & 257 of the Act, emphasizing that complaints should originate from shareholders or members. Competition Commission of Pakistan and others Vs. Dalda Foods Limited, Karachi (2023 SCMR 1991): Cited by the petitioner, related to procedural fairness in regulatory investigations. Brothers Steel Ltd. and others Vs. Mian Mirajuddin and 15 others (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 320): Relevant to the scope of preliminary inquiries before appointing inspectors under corporate regulatory statutes.

Summary: This case involved two separate criminal appeals adjudicated jointly by a Division Bench of the Islamabad High Court. Both appeals originated from decisions made by the Islamabad Consumer Court concerning its jurisdiction and authority under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act, 1995, specifically relating to its ability to award general and special damages and litigation costs. The appeals challenged the Consumer Court's refusal to award damages beyond the direct costs related to the transactions in question. ---Issues: Does the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act empower the Consumer Court to award general and special damages, including litigation costs? Do the claims for damages by the appellants fit within the ambit of "unfair trade practices" under the Act? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Consumer Court under the Islamabad Consumer Protection Act is authorized to award compensation for any damages or losses suffered as a result of unfair trade practices, which includes general and special damages, as well as litigation costs. The term "any damage or loss" in Section 9(3) of the Act has a broad scope, encompassing all forms of damages that a consumer might suffer due to unfair trade practices. The necessity to seek separate legal recourse for different types of damages related to the same incident would lead to procedural multiplicity and hardship, which the Act aims to prevent. The appeals were allowed, and the judgments of the lower court were set aside. The matters were remanded to the Consumer Court for further proceedings in accordance with the findings regarding the Consumer Court’s broader compensatory powers. ----Citations/Precedents: Ashfaq Ahmed Khan v. PTCL [PLD 2016 Islamabad 112]: Previously followed by the Consumer Court, it limited the award of damages to actual losses and did not recognize general damages. Waqas and Brothers Enterprises (Private Limited) v. Messrs DHL Express and another [PLD 2021 Islamabad 333]: This case influenced the decision by establishing that damages could be granted by the Consumer Court. M/s Multiline Associates vs. Ardeshir Cowasjee [PLD 1995 SC 423]: Referenced by the Single Bench in referring the matter to a larger bench for authoritative interpretation. Lucknow Development Authority v. M.K. Gupta [AIR 1994 Supreme Court 787]: Discussed the significance of the word "any" in legal terms, emphasizing its broad amplitude. Noman Ahmed and others v. Capital Development Authority [PLD 2021 Islamabad 75]: Cited for the definition of compensation and damages. Mehr Ashraf v. Station House Officer [PLD 2022 Lahore 328]: Used to illustrate the purpose of compensation and damages in restoring a person to their pre-injury status. TCS (Private) Limited v. Mst. Haseena Begum [PLD 2022 Lahore 524]: Supported the recoverability of special and general damages under consumer protection legislation. Consumer Unity & Trust Society, Jaipur v. The Chairman & Managing Director, Bank of Baroda, Calcutta [(1995) 2 SCC 150]: Indian Supreme Court case that described 'loss' as a generic term. Muhammad Akram v. Mst. Farman Bi [PLD 1990 SC 28]: Supreme Court case discussing the nature of litigation costs.

Summary: Radiant Medical (Private) Limited challenged the recovery of taxes by the Inland Revenue Officer from the company's bank accounts at National Bank of Pakistan, Model Town Branch, Lahore, and Bank Al-Falah, Shadman Branch, Lahore. This recovery was based on a notice dated 31 May 2024, asserting authority under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The petitioner contends that this recovery was unlawful as it occurred while their appeal was pending, hence violating the statutory provisions that protect taxpayers from such recoveries during the appellate process. Issues: 1. Whether the recovery action under Section 140 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, was lawful while an appeal under Section 127 of the same Ordinance was still pending. 2. Whether the conditions stipulated under Section 140 for recovery during an ongoing appeal were met by the revenue authorities. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the recovery of taxes from the petitioner's bank accounts while an appeal was pending was unlawful. It was emphasized that according to Section 140(1) of the Ordinance, the Commissioner must not issue a notice for tax recovery if the taxpayer has filed an appeal and the appeal has not been decided, provided that 10% of the tax due has been paid. In this case, the petitioner was not asked to pay the 10% required, nor was there a valid stay order in place from the Commissioner (Appeals) due to the lapse of the previously granted stay. The court directed that the recovery exceeding 10% of the tax liability determined in the amended assessment order was without lawful authority. Consequently, the court ordered the respondents to reimburse the amount recovered from the petitioner's bank accounts, after deducting the 10% of the tax liability, within 20 days. ----Citations/Precedents: China Machinery Engineering Corporation, Pakistan Branch v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2024 PTD 242) Messrs Pak Saudi Fertilizers v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2002 PRTD 679) Z.N. Exporters (Pvt.) Ltd v. Collector of Sales Tax (2003 PTD 1746) Brothers Engineering (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Appellate Tribunal Sales Tax (2003 PRTD 1836) Messrs Islamabad Electric Supply Company Limited v. Additional Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (2024 PTD 30)

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Background: A revision application was filed by three applicants, collectively referred to as "Mangeh’s three sons," who claimed to have purchased 7 Jarebs of land from the plaintiff. The plaintiff, the owner of the disputed land ("Suit Land"), argued that the applicants had only been granted possession on a temporary contract (Muqqata). Upon the expiration of this agreement, the applicants refused to vacate the land. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, possession, and injunction. Both the trial court and the appellate court ruled in favor of the plaintiff. -----Issues: 1- Whether Mangeh’s three sons had valid ownership rights to the 7 Jarebs of the Suit Land. -----2- Whether the plaintiff, as a co-owner, could enter into a binding agreement without the consent of the other co-owners. -----3- Whether the private faisla (arbitration) and the alleged sale agreement were legally enforceable. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The courts concluded that the plaintiff held only a one-third share in the Suit Land. Without the consent of the other co-owners, any agreement to sell the entire property was invalid. The private faisla lacked enforceability as it was not signed by the plaintiff or witnessed, nor was the alleged sale agreement registered. The applicants, as defendants, failed to raise a counter-claim for specific performance or produce evidence to substantiate their claim to the land. Both the trial court and the appellate court found no jurisdictional error or material irregularity in the evidence or procedure, affirming the plaintiff's entitlement to peaceful and vacant possession of the land. The High Court dismissed the revision application, upholding the findings of the lower courts. -----Citations/Precedents: Judgment of the Senior Civil Judge Kandhkot in FC Suit No. 33/2020 (dated 21.09.2022). Judgment of the District Judge/MCAC Kashmore at Kandhkot in Civil Appeal No. 82/2022 (dated 01.02.2023). Legal principles under Section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Scope of Deemed Approval, Alteration and Regularisation under the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations , 2002 and the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979