Summary: ----S. 114 & O. XLVII, R. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.14---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3---Intra Court Appeal---Review---Doctrine of election---Applicability---Plea of wrong forum---Extending of period of limitation---Scope---Appellants were aggrieved of dismissal of their application filed under O. XLVII, R. 1, C.P.C. seeking review of basic order---Appellants assailed the order passed in review and also the basic order to be reviewed---Held, that principles of doctrine of election denote that election to commence and follow available course, from concurrent avenues, vests with suitor---Once an option is exercised then the suitor is precluded from re-agitating the same lis in other realms of competent jurisdiction---Appeal, to the extent of order against which review was sought was time barred and could not be maintained---Period spent in pursuing review was not liable to be excluded while reckoning period of limitation for assailing basic or original order as in essence the intent was to call in question the correctness and validity of initial order of which the review was sought which had attained finality creating valuable rights in favor of the other party which could not be disturbed so lightly---Appeal against order refusing a review was in fact seeking vacation of previous order which by efflux of time had become final, whereas, refusal to review could not give a fresh period of limitation---Not availing remedy of appeal as provided under law against a basic order and instead prosecuting a review before same Court, did not allow appellants to benefit from S. 14 of Limitation Act, 1908 as the time spent could not be excluded in computing period of limitation---Appellant only intended to drag the matter; whereas, offer of respondent already stood accepted way back in year, 2021 and appellant intended to avail benefit of increase in price---High Court declined to interfere in basic order as well as order dismissing review---Intra Court Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. Dewan Sugar Mills Limited PLD 2018 SC 828; Collector of Sales Tax v. Customs Appellate Tribunal 2008 SCMR 435; Ghulam Hussain v. Kanwar Ashiq Ali Khan PLD 1980 SC 198; Mumtaz Baig v. Jamal Din 2009 SCMR 1364; Ghulam Nabi v Rashid PLD 2000 SC 63; Mahadeolal Jalan v. Messrs Hardeodas Iswardas AIR 1992 Gauhati 78; Madan Mohanji Maharaj v. Sunder Lal AIR 1953 All. 554; Ram Lal v. Ratan Lal ILR 26 Allahabad 572; Shanker Motiram v. Shiolalsing Gannusing Rajput (1994) 2 SCC 753; Lahore Development Authority v. Fahmeeda Khatoon 1986 SCMR 1478; The Military Estate Officer v. Ardeshir Cowasjee 2017 MLD 22; Ahmed Ali v. Noor Muhammad 1987 CLC 1575 and Muhammad Din v. Ilahi Noor PLD 1975 Lah. 1393 rel. Muhammad Zubair Hashmi for Appellant No. 1. Adeel Mahmood Shah for Appellant No. 2. Mansoor-ul-Arfin for Respondent No. 1. Date of hearing: 8th November, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Protection against Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010 ----Ss. 8(3) & 2(h)---Procedure of inquiry---Admissibility of fresh affidavit upon remand---Scope of Ombudsperson’s discretion---When a matter is remanded for re-hearing limited to one accused, the Ombudsperson is empowered under s. 8(3) to regulate proceedings and receive any evidence deemed proper---Fresh affidavit by complainant admissible in de novo inquiry even if a prior affidavit existed in proceedings against co-accused tried earlier---Such affidavit constitutes relevant evidence detailing allegations against the present accused. (b) Procedural delay and mala fide objections ----Principles of good faith in quasi-judicial proceedings---Where accused had knowledge of complainant’s affidavit since 28-03-2023 and raised no objection before the Forum or in representation before the President, a subsequent challenge months later is considered dilatory and lacking bona fides---Held, raising belated objections amounts to abuse of process and an attempt to delay adjudication. (c) Effect of Presidential order under the Act ----Representation before President of Pakistan---Remand scope---Once the President affirms that the complainant’s affidavit formed part of the evidence and directs decision afresh, the Ombudsperson must proceed accordingly---Held, President’s observations confirm admissibility of the affidavit and finality of previous procedural determinations. (d) Conduct of accused and right of cross-examination ----Natural justice---Right must be exercised bona fide and within prescribed time---Accused repeatedly failed to cross-examine despite multiple opportunities; delay tactics cannot defeat the complainant’s right to expeditious disposal under the Act---Ombudsperson justified in fixing final date and warning of closure of right of cross-examination. (e) Powers of Ombudsperson ----S. 8(3)---The Ombudsperson has wide procedural powers to conduct inquiry “in such manner as deemed proper,” provided both parties are heard and fairness maintained---Held, discretion properly exercised; no illegality in permitting second affidavit or fixing peremptory date for cross-examination. (g) Disposition — Objection of accused to second affidavit overruled. Affidavit held admissible and part of record. Accused directed to complete cross-examination on 20-11-2023, failing which his right shall stand closed. Matter to proceed to final adjudication without further delay.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: The Chief Justice, or a Judge of the Supreme Court, when sitting alone in Chamber, can only pass orders as envisaged in the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. ---- The Court examined the actions taken by the former Chief Justice, Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, in response to serious allegations made by Mrs. Zahida Javaid Aslam against Mr. Moeez Ahmed Khan. The Chief Justice had summoned both parties for a hearing in his Chamber, and additional actions were taken by law enforcement agencies.During the hearing, concerns were raised about whether the Chief Justice, in Chamber, had the authority under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to summon parties. Senior counsel, including the Additional Attorney-General for Pakistan, argued that the Chief Justice's powers in Chamber are limited by the Rules and do not extend to summoning parties, directing case registration, or ordering investigations.The Court determined that the Chief Justice or any Judge in Chamber cannot pass orders beyond what is provided in the Rules. The proceedings initiated by the former Chief Justice were deemed not legal, and of no legal effect. The Human Rights Cell can only consider complaints meeting the criteria of Article 184(3) and must submit them to the Chief Justice for consideration in open Court. However, with the promulgation of the Supreme Court (Practice and Procedure) Act, 2023, even the Chief Justice's power in this regard has been limited.The judgment emphasized that the Human Rights Cell, established in 2005, lacks a legal foundation, and its proceedings, orders, and letters issued in the name of the Court may create a wrongful impression of being judicial. The Court declared any actions taken by the Chief Justice or the Director General in the name of the Cell, including summonses, orders, directions, and letters, as illegal and ultra vires the Constitution. The Registrar was directed to restrain the Cell from undertaking any activities without legal backing.Justice Athar Minallah, in his separate opinion, concurred with the conclusion but added that the Human Rights Cell, lacking legal jurisdiction, should be restrained from conducting any activities or issuing summons, orders, directions, and letters without legal backing.

Summary: Bail granted --- (1) In rape cases, administration of DNA test (Deoxyribonucleic acid) and preservation of DNA evidence is mandatory. (2) Further inquiry refers to a notional assessment creating doubts regarding the involvement of accused (3) Reasonable grounds are the grounds attracted to the judicial mind which are not imaginative or presumptuous ---- Facts: The case involves abduction allegations under Section 365-B of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 -- Petitioners, alleged to have abducted Iqra Bibi for rape --- Ahmar Ali, the real brother of Iqra Bibi, implicated later based on her statement under Section 164 of Cr.P.C.Petitioners argue a consensual marriage between Salman Mushtaq and Iqra Bibi, supported by registration and documentation --- Allegations of mala fide intention, blackmail, and lack of medical evidence raised by the petitioner --- Court emphasizes the need for a tentative assessment to determine reasonable grounds for the accused's involvement.Observes doubts in the veracity of the prosecution case and the need for further inquiry.Highlights the importance of medical examination in rape cases, citing negligence by the prosecution.Grants pre-arrest and post-arrest bail, subject to conditions, considering the absence of reasonable grounds for the accused's involvement.