Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Civil Revision, against Judgment & Decree

Summary: Petitioner is a BPS -19 Director of PIMS. He is aggrieved that his Junior was wrongly promoted before him to BPS -19. While challenging the Junior's degree and his promotion, seeks his consequential Ante -dated promotions.

Summary: Petitioner a contractor applied for tender so issued by CDA for horticulture on beautification of Bara Kahu bypass. Despite being lowest bidder, it has not not amended tender. Challenges bidding.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: This case involves a dispute between M/s Sprint Oil and Gas Services Pakistan FZC (the petitioner) and Oil and Gas Development Company Limited (OGDCL), concerning the reimbursement of sales tax paid by the petitioner for cementation works carried out for OGDCL under two contracts. The petitioner contended that OGDCL was liable to reimburse the sales tax under provincial laws, while OGDCL disputed this claim. ---Issues: Whether the Islamabad High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition filed by the petitioner.Whether the petitioner had exhausted other available remedies before invoking constitutional jurisdiction. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court held that the Islamabad High Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the petitioner's writ petition. It reasoned that provincial laws, particularly those related to sales tax, fall under the jurisdiction of the High Court of the respective province where they are enacted. Since the cementation works were not carried out in Islamabad and federal law interpretation was not required, the Islamabad High Court had no jurisdiction over the matter. Additionally, the Court noted that the petitioner had other adequate remedies available, such as arbitration or filing a suit, which should have been pursued before resorting to constitutional jurisdiction.The Court also emphasized that parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a court through agreement and highlighted the principle that jurisdiction is inherent to the court's authority. It refrained from delving into the merits of the case regarding the sales tax reimbursement, as it could impact the rights of the parties, leaving them free to litigate those issues separately. ---Citations/Precedents: Federal Government Employees Housing Foundation v Muhammad Akram AlizaiPetrosin Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. v Oil and Gas Company Ltd.Nasiruddin Ghori v Federation of PakistanPrinciple reiterated in Eden Builders Pvt. Ltd. Lahore v Muhammad Aslam---Quote:Only the High Court of the province which has enacted a provincial law can interpret it. A High Court?s jurisdiction under Article 199 may not be invoked when contracts have to be interpreted, nor when evidence is required to be recorded. In its writ jurisdiction a High Court also does not enter the realm of disputed facts.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -S. 42-Suit for declaration-Maintainability-Agreement to sell-Suit for declaration cannot be maintained nor can a declaration of title be given on the basis of an agreement to sell. (b) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -Ss. 27 (b), 42 & 54-Suit for declaration and injunction-Molding of relief-Agreement to sell-Specific performance-Subsequent purchaser-Respondent/plaintiff claimed to be owner in possession of suit property on the basis of agreement to sell executed in his favour-Both the Courts below decreed suit and appeal in favour of respondent/ plaintiff and against petitioners/defendants who were legal heirs of subsequent purchaser of suit property-Validity-Respondent/plaintiff was able to prove execution of agreement to sell, therefore, the suit should have been converted into suit for specific performance and relief could also be accordingly moulded-Agreement to sell was executed on 8-01-2010 and suit was brought by respondent/plaintiff on 17-05-2010, which was within prescribed period of limitation and there was no hindrance in converting form of suit from declaration to that of specific performance and molding the relief from a decree of declaration of title to one for specific performance of agreement to sell-Predecessor-in-interest of petitioners/defendants who was subsequent purchaser had sufficient notice of agreement to sell, which was earlier entered and executed between respondent/plaintiff by the owner of suit property-Such agreement could validly be executed against petitioners/ defendants-Mere fact of attestation of subsequent mutation could not be deemed sufficient to defeat agreement to sell-Petitioners/ defendants failed to point out any illegality or irregularity sufficient for setting aside judgments and decrees passed by two Courts below-High Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction modified judgments and decrees and converted the relief from declaration and perpetual injunction to one for specific performance of contract-Revision petition was allowed accordingly. Muhammad Yousaf v. Munawar Hussain 2000 SCMR 204 and Javed Iqbal v. Abdul Aziz and another PLD 2006 SC 66 ref.