Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The appellant relied on the assertion that the service of notices was not effectively established and that the application for leave to defend, was within the limitation period, benefiting from the extension under section 4 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The respondent Financial Institution filed a suit seeking recovery of Rs.165,146,610/- for default in contractual obligations. The dispute primarily centers around the service of notices and the subsequent ex-parte judgment. The appellant argues that the application for leave to defend was timely, while the respondent claims it was beyond the prescribed time. The court observed discrepancies in the service of notices, particularly through courier 'TCS.' The order for repeating service, is challenged, but the court asserted that the respondent did not object at that time, suggesting acquiescence. The court relied on the precedent set in the case of Ikramullah vs Said Jamal (1980 SCMR 375), emphasizing that the court's act, even if termed as 'inadvertent error,' should not prejudice the appellant's right to defend. Additionally, the court relied on the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 10 of the Ordinance, extending the benefit to the appellant and allowing the application for leave to defend to be considered. The court rejected the finding that the application was beyond the limitation period and sets aside the ex-parte judgment, directing the case to be adjudicated on its merits. The appeal was allowed.

Summary: ----Ss. 279, 280, 281 & 282--- Competition (Merger Control) Regulations, 2016, Regln. 5---Powers of Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) to facilitatereconstruction or amalgamation of companies--- Transactions exempted---Scope---Petitione

Summary: Civil service-------Contract of employment, cancellation of---Scope---Petitioner assailed termination of hiscontract of employment---Stance of department was that work and conduct of petitioner hadremained unsatisfactory and his contract was terminated on the basis of unsatisfactoryperformance; that an explanation notice was served upon him but instead of giving reply, healong with others manhandled with the officer and injured some other officials, violateddiscipline and created harassment and terrorism in the office premises; that the incident wasordered to be probed/investigated and that on the recommendations of the inquiry committee,guilty persons were recommended to be dealt with under the rules---Validity---Petitioner wasterminated on the recommendations of the inquiry committee by invoking relevant clause ofthe letter of appointment---Petitioner at the time of joining had accepted all the terms andconditions of his contract employment and could not resile from the same and it was alsoestablished from the record that his performance had remained unsatisfactory---No illegalityor perversity was found in the impugned order which was passed in accordance with law---Constitutional petition was dismissed.

Summary: Conviction upheld ---- Background:Akbar Ali, along with Muhammad Yousaf and three others, were tried and convicted for homicide and murderous assault that occurred on October 12, 2005, within the precincts of Police Station Hadyara, Lahore. The incident resulted in the death of Abdul Hameed and injuries to several others, stemming from a previous altercation. The trial court's judgment on September 30, 2010, led to Akbar Ali's death sentence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and various sentences for the co-accused for their roles in the assault. Their appeals were dismissed by the Lahore High Court on February 23, 2016, although Akbar Ali's death penalty was commuted to life imprisonment.----Issues:The credibility of the prosecution's case, especially after the acquittal of co-accused from the charge of murderous assault.The Lahore High Court's decision to commute Akbar Ali's death penalty to life imprisonment and to acquit the co-accused from the charge of murderous assault.The petition challenging the commutation of the death penalty and the acquittal on the charges of murderous assault, arguing that the ocular account provided by the injured witnesses constituted conclusive proof of the accused's guilt.----Holding/Reasoning:The Supreme Court found no grounds to overturn Akbar Ali's conviction for the fatal shooting of Abdul Hameed. The unanimous testimony of witnesses on Akbar Ali's role was deemed sufficient to uphold his conviction, despite a negative forensic report on the recovered weapon. The Court found the commutation of his death penalty to life imprisonment justified due to the lack of motive and the diminished consequentiality of the weapon recovery.Regarding the co-accused, the Court acknowledged the assignment of solitary fire shots by them to the injured witnesses but noted the Lahore High Court's view on the insufficiency of injury lethality to warrant convictions under section 324 of the Penal Code. Considering the time elapsed since the incident and the period the accused had already spent incarcerated, the Supreme Court found it inexpedient to re-examine their culpability. The Court concluded that the lengthy trial and appeal process had sufficiently addressed the wrongdoing, and no further action was necessary.----Citations/Precedents:The judgment did not explicitly cite previous legal precedents but focused on the analysis of the evidence presented during the trial and the appeals process. The principles of evaluating eyewitness testimony, the consideration of the time elapsed and the period of incarceration, and the judicial discretion in sentencing were central to the Court's reasoning.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Sajid filed a criminal petition for leave to appeal under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan against a judgment passed by the Peshawar High Court (Bannu Bench) in Cr.MBA No.381-B/2020. ---Issues:Whether there is sufficient evidence to justify Sajid's continued detention.Whether the injuries sustained by the victims are adequately attributed to Sajid.Whether Sajid is entitled to bail despite the absconding status of his co-accused.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court examined the evidence and found that the allegations against Sajid were based on generalized statements in the crime report, lacking specificity regarding his involvement in causing injuries or death. Medical reports revealed that one deceased had no visible injuries, and the injuries sustained by others were minor and not specifically attributed to Sajid. Additionally, Sajid claimed to have been beaten by other individuals, two of whom had already been granted bail. The court noted that the absconding status of co-accused does not justify Sajid's continued detention. Therefore, the court granted leave to appeal, converted the petition into an appeal, and allowed Sajid's release on bail upon furnishing bail bonds.---Citations/Precedents:Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan: Provides for the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court.Sections 302/324/34 PPC: Relevant provisions under which Sajid was booked.Section 497(2) Cr.PC: Pertains to bail when there are two conflicting versions.Legal Principle: Criminal liability cannot be shifted merely because co-accused are fugitive from law.Basic Law: Bail not jail, implying a preference for bail over detention in appropriate cases.

Summary: Background:This case involves multiple civil appeals (Nos. 248, 252, 253, 254, 265, 269, 270, 271, 277, 280, 284, and 302 of 2020) filed against judgments of the Peshawar High Court. The appellants, the Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa through Secretary Health and others, challenge the High Court's rulings to regularize the respondents, who were contractual employees of the Sarhad Rural Support Programme (SRSP) working on a project outsourced by the provincial government.---Issues:Whether the respondents, employed by SRSP on temporary project posts, were eligible for regularization on their respective positions.Whether the MoU between the appellants and SRSP created a valid contractual relationship between the respondents and the government.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court considered the arguments of both parties. The appellants contended that the respondents were employed by SRSP and not directly by the government, thus ineligible for regularization. They emphasized the MoU's provision stating that staff recruited by SRSP would have no claim against the government upon conclusion of the agreement. Conversely, the respondents argued that the MoU was a device to circumvent the Regularization Act, 2009, and that they should be regularized based on the principles of similar regularization of employees in similar programs.The Court held that the High Court correctly interpreted the law, emphasizing the substance of the employment relationship rather than the formalities of contractual arrangements. It affirmed the High Court's judgments to regularize the respondents, emphasizing the principle of fairness and non-discrimination in employment matters.---Citations/Precedents:Regularization Act, 2009: Relevant for determining the eligibility for regularization of employees.Principles of fairness and non-discrimination in employment matters: Referenced in support of the High Court's judgments.

Summary: Summary pending