Summary: (a) Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005)- -Ss. 13 & 33-Consumer protection-Faulty service-Proof-Appellants complained against respondent Airline for providing faulty service as they could not board the plane due to security check process-Validity-Tickets issued were processed for scheduled flight and accordingly boarding passes were issued-Appellants proceeded to departure lounge and waited for boarding announcement-Appellants were unable to board aircraft due to the fact that their passports were physically taken and retained by Airport Security staff (at foreign Airport) for security verification purposes-During such process of security, the flight departed-Airline staff at airport did not deny boarding to appellants nor cancelled their confirmed tickets or allowed boarding to other passengers, instead of appellants-Airline was not at fault in performance of services requested and correspondingly contracted-Blame at the best was attributed to the Airport Security staff at foreign airport-High Court declined to interfere in the matter as Consumer Court lacked jurisdiction in the matter-Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Mst. Gulnaz and another v. Haji Muhammad Riaz and others PLD 2020 SC 221 rel. (b) Punjab Consumer Protection Act (II of 2005)- -S. 27-Jurisdiction of Consumer Court-Scope-Extent and scope of causes of action cannot be confined to a particular place/location where alleged breach occurs-Act of faulty or defective service occurred or committed may extend to such other places/locations, where a part of cause of action has also arisen-Cause of action wholly or in part, may arise at any such place / location where an enforceable contract of provision of services was entered into, executed, acted upon, performed partially or otherwise or breach thereof committed etc.-Cause of action may also accrue on the basis of any other tangible event/action, forming part of a component of a cause of action, which is determinable in view of the facts of each case. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -S. 107 & O.XLI, R.33-Appellate Court, powers of-Scope-Appellate Court is vested with jurisdiction to pass any order, which could have been passed by Trial Court. North-West Frontier Province Government, Peshawar through Collector, Abbottabad and another v. Abdul Ghafoor Khan through Legal Heirs and 2 others PLD 1993 SC 418 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The case revolves around the plaintiff's long-standing business relationship with Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) in supplying medicines and medical instruments. Despite the plaintiff's successful track record, they were disqualified from bidding on a contract due to alleged misrepresentation regarding their status with other entities, including Pakistan Navy?s Shifa Hospital. The plaintiff contended that the additional criteria imposed after bid opening were arbitrary and not part of the initial pre-qualification requirements. They argued that their disqualification violated the Public Procurement Rules, 2004, and the principles of transparency and fairness in public procurement. The court ruled in favor of the plaintiff, stating that the decision to disqualify them was illegal, capricious, and an abuse of power. The court set aside the plaintiff's blacklisting and the negotiated awarding of the contract to other bidders. This decision emphasizes the importance of adhering to transparent and fair procurement procedures, as outlined in both domestic laws and international conventions against corruption.

Summary: This legal case involved a petitioner who was a defendant in a suit filed by respondent No.1 seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell a petrol pump. The petitioner's counsel argued that the suit was rightly dismissed, as an earlier dismissal was restored subject to costs, which were not paid. The application for restoration lacked sufficient cause, according to the counsel. On the other hand, the respondents' counsel contended that the application for restoration was within time and was unlawfully dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge. They argued in favor of adjudication on merits rather than technicalities. The court noted that the suit had been dismissed for non-prosecution twice, and an application for restoration was initially allowed but subject to costs. Additionally, the court highlighted that the application for restoration lacked sufficient cause and referred to Black's Law Dictionary and Merriam-Webster's Dictionary of Law to interpret the term "sufficient cause." The court found that the term implies a legally sufficient reason and, in this case, the application failed to meet that criterion. In conclusion, the court observed that the suit was not validly restored due to the non-payment of costs, and the application for restoration lacked sufficient cause. As a result, the court upheld the dismissal of the suit.

Summary: Subject-matter jurisdiction of the Consumer Court---The appellants filed a complaint under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, seeking compensation for alleged faulty and defective services. The Consumer Court dismissed the complaint, stating that the cause of action accrued at Jeddah Airport, falling outside its territorial jurisdiction. However, the appellate court disagreed with this reasoning. It noted that the Consumer Court misinterpreted the concept of accrual of causes of action and overlooked Section 27 of the Act, which defines the jurisdiction of Consumer Courts. Section 27 provides that a Consumer Court has jurisdiction where the defendant resides, carries on business, where the cause of action arises wholly or in part. The court pointed out that the cause of action is not limited to the place where the alleged breach occurred, but it may extend to other places where a component thereof arose. In this case, purchasing confirmed return tickets at Multan constitutes a part of the cause of action. Despite the Consumer Court's error regarding territorial jurisdiction, the appellate court dismissed the complaint due to the absence of subject matter jurisdiction. It emphasized that no allegations of faulty or defective services were attributed to the airline (respondent No.2). The court exercised its powers under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code and Section 107 to vary the findings and dismissed the complaints.