Summary: Tender Award: Petitioner a completing company claims that FBR has violated PPRA rules in awarding tender for " Trade and trace system for Tobacco, cement, sugar and fertilizer industry. Claims that GRC has also passed a wrong order. Seeks setting aside of whole procurement process.

Summary: Principles to decide complaint under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Consumers Protection Act, 1997.

Summary: The plaintiff's counsel argued against the competence of defendant No. 5, who was transferred to the plaintiff's post. However, the judge instructed the plaintiff's counsel to focus on whether the transfer and posting violated the law. The plaintiff's counsel argued that the transfer was mala fide and relied on regulations of the National Highway Authority (NHA) and relevant case law. Defendant No. 5's counsel argued that NHA's rules and the NHA Code 2005 governed transfers and postings, and these were within the prerogative of the competent authority. The court analyzed the arguments and material presented. The plaintiff's appointment letter indicated that he would be governed by Federal Government Employees rules. The court noted that the plaintiff was an engineer and a Member Technical. It referenced the National Highway Authority's Employees Service Rules, 1995, and the NHA Code 2005 to determine the authority's power to transfer and post employees. The court concluded that these rules allowed the competent authority to transfer an employee to different locations under its administrative control or management. The court further stated that there was no violation of fundamental rights and that the plaintiff had not demonstrated a colorable exercise of power. The court noted that the plaintiff's own transfer history showed that he had not consistently remained in one position for three years. Therefore, the plaintiff's application seeking injunctive orders was dismissed.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: [Scope of Sections 31-C and 31-D of the NAB Ordinance]NAB Ordinance 31C-31D/ The case revolves around a public limited company, M/s Azgard Nine Limited (ANL), which had obtained financial facilities from various institutions. Due to default on these facilities, ANL entered into a settlement with 22 financial institutions, restructuring its debt through agreements. The National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) played a significant role in this debt restructuring process. However, allegations were made that the NBP officers misused their authority, causing a significant loss to the national exchequer. The Supreme Court's judgment focused on the interpretation of Sections 31-C and 31-D of the NAB Ordinance. Section 31-C states that the court cannot take cognizance of an offense against a bank or financial institution employee without prior approval from the State Bank of Pakistan. On the other hand, Section 31-D prohibits the initiation of inquiries or proceedings by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against any person, company, or financial institution without a reference from the Governor, State Bank of Pakistan. The court analysed the definitions of restructuring and rescheduling provided in the Prudential Regulations and concluded that the two terms can be used interchangeably. It emphasised that the legislative intent of these sections is to safeguard the stability of the economy and honor financial decisions approved by the State Bank of Pakistan. Based on the interpretation of Sections 31-C and 31-D, the Supreme Court held that the NAB's actions against the petitioners were in violation of the NAB Ordinance. The court noted that the NAB had not sought permission from the State Bank of Pakistan, and therefore, the entire proceedings lacked jurisdiction. Consequently, the court quashed the proceedings initiated by the NAB, including the inquiry, investigation, and reference, against the petitioners. The Supreme Court's judgment set an important precedent regarding the jurisdiction of the NAB and the role of the State Bank of Pakistan in financial settlements. It highlights the need for adherence to legal requirements and the importance of maintaining trust and confidence in the banking sector. The NAB is free to initiate proceedings against the petitioners and the co-accused, provided they comply with the necessary legal requirements outlined in Sections 31-C and 31-D of the NAB Ordinance.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Post Arrest Bail in Case FIR No. 435/19 Dated 23.12.2019 Offence U/s 324/109/337/34 PPC, PS Shalimar, Islamabad