Summary: Issue/Section of Laws:Interpretation refers to exposing the true sense of the provisions of the statutes/notification/regulations and to understand the exact meaning of the words used in any text. Interpretation refers to the linguistic meaning of legal text. In case where the simple meaning of text is to be adopted then the concept of interpretation is being referred to the first rule of interpretation is Literal or Grammatical Rule , according to which the words used in the text are to be given or interpreted in their natural or ordinary meaning. After interpretation, if the meaning is completely clear and unambiguous then the effect shall be given to provision of statute regardless of what may be consequences. While interpreting SRO or law or any clause of it, only the plain meaning of it shall be construed without adding any meaning not mentioned therein because addition or subtraction or interpreting it otherwise would negate the spirit of law and if it is allowed then every authority, official or officer shall interpret any clause of law as per his own philosophy which is neither permissible nor lawful.

Summary: The petitioner's main arguments revolved around the cancellation of his admission due to the cancellation of his domicile and Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) by the Deputy Commissioner, Shaheed Benazirabad. The petitioner claimed that his father and grandfather are permanent residents of Sindh, and he is entitled to Domicile and PRC certificates from District Shaheed Benazirabad. The court clarified the legal distinction between a domicile certificate issued under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and a Permanent Residence Certificate (PRC) issued under the Sindh Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. It emphasizes that a domicile certificate is not necessarily required for citizenship and that the petitioner, being a citizen by birth, may not need one. Ultimately, the court allowed the petitioner's petition and sets aside the cancellation of his admission to the medical college for the academic session 2020-21. The petitioner was granted permission to continue his studies in the first year of the MBBS/BDS program at the college where he had secured admission.

Summary: Pending

Summary: [The promotions of employees/civil servants are generally decided on the basis of recommendations made by the Departmental Promotion Committee which is entrusted an onerous and arduous task to judge the suitability of officers for promotions to selection and or non-selection posts after assessment of performance, conduct, aptness and qualification with certain guidelines to standardize and synchronize the assessment benchmarks of all contenders in a fair, unbiased and transparent manner keeping in view the dossier or working paper including ACRs of every individual officer/employee.2. Once the recommendations of DPC were acted upon and respondents were promoted, a vested right was created in their favour which could not be withdrawn in an inconsiderate and casual manner.3. Neither any fault or defect of respondents was pointed out nor any oversight or error on the part of DPC members or its composition or jurisdiction which could result an unceremonious withdrawal of promotion order after considerable period. The doctrine of vested right is quite applicable which conserves that once a right is lawfully created, its existence should be recognized and acknowledged.4. No prior notice or justification was shown which is flagrant violation of well settled principle of natural justice that is firmly established and deep rooted in the judicial conscience to be entrenched and embedded in every decision making function either judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative and as a fundamental rule of law, no decision must be taken affecting the right of any person without affording an ample opportunity of defence.5. The Rules or Regulation if amended and notified will obviously come into field prospectively and not retrospectively. Even the rules are amended, the CDA would not be able to upset or disturb the past and closed transaction. It is not the case that promotion was accorded to the respondents due to some misunderstanding, error, misconception of law or without sanction of competent authority, therefore, the principle of locus poenitentiae is also attracted to ameliorate and ventilate the sufferings of the respondents]

Summary: (a) Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947 (FERA) ----Ss. 4(1), 5, 23 & 19(3)---Hawala/Hundi—Registration of FIR without requisite authorization—Mandatory requirement of written complaint by authorized person—Accused acquitted under S. 265-K, Cr.P.C. for non-compliance with legal prerequisites—Prosecution failed to follow prescribed procedure under FERA, 1947—Registration of cases without prior authorization from the State Bank of Pakistan or Federal Government held to be illegal—Tribunal not competent to take cognizance without written complaint—Declaration of offences as cognizable and non-bailable under SRO 588(I)/2016 and Foreign Exchange Regulation (Amendment) Act, 2020 did not override mandatory procedural requirements—High Court upheld acquittal of accused on the basis of procedural lapses. (b) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) ----S. 265-K—Acquittal before conclusion of trial—Requirement of legal authorization for prosecution—Prosecution’s failure to fulfill procedural requirements renders trial unsustainable—Accused discharged without recording defence evidence—Held, where law prescribes a particular procedure, deviation therefrom renders proceedings void—Registration of FIR without statutory authorization constitutes a fatal defect—High Court ruled that prosecution must follow mandatory legal procedures to ensure validity of criminal proceedings. (c) Constitutional Law & Fundamental Rights ----Right to fair trial—Due process—Requirement of legal authorization before prosecution—Deviation from prescribed procedure amounts to breach of fundamental rights—Illegal foreign exchange business causes financial losses to the public exchequer, yet law enforcement agencies must operate strictly within the framework of law—Protection of legal foreign exchange traders emphasized—Court reiterated principle that “justice must prevail, even if the heavens fall”—Acquittal of accused upheld as prosecution was initiated in violation of substantive law. Disposition: Appeals dismissed. Acquittal orders of trial courts upheld due to prosecution’s failure to comply with statutory requirements under FERA, 1947.

Summary: Contract / Outstanding dues: Petitioner is contractor of IESCO for certain works at ISB Air Port. It is aggrieved of non clearance of dues. Seeks direction for release of dues.

Summary: Safe custody of the Recovered Substance or safe Transmission of samples is not established by the prosecution coupled with delay in lodging the Report.

Summary: Review of order upon conceding statement by FBR, is allowed for the reason that Commissioner's right under Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to amend under Section 122, an assessment order under Section 120 would be compromised. Taxpayer has right to compute and declare income as per his interpretation vis a vis Commissioner's right to amend the assessment. Both rights need to be protected.

Summary: In a suit for recovery of dowry articles, petitioners being defendants moved application for rejection of plaint on the ground that respondents have no cause of action, which after contest was rejected. Petitioners instead of prefer an appeal in terms of Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964, filed writ petition which was dismissed and being aggrieved he preferred I.C.A. Word ''decision'' used in Section 14 of the Family Courts Act, 1964 is quite similar and akin to the term ?case decided? used in Section 115 CPC. The controversy with regard to interpretation of ?case decided? has arisen in the case of 1998 SMCR 1798.

Summary: Pending