Summary: if the abduction is not with intention of secrete confinement then section 365, PPC will not attracted

Summary: [Bail Cancelled]--The respondent was accused of fatally shooting the complainant's brother. The petitioner argued that the respondent was the sole accused and that there was a history of enmity between the parties. The petitioner presented evidence, including the Call Data Record placing the respondent at the scene. The respondent had been an absconder for six months, indicating involvement. The petitioner asserted that the charges fell within Section 497 of the Cr.P.C., carrying a potential death penalty. The petitioner claimed that the High Court's bail decision was based on assumptions.The respondent's counsel defended the bail, emphasizing that bail grant and cancellation were distinct matters, requiring strong reasons for cancellation. The respondent challenged the nature and location of the injury, suggesting manipulation of the postmortem report.After reviewing the arguments and evidence, the court observed that the respondent was named in the promptly lodged crime report, accused of fatally injuring the complainant's brother. The occurrence happened in broad daylight and was reported to the police without undue delay. The court noted prior enmity between the parties and the familiarity of the individuals involved, strengthening the prosecution's case. Medical evidence supported the injury's location. The court criticized the High Court's reasoning for granting bail as lacking justiciable grounds and based on conjectures. Therefore, the court allowed the appeal, overturning the bail order and canceling the respondent's bail. The detailed reasons for the decision were provided in the full judgment.

Summary: The appellants filed a petition under Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of their case by the Peshawar High Court. The Court granted leave to appeal on 16.12.2015, and the petition was converted into the instant appeal.The dispute centered around a mutation (mutation No. 65) that had been entered in favor of the respondents, Ghulam Akbar and others, in relation to a land sale. The appellants, however, contested the validity of this mutation, claiming that it was subsequently canceled. The respondents produced both oral and documentary evidence to prove the transaction and the entrance of the mutation, including endorsements by revenue officials.Consequently, the lower courts upheld the respondents' claims, and the appeal before the Supreme Court aimed to challenge these decisions. However, the Court noted that there were concurrent findings of fact recorded by the lower courts. The Court pointed out that the appellants failed to rebut the documentary evidence provided by the respondents and upheld the validity of the mutation and the proceedings conducted by revenue officials.The Court concluded that the plaintiffs-respondents had fulfilled their part of the contract, and since the transaction of sale consideration had been proven, possession had been delivered, and the necessary actions were taken except for the attestation of the mutation, the suit for declaration and specific performance was competent and rightly decreed by the lower courts. As a result, the appeal was found to be devoid of merit and was dismissed.

Summary: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------Ss. 169 & 204---Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 302 & 365---Discharge--- Resummoningof accused---Jurisdiction---Petitioners were arrested for committing Qatl-i-amd andabduction who assailed their arrest warrants issued by Judicial Magistrate in same case inwhich they had already been discharged---Validity---Discharge order of petitioners was onlyamenable before Trial Court, which had taken cognizance of the case after submission ofChallan---Judicial Magistrate was alien in all respects and did not have any jurisdiction toinitially issue warrants of arrest and thereafter grant remand in police custody---Matter wasalready subjudice before Trial Court and Judicial Magistrate who issued warrants of arrestand thereafter granted remand of petitioners was not empowered to have passed any order inthe matter--- High Court set aside warrants of arrest and orders issued by Judicial Magistrate---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Specific Relief Act, 1877 (I of 1877)------Ss. 39, 42 & 54--Suit for declaration, cancellation of instruments and permanent injunction--Decreed--Appeal--Dismissed--Recovery of shares--Objection regarding jurisdiction--No issueregarding jurisdiction of Court was framed--Despite raising a specific objection by Respondentbefore trial Court with regard to jurisdiction, trial Court neither framed any issue in this respect,nor decided question of jurisdiction at first instance--It would be in best interest of parties andjustice, to remand case to trial Court with direction to decide question of jurisdiction at firstinstance, and if necessitated, trial Court may frame issue and lead evidence to this extant only.[Pp. 129 & 130] B & DCompanies Ordinance, 1984 (XLVII of 1984)------S. 7--Jurisdiction--No Court, other than High Court as has jurisdiction to entertain any matterrelating to title or share in company--Whenever a challenge is made to jurisdiction of Court, suchCourt in first instance is obliged to decide matter of its jurisdiction by taking into account allrelevant facts.

Summary: FactsThe appellants filed a petition under Article 185(2) of the Constitution challenging the judgment of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed their civil revision petition. The dispute originated from a mutation entry (No. 65) dated 3.6.1969 concerning the sale of suit land, which was later cancelled. The respondents (plaintiffs in the original suit) claimed that the mutation evidenced a sale transaction in their favor by the appellants' predecessor, which was subsequently cancelled, leading them to seek a declaration and, alternatively, specific performance in the civil court.----Issues PresentedWhether the High Court failed in its duty to reappraise the entire evidence when the trial court and the appellate court had conflicting findings.Whether a mere entry of mutation, which was later cancelled, could confer any rights on the respondents, given that the appellants were recorded as owners and the respondents as tenants in the record of rights.----HoldingThe Supreme Court held that the concurrent findings of facts by the two lower courts were justified. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, finding no merit in the appellants' arguments. The court affirmed the lower courts' decisions, which decreed the suit in favor of the respondents based on the evidence presented.---ConclusionThe Supreme Court concluded that the suit for declaration filed by the respondents was competent and rightly decreed by the first appellate court, which was upheld by the High Court. The documentary and oral evidence sufficiently proved the transaction of sale and subsequent possession in favor of the respondents. Despite the cancellation of the mutation, the respondents established their claim to the land. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the lower courts' decisions, and approved the decision for reporting.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: It is the consideration in money including federal and provincialduties and taxes which constitute value of taxable services which theperson provides against the consideration but it excludes the amount ofsales tax under the ibid Act. The Tribunal was of the view that theinvoices generated on the amount includes the expenses/expendituresplus 10-% service charges and is to be taken as one revenue componentfor services rendered. The Tribunal is also of the view that in certaincases there is specific rule in Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011providing for valuation of a particular service and providing a certainminimum threshold and also any exemption and exception. However,Tribunal considered that since no rule is available for the category of Business Support Services full value of generated invoices shall betaken as the value of services rendered or provided in terms ofprovisions of Section 5 ibid.--Primarily value of service charges for the purposes of Act 2011 isgoverned by the value of service agreed upon between the provider andthe recipient as the market itself is so competitive that nothing coulddefeat the actual amount being declared to be taxed. However, in casesuch understanding of value of service is doubtful as it does not disclosecorrect value of service, it was open for the department to haveconsidered the open market price of such service as required to bedetermined under section 6 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011which is not the case here. Two provisos to Section 5 deals the situationof value of service. In a situation where the consideration of value of service is in kind or is partly in kind and partly in money, value of serviceshall mean open market price2excluding the amount of sales tax underAct 2011. Similarly in case where service is provided by provider to arecipient who is an associated person and the value is not the actualvalue of service, then the value of service which is being provided by aprovider to a non-associated person shall be counted and in case noconsideration is claimed or value is lower than it is being provided byother persons, the value of service shall be of open market. In principlethe department has not disputed the value of services rather thedepartment is of the view that reimbursed amount or the amount ofmaintenance/expenses incurred should be made part of the value of theservice.

Summary: Pending