Summary: Bail After Arrest in FIR No. 229/2020, dated 01-12-2020, U/s 489-F PPC, PS Margalla, Islamabad.

Summary: Police: Against acceptance of 22-A Justice of Peace.

Summary: The decree-holders as per their statement recorded before the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan not only have restricted themselves to the extent of 01-Kanal and 01-Marla but have also provided a shield to the possessor thereof and this statement is an established fact against the plea of decree-holders in getting the Possession of the entire house. How it was possible without determination of this particular aspect, i.e., the Location of the house and handing over the possession is a question which was required to be decided by the learned executing court. No doubt executing court cannot go beyond the scope of decree but this does not mean that executing court will exercise its powers as per whims, wishes and desire of a person, who he may be. The legislature in their wisdom within four corners of Section 47 read with Order XXI Rule 103 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on one hand has put a embargo to file a fresh suit against the lis already decided but on the other hand has provided a vast power to the executing court not only for the decree holders but also for the person who has got any right in the subject matter of the decreed property.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Scope of Order XXXVIII Rules 1 to 5 CPC-Power under Order XXXVIII, Rule 1 seeking arrest of a person is a drastic and extraordinary power and such power should not be exercised mechanically or merely for the asking. It should be used sparingly and strictly in accordance with the Rule. Similarly, provisions of Rules 1 to 5 can only be exercised in favour of a plaintiff and not a defendant against a co-defendant. The said provisions cannot be handed over as a sword in the hands of a litigant to achieve oblique motives rather the same has been incorporated for the help of the court to ensure that unscrupulous defendant does not render the decree of court as toothless piece of paper.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Ombudsperson jurisdiction under section of Punjab Enforcement of Women's Rights Act, 2021

Summary: Pending

Summary: [The emoluments and average emoluments are defined in CSR-486 (Civil Service Regulations). The definition of the word ?Pay? is also enumerated in Chapter II. F.R-9 (21). The Civil Service Regulations (CSR) regulates the terms and conditions. Whereas the compilation of Fundamental Rules and Supplementary Rules (FR&SR) made by the President delineates and structures the financial terms and conditions of government employees.The petitioner claims the inclusion/effect of the Special Additional Allowance for the calculation of pension on the basis of Office Memorandum which was a conditional in terms of Clause (c). No vested right can be claimed on the basis of a conditional or qualified grant unless such conditions are fulfilled]----The central issue concerned the inclusion of the "Special Additional Allowance" in the computation of the petitioner's pension. The petitioner claimed that Wapda had not taken this allowance into account when determining their pension benefits, and they sought its incorporation.During the proceedings, the petitioner argued that the Tribunal's decision was incorrect, as it failed to consider key aspects of their case. They cited specific court judgments to support their argument. The respondents countered by emphasizing the conditions attached to the Special Additional Allowance and asserted that it should not be included in the emoluments for pension calculation.The Court, led by a judge, carefully examined the definitions of "emoluments" and "pay" as defined in the Civil Service Regulations (CSR) and Fundamental Rules. It highlighted that the term "emoluments" encompassed particular components and underscored that the Special Additional Allowance had been explicitly excluded from the definition for pension calculation purposes according to the terms of an Office Memorandum issued on July 23, 1999.The Court referenced past cases, including one where a permanent financial relief increase was considered part of emoluments for pension calculation. However, it differentiated the current case, noting the specific exclusion clause in the Office Memorandum related to the Special Additional Allowance.In light of these considerations, the Court found no grounds to interfere with the previous judgment and dismissed the petition, refusing leave to appeal.

Summary: a dispute emerged over the acquisition of a specific piece of land designated for a housing scheme. The individuals contesting the acquisition belonged to the Shia community and had been using the land for religious practices, particularly as a "Karbala" site.The core conflict arose when the government agency, referred to as the Appellants, acquired the land for a housing scheme meant to cater to low-income individuals. The acquisition sparked objections and protests from the Shia community. As the situation evolved, the layout plan for the housing scheme underwent revisions, including recommendations to exclude the disputed land and retain it as open space. However, despite these considerations, the land was ultimately transferred to the Education Department for the purpose of constructing a school.The central legal issues addressed in the case were twofold:Whether the disputed land had been explicitly mentioned in the initial acquisition notification.Whether the subsequent transfer of the disputed land for the construction of a school was legally valid.To assess these matters, the Court scrutinized various notifications and correspondences. It determined that the disputed land had not been explicitly mentioned in the original acquisition notification. Additionally, the Court observed that the subsequent notification withdrawing the land from acquisition and the exclusion of the disputed land from the housing scheme were not legally contested or challenged.Regarding the transfer of the disputed land for the school construction, the Court stressed the importance of discerning the government's intent and purpose as conveyed through the official notification. The Court maintained that any interpretation of the notification contrary to its stated terms would be in violation of the law. Consequently, the Court deemed the inclusion of the disputed land in the school award unlawful, particularly since there was no proper notification issued as mandated by the relevant legal framework.In summary, the Supreme Court upheld the decision made by the Lahore High Court, asserting that the disputed land had not been acquired in compliance with the required notification procedures. Additionally, the Court deemed the transfer of the land for school construction invalid, emphasizing the significance of adhering to proper legal protocols and safeguarding the rights and interests of landowners throughout the acquisition process.