Summary: Custom Reference

Summary: Sections of law; Article 199 of the Constitution.(a) Penalty of disqualifying a candidate for future examination cannot be imposed without affording an opportunity of hearing, to the candidate concerned.

Summary: Articles 199, 8 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.i. Construction of Interchange for Abbottabad City is utmost necessary in the larger interest of transport facility as the Interchange at Havelian is at considerable distance of about twelve KMs and it is difficult to approach the city of Abbottabad through Expressway easily. It will also attract Tourists from all over Pakistan to visit scenic spots specially in summer season.ii. The Prime Minister of Pakistan with a positive vision for ultimate facility of the people of Abbottabad shall initiate processing PC-I for construction of Interchange nearby Shimla Hills or any other suitable place and thereafter the NHA shall carry out execution process within the time frame for completion of the project. Petition Allowed.

Summary: The petitioners, represented by Abdul Sattar Pirzada and assisted by Mamoon N. Chaudhry, sought three main reliefs: to challenge the authority under which Munir Akram held the office of Ambassador/Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations in New York, to declare the appointment letter as illegal and issued without lawful authority, and to declare Munir Akram's appointment as unlawful, illegal, and void ab initio.The case was heard on multiple dates in November and December 2020, with the decision rendered on January 12, 2021, by Justices Nadeem Akhtar and Adnan-ul-Karim Memon. The petitioners argued that the appointment was not in the public interest, was based on favoritism, and violated constitutional provisions and the Civil Servants Act, 1973. They contended that the Federal Cabinet, not the Prime Minister alone, was the competent authority for such appointments.The respondents, represented by Kashif Paracha and others, defended the appointment by arguing that the Prime Minister was the competent authority for appointing the head of missions abroad and that such appointments could be made from among non-career individuals in the public interest. They emphasized Munir Akram's distinguished diplomatic career and contributions.The court considered the arguments, focusing on the maintainability of the petition, the competent authority for the appointment, and whether the appointment was in accordance with the Civil Servants Act, 1973. The judgment concluded that the issues raised were related to foreign policy and diplomatic missions, which are not typically within the judicial domain. The court found no illegality or material irregularity in the appointment process or the impugned letter of appointment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as misconceived, with no order as to costs. ---- i)Whether the post of Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations is to be filled amongst the career foreign service officers or eminent personalities from business, media, law, and other areas on a contract basis ;ii)Whether the Prime Minister of Pakistan is the competent authority under Rule 15(1)(g)(h) of the Rules of Business, 1973 or the Federal Cabinet under Article 90 of the Constitution of Pakistan to make such appointment ; and,iii)Whether appointments on a contract basis are prohibited under or contrary to Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Policy unless the conditions specified therein are satisfied?

Summary: The petitioner argued that the open market price of white crystalline sugar was lower than the value fixed by the notification, thus they should not be forced to pay sales tax based on the fixed price. The crux of the matter revolved around the interpretation of section 2(46) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, under which the notification was issued. The court analyzed the provisions of section 2(46) of the Act, which defines the "Value of Supply," and examined the applicability of the first proviso to this section. The petitioner contended that the proviso only related to the fixation of taxable supplies with reference to retail tax, while the respondents argued that it was an exception to the main provision of section 2(46) of the Act. In its ruling, the court interpreted the function of a proviso as a limitation on the main provision of the enactment. It held that the first proviso to section 2(46) was an exception to the entire section, not merely to clause (g), as argued by the petitioner. The court also rejected the petitioner's argument that the impugned notification was without jurisdiction. It concluded that the notification was validly issued under the first proviso to section 2(46) of the Act and was not ultra vires to the law or the Constitution of Pakistan. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, upholding the validity of the notification fixing the value of white crystalline sugar at Rs.60/- per K.G.

Summary: ---Background:The case in focus is the appeal lodged by Allah Bakhsh alias Bakhshi against a judgment delivered on June 6, 2013, by the Anti-Terrorism Court-IV, Lahore, presiding in Dera Ghazi Khan. The appellant was convicted under Section 7(e) of the An

Summary: Any piece of evidence, which is essential for just decision of the case, has to be brought on record irrespective of the fact that either it favours one party or goes against other; filling lacuna in the case is also immaterial if said piece of evidence is otherwise necessary for securing ends of justice.

Summary: (a) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction of tenant---Willful default---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Denialof relationship of landlord and tenant---Rent Controller, jurisdiction of---Scope---Appellant/tenant contended that Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction in the present matter ashe was tenant of previous landlord of suit-house and was in its occupancy since long---Held,that though alleged previous landlord appeared as a witness for appellant but failed toestablish his claim through any cogent and confidence inspiring evidence---Alleged previouslandlord, had filed an independent suit for declaration to establish his claim which wasdismissed and had attained finality for not being assailed before the appellate court---Landlord-respondent had produced mutation entries of demised property in his favourwhereas the appellant failed to produce any sufficient evidence to justify his possession inany lawful capacity---As the appellant failed to produce any title document to support hispossession over the demised property, Rent Controller or the Appellate Court werecompetent to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Existence of relationship between the parties would imply acceptance of title of landlord; assuch whenever tenant denied that title and it was established that he was a tenant, he wouldforfeit his tenancy having become a trespasser and would be liable to be ejected forthwith---No illegality or infirmity was found in impugned judgment/order of eviction of appellantpassed by the Rent Controller---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.Ahmed Ali alias Ali Ahmed v. Nasar-ud-Din and others PLD 2009 SC 453 ref.(b) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction of tenant---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant---Verbal tenancyagreement---Scope---Tenant/appellant contended that in absence of tenancy agreement orrent receipt, mere mutation entry/ownership was not a determining factor to establishrelationship of landlord and tenant between the parties---Held, that contention of the tenantwas not relevant as in the eviction application the landlord had specifically given details oforal agreement between the parties---Provisions of the Balochistan Urban Rent RestrictionOrdinance, 1959 ( 'the Ordinance 1959') did not contain any condition that agreement of landlord and tenant must be in particular form, it could even be verbal---Agreementmentioned in S.13(2)(i) of the Ordinance 1959, was any type of agreement without anyinsistence on formalities---Verbal agreement of tenancy had always been accepted as anagreement under the provisions of law---Appeal was dismissed.Shajar Islam v. Muhammad Siddique PLD 2007 SC 45 ref.(c) Balochistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959)-------S.13---Eviction of tenant---Willful default---Personal bona fide need of landlord---Denialof relationship of landlord and tenant---Burden of proof---Appellant/tenant contended that hewas tenant of previous landlord of suit-house and was in its occupancy since long---Held,that tenant had to stand on his own legs and was required to discharge onus of proof uponhim---Appellant denied relationship of landlord and tenant, thus burden of proof heavilyshifted on him to prove his title, capacity or locus standi for retaining the demised premises---Appellant though in his written-reply had challenged ownership of demised premises, butfailed to prove the same through oral and documentary evidence---If tenant deniedrelationship of landlord and tenant, tenancy was automatically terminated and he was liableto eviction---Appeal was dismissed.

Summary: ''The petitioners, its creditors and shareholders except NIT have unanimously approved the scheme of arrangement for demerger of petitioner No.1 Company by transferring its spinning unit to petitioner No.2, hence there is no reason why their business decision should be interfered with. In absence of any serious challenge from the shareholders of the transferor and transferee company, who are primarily and exclusively concerned with the same, the proposed arrangement has to be considered as fair and reasonable and is allowed.'' ---- The petition, filed under Sections 279 to 282 of the Companies Act, 2017, seeks the court's sanction for a Scheme of Arrangement. This scheme aims to bifurcate the weaving and spinning businesses of Ahmad Hassan Textile Mills Limited (AHTML), with the spinning business being transferred to Ahmad Hassan Spinning Limited (AHSL), a newly incorporated company.The background of the case reveals that AHTML, which runs both weaving and spinning units, intended to improve business management through this reorganization. This arrangement was approved by the company's shareholders during an extraordinary General Meeting on November 30, 2019. The scheme's primary objective is to separate the weaving and spinning operations for better management and supervision. The scheme was also endorsed by the Board of Directors of both companies in their respective meetings.On October 20, 2020, the court directed the issuance of public notices to inform stakeholders about the scheme and invite objections. Following this, notices were published, and no significant objections were raised, except for a minor one from NIT, which holds approximately 7% shares in AHTML. The court overruled this objection, noting the majority's approval of the scheme. The creditors of AHTML also provided No Objection Certificates, further supporting the scheme.Finally, considering the unanimous approval from the petitioners, creditors, and shareholders (except NIT), and the lack of serious challenges from them, the court found the proposed arrangement fair and reasonable. Thus, the petition was allowed, and the Scheme of Arrangement for the demerger of AHTML by transferring its spinning unit to AHSL was sanctioned, effective from June 30, 2019. --- The court, in its proceedings, refers to two previous cases to justify dispensing with the requirement of holding fresh meetings for the approval of the Scheme of Arrangement. These cases are:Fatima Sugar Mills Limited and others (2014 CLD 26): In this case, it was established that if a Scheme of Arrangement has already been approved in Extraordinary General Meetings of a company, then holding additional meetings as per the Companies Ordinance, 1984, would be unnecessary. This precedent was directly applied to the current case, as the Scheme of Arrangement had already been approved in the General Meeting held on November 30, 2019.Mahmood Textile Mills Ltd. etc. v. Registrar Joint Stock Companies [NLR 1993 UC (Civil) 49]: This case further supports the principle that if a scheme has already received approval in company meetings, additional meetings might not be required.

Summary: Summary pending