Summary: Summary pending

Summary: In the case, the appellate court modified the order regarding the distribution of the deceased's assets among legal heirs, designating certain benefits such as gratuity, GP fund, group insurance, benevolent fund, and specific bank accounts as inheritable by the deceased's heirs. However, the petitioner contested this decision, arguing that these benefits, being concessions from the employer, should not be categorized as heritable assets. They relied on legal precedent such as "Federal Government of Pakistan v. Public at Large" and "Zaheer Abbas v. Pir Asif" (PLD 1991 Supreme Court 731) to support their claim. Conversely, the respondents maintained that these benefits constituted part of the deceased's estate and should be distributed among all legal heirs. They cited cases like "Mst. Riffat Yasmeen v. Hassan Din" (2014 CLC 126 Peshawar) and "Muhammad Javed v. Mst. Roshan Jahan" (PLD 2019 Sindh 1) to support their stance. The court analyzed the precedents cited by both parties and concluded that benefits accrued during or after the deceased's service, such as gratuity and group insurance, should be distributed among the legal heirs. However, discretionary benefits like financial assistance and benevolent fund were excluded from this distribution. The court's decision aligned with principles outlined in "PLD 1991 Supreme Court 731" and "PLC (C.S.) 1288," among others. In summary, the court ruled that certain benefits, including gratuity, GP fund, group insurance, and benevolent fund, should be considered inheritable assets and distributed among the deceased's legal heirs, thus partially granting the petitioner's revision petition.

Summary: Issue: Whether the judgment of the Supreme Court dated December 15, 2014, regarding encadrement in PSP being prospective, applied to Malik's case.----Holding: The Supreme Court held that encadrement in the Police Service of Pakistan (PSP) is to be made with prospective effect, and the Tribunal erred in not following the Supreme Court's precedent, which was binding under Article 189 of the Constitution.---Reasoning:The Court clarified that appointments and encadrement in PSP are prospective. Malik's request for retrospective seniority adjustment based on his pro forma promotion was contrary to the established legal principle.The Tribunal failed to consider the Supreme Court's precedent, which directly applied to Malik's case. This oversight led to an incorrect judgment that contradicted the principle of prospective encadrement in PSP.Judgment: The appeal was allowed, the Tribunal's judgment was set aside, and Malik's service appeal was dismissed. The Court reaffirmed that encadrement in PSP is prospective and that seniority adjustments must align with this principle.

Summary: Facts:The respondents, the daughter and widow of the late Mansab Khan, were denied their inheritance in his estate due to an alleged gift of land to his nephews (petitioners).After challenging the gift, the respondents won the suit at the Trial Court, which was confirmed by the Appellate Court and the High Court, despite the petitioners' appeals.----Issue:Whether the gift claimed by the petitioners, to the detriment of the rightful heirs (respondents), was valid and could override the respondents' inheritance rights.Holding:The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts in favor of the respondents and against the petitioners.----Reasoning:The Court found that the petitioners failed to establish the validity of the alleged gift. Two of the donees were minors, and the third, an adult, did not testify to receiving the gift.The Court criticized the petitioners for attempting to deprive the vulnerable respondents of their inheritance, highlighting the societal and legal importance of protecting inheritance rights, especially for widows and orphans.The Court referenced Islamic principles and Pakistani constitutional protections for property and family, condemning actions that deprive family members of their legal inheritance rights.----Order:The petition was dismissed with costs payable to the respondents. The Court ordered the Trial/Executing Court to ensure prompt compliance with the judgment, ensuring the respondents receive their rightful inheritance.-----Key Quotes:"It is most unfortunate that rather than supporting the widow and her daughter in the hour of their greatest need their relatives, the petitioners, turned into predators to deprive them of their rightful inheritance...""An heir inherits property to the extent of his/her share the very moment his/her predecessor passes away...""Violating the law of inheritance, which in the case of Muslims is the shariah, and exploiting the most vulnerable members of society is wholly unacceptable."

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute over inheritance rights between the widow and daughter of Mansab Khan, and the petitioners who allegedly deprived them of their rightful inheritance through a fictitious gift mutation.The respondents filed a suit challenging the validity of the alleged gift, which was initially decreed in their favor by the Trial Court but later overturned by the Appellate Court, leading to further legal proceedings.---Issues:Whether the purported donees (petitioners) successfully established the validity of the gift.Whether the actions of the petitioners in depriving the widow and daughter of their inheritance rights violated Islamic law, public policy, and constitutional provisions.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the purported donees failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish the validity of the gift.Justice Qazi Faez Isa criticized the petitioners for their predatory actions in depriving the widow and daughter of their rightful inheritance, highlighting the exploitation of vulnerable individuals and the violation of Islamic principles and constitutional protections.The petition was dismissed, and costs were imposed on the petitioners.The executing court was instructed to ensure prompt compliance with the judgments in favor of the respondents, and copies of the order were to be sent to relevant parties for information and compliance.---Citations/Precedents:Islam-ud-din v Noor Jahan (2016 SCMR 986)Khalida Azhar v Viqar Rustan Bakhshi (2018 SCMR 30)Abid Baig v Zahid Sabir (2020 SCMR 601)Ghulam Ali v Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi (PLD 1990 Supreme Court 1)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a suit for declaration of right of easement and perpetual injunction concerning land in Nai Abadi Penyam Kalyal, Tehsil and District Mirpur. Alongside the suit, the petitioner sought interim relief. The trial court initially granted interim relief subject to objections from the defendants. Subsequently, a local commission was appointed, whose report led to the vacation of the stay order by the trial court. This decision was challenged and led to multiple appeals and remands between the trial court, the District Judge, and the Additional District Judge, ultimately culminating in the High Court's decision to remand the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision on merits. ----Issues: 1- Whether the report of the local commission was ambiguous and against the terms of reference set by the trial court. 2- Whether the High Court's decision to remand the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision was justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Local Commission's Report Ambiguity: The petitioner argued that the local commission's report was ambiguous and did not adhere to the terms of reference laid out by the trial court. The petitioner contended that this report should not have been considered by the High Court. --High Court's Remand Justification: The High Court decided to remand the case to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision on merits, prompting the petitioner to challenge this decision. The petitioner argued that the report dated January 28, 2020, was rightly ignored by the lower courts as it did not accurately reflect the facts. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal, indicating that the legal question of whether the remand in this case was desirable requires resolution in a regular appeal. The petitioner was directed to deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within one week, failing which the leave granting order would automatically be deemed rescinded. The case was to be completed and placed before the Chief Justice for constitution of the bench and approval for fixing the appeal in the next tour.

Summary: Background: Nisar Ahmed, a primary teacher at Boys Middle School New City, Mirpur, filed an appeal before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal challenging a departmental order dated February 11, 2019. The appeal was admitted for regular hearing with a direction to deposit the security fee within a week. However, the appeal was dismissed for non-compliance with this order. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with the order to deposit the security fee was valid. 2- Whether the dismissal of the appeal without proper notice to the appellant was coram-non-judice and violative of procedural rules. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Validity of Dismissal for Non-Compliance: The Court found that the Service Tribunal's dismissal of the appeal was procedurally flawed. The appellant was not properly notified of the order to deposit the security fee, which was mandatory under the procedural rules. --Notice to the Appellant: The Court held that the Service Tribunal should have issued a proper notice to the appellant regarding the requirement to deposit the security fee. The failure to do so rendered the dismissal of the appeal invalid. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir set aside the Service Tribunal's order dismissing the appeal. ----Citations/Precedents: Abdul Hameed Khan vs. Azad Govt. & others [2009 SCR 400]: The Court referred to this case to highlight that after the admission of an appeal, it must be heard by the full Tribunal, not by a single member, and proper notices must be issued to the parties involved.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Held: (i). Benifit from acquittal of the co-accused can be extended to the petitioners even at bail stage.(ii) . Bail Applications cannot be heared and decided in vacuum rather the court should consider the available record/material for the purpose.(iii).True that acquittal of co-accused is no ground for release on bail of the subsequently arrested accused, but every case has its own peculiar circumstances. (Bail Allowed)