Summary: Background: Respondent/plaintiff Mst. Riffat Kousar filed two suits: one for recovery of maintenance allowance and the other for dissolution of marriage before the Additional District Judge Dadyal, empowered as Judge Family Court Dudyal. She claimed that the petitioner/defendant, Mohammad Mumtaz, had married her on January 16, 2010, and they had a child on November 4, 2010. Eight days after the child's birth, Mumtaz left her at her parents’ house and neither met her nor paid any maintenance. Mumtaz is alleged to be a contractor earning around 40,000 to 45,000 per month. Mumtaz filed a suit for conjugal rights, claiming they lived a happy life until her mother instigated her to leave him. He sought a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dismissal of Mohammad Mumtaz's appeals by the High Court was justified. 2- Whether the petitioner should pay additional maintenance towards the decretal amount for the minor. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --High Court Decision: The High Court dismissed Mumtaz’s appeals against the judgment of the Family Court, which had decided in favor of Riffat Kousar, granting her maintenance allowance and dissolving the marriage. --Supreme Court Decision: The Supreme Court reviewed the petitions for leave to appeal against the consolidated judgment of the High Court. The Court considered the maintenance of the minor and the behavior of both parties during their matrimonial life. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal subject to the petitioner depositing an additional Rs.20,000 out of the decretal amount towards the maintenance of the minor. The petitioner was directed to deposit the security amount of Rs.1000 for each petition within one month, failing which the leave granted order would be rescinded automatically.

Summary: Background: The Ehtesab Bureau of Azad Jammu and Kashmir filed a reference against the respondent for offences under Sections 467, 468, 471 of the APC, and Section 11 of the Ehtesab Bureau Ordinance/Act. The Ehtesab Court in Mirpur dismissed the reference on December 26, 2019, citing issues of limitation and the absence of mandatory approval from the Chairman of the Ehtesab Bureau. The petitioner appealed the decision to the High Court, which dismissed the appeal on August 31, 2020. The petitioner then filed a Petition for Leave to Appeal (PLA) before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. ----Issues: 1- Whether the dismissal of the reference by the Ehtesab Court on procedural grounds, such as limitation and lack of mandatory approval, was justified. 2- Whether the appeal to the High Court was correctly dismissed. 3- Whether the Petition for Leave to Appeal was filed within the prescribed time limit. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court acknowledged the petitioner's argument that the dismissal of the reference on procedural grounds should not overshadow the merits of the case. The Court noted that the petitioner's counsel argued the judgments of the lower courts were based on procedural and technical grounds that did not address the substantive evidence presented. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to consider the important legal questions raised by the petitioner, which are of public importance and require resolution in a regular appeal. The Court directed the petitioner to deposit a security amount of Rs.1000/- within one month, with failure to do so resulting in the rescission of the leave-granted order. The Court stated that the issue of limitation would be addressed during the final arguments.

Summary: Background: A petitioner’s contractual appointment was terminated by the Managing Director of the Power Development Organization (PDO) on June 11, 2018, with an effective date of June 30, 2018. A subsequent order on June 12, 2018, stated that the termination would take immediate effect from that date. The petitioner challenged these termination orders by filing a writ petition on June 29, 2018, before the High Court. The High Court dismissed the writ petition on January 29, 2020. ----Issues: 1- Whether the termination of the petitioner’s contract by the Managing Director of PDO, rather than the PDO Board, was legal and competent. 2- Whether the High Court ignored crucial points and earlier directions issued by the Supreme Court while dismissing the writ petition. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court recognized that the termination was conducted by the Managing Director, whereas the competent authority was the PDO Board. This raised questions about the legality of the termination. The Supreme Court found that the High Court failed to address this crucial point and ignored earlier directions from the Supreme Court. Given the public importance of the issue, the Supreme Court granted leave to appeal. The petitioner was directed to deposit security of Rs.1000/- within one month, failing which the leave granting order would be rescinded. The office was instructed to complete the file and present it to the Chief Justice for the constitution of the Bench. ----Citations/Precedents: Abdul Hameed Khan vs. Azad Govt. & others [2009 SCR 400]: Emphasized that if an appeal is admitted for regular hearing, it must be heard by the Tribunal, not a single member, and any notices post-admission must be issued by the Tribunal.

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition before the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court challenging the decision of the District Judge Kotli and Civil Judge Khuiratta. The case originated from a suit filed by the petitioner seeking possession based on the right of prior purchase regarding land in village Bayal Tehsil Khuiratta. During the suit, the petitioner submitted an application for amendment in the plaint, which was rejected by the Civil Judge on May 31, 2017. The petitioner filed a revision petition before the District Judge Kotli, which was also dismissed on April 7, 2018. The petitioner then challenged the order in the High Court, which dismissed the writ petition on January 20, 2020. ----Issues: 1- Whether there is a limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings under Order VI Rule 17. 2- Whether the amendment sought was of a purely legal nature and could be allowed even without formal amendment. 3- Whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to decide on matters pertaining to Sharia law. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir acknowledged the petitioner's argument that there is no limitation for filing an application for amendment in pleadings under Order VI Rule 17. The Court also noted that the learned High Court incorrectly held that the matter pertains to Sharia law and could not be raised before the Civil Court. The Court recognized that the amendment sought was of a purely legal nature and should have been allowed to be argued even without formal amendment. The Court granted leave to appeal, noting that the questions raised require disposal in a regular appeal. The petitioner was directed to deposit security of Rs. 1000/- within 10 days, failing which the leave-granting order would automatically be rescinded. ----Citations/Precedents: Order VI Rule 17 Section 13 of the amended pre-emption law

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Income Tax—Presumptive Tax Regime (PTR) for Travel and Insurance Agents ----Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S. 169(1)(b), S. 233(3) & (4)---Finance Act, 2004---Scope of Presumptive Tax Regime (PTR) for travel and insurance agents---Commission received by travel and insurance agents was subjected to withholding tax under S. 233(3) of the Ordinance, which was declared final tax under S. 233(4), effective from Tax Year 2005---Amendments in S. 169(1)(b) of the Ordinance introduced through the Finance Act, 2004, explicitly categorized tax deducted from travel and insurance agents as final tax liability---Held, that tax deducted at 10% from commission paid to travel agents was final discharge of tax liability for Tax Year 2005 and onward, as clarified by CBR Circular No.7 of 2004---Appellate Tribunal's misinterpretation of statutory amendments and its conclusion that PTR was inapplicable for Tax Year 2005 was erroneous. Cited Case Law: CBR’s Circular No.7 of 2004 (b) Interpretation of Tax Laws—Advance Tax as Final Tax ----Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S. 233(3) & (4), S. 169(1)(b)---Nature of withholding tax deducted from commission payments---The term "advance tax" used in the Ordinance refers to withholding tax collected during the tax year, whereas "final tax" signifies complete discharge of tax liability under PTR---Held, that withholding tax deducted from travel agents on commission payments under S. 233(3) was deemed final tax under S. 233(4), eliminating the need for additional assessment under S. 122(5A)---Tribunal's failure to appreciate the legal distinction between advance tax and final tax under PTR led to an incorrect decision. (c) Scope of Judicial Review in Tax References ----Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, S. 133(5)---High Court’s authority to review legal misinterpretations by the Appellate Tribunal---Held, that the Tribunal’s findings were inconsistent with the statutory amendments introduced through the Finance Act, 2004, and contrary to settled principles of final tax liability under PTR---Tribunal’s order vacated, and assessment order of tax authorities reinstated. -----Disposition: Reference Application No. 129 of 2008 decided in favor of the tax department. High Court held that commission received by travel and insurance agents for Tax Year 2005 falls under the Presumptive Tax Regime (PTR), with the withholding tax treated as final tax liability. The Appellate Tribunal's decision was overturned.

Summary: Against Conviction in Case FIR No. 65/18 dated 15.05.2018 Offence U/s 9-C/15 CNSA 1997, PS ANF RWP