Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Against impugned letter dated 19.09.18 & 12.12.18 and 02.01.2019 and letter dated 17.01.2019 issued by respondent no.4 and actions taken pursuant to the letters (a) Telecommunications Law – Jurisdiction of PTA – Consultation Process Initiation: ----Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, Ss. 4, 5 & 22(2) – PTA Functions and Powers Regulations, 2006, Regulation No.6 – Scope of PTA’s Jurisdiction Petitioners challenged the jurisdiction of Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (PTA) to initiate a consultation process regarding wholesale IP bandwidth charges in US Dollars, arguing that Sections 4 and 5 of the 1996 Act do not empower PTA to initiate such a process. It was held that PTA must first decide on its own jurisdiction before proceeding with the consultation process. The issuance of a notice for consultation does not amount to an order or adjudication. Petitioners were directed to raise their objections regarding PTA's jurisdiction before the authority itself, which must decide the matter as a preliminary issue before proceeding further. -----Cited Cases: Zahid Zaman Khan v. Khan Afsar (PLD 2016 SC 409) Izhar Alam Farooqi v. Abdul Sattar Lasi (2008 SCMR 240) Muhammad Siddique Anwar v. Faisalabad Development Authority (2007 SCMR 1126) Mansab Ali v. Amir (PLD 1971 SC 124) ----Disposition: Petitions were disposed of with directions to PTA to decide jurisdictional objections as a preliminary issue before proceeding on merits. (b) Telecommunications Law – Regulatory Authority’s Powers – Validity of Regulation No.6 of PTA Regulations, 2006: ----Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, Ss. 4, 5(2)(o) & 22(2) – PTA Functions and Powers Regulations, 2006, Regulation No.6 – Validity and Scope Petitioners challenged the vires of Regulation No.6 of the PTA Regulations, 2006, arguing that Sections 4 and 5 of the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996 do not empower PTA to initiate a consultation process, except under Section 22(2) for license modification disagreements. The court held that the matter regarding the vires of Regulation No.6 requires detailed examination and remains pending for further arguments, including representation by the Attorney General. ----Disposition: Petition partially remains pending to the extent of the vires of Regulation No.6 of PTA Regulations, 2006. Interim relief was discontinued.

Summary: Protective Bail in Case FIR NO. 237/20 dated 30.05.2020 Offence U/s 489 -F PPC, PS Anarkali, Tehsil & District Lahore

Summary: Challenges the constitution of fuel crises committee further impugned the notification dated 08.06.20 and 09.06.2020 Issued in management of fuel crises

Summary: Remedy of writ petition against administrative opinion of Police u/s 169 CrPC.

Summary: Suit for possession through redemption.Held: (1) In terms of Section 60 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the right of redemption is a statutory right and no clog can be put against such statutory right. The ibid Section unequivocally affirms the right of redemption in all mortgages. (2) The transaction is one of the mortgage and not the absolute sale, the refusal to get the property redeemed, therefore, becomes recurring wrong on the part of the mortgagee for which the principle of laches is not attracted at all.(3) When the matter is referable to the law of limitation, the question of laches looses its significance.(Revision petition was dismissed in limine).

Summary: Measure of damages under section 73 of the Contract Act. Assessment of reasonable compensation under section 74 of the Contract Act.----The dispute arose from a contract awarded by TCP to Sadan General Trading LLC for the supply of 50,000 metric tons of white sugar from Brazil at a specified rate. The contract included provisions for late shipment penalties and cancellation due to non-delivery within the agreed period. Sadan General Trading LLC failed to make the first shipment within the extended deadline, leading TCP to cancel the contract and forfeit the performance amount.During arbitration, Sadan General Trading LLC argued that TCP's cancellation was premature and discriminatory, seeking compensation for various losses. TCP, in turn, claimed damages for non-delivery and subsequent purchase of sugar at a higher price. The arbitrator found Sadan General Trading LLC in breach of contract but awarded only 50% of the performance amount to TCP as reasonable compensation, considering the absence of proven actual loss.The court dismissed objections raised by both parties against the arbitration award, affirming the arbitrator's decision. It clarified that compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act does not require proof of actual loss but must be reasonable. The court emphasized that the determination of reasonable compensation depends on the circumstances of each case and that its interference with arbitration awards is limited. Finally, the court ordered interest on the award amount until realization. Thus, the arbitration award was upheld.