Summary: Service/Promotion

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The appellant initially filed a case seeking relief, which proceeded to the appellate stage. On the scheduled hearing date, both the appellant and respondents were represented by their respective legal counsels. However, during the hearing, the appellant’s counsel conveyed that the appellant's grievance had already been resolved, and the appellant no longer intended to pursue the matter further. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appeal could proceed in light of the appellant’s stated lack of further interest in the matter. ----2- Whether there remained any unresolved legal issues necessitating judicial intervention. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court, after considering the submission made by the appellant’s counsel, concluded that since the appellant’s grievance had been resolved and the appellant expressed disinterest in continuing the case, the appeal was dismissed as withdrawn. The court found no further need to examine the issues on merits.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed a suit for a perpetual injunction regarding a piece of land measuring 1 kanal, part of a larger area of 18 kanals and 8 marlas, situated at Mozia Ankar, District Mirpur. The appellant claimed ownership and possession of the disputed land, which he alleged was being encroached upon by the respondents during his absence abroad. The appellant also sought an interim injunction to prevent further construction by the respondents on the disputed land. The trial court initially granted the interim injunction but later vacated it on May 31, 2018. The appellant's subsequent appeals to the Additional District Judge and later to the High Court were dismissed. The appellant then filed the present appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondents had encroached on the appellant’s land and violated his property rights. ----2- Whether an injunction should be granted to stop construction on the disputed land to prevent irreparable harm. ----3- Whether the courts below properly assessed the evidence related to the ownership and possession of the disputed land. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome The Supreme Court found ambiguities in the revenue records regarding the ownership and possession of the land in dispute (Survey No. 470), making it unclear how much of the land belonged to specific individuals. The court acknowledged the potential hardships and litigation both parties could face if the construction continued without a proper resolution of ownership. Instead of deciding the matter on its merits, the court directed the trial court to expedite the proceedings and resolve the dispute within four months. During this period, the status quo was ordered to be maintained by both parties to prevent further complications. The appeal was disposed of with no costs awarded to either party. -----Citations/Precedents Survey No. 470 and Survey No. 407, Revenue Records Law of Perpetual Injunction Interim Injunction Procedures Doctrine of Status Quo in Property Disputes

Summary: Background:Naqeeb Shah, the respondent, was accused of issuing fake appointment orders in the Police Department along with his co-accused, extorting large sums of money from individuals. An FIR (No. 08/2018) was registered at Police Station Airport Gilgit under Sections 170, 419, 420, 468, 471 PPC. The respondent was granted bail by the Judicial Magistrate Gilgit on 27-07-2018. The State, represented by the Deputy Advocate General, sought the cancellation of this bail, arguing that the Judicial Magistrate's decision was erroneous.---Issues:Whether the bail granted to the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate should be cancelled.Whether the Judicial Magistrate erred in granting bail to the respondent despite previous bail rejections by higher courts.Whether the respondent's alleged actions of issuing fake appointment letters and extorting money constitute grounds for bail cancellation.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court held that the respondent's bail should not be cancelled.The Court reasoned that the respondent was not directly charged in the FIR, and no substantial evidence was collected against him besides a statement made by a witness under Section 161 Cr.P.C., recorded five days after the occurrence.The Court noted that the witness statements recorded by the police were later retracted through affidavits, disowning their initial statements and exonerating the respondent.The Court found no misuse of bail by the respondent after its grant and determined that the case required further inquiry.Consequently, the petition to cancel the bail was dismissed, maintaining the bail granted to the respondent by the Judicial Magistrate Gilgit.----Citations/Precedents:FIR No. 08/2018 registered at Police Station Airport Gilgit under Sections 170, 419, 420, 468, 471 PPC.Judicial Magistrate Gilgit's bail order dated 27-07-2018.Sessions Judge Gilgit's order dated 10-11-2018 rejecting a similar petition for bail cancellation.Section 161 Cr.P.C. statements and affidavits filed by the witnesses.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Against impugned order dated 28.11.19 whereby revisition petition filed by petitioner is dismissed

Summary: The ad-interim order passedby us for suspending the operation of notification with regard to the surrendering the services ofMr. Khadim Hussain Rind, DIG Police and the notification with regard to Muhammad Rizwan Ahmed Khan, SPDistrict Shikarpur is hereby confirmed with the directions that nodecision for surrendering the services and posting of AdditionalInspector General of Police or Deputy Inspector General of Policeshall be made without meaningful consultation of InspectorGeneral of Police, Sindh in terms of Article 13 of the Sindh(Repeal of the Police Act, 1861 & Revival of Police Order, 2002)(Amendment) Act, 2019. Furthermore the posting ofSuperintendent of Police and Assistant or Deputy Superintendentof Police shall only be made by the Inspector General of Policewithin the parameters of Article 17 of the Sindh (Repeal of thePolice Act, 1861 & Revival of Police Order, 2002) (Amendment)Act, 2019. Application is disposed of accordingly.

Summary: The appellants contested the disallowance of input tax adjustment under Sections 8(1)(h) and (i) of the Act. The counsel for the appellant did not press the issue of the vires of the provisions. The court examined the provisions of Sections 7 and 8, highlighting that Section 7 entitles a registered person to deduct input tax for taxable supplies, subject to the purpose of such supplies, while Section 8 disallows reclaim or deduction of input tax if goods are used for a purpose other than taxable supplies. The court emphasized that the right to reclaim or deduct input tax is subject to Section 8, which disallows it for goods not used for taxable supplies. The controversy revolved around the interpretation of Section 8(1)(h) and (i), with the appellant claiming that input tax on the construction of buildings and vehicles used for business should be deductible. The court held that the determination of whether goods are used for taxable supplies is a factual matter to be decided through assessment proceedings.

Summary: In this case, the petitioner challenges the dismissal of her suit for declaration with permanent injunction by both the trial court and the appellate court. The petitioner disputes her brother's ownership of the suit property, claiming it was registered in his name as a benami transaction out of love and affection. However, the lower courts found her claim time-barred and lacking in evidence. The petitioner argued that ownership documents were presented in court, but the court emphasizes that presenting such documents alone is insufficient to establish a benami transaction. The court underscored the need for cogent, legal, relevant, and unimpeachable evidence to definitively prove a benami transaction. The court further cited a judgment stating that claiming inheritance of property not owned by the deceased is disobedience and a violation of Islamic principles. Consequently, the court finds that the petitioner failed to provide sufficient evidence to establish a benami transaction and dismissed the revision petition, affirming the concurrent findings of the lower courts as in accordance with the law.