Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890)--- ----Ss. 25 & 17---Custody of minor---Matters to be considered by court in appointing guardian---Right of mother to custody of minor daughter---Mother, when disqualified for custody---Marriage of mother with a person not related to the child within the prohibited degree---Scope---Mother of minor assailed order passed by Appellate Court whereby judgment passed by Guardian Judge was set aside and the custody of minor was handed over to the father of minor---Contention of father was that the mother of minor had contracted second marriage and her husband was in the prohibited degree with the minor---Contention of mother was that the father of minor had contracted second marriage; that he had two daughters from said marriage and that she had no other child from her second marriage--- Validity---Minor, since birth, had developed bonding with her mother; separating her from real mother and forcing her to live with step-mother (who had her own two daughters) in the house of her father would not only be harsh, unjust and traumatizing for her personality but would also disturb her mentally---Minor wanted to live with her mother and there was no reason not to respect her wish---Father of minor himself had admitted that he had no business or job---Mother of minor had married to a person who did not fall in the prohibited degree to the ward, therefore, High Court held that once the minor attained the age of puberty, her father could approach the court for her custody---Writ petition was allowed, order passed by Appellate Court was set aside, that of Guardian Judge was restored and father was allowed to have frequent meetings with the minor.

Summary: In all these petitions, filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the petitioners have sought the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court to quash the FIRs/ proceedingsthere under. Without going to the roots of the matter, suffice it to say, that alternate remedy in the shape of application under Sections 249-A or 265-K Cr.PC is available to the petitioners. They may avail this remedy, if at all, the Trial Court proceed against them.

Summary: The dispute revolved around the mis-declaration of the value of imported goods, with a detected mis-declaration of more than 30% of the declared value. The goods were redeemed on payment of a fine equal to 100% of the value. The appellant's counsel contended that SRO 1374 was not applicable because the contravention was under Section 156(1)14 of the Customs Act, 1969. They argued that the words "or in violation of any other provisions of this Act" were inserted through the Finance Act, 2019, and could not be applied retrospectively. The court examined Section 156(1)14 of the Customs Act, which defines the contravention in question. The section specifies penalties for offenses related to the mis-declaration of goods. The court also delved into Section 181, which allows the officer passing an order of confiscation to give the owner the option to pay a fine in lieu of confiscation. The court concluded that SRO 1374 could not be invoked in this case, as the contravention fell under Section 156(1)14. However, it upholds the imposition of a 100% fine under Section 181, stating that the undervaluation of goods was intentional and amounted to fraud against Customs Authorities. Ultimately, the court dismissed the appeal.

Summary: Background:Civil Petition No. 3317 & 3318 of 2018 were filed against the judgment dated 21.5.2018 of the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad in FERA No. 11 and 13 of 2015.The petitioner, Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), Islamabad, challenged the decision regarding the levy of Federal Excise Duty (FED) on voice content transmitted through the internet by M/s Wi-Tribe Pakistan Ltd.---Issues:Whether the transmission of voice content through the internet would attract the levy of FED, similar to telecommunication services.Whether internet services are exempted from FED according to the Federal Excise Act, 2005.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court examined the relevant provisions of the Federal Excise Act, 2005, particularly section 3 exempting internet services from FED.The Court noted that internet services, including transmission of voice content, are exempted from FED according to item No.2 of Table-II in the 3rd Schedule of the Act.The petitioner argued that since voice content transmitted through the internet falls under telecommunication services, it should attract FED. However, the Court disagreed, emphasizing that the exemption applies to all telecommunication facilities availed through the internet, irrespective of their nature.The Court highlighted that no mechanism exists to segregate internet usage for different purposes, and no charges are levied specifically for voice transmission.The Court concluded that internet services are wholly exempted from FED, and any ambiguity regarding exemptions should be resolved in favor of the taxpayer.Therefore, the Court dismissed the petitions, upholding the judgment of the Islamabad High Court.---Citations/Precedents:Federal Excise Act, 2005

Summary: Background:The petitioners, Sakhi Jan and others, challenged the judgments dated 13.04.2015 of the Peshawar High Court, D.I. Khan Bench, dismissing Civil Revisions No. 69-D and 86-D of 2012.The first petition, No. 2866 of 2015, pertained to a suit for specific performance filed by Shah Nawaz.The second petition, No. 2867 of 2015, related to a suit for declaration filed by the petitioners, challenging various mutations and subsequent land transfers.---Issues:Enforceability of an agreement to sell without the signature of the purchaser.Whether a bar on property transfer affected the validity of the mutations and subsequent transfers.Non-impleadment of revenue officials and the Provincial Government in the suit for declaration.---Holding/Reasoning:An agreement to sell, even without the signature of the purchaser, can be valid and enforceable if proved through reliable evidence.The plea regarding the bar on property transfer was not raised earlier and lacked strong evidence. The petitioners could not benefit from their own wrong in challenging mutations they themselves executed.The suit for declaration was defective due to the non-impleadment of revenue officials and the Provincial Government, who were necessary parties in cases challenging registered documents.The findings of the lower courts were upheld as the petitioners failed to establish grounds for interference.Both civil petitions were dismissed, and leave was declined.

Summary: Background:The respondents, engaged in the manufacturing and sale of cement, imported refractory bricks declared under PCT headings 6902.1090 and 6902.2090, subject to a 10% ad-valorem customs duty. However, the Customs Department classified them under PCT heading 6902.1010, attracting a 30% customs duty rate. Dispute arose regarding the correct classification, leading to appeals before the Customs, Central Excise, and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal.---Issues:Whether the imported refractory bricks should be classified under PCT heading 6902.1010 or 6902.1090/6902.2090?What is the relevance of expert opinions obtained by the Customs Department in determining the classification of the imported goods?Is the Customs hierarchy bound by the Central Board of Revenue's endorsement regarding classification disputes?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Tribunal upheld the respondents' classification under PCT headings 6902.1090 and 6902.2090, subject to 10% duty, based on the bricks' ability to withstand temperatures above 1600?C. Expert opinions obtained by the Customs Department were considered but deemed insufficient to overturn the respondents' classification. The Supreme Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, ruling that the Customs hierarchy's discretion in classification matters is not bound by the Central Board of Revenue's endorsements. The Court emphasized that classification disputes involve mixed questions of law and fact, falling within the Customs hierarchy's quasi-judicial functions.---Citations/Precedents:Central Insurance Co. and others v. The Central Board of Revenue (1993 SCMR 1232)Customs Act, 1969Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: The appellants, associated with a private health sciences college, challenged a judgment and decree passed by the High Court on 01.02.2019 in a dispute involving financial or property matters related to the operations of their business. The respondent was a bank with whom the appellants presumably had financial dealings, with the property in question located at Plot No.53 and 53-A, Old Industrial Estate, Sector D-1 Mirpur. The appellants filed an appeal before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir, seeking relief from the High Court’s judgment. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellants had valid grounds to challenge the High Court's decision in the financial/property dispute. -----2- What legal consequences follow if an appellant withdraws the case during appellate proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: At the beginning of the hearing, the appellants’ counsel informed the Court of their intent to withdraw the appeal. The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn, without adjudicating the substantive merits of the case. The Court issued no order as to costs, indicating no financial penalty or liability on the appellants for bringing the appeal and later withdrawing it. -----Citations/Precedents: Withdrawal of Appeal: The appellants’ request to withdraw the appeal aligns with standard procedural rules, which allow for withdrawal without further adjudication. No Order as to Costs: The Court's decision not to impose costs follows established judicial practice when an appeal is voluntarily withdrawn.

Summary: Background: The appellant, involved in a dispute with the respondent regarding a civil matter, filed an appeal against a judgment passed by the High Court on 26.02.2019 in Civil Appeal No.187/2014. The appeal was brought before the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The subject of the dispute was not explicitly mentioned, but the matter pertained to issues likely concerning property or civil claims. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant had legal grounds to challenge the decision of the High Court. -----2- What legal implications arise from the voluntary withdrawal of an appeal during appellate proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: During the proceedings, the appellant’s counsel stated that, in the client’s best interest, he no longer intended to pursue the appeal. Based on the counsel’s submission, the Supreme Court dismissed the appeal as withdrawn. The Court did not provide a ruling on the substantive merits of the case, as the matter was not argued. -----Citations/Precedents: Withdrawal of Appeal: The appellant exercised the right to withdraw the appeal without seeking adjudication on the merits. No Order as to Costs: The judgment reflects standard judicial practice of dismissing withdrawn appeals without awarding costs.