Summary: Background:This appeal stems from the judgment dated 13.2.2018, issued by the Islamabad High Court in RFA No. 166/2013. The case involves a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement dated 4.10.2004 filed by Respondent No. 1 against the Appellant (Defendants No. 2 and 3) before the Civil Judge, Islamabad. The defendants contested the suit, claiming that the agreement was canceled due to the plaintiff's failure to pay the balance consideration within the stipulated period. The trial court directed the respondent to deposit the balance sale consideration within one month, which was not complied with. The suit was subsequently dismissed, and the dismissal was upheld by the High Court.---Issues:Whether the appellant was in breach of contract by failing to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period.Whether the direction to refund the earnest money by the High Court was justified.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The High Court held that the appellant's failure to pay the balance sale consideration within the stipulated period amounted to a breach of contract. The court found no merit in the appeal and dismissed it, directing the appellants to return the earnest money to the respondent along with profit. However, the court also noted that the appellants were not served notice regarding the forfeiture of earnest money, and therefore, directed the return of earnest money with profit only to the extent mentioned in the agreement. The court relied on the case of Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman to establish that time was of the essence of the contract.---Citations/Precedents:Mst. Gulshan Hamid v. Kh. Abdul Rehman (2010 SCMR 334)Abdul Hamid v. Abbas Bhai- Abdul Hussain (PLD 1959 (WP) Karachi 629)Space Telecommunication (Pvt) Ltd. v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority (2019 SCMR 101)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background: The appellants were convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge-II, Mansehra, for their involvement in a bank robbery that occurred on February 17, 2011, at the UBL Sabzi Mandi Branch, Mansehra. Five armed culprits entered the bank, detained the staff and customers, and looted a significant amount of cash, along with mobile phones and a repeater gun. The appellants were arrested on February 27, 2011, and a joint identification parade was conducted. Subsequently, they were sentenced to 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Sections 395/397 PPC and 5 years under Section 412 PPC, along with fines. The appellants challenged the conviction in the Federal Shariat Court, claiming that the identification and evidence were flawed. ----Issues: 1- Was the identification parade conducted in accordance with legal standards, and was it reliable? 2- Did the prosecution provide sufficient evidence to prove the appellants' involvement in the robbery beyond a reasonable doubt? 3- Were the appellants entitled to the benefit of the doubt due to the inconsistencies and irregularities in the investigation and trial process? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Identification Parade: The court found significant flaws in the identification parade. The magistrate did not verify how long the accused had been in police custody before the parade, and the identification parade was conducted 22 days after the occurrence, which reduced its evidentiary value. Additionally, the parade was conducted jointly for multiple accused, further diminishing its reliability. --Sufficiency of Evidence: The prosecution failed to provide sufficient and convincing evidence to prove the guilt of the appellants. The eyewitnesses did not positively identify the appellants as the culprits, and there were discrepancies in their testimonies. The circumstantial evidence, including the identification parade and recoveries, was not credible enough to sustain the conviction. --Benefit of the Doubt: Given the numerous inconsistencies, including the non-compliance with Section 103 of the Cr.P.C regarding the involvement of independent witnesses in the recovery process, the court ruled that the appellants were entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The court observed that if there is any reasonable doubt regarding the guilt of the accused, they should be acquitted as a matter of right. The appeal was accepted, the convictions and sentences were set aside, and the appellants were acquitted of the charges by extending them the benefit of the doubt. ----Citations/Precedents: Tang Parvez v. The State (1995 SCMR 1345) Muhammad Ilyas v. The State (1997 SCMR 25) Ghulam Qadir v. The State (2008 SCMR 1221) Abdul Rashid v. State (PLD 1975 Kar. 92) Ballia and others v. State (1985 SCMR 854) Nasrullah and another v. State (1977 PCr.LJ 132) Rahmat v. State (PLD 1976 Lah. 1444) Muhammad Shafi and others v. State (PLD 1967 SC 167) Muhammad Khan v. Dost Muhammad (PLD 1975 SC 607) Afzal v. State (1983 SCMR 1) Niaz Muhammad alias Taja and another v. State (PLD 1983 SC (AJ&K) 211) Malik Aman v. State (1986 SCMR 17) Sultan and others v. State (1987 SCMR 1177) Khair Gul v. State (1989 SCMR 491) The State v. Abba Ali Shah (PLD 1988 Kar. 409) These precedents were used to support the court's reasoning regarding the reliability of identification parades, the importance of independent witnesses in recovery processes, and the application of the benefit of the doubt principle.

Summary: SRO 170(I)/2017 dated 17.03.2017 is for "imported goods only" and was not applied to parallel or grey market imports and de-minimis imports.Powers to take action, detention, seizure, confiscation of goods imported into or taken out of Pakistan were/are always available with the customs officials and it is not that SRO 170(i)/2017 that has empowered them, it only set the process to be initiated by custom officials in relation to goods being imported. What was amended by virtue of SRO 768(I)/2014 is also very material. In Section 3CC and 3E of Customs Act, 1969 formation of the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement was redesigned along with its functions, jurisdiction and powers. In the present case Tribunal could only pass order to the extent of trade mark being an infringed one or otherwise and to restrain it from being violated. The Procedural action of custom officials was not questioned independently by respondent. Once the effect of infringement was determined by tribunal the customs officials would definitely have followed it.Color and color scheme also at time claimed to be an inventive one but that is not the case here as no one has claimed livery or color scheme or get up to be a mark of distinction under any intellectual property rights. Both parties are contesting over one mark i.e Tabiat and no one has claimed any exclusive right over livery or dress up of mark. So everything is a disclaimer except "Tabiat". If there are deceptive liveries of common product like rice, with one trade mark "Tabiat" in the absence of a right claimed under the liveries, the buyer would definitely get confuse and jump to some other brand as a natural course.In terms of Section 5(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 goods even if not meant for a local consumption but only to enter the port for onwards journey, would mean the use of mark within jurisdiction. Unless goods in transit are defined otherwise, only aforesaid meaning is deducible. Construction of our Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 is also based on same scheme and there is no inconsistency as far as framing of relevant provision trade mark is concerned.The word import or export (exclusively or inclusively) not defined under the law in hand differently that is dealing with goods in transit. The case of the appellant is on better footing since the attempt is made to export the goods from the territory where the mark is registeredThe word "use" as explained above is also applicable to goods "for export only" and hence Section 5(2) read with section 40 of Trade Mark ordinance 2001 would be interpreted accordingly as use within territory of Pakistan.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Issue of Higher Education Commission's (HEC) Regulatory Authority over Al-Khair University: The case addresses the issue of HEC’s regulatory authority over Al-Khair University, a chartered institution located in Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJK). It was argued that Al-Khair University’s refusal to comply with HEC’s directives, such as halting admissions in MS, M.Phil, and Ph.D. programs, violated HEC's regulatory role in both Pakistan and AJK. The Court affirmed HEC’s jurisdiction, highlighting that HEC oversees all higher educational institutions in Pakistan and AJK, especially when it involves affiliated colleges. (b) HEC’s Decision Regarding Degree Recognition and Attestation: The Court evaluated the legality of HEC's refusal to recognize degrees awarded by Al-Khair University, particularly those obtained after 17.10.2011, when a ban on new admissions was imposed by HEC. HEC had made policy decisions regarding the recognition of degrees from Al-Khair University, including a letter on 31.08.2018, which allowed for the recognition of degrees awarded before 17.10.2011 and for students who enrolled up to 30.04.2009. The Court ruled that HEC’s policy was justified, upholding the regulator's decisions regarding the recognition of degrees and certification of students' qualifications. (c) Rights of Students Enrolled Between 08.05.2012 and 30.09.2015: The petitioners in Writ Petition No. 2549/2019, who were enrolled between 08.05.2012 and 30.09.2015, argued that they had vested rights to have their degrees recognized. The Court held that during this period, restrictions imposed by HEC on Al-Khair University were suspended by a court order. Therefore, students admitted during this suspension period were not at fault for relying on the University’s admissions process. HEC was directed to reconsider its stance and review the degrees awarded to students during this timeframe in light of the Court's observations. (d) Policy Decision by HEC and Judicial Review: The Court emphasized that policy decisions taken by administrative bodies such as HEC should not be interfered with unless they are illegal or unconstitutional. The decision by HEC in 2018 to regularize the qualifications of students from Al-Khair University’s affiliated colleges was found to be a legitimate exercise of its policy discretion. The Court noted that while many students might be adversely affected, this did not provide a basis for overriding HEC’s policy. ----Disposition: Writ Petition No. 2549/2019 was disposed of with instructions to HEC to reconsider the degrees awarded to students enrolled between 08.05.2012 and 30.09.2015. The Intra-Court Appeal (I.C.A. No. 265/2017) and other writ petitions were dismissed for lack of merit. ----Legal Precedents Cited: Malik Asad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1998 SC 161) Riaz-ul-Haq v. Selection Committee, Bolan Medical College (1997 SCMR 1845) Chairman, King Edward Medical College v. Wasif Zamir Ahmad (1997 SCMR 15) Usama Javaid v. HEC (2010 MLD 588)

Summary: Appeal against Conviction- Aginst sentence of life imprisonment offence u/s 302/ 392/ 411/ 34 PPC ASJ- West- Wajid Ali