Summary: Co-accused Niaz-ur-Rehman has confessed his guilt by recording his statement under Section 164/364 Cr.P.C. Though the evidentiary value of the confessional statement of accused Niaz-ur-Rehman is yet to be determined at trial, however, tentative assessment of the same reveals that he has exonerated the present petitioner and claimed that he alone was involved in the murder of deceased. Moreover, the complainant in his report, charged accused/petitioners along with co-accused for preplanned murder of the deceased, however, no specific role towards commission of offence was attributed to the present petitioners. The case against the present petitioners thus squarely falls within the ambit of further inquiry, entitling them to the concession of bail.

Summary: The preamble of both the statutes that is Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Waqf Properties Ordinance (Ordinance No.1979) and that of West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance,1959 would make it clear that former was promulgated for proper management of Waqf properties in KPK and the latter relates to restrict the increase of rent of certain premises within the limits of urban area and the eviction of tenants therefrom in the province, thus, the object, the intention of legislature and limitation of both the statutes are different from each other, thus, the uniform applicability of both cannot be based on the touchstone of article 25 of the Constitution of 1973.We are not persuaded to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the petitioner that the impugned amendment to the extent of 40% increase after every 03 years is violative and ultra-vires the constitutional rights of the petitioner as protected under Articles 04 and 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 because both the laws were made by the legislature with different intentions and the protection of equal law does not at all mean that all the laws must be uniform. It is by now settled that conception of equality before the laws does not involve the idea of absolute equality amongst human being which as a physical impossibility .

Summary: The petitioner, seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C., had previously filed a similar petition, which was dismissed by the court. The petitioner argued that changes in the charges, specifically the deletion of one offense and the addition of another, constitute a fresh ground for seeking bail. Additionally, the petitioner cited the risk of contracting Covid-19 in prison as a reason for release, referencing a Supreme Court order in a related case. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the substitution of one offense for another does not create a fresh ground. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's stance on the Covid-19 pandemic, stating that the current situation does not provide a basis for bail. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the second bail application should be based on a fresh ground that did not exist during the filing of the first application. The court asserted that withdrawal of a bail petition results in the collapse of all grounds, obligating the petitioner to present a new ground for a subsequent application. Consequently, the court deems the present petition meritless and dismissed it.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 1.Effect of disclaimer made under section 21 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 from exclusive use of a name. 2.The principle that registration of a trade mark gives rise to a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, that principle would be applicable where the trade mark was registered without a disclaimer. 3.In view of section 42(3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, the use of the disclaimed feature of the mark in question would not constitute trade mark infringement. 4.An action for passing-off is essentially to protect property in goods based on the reputation of those goods, as distinct from an action to protect a trade mark which is a property in itself. ---- Issue: Whether the use of "by Junaid Jamshed" by Jazaa Foods constitutes trademark infringement or passing-off against U&I Garments' "JunaidJ.Jamshed" trademark.Holding: The court dismissed U&I Garments' application for a temporary injunction (CMA No. 933/2020) and granted Jazaa Foods' application for a temporary injunction (CMA No. 745/2020), thereby allowing Jazaa Foods to continue using "by Junaid Jamshed" in conjunction with their registered trademark "Jazaa."Reasoning:The court noted that U&I Garments' trademark registration included a disclaimer denying exclusive rights to the use of the name "Junaid Jamshed," indicating that the name could be used by others in a non-deceptive manner.The court found no substantial similarity in the use of "Junaid Jamshed" by Jazaa Foods to that of U&I Garments, thus no trademark infringement occurred.The court also found no evidence of passing-off since U&I Garments had not established a reputation in the food products market that could be confused with Jazaa Foods' products.The balance of convenience and potential for irreparable harm favored Jazaa Foods, as they had been using "by Junaid Jamshed" since 2016 without objection, and Junaid Jamshed himself had authorized the use of his name for Jazaa Foods during his lifetime.Order: The Defendants in Suit No. 94/2020 (U&I Garments and others) are restrained from interfering with Jazaa Foods' use of "by Junaid Jamshed" in conjunction with their registered trademark "Jazaa."

Summary: Bail granted---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 299 of 2020, Raja Muhammad Nadeem challenged the order dated March 20, 2020, passed by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214/2020. The High Court had issued directions for the release of certain categories of prisoners amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.---Issues:Whether the Islamabad High Court had jurisdiction to issue directions for the release of prisoners without individual bail petitions being filed.Whether the High Court's directions were lawful and in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions.Whether the release of prisoners, especially en masse, was appropriate in light of the pandemic.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges to various aspects of life, including the safe custody of prisoners. However, any actions to address these challenges must be within a legal framework.The Court examined Article 175(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the jurisdiction of courts. It noted that High Courts could release accused persons on bail after notice to the prosecution and based on case-by-case considerations. However, there was no provision for wholesale release of prisoners without individual bail petitions and notice to the prosecution.The Court cited the Prisoners Act, 1900, which provides mechanisms for dealing with overcrowded prisons and epidemics. It concluded that the impugned directions by the High Courts lacked legal basis and were beyond their jurisdiction.The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law, even in times of crisis. It set aside the directions issued by the Islamabad High Court and the Sindh High Court for the release of prisoners. Orders granting bail to accused persons under various provisions were recalled.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending