Summary: Pending

Summary: In this legal case, Sohail Ahmad initially purchased land in 1992, and disputes arose over Mutation No.194, which were resolved by the Supreme Court in 2008. After the sale, a dispute emerged regarding Mutation No.347, with Sohail Ahmad alleging fraud. The revenue authorities canceled the mutation, but the petitioners appealed, and the Additional Commissioner set aside the cancellation. Sohail Ahmad then filed a revision petition, resulting in the restoration of the cancellation. The petitioners argued that revenue authorities lacked jurisdiction to handle matters involving disputed facts and fraud. The court, in its analysis, concured with the petitioners, emphasizing that such disputes should be addressed in civil courts. Consequently, the court allowed the writ petition.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973------Art. 199--Appointment as steno typist--Promotion as private secretary--Retirement from service aftersuperannuation--Appointment on contract basis--Receiving of pensionary benefits--Promotion policy--Entitlement for arrears--Concealment of facts--Procedure adopted for promotion was neither transparent noraccording to rules and policies of Government--There is no policy of promotion exist after two weeks ofretirement and up-gradation of promotional post from back dates as there was a ban on up-gradation of posts--There are two different working papers are available on record and both are contradictory to each other and thereis an ambiguity in both working which does not support claim of petitioner--Procedure so adopted by authoritiesfor promotion of petitioner is neither transparent nor according to rules and policies of government--FinanceDepartment has rightly rejected claim of petitioner, petitioner is failed to make out a case for interference--Petition dismissed

Summary: Conviction upheld---Background:Sadiq Ali, the petitioner, was convicted for the murder of Kashif Ali, his nephew and son-in-law, on February 28, 2010, within the jurisdiction of Police Station City Arifwala, District Pakpattan.The incident occurred when Sadiq Ali asked for a cup of tea from Kashif Ali, which was declined, leading to Sadiq Ali attacking Kashif Ali with a weapon obtained from a nearby butcher shop. Kashif Ali succumbed to his injuries on the way to the hospital.---Issues:The petitioner challenges the judgment on various grounds, including the credibility of witnesses, the motive for the crime, and the recovery of the murder weapon.The petitioner argues that he had no motive to kill his nephew and disputes the prosecution's version of events.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The incident occurred during daylight and was promptly reported to the police, with medical examinations and autopsies conducted in a timely manner, confirming the registration of the case without the possibility of deliberation or consultation.Witness testimony, particularly from Shoukat Ali (PW-5) and an independent witness Muhammad Iqbal (PW-6), provided graphic details of the incident and was consistent with the injuries sustained by both the deceased and the complainant.Forensic evidence, including the recovery of the murder weapon stained with human blood, further supported the prosecution's case.The petitioner's theory of substitution and denial of motive were deemed preposterous in the face of strong evidence against him.Both the trial court and the High Court correctly evaluated the evidence and arrived at concurrent conclusions, which the Supreme Court found unexceptionable.The petition is dismissed, and leave to appeal is declined.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: ----Seeking direction for disqulification of respondent no.2 member of National Assembly u/a 62(1)(f) and article 63(1)(C) on the basic of impugned notification dated 11.08.2018 I. Disqualification of Dual Nationality Holders: Ch. Muhammad Sarwar: The court had earlier required verification of certain documents by 10.10.2018. Despite the absence of verification, the case was scheduled for hearing six weeks later. A flexible approach was taken regarding the relevant dates for disqualification related to dual nationality under Article 63(1)(c) of the Constitution. The Supreme Court confirmed that candidates with dual nationality on the relevant dates, including the filing of nomination papers, last date for nominations, and document scrutiny, are disqualified. Mrs. Nuzhat Sadiq: Her certificate of relinquishment of nationality was subject to verification from the US Embassy and the State Department. A six-week period was allotted for confirmation. II. Disqualification under Article 63(1)(c): Mr. Haroon Akhtar and Mrs. Saadia Abbasi: Found to have dual nationality on the relevant dates, leading to disqualification under Article 63(1)(c). The Election Commission was directed to de-notify them as Senators and take steps for re-election. Mr. Shahzad Ali Khan: His case was rendered infructuous as he had lost the election. III. Renunciation of Foreign Nationality and Candidature: Respondent No.2: The renunciation of UK citizenship was accepted after the relevant date for filing nominations. The candidate was thus deemed eligible to contest the election. Respondent No.3: The petitioners questioned her credentials based on the absence of her prior renunciation of UK citizenship in her affidavit. However, there was no evidence of her re-acquiring UK citizenship. The court ruled she was eligible and did not meet the disqualification criteria under Article 62(1)(f), which requires a court declaration for disqualification. Respondent No.4: Challenged based on a misrepresentation regarding her voter’s registration, which had been rectified in a previous court order. The petitioners' claim was based on an alleged violation of Article 62(1)(f), but the court held that no declaration from a court of law had been made to disqualify her. IV. Legal Precedents: The case refers to several precedents, including Sami Ullah Khan Baloch v. Abdul Karim Nowsherwani (PLD 2018 SC 405) and Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Nawaz Sharif (PLD 2017 SC 265), emphasizing that the disqualification under Article 62(1)(f) requires a court declaration regarding a candidate's character or qualifications. V. Disposition: The petitions against the eligibility of respondents were dismissed as they lacked merit. There was no sufficient evidence to declare respondents as dishonest or non-sagacious under Article 62(1)(f). The judgment reflects a detailed interpretation of the constitutional provisions, focusing on dual nationality and eligibility criteria for election candidates, as well as the importance of court declarations for disqualification under Article 62(1)(f).