Summary: Sections of law;115 Code of Civil Procedure,1908.(a) History of constitutional and legal development of Malakand Division traced.(b) N.W.F.P. Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act,1935 was not applicable in Malakand Protected Area and rest of FATA.West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act, 1962 was also not applicable in Malakand Protected Area till the time it was specifically extended vide Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Regulation 1 of 1976. Same cannot be given retrospective effect so as to affect matters which got finalized earlier and were supposed to be past and closed transactions.(c) Unqualified admissions may be used as evidence of conclusive nature in a suit, if same is not found to have been untrue.

Summary: This article mandates that when a seat in the National Assembly or Provincial Assembly becomes vacant not later than 120 days before the term's expiry, an election must be held within 60 days of the vacancy. The petitioner argues that the original vacancy was notified, and the first election schedule was disclosed, setting the polling day. However, the schedule was later revised, moving the public notice issuance, with polling set. This delay was attributed to administrative issues in revising the electoral rolls. After considering arguments and materials, the court observes that Article 224 of the Constitution dictates that a vacant seat must be filled within 60 days when occurring within 120 days before the Assembly's term ends. The petitioner had highlighted delays in the election schedule, but the court found the reasons provided, such as ongoing electoral roll revision, to be insufficient. The court references correspondence from the District Election Commissioner, which contradicted the administrative reasons cited. The court criticizes the officials of the Provincial Election Commission for the delay and inefficiency in managing the election process. The court rules that the delay was not adequately explained and enforces the revised schedule strictly. The court concludes by directing the election to proceed according to the revised schedule and warns against further delays in compliance with the Constitution's mandates.

Summary: ---Ss. 279, 280, 281 & 282--- Compromise with creditors and members--- Power ofSecurities and Exchange Commission (Commission) to enforce compromises andarrangements---Information as to compromises or arrangements with creditors and members---Powers of Co

Summary: Background: The appellants, WAPDA and its officials, filed an appeal against the judgment and decree dated April 12, 2019, from the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir. The case revolves around the acquisition of a brick-kiln owned by the respondent for the Mangla Dam Raising Project. The respondent was dissatisfied with the compensation awarded by the Collector Land Acquisition and sought further enhancement through a reference application. ----Issues: 1- Whether the compensation for the acquired brick-kiln was fairly assessed considering its market value. 2- Whether the High Court's further enhancement of the compensation was justified based on the evidence presented. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The High Court enhanced the compensation for the respondent's brick-kiln from Rs.49,91,420/- to Rs.72,04,425/-. The learned Reference Judge had previously increased the compensation, but the respondent sought further enhancement, which the High Court granted. The appellants contended that the compensation had been properly assessed by a team of Civil Engineers, but the High Court found that the evidence provided by the respondent, including documentary and oral evidence, was not sufficiently rebutted by the appellants. The Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir upheld the High Court's decision, concluding that the enhanced compensation was justified based on the evidence. The appeals from both parties were dismissed with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: Judgment and decree dated April 12, 2019, in civil appeal No.34 of 2013 by the High Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir Award No.1139/2011 issued for the Mangla Dam Raising Project Reference Judge's judgment and decree dated November 3, 2012 Relevant cases holding that estimates by Civil Engineers cannot be followed blindly if proven wrong

Summary: Background: The appeals were filed against the common judgment of the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court dated June 1, 2018. The case involved the appellant, convicted of murder and sentenced to death. The conviction and death sentence were confirmed by the trial court and upheld by the High Court. The appellant, along with other co-accused, was implicated in the murder of the complainant's relative over a family dispute. ----Issues: 1- Whether the conviction and death sentence of the appellant were justified based on the evidence presented. 2- Whether the delay in lodging the FIR affected the credibility of the prosecution's case. 3- Whether the principle of expectancy of life due to the lengthy appeal process should result in the alteration of the death sentence to life imprisonment. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, finding no mitigating factors to alter the sentence. The key points in the judgment included: Credibility of Evidence: The prosecution provided direct evidence from three eyewitnesses who consistently testified against the appellant. The defense failed to provide sufficient evidence to discredit their testimony. Delay in FIR: The court found the delay in lodging the FIR reasonable under the circumstances, as the priority was to secure medical assistance for the injured, who later succumbed to injuries. Expectancy of Life: The court rejected the argument that the appellant's prolonged imprisonment should alter the death sentence to life imprisonment. It cited previous cases where such grounds were deemed insufficient for altering the punishment. Recovery of Weapon and Forensic Evidence: The court acknowledged discrepancies in the recovery process but found them immaterial given the overwhelming direct evidence. Acquittal of Co-Accused: The court found no substantial evidence against the co-accused to overturn their acquittal. ----Citations/Precedents: Ansar Mehmood and another v. Manazir Hussain and another [2014 SCR 770] Saadulla Jan v. State and another [2002 P.Cr.L.J 1463] Muhammad Ashraf Khan Tareen v. The State [1995 P.Cr.L.J 313] Muhammad Shafi v. The State [1987 P.Cr.L.J 1163] Abrar Hussain Shah v. The State [1992 SCR 294] Shabbir Ahmad v. The State and another [1997 SCR 206] Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another [2007 SCR 1] Muhammad Tahir Aziz v. The State an another [2009 SCR 71] Muhammad Zaman v. The State and others [2014 SCMR 749] Jawed Malik v. The State [2005 SCMR 49] Maqbool Ahmad and others v. The State [1987 SCMR 1059] Raheem Bakhsh v. Abdul Subhan and another [1999 SCMR 1190] Muhammad Mumtaz Hussain and another v. Muhammad Arshad and 2 others [2001 SCR 231] Dilawar Hussain v. The State [2013 SCMR 1582] Muhammad Khurshid Khan v. Muhammad Basharat and another [2007 SCR 1] Said Akbar and another v. Sardar Ghulam Hussain Khan through legal heirs and another [2017 P.Cr.L.J 731] Muhammad Shabir v. Ch.Muhammad Rashid & others [criminal appeal No.14 of 2013 decided on 20.02.2014]

Summary: Background: The appellant, dissatisfied with a judgment dated December 27, 2018, from the High Court, filed an appeal with the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu and Kashmir. The case revolves around the alleged illegal alteration and reallocation of plots by the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA). Respondents claimed that their allocated plots were unlawfully shifted, affecting their value and location. ----Issues: 1- Whether the High Court properly considered the pleadings and material facts before issuing its judgment. 2- Whether the Mirpur Development Authority's alterations to the master plan were lawful and valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court found that the High Court's judgment did not properly appreciate the material facts and pleadings brought on record. The High Court had accepted the writ petitions of the respondents without thoroughly discussing or resolving the serious averments and written statements filed by the appellant. The Supreme Court emphasized that legal decisions must be based on a thorough examination of the pleadings and material facts. Consequently, the Supreme Court accepted the appeal, recalled the High Court's judgment, and remanded the case to the High Court for a fresh decision according to law, ensuring that all material legal and factual propositions raised in the pleadings are properly attended to. ----Citations/Precedents: Judgment of the High Court dated December 27, 2018, in writ petitions No. 161 and 162 of 2011. Case titled "Kashmir Blood Bank vs. Mirpur Development Authority."

Summary: Background: The appellants challenged the judgment and decree dated July 11, 2018, from the Azad Jammu & Kashmir High Court. The respondents had filed a suit for specific performance of a contract related to land comprising Khasra No.484. The suit was based on an agreement made during a previous legal dispute between the parties. The trial court and the High Court both ruled in favor of the respondents, prompting the appellants to appeal. ----Issues: 1- Whether the subsequent suit for specific performance was barred by Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC). 2- Whether the previous judgments and the agreement to sell were valid and enforceable. 3- Whether the courts below correctly interpreted and applied the relevant legal principles. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, concluding that the subsequent suit for specific performance was not barred by Order II, Rule 2, CPC. Key points of the judgment included: --Order II, Rule 2, CPC: The court emphasized that Order II, Rule 2, CPC, is intended to prevent splitting of claims arising from the same cause of action and to avoid multiplicity of suits. However, the court found that the subsequent suit for specific performance was not barred because the previous suit for declaration was held to be not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The trial court had already determined that the plaintiff could seek relief through a suit for specific performance. --Previous Suit and Agreement: The court noted that the previous suit for declaration was dismissed because it was based on an agreement to sell, which did not warrant a declaration of ownership. The subsequent suit for specific performance was filed in accordance with the trial court's observation that the plaintiff could seek specific performance. --Factual Findings: The court agreed with the findings of the lower courts that the appellant had executed the agreement to sell and received the consideration amount but failed to honor his commitment. The court found no reason to interfere with these concurrent findings of fact. ----Citations/Precedents: Ch. Liaqat Ali vs. Mirza Abdul Aziz and 3 others [2001 SCR 146] Muhammad Siddique & 6 others vs. Abdul Aziz Ratalvi & 7 others [2015 SCR 705] Raja Muhammad Akram Khan vs. Azad Government & others [2006 SCR 214] Khalique Ahmed vs. Tahir Saeed [1998 CLC 1973] Pirzada Amir Hassan and others vs. Mrs. Shamim Shah Nawaz and others [1984 CLC 3080] Ghulam Nabi & others vs. Seth Muhammad Yaqub and others [PLD 1983 SC 344] Kunjan Nair Sivaraman Nair vs. Narayanan Nair and others [AIR 2004 Supreme Court 1761] Muhammad Mansha’s case [2000 CLC 1226]

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending