Summary: Background: The appellants filed revision petitions in the High Court which were dismissed through the impugned judgment, prompting them to appeal by leave of the Court. The appellants' counsel admitted the finality of the decrees but requested time to arrange funds for execution. He highlighted the potential hardships and impact on electricity production if the executing Court's order for auction of land proceeds. Conversely, the respondents' counsel argued that the appellants have deprived them of constitutionally guaranteed rights to compensation for years and that there is no legal justification for challenging the High Court's judgment or the executing Court's orders. ----Issues: 1- Whether the auction of the appellants' land should be stayed to allow time for arranging funds for decree execution. 2- Whether the appellants have any legal justification to challenge the High Court's judgment and the executing Court's orders. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court found no legal justification for interfering with the impugned judgment as the decrees against the appellants have been finalized and execution has been pending for an extended period. The appellants' intention to arrange funds does not necessitate an auction of property if funds are managed to satisfy the decrees. The executing Court is directed to reasonably consider the appellants' submission and grant reasonable time if they manage the funds, thereby avoiding the need for property auction. The appeals were disposed of with no order as to costs. ----Citations/Precedents: The constitutional provision entitling respondents to compensation. The executing Court's discretion to grant time for fund management to satisfy decrees.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The Adl. Assistant commissioner-II (AAC-II) Mansehra instead of processing all cases jointly divided the partition proceedings in two parts; and thereby it becomes impossible to partition the land in accordance with the kind of land proportionate share of each joint owner. Partial partition cannot be allowed and the entire properties owned by the parties should be included in the partition to safeguard all the co-owners from being discriminated and thus the entire corpus is placed in a common pool for the court to ensure that each co-owner is allotted his share equitably depending on the value thereof, which surely be dependent upon the area, location and the nature of the property.

Summary: Though the complainant was able to identify the accused/petitioner in the identification parade conducted by the learned Senior Civil Judge, Abbottabad on 26.11.2019, but identification of the accused/petitioner after lapese of about 28 long years also create a question which can only be resolved after recording prosecution evidence.

Summary: Where an application for withdrawal of suit was filed with prayer seeking permission to file fresh suit and Court simply ordered dismissed as withdrawn without adverting to the contents of application and without recording any reason, it would be presumed that despite not granting of specific permission to that effect in the order disposing of suit permission for filling afresh suit was deemed to be granted with reference for prayer clause embodied in the application.

Summary: Discussion on Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act 1940 - Award)---The plaintiff filed a suit invoking the arbitration clause of the contract. The court referred the matter to arbitration, which resulted in an award. The plaintiff sought to have the award upheld, while the defendant raised objections, attempting to set aside the award. The objections were based on various grounds, including the alleged cursory treatment of certain issues in the award, failure to consider amounts paid by the defendant, the nature of the contractual relationship, and the claim that the award was void. The court reviewed the objections and examined whether they were valid within the scope of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the arbitrator's role was to be the final judge of both legal and factual matters, as long as they adhered to the contract and law. The court noted that an award could only be set aside on specific grounds, such as arbitrator misconduct, invalidity, or errors on the face of the award. The court determined that the objections raised by the defendant were either not substantiated or fell outside the permissible grounds for setting aside an award. Additionally, the court found that the objections were time-barred, as they were filed after the statutory limitation period. Despite discussing the objections on their merits, the court upheld the award, considering it well-reasoned and in accordance with the evidence presented during arbitration. Consequently, the objections to the award were dismissed, and the award was made the rule of the court.

Summary: Arbitration Act---The learned counsel for the defendant has been unable to demonstrate any infirmity with respect to the Award, within the ambit of Section 30 of the Act or otherwise, and as a consequence thereof the objections to the Award are hereby dismissed.---In the case presented, the Claimant successfully sought restitution from the Respondent, amounting to USD 14,264,272.98, for iron ore supplied under a contractual agreement. Following a dispute over non-payment, the Claimant initiated arbitration proceedings per the contract's arbitration clause. During the proceedings, the Respondent argued that the contract became void due to international sanctions against the Claimant's country of incorporation. However, the arbitrator rejected this argument, emphasizing that the sanctions did not absolve the Respondent of its liability under the contract. Furthermore, the Respondent contested the requirement to pay the sum in Pakistani Rupees based on the prevailing exchange rate at the time of payment, citing it as unjust and contrary to public policy. The court, however, upheld the arbitrator's decision, stating that honoring the contractual obligation did not violate public policy, and the exchange rate provision was reasonable. The court reiterated that interference with arbitration awards is limited to specific grounds outlined in the law, and found no valid reason to set aside the award. It emphasized that the arbitrator's decision was well-founded and supported by evidence, dismissing the objections raised by the Respondent. Ultimately, the court upheld the arbitration award, directing the Respondent to fulfill its payment obligation as determined by the arbitrator. The decision underscored the principle that contractual obligations must be honored unless prohibited by law or against public policy, and affirmed the finality of arbitration awards within the parameters of the law.

Summary: (a) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------S. 9(c)---Possession of narcotics---Sentence--- Scope--- Accused was sentenced toimprisonment for 15 years for having been found in possession of 15 kilograms of charas---Law provided a sentence for the offence not less than imprisonment for life but the commandof law escaped the notice of Trial Court---Impugned judgment was set aside and the case wasremanded to the Trial Court for decision afresh.State through Director General ANF Peshawar v. Muhammad Ramzan and others2019 SCMR 1295; State through Regional Director ANF Peshawar v. Sohail Khan 2019SCMR 1288 and State through Director ANF Peshawar v. Fakhar Zaman 2019 SCMR 1122ref.(b) Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997)-------Preamble & Ss. 7, 8 & 9---Object and purpose---Sentence, quantum of---Import or exportof narcotic/drugs, trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotics/drugs---Scope---Objectand purpose as mentioned in the Preamble of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 wasto consolidate and amend the laws relating to narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances---Object and purpose was also to regulate the treatment and rehabilitation of narcotic addictsand the matters connected and incidental therewith---Section 7 prohibited the import into,export from and transporting within Pakistan of any narcotic drug and psychotropicsubstance or controlled substance, save in accordance with the Rules made under S.7(2) ofthe Act---Trafficking or financing the trafficking of narcotic drugs was prohibited under S. 8---Section 9 described distinct punishments for contravention of the prohibition contained inSs. 6, 7 & 8 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997---Punishments were dividedinto three categories i.e. in cls. (a), (b) & (c) of S.9---Clause (a) of S.9 prescribed punishmentof imprisonment which might extend to two years or with fine or with both if the quantity ofnarcotic drugs and psychotropic substances or controlled substance was one hundred gramsor less---Clause (b) of S.9 was in respect of narcotic drugs and psychotropic substances orcontrolled substances which exceeded one hundred grams but did not exceed one kilogramand prescribed a punishment of imprisonment which might extend to 7 years besides imposition of fine---Likewise cl. (c) of S.9 was in respect of quantity which exceeded thelimit specified in cl. (b) i.e. more than one kilogram and the punishment prescribed was deathor imprisonment for life or imprisonment for a term which might extend to 14 years and theperson would also be liable to fine upto rupees one million---Proviso to S. 9 provided that ifthe quantity exceeded 10 kilogram then the punishment would not be less than imprisonmentfor life.