Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Petitioners are Project employees and as per decision of august Supreme Court reported as 2016 SCMR 1443, 1375 and 1602 are to be considered accordingly.

Summary: The judgment relates to a constitutional petition filed by Dr. Mirza Faisal Ahmed Rafiq challenging the appointment orders of respondents No.9 and 10 as Assistant Professor Neurosurgery in Ayub Medical Institution, Abbottabad. The court heard the arguments of the petitioner and respondents, and the petitioner raised several objections, including issues related to merit, simultaneous service in two departments, the constitution of the selection committee, and the appointment of two individuals against one advertised post. However, the court rejected these objections and found no merit in the petition.The court ruled that the petitioner's merit position was lower than the respondents, and the selection committee had discretion in awarding marks. However, the court found that this violation does not nullify the degree obtained by the respondent.Regarding the constitution of the selection committee and the appointment of two individuals against one post, the court mentioned that there were no specific rules barring the inclusion of the Deputy Director Administration in the committee. It also noted that the transfer of the post of Assistant Professor Endocrinology to the Neurosurgery department was approved by the Board of Governors. The court dismissed the petition.

Summary: Jurisdiction of NAB: The central issue in this case was whether NAB had the legal jurisdiction to issue a notice to Lahore Development Authority (LDA) and private housing developers, seeking information related to land development. The court examined the relevant legal provisions, specifically Section 27 and Section 33-C of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (NAO, 1999). Section 27 granted NAB the power to seek assistance and information from various entities. Section 33-C allowed the Chairman of NAB to constitute committees to prevent corruption and corrupt practices. The court found that NAB had the authority to seek information under these sections as long as confidentiality was maintained.Preventive Measures and Accountability: The court emphasized the importance of preventive measures against corruption and corrupt practices. It highlighted the role of accountability laws in not only monitoring the functionality of government departments but also promoting transparency and integrity in public administration. Accountability was described as a vital concept that includes various aspects, such as financial accounting, performance auditing, and public reporting. The court also noted the global trend of incorporating preventive measures to minimize opportunities for corruption and to educate the public on its adverse effects.International Standards: The court referenced international standards, including the United Nations Convention against Corruption, to emphasize the need for preventive anti-corruption policies and practices. These standards called for education, advice, and assistance in the fight against corruption, making it clear that such measures were a global concern.Comparative Legal Provisions: The court provided comparative legal provisions from other countries, such as Malaysia, India, the United Kingdom, Scotland, France, Germany, Hong Kong, and Singapore, which all had laws and agencies dedicated to the prevention of corruption. These examples demonstrated that many nations recognized the importance of preventive measures and public education in the battle against corruption.Specific Case Context: In the specific context of the case, the court noted that NAB had not directly initiated proceedings against the petitioners. Instead, it sought information that may or may not lead to direct action. The court underscored that at this stage, it could not halt NAB from collecting information that could be relevant to allegations of corruption and corrupt practices.Ultimately, the Lahore High Court dismissed the writ petitions, ruling that NAB's request for information was in accordance with the law and the imperative need for preventive measures to combat corruption. This decision reinforced the significance of transparency, accountability, and the role of law enforcement agencies in preventing corrupt practices in various sectors, including land development and housing.

Summary: ----Issues:Whether exceptions exist to the jurisdictional bar of civil courts as provided in Section 217(2) of the Customs Act and Section 9 of the Civil Procedure Code.Whether the exercise of jurisdiction by the Single Bench of the Sindh High Court is co

Summary: Acquittal granted----Background:In this case, Waheed Ahmad was convicted under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (PPC) and sentenced to death by an Additional Sessions Judge in Jhelum. The Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench upheld the conviction and sentence. Waheed Ahmad then appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction and sentence. During the pendency of the appeal, a compromise was reached between the convict and the heirs of the deceased. The compromise was verified by the District & Sessions Judge, Jhelum, confirming its genuineness. A 3-member Bench of the Supreme Court accepted the compromise but differed on how to dispose of the main appeal.----Issues:Whether the compounding of the offence automatically leads to the acquittal of the accused, erasing their guilt.Whether the concept of acquittal extends to cases where compounding occurs, thereby absolving the accused of the charge.----Holding/Reasoning:The majority opinion, delivered by Sardar Tariq Masood, J., held that compounding of an offence under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 (Cr.P.C.) has the effect of an acquittal. The reasoning behind this was that compounding signifies reconciliation and forgiveness, rather than punishment. Therefore, once a compoundable offence is compounded, the accused is acquitted, and their guilt is considered absolved. This interpretation is consistent with the provisions of section 338-E(1), PPC, and previous legal precedents.----Citations/Precedents:PLD 2010 SC 695 - Chairman Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and another v. Mumtaz Khan: All acquittals, including those resulting from compounding of offences, are considered honorable and have the same legal effect.PLD 2016 SC 347 - Tariq Mehmood v. Naseer Ahmed: While not directly applicable to the present case, this precedent addressed issues related to compounding of offences under PPC.Dr. Muhammad Islam v. Government of N-W.F.P. through Secretary Food, Agricultural, Live Stock and Cooperative Department, Peshawar (1998 SCMR 1993): Established that all acquittals, regardless of the circumstances, are honorable and legally valid.

Summary: Background:The petitioners, Durdana Khan and others, filed a civil revision petition against the impugned judgment/decree dated 08-05-2017 passed by the District Judge Ghizer, which allowed the appeal of Lal Johar and set aside the judgment/decree of the Civil Judge Punial/Ishkoman dated 31-05-2014. Lal Johar had filed a suit for possession of disputed land through pre-emption, claiming superior rights as a co-sharer. The trial court dismissed Lal Johar's suit, but the first appellate court decreed in his favor.----Issues:Whether the respondent (Lal Johar) had a superior right of pre-emption as a co-sharer in the suit property.Whether the first appellate court's judgment was justified in setting aside the trial court's decree.Whether the suit was time-barred or affected by the lack of proper legal procedures.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court dismissed the civil revision petition, reasoning that:The respondent (Lal Johar) was a co-sharer in the disputed property as he was the step-brother of the petitioner No. 2's father, giving him a superior right to pre-empt the sale.The trial court failed to appreciate the evidence, resulting in a judgment that misread and omitted crucial evidence presented by the respondent.The first appellate court correctly considered the evidence and reached a just conclusion in favor of the respondent, decreeing the suit for possession through pre-emption.-----Citations/Precedents:Relevant provisions of the Gilgit Sub-Division Right of Prior Purchase Regulation 1938.----Judgment:The civil revision petition is dismissed.The impugned judgment/decree of the District Judge Ghizer dated 08-05-2017 is maintained.The trial court's judgment/decree dated 31-05-2014 is set aside.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending