Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The appellant challenged the consolidated judgment and decree passed by the learned Civil Court in Islamabad, which decreed a suit for specific performance and permanent injunction filed by respondent Malik Aurangzeb, while dismissing the appellant's suit for declaration, possession, and recovery of mesne profits. The dispute arose over the ownership of a plot in Islamabad that was sold to the respondent through a power of attorney granted to the appellant's brother, Qurban Hussain Anwar. The appellant contested the sale, claiming that the power of attorney and the sale agreement were forged and that he had not authorized the sale. -----Issues: 1- Whether the power of attorney and the sale agreement were forged documents. -----2- Whether the appellant's allegations of fraud and collusion were proven. -----3- Whether the respondent was entitled to specific performance of the sale agreement. -----4- Whether the appellant was required to execute a sale deed for the property based on the agreement. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the lower court’s decision. The appellant's allegations of forgery and fraud were found to be unsupported by sufficient evidence. The power of attorney was valid, and the sale agreement was executed legally between the appellant’s attorney (his brother) and the respondent. The appellant failed to prove his case, and the respondent provided credible evidence, including the marginal witnesses to the power of attorney and the sale agreement. The appellant’s failure to produce compelling evidence or properly challenge the documents led the Court to confirm that the sale agreement should be honored, and the appellant was directed to execute the sale deed. -----Citations/Precedents: Order V, Rules 2 and 10, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908

Summary: - Military court cases - Legal assistance in trials.

Summary: Section 128(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 interpreted.

Summary: Constitutional petition against the order of Sessions Judge, Derajat D.I Khan dated 19.3.1952 regarding forfeiture of immovable property of deceased (convict) and release of entire property in favour of petitioner.Prior to 1921, Order regarding forfeiture of property in respect of offenders punishable with death, transportation could be passed under the provisions of section 62 PPC which was repealed by Indian Penal Code (Amendment) Act, 1921 ( Now Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898), therefore, the impugned order passed in the year 1952 to the extent of forfeiture of Immovable property of convict was without jurisdiction.

Summary: ((a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------S. 2(9), O. XVII, Rr. 1, 2 & 3 & O. XX, R. 4---Decision of court---Term 'decide the suitforthwith'---Scope---Term 'decide the suit forthwith' occurring in O. XXVII, R.3, C.P.C. refers todecision (if there is evidence on record) within meaning of O.XX, R. 4(2), C.P.C. and S. 2(2) &(9), C.P.C.---Decision referred in such provision means judicial determination in accordancewith evidence before Court---Provision of O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C. contemplates that Court has todecide suit which means material and evidence brought on record is to be considered in order todecide suit, if there is no evidence then Court may proceed the same either under R. 2 or R. 1 ofO. XVII, C.P.C.Amanullah Khan and 3 others v. Mst. Akhtar Begum 1993 SCMR 504 rel.(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)-------O. XVII, R. 3---Suit for damages---Trial Court closed the right of defendant for producingevidence and suit was decreed in favour of plaintiff---Validity---Defendant filed list of witnesseson 06-08-2009, matter was fixed after two days on 08-08-2009 and then on 15-08-2009, his rightof adducing evidence was closed and matter was fixed for 18-08-2009 and 03-09-2009; whileclosing statement of defendant suit was decreed under O. XVII, R. 3, C.P.C.---Properopportunity either producing or recording his statement was not afforded to defendantparticularly in a case of damages of Rs. 5 billion and suit was decreed without discussing anyevidence or giving any reason for the same---High Court set aside judgment and decree passedby Trial Court and remanded case to Trial Court for decision afresh.Gee Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and 2 others v. Habib Bank Ltd. PLD 1984 Lah. 421;Provincial Government through Collector, Kobar v. Shabbir Hussain PLD 2005 SC 337 andKamran Co. and others v. Messrs Modern Motors and another PLD 1990 SC 713 ref.

Summary: The consequence for short supply beyond one percent had been provided in Rule 564(4) of the Custom Rules, 2001 which were fully attracted to the case of the petitioner and accordingly applied in the present case. No legal error was committed by any of the forums below----The case involved the transportation of POL (Petroleum, Oil, and Lubricants) products to the International Security Assistance Force (ISAF) in Afghanistan by bonded carriers, including the petitioner. The Customs Rules, 2001, particularly Rule 564(4), stipulated that action would be taken against carriers and other involved parties if there was a variation of more than one percent in the quantity declared and the quantity certified by ISAF at the destination. In this case, it was found that significant quantities of POL products were short-delivered. The Collector of Customs issued an Order-in-Original requiring the petitioner to pay taxes and duties for the short supplies. The petitioner appealed to the Customs Appellate Tribunal, which partially allowed the appeal but upheld the imposition of penalties. The petitioner then filed a Customs Reference Application in the Islamabad High Court, which affirmed the decision of the Tribunal. The petitioner argued that evaporation beyond one percent should not be penalized if it occurred due to uncontrollable factors. However, the court upheld the application of Rule 564(4) and found no legal error in the decisions of the lower forums. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave was refused.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending