Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: [Specific Relief Act, (Section 42 & 12 of Specific Relief Act)] Nil.Declaration, cancellation, damages, mandatory/ permanent injunction.Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC, Section 39,42 of Specific Relief Act.Necessary and non-necessary parties have to be distinguished.Registered Document can only be cancelled in terms of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act.

Summary: Leave to defend might be given unconditionally or subject to such terms as to payment into Court, giving security or otherwise as the Court deemed fit. Court having cognizance of the matter had to decide the term on which leave to defend was to be given-----The case involves a suit for recovery of Rs. 50,00,000 filed by the petitioner (M/s. Shamim & Company) against the respondents. The petitioner also filed an application for temporary injunction along with the lawsuit.The court outlines the facts, indicating that the petitioner is a beverage company and had a distributorship arrangement with the respondent/defendant No.1. However, a dispute arose, and the petitioner accidentally deposited Rs. 50,00,000 into the respondent's account, which the respondent later stopped from being en-cashed.The court mentions that respondents No.1 and 2 filed an application for leave to defend, which was granted subject to furnishing surety bonds. The application for temporary injunction filed by the petitioner was dismissed as not being maintainable.The petitioner challenges the order dated December 22, 2016, through this civil revision. The counsel for the petitioner argues that the leave to defend should have been refused as the deposited amount was available in the respondents' account, and they failed to provide a satisfactory explanation. Alternatively, if leave is granted, it should be subject to depositing the amount or providing a bank guarantee.The court explains that the decision to grant leave to defend is at the discretion of the court, and the terms can be decided based on the facts of the case. The court found no illegality or perversity in granting leave to appear and defend and upheld the order.However, the court criticized the decision to dismiss the application for a temporary injunction as not maintainable, especially when an ad-interim injunction had been granted earlier. The court set aside the dismissal of the application for temporary injunction and remanded the matter to the Additional District Judge for a fresh decision.In conclusion, the civil revision was partly allowed by setting aside the dismissal of the temporary injunction application, and the matter was remanded for a new decision.

Summary: Muhammad Ameer (PW.1) made a statement that revealed a delay of about 15/16 hours in filing the FIR. Initially, three eyewitnesses provided statements during the trial, but none claimed to have witnessed the actual occurrence. However, Muhammad Ameer later changed his statement, suggesting that he, along with two others, had witnessed the incident. The court noted inconsistencies in Muhammad Ameer's statements regarding the FIR and the circumstances surrounding it.The court emphasized the significance of the delay in reporting the incident to the police, which cast doubt on the veracity of the prosecution's case. It cited previous cases highlighting the importance of addressing such delays.The court then scrutinized the three eyewitnesses' accounts and found their testimony unnatural and lacking credibility. The distance between their residences and the crime scene, along with the timing of their arrival, raised doubts about their claims. The court also noted the absence of blackening, burning, or tattooing on the victim's body, which would typically be expected in a point-blank gunshot.Motive played a crucial role in the case, but the prosecution failed to establish a motive for the crime. The witness testimonies regarding the alleged financial dispute were inconsistent and lacked sufficient detail. Additionally, the good relations between the accused and the deceased cast further doubt on the existence of a motive.The court further analyzed the burden of proof in such cases, emphasizing that the prosecution must prove each element of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt. If there is a reasonable possibility that the defense plea might be true, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.In this case, the court considered the defense's version of events, which argued that the victim's death was accidental. The defense produced witnesses and records to support its claim. The court found that there was a reasonable possibility that the defense's version might be true, and as a result, it acquitted the appellant, Muhammad Nadeem alias Nadeem Hussain, of the charges and ordered his release.In summary, the court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the benefit of doubt was extended to the appellant, leading to his acquittal. The court also dismissed the appeal (Crl.A.No.332 of 2012) and answered the Murder Reference No.100 of 2012 negatively, not confirming the death sentence.

Summary: The main questions of law in this case revolved around the imposition and reduction of penalties under Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. The key questions for the court to consider were:Whether the provisions of Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, specifying penalty amounts according to the nature of the offense, are mandatory or not.Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in ordering a reduction in the penalty amount despite the express provisions of Section 33(1) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990.Whether the decision of the Appellate Tribunal renders Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 redundant.The background of the case involved a Show Cause Notice issued to the respondent taxpayer for non-filing of sales tax returns for specific tax periods. Initially, a penalty of Rs. 1,20,000 was imposed, which was later reduced to Rs. 35,000 by the CIR (Appeals). The applicant department challenged this reduction in penalty before the Appellate Tribunal, which subsequently dismissed the appeal.The judgment highlighted that the reduction of the penalty was in accordance with the law and that penalties should be imposed judiciously. The court referred to previous judgments, including the one that emphasized that the imposition of penalties should consider whether the offense was willful or mala fide. The judgment also cited a Supreme Court case indicating that each case should be decided on its own merits to determine whether non-payment of tax was willful or mala fide.The court ultimately found no legal infirmity in the reduction of the penalty and declined to interfere with the Appellate Tribunal's findings, as they were based on facts and were not shown to be perverse or contrary to the record. Therefore, the reference application was decided against the applicant department.

Summary: The Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) contends that the appeal filed against the suspension of the licenses of Satellite TV Channels had become infructous after the orders of suspension were withdrawn by PEMRA and the learned High Court was bound to dismiss the appeal as having become infructuous. The Supreme Court observes that the appeal is fixed for hearing before the learned High Court tomorrow, therefore, it is not inclined to pass any further order and will wait for the orders which are yet to be passed by the High Court in these proceedings. However, the High Court is restrained from proceeding against the Chairman, PEMRA, or any other person on the contempt applications filed by Respondent No. 1.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending