Summary: Constitutional petition against order passed by Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal No.2, Multan. Appeal filed by employer is dismissed. Question regarding payment of wages/salaries under Section 15 (2) & 16 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Appeals were not accompanied by certificate of authority to the effect that the amounts directed to be paid had been deposited with it. Question of maintainability of appeal before labour court under Section 17 (1)(a) of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936. Proviso to the Section 17(1)(a) of the Act is mandatory and appeal without observation of the same is not maintainable. Article 10A of the Constitution ensures a fair trial and due process has to be read along with Article 4 of the Constitution.

Summary: The court, after considering the arguments, determined that commercial properties were not pre-emptible, citing relevant legal provisions and precedents. It also found that the respondent had not proven the performance of the talbs required by law. Consequently, the court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the respondent's suit. No costs were awarded.

Summary: Background: The plaintiff filed a suit for recovery of damages amounting to fifty million rupees in a defamation case. During the trial, the defendant sought to introduce certain documents as additional evidence, claiming they were relevant to the case and were not available earlier. The trial court rejected the application, and the defendant’s appeal to the High Court was also dismissed. The defendant then appealed to the Supreme Court. -----Issues: 1- Whether the defendant should be allowed to produce additional documents as evidence at a late stage in the trial. -----2- Whether the courts below erred in applying the relevant provisions of the law regarding the submission of documentary evidence. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decisions of the lower courts, dismissing the appeal. The Court reasoned that: Under Order XIII, rule 1, CPC, parties are required to produce documentary evidence at the first hearing unless they can show a valid reason for non-production at that time. The defendant failed to provide a valid reason for not presenting the documents earlier. The documents sought to be produced did not have any apparent relevance to the issues in the case. Since the defendant did not show "good cause" for late submission, as required by Order XIII, rule 2, CPC, the lower courts were justified in rejecting the application. The concurrent findings of both courts were proper and did not warrant interference. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Hanif v. Province of Punjab [NLR 1981 Civil 37] Kh. Muhammad Akbar Butt v. Azad Jammu and Kashmir Government and others [PLD 1996 Azad J&K 10] Rashid Mehmood & another vs. Sardar Begum & 6 others [2013 SCR 200] Haji Baz Muhammad and another vs. Mst. Humera alias Shireen Taj and 3 others [PLD 2003 Quetta 128]

Summary: Background: This case involves an incident of murder that occurred on 01.03.2015, where two individuals were allegedly killed. According to the complainant, one accused fired at the first victim, causing his death, and also injured another individual. The second accused was alleged to have shot the second victim, resulting in immediate death. Both accused were charged under the Arms Ordinance. One of the accused sought post-arrest bail, which was initially denied by the trial court. However, the Shariat Court later granted bail. -----Issues: 1- Whether the accused is entitled to post-arrest bail despite being implicated in a murder case. -----2- Whether the Shariat Court was correct in extending bail to the accused based on the evidence and facts of the case. -----3- Whether the accused's abscondence and delay in seeking medical treatment should impact his eligibility for bail. -----4- Whether there are sufficient grounds for canceling the bail granted by the Shariat Court. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the decision of the Shariat Court to grant bail to the accused. The Court reasoned that: The investigation indicated the accused was empty-handed during the incident, making the case doubtful, which under legal principles means the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt even at the bail stage. The injury attributed to the accused does not directly link him to causing death. Mere abscondence, without being declared an absconder through formal legal proceedings, does not disentitle the accused from bail. The accused had been on bail for over a year, and there was no indication of misuse of the bail concession. Since the investigation was complete and the trial was underway, sending the accused back to jail would serve no useful purpose. -----Citations/Precedents: Zaheer Ahmed & another vs. Ibrar Hussain & 7 others [2014 SCR 1667] Kareem Dad vs. Zaheer & another [2004 SCR 36] Muhammad Munir Awan & 3 others vs. Azad Jammu & Kashmir Ehtesab Bureau [2005 SCR 109] Zaigham Ashraf vs. State, etc. [PLJ 2016 SC 14] Fazal-e-Rabi vs. State and another [2008 SCR 495]

Summary: Acquittal granted-----Background: The appellants filed a criminal appeal against the judgment of the Shariat Court, which acquitted the respondent in a murder case. The initial trial involved a dispute between two parties, where the appellants accused the respondent of firing shots that led to the death of a person and injured another person. The trial court had convicted the respondent and sentenced him to life imprisonment. However, upon appeal, the Shariat Court acquitted the respondent, leading to this further appeal by the complainants. -----Issues: 1- Did the Shariat Court err in acquitting the respondent despite evidence suggesting his involvement in the crime? -----2- Was the prosecution able to prove the respondent's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt? -----3- Was the Shariat Court’s judgment arbitrary or perverse, warranting its reversal? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the acquittal granted by the Shariat Court. The Court reasoned that: The prosecution failed to provide evidence beyond reasonable doubt to convict the respondent. The key witnesses were relatives of the deceased, and their credibility was questionable due to contradictions in their testimonies. The medical and forensic evidence did not support the prosecution’s version of events. For instance, the type and nature of injuries did not match the account provided by the prosecution witnesses. There was no independent corroboration from witnesses outside of the family, and the evidence presented was not sufficient to implicate the respondent. The principles of criminal law require the benefit of doubt to be extended to the accused, especially in cases where eyewitness testimony is contradictory or unreliable. The Shariat Court’s acquittal was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence, and the appellants failed to demonstrate that the judgment was perverse, arbitrary, or capricious. The acquittal was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Javed Iqbal v. Fayyaz Ahmed & another [2014 SCR 1441] Muhammad Saleem vs. Abid Hussain & others [2013 PSC (Crl.) 346] Muhammad Yaqoob v. The State & 2 others [2014 SCR 121] Nazir Ahmed and others v. The State [PLD 1962 SC 269] Muhammad Rafique v. Aurangzeb & another [2015 SCR 974] State v. Faisal Munir [PLJ 2009 FSC 284]

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.