Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: A dispute arose between a civil aviation authority and a joint venture (JV) construction company regarding the conduct of a Dispute Review Board (DRB) member. The dispute concerned allegations of misconduct against the DRB member for breaching his impartiality by sharing a draft decision via email with other parties involved in the dispute. The civil aviation authority, after raising objections, filed a civil suit seeking the removal of the DRB member, citing a violation of the DRB’s rules and procedures which mandate impartiality and confidentiality in decision-making. A restraining order was issued against the DRB member, preventing him from continuing in his role until the matter was adjudicated. -----Issues: 1- Whether the actions of the DRB member, specifically sending a draft decision via email, amounted to a breach of the rules of impartiality and confidentiality required under the Dispute Review Board rules. -----2- Whether the restraining order issued against the DRB member was justified based on the allegations of misconduct and the potential impact on future arbitration proceedings. -----3- Whether the civil suit filed by the civil aviation authority was maintainable and whether the restraining order was consistent with principles of equity and injunctions. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court upheld the restraining order issued by the learned Single Judge, agreeing that the DRB member’s actions, particularly sending the draft decision via email before the conclusion of the DRB proceedings, compromised his impartiality. The Court reasoned that impartiality and confidentiality are crucial for the integrity of dispute resolution processes, especially in high-stakes projects like the construction of a national airport. The Court emphasized that any breach of these principles could undermine the entire arbitration process and create an environment of distrust, making it essential to act swiftly to prevent further harm. The injunction was deemed necessary to avoid multiplicity of proceedings and to preserve the integrity of the dispute resolution process. The appeals challenging the order were dismissed, and the restraining order was affirmed. Additionally, the application related to the resignation of the DRB member was also dismissed as the judgment had already been reserved. -----Citations/Precedents: 2002 CLD 120 [Karachi], ATCO Lab. (Pvt.) Limited versus PFIZER Limited and others PLD 1975 [Karachi] 464, Abdul Ghafoor Memon versus Mohammed and another 2008 CLC 930 (D.B.), Arbab Fazal Rauf and another versus Arbab Sajjad and 6 others 2013 CLC 454, Mst. Saeeda versus Province of Punjab and others PLD 1979 Karachi 668, M/s Quality Builders Ltd. Versus M/s J. P. Brockhoven V. V. Dredging Contractors and 9 others 1984 CLC 440, Adamjee Paper and Board Mills Limited versus Maritime Agencies Ltd. PLD 2011 Karachi 185, M/s Shakil Waqas & Co. and others versus General Manager/Marketing, Pakistan Railways and others PLD 1970 Karachi 332, Oil and Gas Development Corporation versus Ltd. Col. Shujauddin Ahmed 1984 PLC 712, Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. versus The Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi and 2 others PLD 1973 Karachi 234, Aboo Noor Muhammad versus General Iron & Steel Works Limited 2015 CLC 34, Major (Retd.) Ahmed Nadeem Sadal versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Sport and others PLD 1971 SC 550, Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (represented by 6 heirs) versus M/s Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd. 1987 CLC 367, Abubakar Saley Mayet versus Abbot Laboratories and another PLD 1966 SC 684, M/s Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar and another versus The Australasia Bank Limited 2006 CLD 85, National Insurance Corporation and others versus Pakistan National Shipping Corporation and others 2005 CLD 1208, M/s Razo (Pvt.) Ltd. versus Director Karachi City Region Employees Old Age Benefit Institution and others

Summary: The petitioners, sought a direction from the court to allow them to submit their admission forms for the MBBS 2nd year supplementary examination in the subject of Anatomy. The petitioners were admitted to Medical Colleges in 2012 and alleged that they faced hardships during attempts to pass the MBBS 2nd year examination. They had attempted the examination four times and sought permission to appear in the supplementary examination in 2017. The respondents, the University of Health Sciences, denied the allegations and argued for the dismissal of the petition. The court, after considering the arguments, held that the petitioners had exhausted the permissible four consecutive chances to pass the examination as per the rules and regulations of the University and the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council. The court noted that the right to seek education is subject to the statutes and regulations framed by the university. The petitioners were denied further chances, and the petition was dismissed for lacking merit. The court emphasized that it could not interfere with the factual controversy and concluded that the petition had no merit.

Summary: The counsel argued that the observations in Defence Housing Authority's case regarding structuring discretion were not obiter (incidental) but the ratio (essential) of the judgment. They were relying on the principles of structuring discretion laid down in Amanullah's Case and argue that these were reiterated in the Defence Housing Authority's Case. To support their argument, the counsel refered to rules for finding the principle of a case as enunciated by Prof. Goodhart. These rules included considering the facts treated as material by the judge, the judge's decision based on them, and what facts were held to be immaterial. Regarding the transparency in randomness of selection, the counsel raises concerns about the value command given to the computer in the selection process. They argue that this command has not been adequately explained by the expert from the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR). The counsel also contends that Section 214 of the Ordinance of 2001 does not provide a procedure for random selection, requiring rules under Section 237. In response to the argument that the whole process is undertaken arbitrarily, the counsel refers to the timing of the policy and selection process, emphasizing non-working days in between. They distinguished the case Province of West Pakistan v. Ch. Din Muhammad, stating that the facts are different. The counsel concluded by asserting that post-partition judgments by the Supreme Court, including Amanullah's Case, override the judgment relied upon by the respondents.

Summary: This document, published by the OECD, delved into the realm of compliance risk management in the context of audit case selection systems. The primary objective was to demonstrate the application of compliance risk management techniques in the process of selecting audit cases. The document emphasized the complexity of factors influencing taxpayers' compliance behavior and suggests that a nuanced understanding of these factors is essential for crafting effective responses. It also highlighted the evolving role of audit in modern tax administration, extending beyond mere verification to shaping future tax policies and addressing non-compliance at its roots. The document critiqued the Audit Policy 2015, pointing out discrepancies and ambiguities, and calls for improvements in structuring the audit process to ensure consistency, transparency, and fairness. The judgment allowed for rectifications in the Audit Policy, providing specific directions for enhancing audit capacity, ensured timely completion of audits, and incorporating remedies for grievances. Overall, it emphasized the need for a well-structured and law-compliant audit processed in tax administration.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Judgment of Service Tribunal,implementation of---Scope---Service Tribunal being a Civil Court for the purpose of decidingappeal had all the powers of Civil Court including those required to implement its judgment asprovided under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Employee had an alternate,speedy and efficacious remedy for enforcement of judgment of Service Tribunal---Employeecould approach the proper forum if desired---Constitutional petition was dismissed incircumstances.