Summary: (a) Constitutional Law – Enforceability of State Obligations: Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act, 1974 – Ss. 3, 31(5), 44 and First Schedule, Form 1 Enforceability of Government Contracts – Payment Obligations of the State. A government contractor sought payment for road construction and subsequent repair work necessitated by natural calamities. The court held that state authorities could not evade their contractual obligations, especially when an official assessment had acknowledged the contractor’s claim. The petitioner was entitled to receive the admitted amount of Rs. 16,77,078/-, and government departments were directed to process the payment within 90 days. However, contractual disputes must be pursued through appropriate legal remedies, and judicial intervention is limited to enforcing acknowledged claims rather than adjudicating complex contractual disagreements. ----Cited Cases: • Sardar Muhammad Irshad Khan v. Azad Government and others (2013 Unreported) • Muhammad Sharif Khan v. Mina Fazal Hussain (1993 SCR 88) • 2008 SCR 590 • 1998 CLC 783 (b) Administrative Law – Government’s Fiduciary Duty: Delay in Payment – Failure of State Functionaries. The state’s prolonged delay in settling the contractor’s payment—spanning over a decade—was deemed an administrative failure. The court criticized government inaction and evasive denials, which burdened the petitioner with undue financial hardship. Acknowledging that bureaucratic inefficiencies should not deprive individuals of their rightful dues, the court imposed case costs on the respondents. However, judicial intervention remains confined to enforcing clearly admitted obligations rather than resolving broader financial disputes between contractors and the state. (c) Islamic Law – Prohibition of Interest (Riba): Azad Jammu and Kashmir Enforcement of Shariah Act, 1989 – S. 11 Interest (Riba) on Delayed Payments – Non-Permissibility Under Islamic Law. The petitioner sought interest on the unpaid amount at prevailing bank rates from 2005 onward. The court, while acknowledging legislative gaps that allow continued interest-based transactions in some contexts, categorically refused to grant interest (Riba), citing Quranic injunctions and constitutional mandates against usurious transactions. Judicial officers, bound by their oath to uphold Shariah principles, cannot order payment of interest, even when requested under procedural laws. ----Cited Cases: • Zeeshan Butt v. Jamil Shafi (2007 SCR 187) • Administration Municipal Committee Kotli v. Raheem Dad & Others (2014 Unreported) ----Quranic References: • Surah Al-Baqarah (2:275–278) – Prohibition of usury and warnings against engaging in interest-based transactions. ----Disposition: Petition partially accepted. The government was directed to pay Rs. 16,77,078/- within 90 days. However, the claim for interest was dismissed on the basis of Islamic prohibitions on Riba.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.371-A-B,294 PPCIngredients of section missing(Bail allowed)

Summary: The case revolved around an incident where the petitioners, allegedly armed with firearms, entered the house of respondent No.3 with the intention to illegally take possession. When their attempt was unsuccessful and an offense of theft was allegedly committed, respondent No.3 filed a complaint under section 22-A & 22-J of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.) for the registration of a criminal case against the petitioners. In this judgment, the court reviewed the case and found that the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace had ignored the police report without providing any reasons for doing so. The court emphasized the importance of considering the police report in such cases and held that it should not be ignored without adequate justification. As a result, the court set aside the order issued by respondent No.1 and dismissed the application for the registration of the case.

Summary: The background of the case was that the petitioner companies had received notices from the Excise & Taxation Officer (Professional Tax) requiring them to provide certain documentation and pay professional tax. The petitioners argued that they should not be liable to pay this tax in Lahore because they were registered or incorporated outside the territorial limits of the Punjab department. The petitioners contended that the notices and demands made by the Excise & Taxation Officer were illegal and void because they were issued without providing the petitioners with an opportunity for a hearing, as required by Rule 4(4) of the Punjab Professions & Trade Tax Rules, 1977. To support their argument, the petitioners cited various legal precedents emphasizing the importance of conducting hearings when required by law. The response from the government authorities, including the Additional Advocate General (A.A.G.) and Law Officer, was that the petitioners were indeed engaged in professional and trade activities within Punjab, which made them liable for professional tax. They argued that the notices had been issued in compliance with the relevant rules. The judgment highlighted Rule 4(4) of the Punjab Professions & Trade Tax Rules, 1977, which obligates the authorities to provide an opportunity for a hearing before passing any orders. Ultimately, the judgment declared that the impugned demand notices had been issued without complying with Rule 4(4) and were therefore illegal and lacked lawful authority. The case was referred back to the relevant authority with a directive to decide the matter through a well-documented order after granting all parties, including the petitioner companies, an opportunity to present their case.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: The petitioner sought a refund based on a Supreme Court judgment that declared the levy of 1% further tax as illegal. After various legal proceedings, including appeals and an order by the Appellate Tribunal in favor of the petitioner, the refund was sanctioned and paid to the petitioner. However, a subsequent Show Cause Notice (SCN) was issued by the tax authorities claiming that the refund was erroneously made and proposing recovery. The petitioner argued that the matter had been settled by the Appellate Tribunal's order and that the SCN was without jurisdiction. The court noted that the Appellate Tribunal's order had attained finality and that the tax authorities had not challenged it. Therefore, the SCN was considered illegal and without lawful authority. The court also emphasized that the tax authorities had extended the same benefit to another petitioner in a similar case, and therefore, the second petitioner should be entitled to the same relief. In conclusion, the court allowed both writ petitions, holding that the Show Cause Notice was illegal, and upheld the Appellate Tribunal's order in favor of the petitioners.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Peshawar 155 Present Abdul Latif Khan J KHAIR MUHAMMAD 4 others - - Petitioners versus SULTAN MUHAMMAD 11 others - - Respondents CR No 893 of 2003 decided on 2622015 Qanun - e - Shahadat Order 1984 (10 of 1984) - - - - - - Arts 128 129 (g) - - Determination of parentage - - Entitlement of out of legacy as residuary - - Shari share - - Uterine brothers - - Minor child was brought at time of marriage with deceased - - Child born during continuance of valid marriage would be litigimate child of spouces - - Court may presume particular inference regarding a fact or evidence until disproved however child has affirmed to have mentioned the name of his father other than that he claims as his father which is clear negation to presumption - - Birth during subsistence of marriage deceased was not proved - - None of parties had proved their claim to legacy of deceased which is to be devolved upon legal heirs in accordance with law - - Except the widows of deceased no one has proved their relation with deceased and as such are not entitled for any share out of legacy of the deceased - - Petition was allowed [Pp 156 157 158] A B C D Mr Muhammad Shoaib Khan Advocate for Petitioners Ms Fayyaz ChamkaniTariq Afridi Haziq Ali Shah Advocates for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition allowed