Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: B.C. International Pvt. Ltd., incorporated in the British Virgin Islands, entered into a Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with Tashfeen Qayyum and others to establish and operate a company in Pakistan. Disputes arose when the respondent shareholders attempted to remove the Chief Executive Officer (CEO) of the joint venture company, contrary to JVA terms, prompting a suit for declarations and injunctive relief. The JVA included an arbitration clause mandating dispute resolution through arbitration under the International Chamber of Commerce rules in England. -----Issues: 1- Applicability of Arbitration Clause: Can disputes concerning the CEO's appointment and related issues under the JVA be settled through arbitration? -----2- Validity of Subsequent Application for Stay: Is a second application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 permissible after the first application was dismissed due to an authorization issue? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court ruled that the arbitration clause in the JVA should be honored, and the matter should proceed to arbitration. The Court also allowed a second application for stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Arbitration Clause Validity: The Court emphasized respecting the contractual agreement for arbitration as per the JVA. It noted that the arbitration clause covered the disputes raised in the suit, and the Court should support enforcing arbitration unless compelling reasons exist to override it. Authorization and Res Judicata: The Court held that dismissal of the first application due to lack of proper authorization did not bar a second application. The defect in the first application was procedural, not substantive, thus allowing the company to file a valid application subsequently. Error in Appellate Court Decision: The Court found that the Appellate Court misinterpreted the requirements of Section 34 and incorrectly assessed the doctrine of res judicata as applicable to a non-substantive dismissal. The Islamabad High Court set aside the Appellate Court’s order, restored the Trial Court’s decision to stay the proceedings, and directed the parties to resolve their disputes through arbitration as outlined in the JVA. -----Citations/Precedents: PLD 2003 SC 808: Dar Okaz Printing and Publishing Ltd. vs. Printing Corporation of Pakistan Pvt. Ltd. PLD 1993 SC 42: Messrs Eckhardt & Co, Marine GmbH vs. Muhammad Hanif PLD 1971 SC 550: Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan Mamdot vs. Ghulam Nabi

Summary: The fundamental right to life and to live it with dignity (Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution) is one lived in a world that has an abundance of all species not only for the duration of our lives but available for our progeny too. It has now been scientifically established that if the earth becomes bereft of birds, animals, insects, trees, plants, clean rivers, unpolluted air, soil it will be the precursor of our destruction / extinction.

Summary: Issue: Whether the petitioner's criminal petition for suspension of sentence is maintainable in the Supreme Court without surrendering to the outstanding orders of imprisonment.Rule: The Supreme Court Rules, 1980, Order XXIII Rule 8, stipulate that a criminal petition can only be entertained after the petitioner has surrendered to any outstanding order of imprisonment. Surrender to an order of imprisonment is a prerequisite for the entertainability of such petitions, and relief regarding stay of execution can only be granted post such surrender.Analysis:The Supreme Court found that the petitioner had not surrendered to the orders of imprisonment as mandated by Order XXIII Rule 8 of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980. The court emphasized that surrendering before a higher court without actual imprisonment does not satisfy the requirement.The court dismissed the reliance on the case of Mazhar Ahmed v. The State and another (2012 SCMR 997) by the petitioner's counsel, as it was deemed inapplicable to the present case's issues.The court concluded that the petition was not entertainable due to the petitioner's failure to fulfill the mandatory requirement of surrendering to the order of imprisonment.Conclusion: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition on the grounds of non-entertainability, as the petitioner had not surrendered to the orders of imprisonment, which is a precondition for the entertainability of such petitions under the Supreme Court Rules, 1980.

Summary: Bail granted ---- FactsThe petitioner was accused of involvement in a deadly attack that resulted in the death of Mst. Ambreen and injury to another, following a property dispute after the death of Mst. Ambreen's husband. The attack was alleged to have occurred while the victims were returning from a court hearing related to the dispute.Procedural HistoryZaigham Ashraf was initially implicated in the physical attack. However, during the investigation, it was discovered that he was incarcerated in Abbottabad Prison at the time of the incident, leading to charges of abetment and conspiracy based on his alleged role in planning the crime.IssueWhether Zaigham Ashraf is entitled to bail despite being charged with serious offenses, given his alibi and the nature of his alleged involvement.JudgmentJustice Dost Muhammad Khan, writing for the court, granted Zaigham Ashraf bail, converting the petition into an appeal. The court noted the established alibi, which the prosecution did not dispute, and the charges of abetment and conspiracy that did not place the petitioner at the crime scene. The court emphasized the principle that bail decisions must consider both the prosecution's evidence and the defendant's defense, including any alibi. The decision to grant bail was based on the lack of concrete evidence tying the petitioner directly to the commission of the crime and the principle that doubts at the bail stage should favor the accused.RationaleThe court relied on precedents that allow for the consideration of an alibi at the bail stage and the principle that liberty should not be curtailed without strong evidence. The court found that the petitioner's absence from the crime scene, as supported by prison records, significantly weakened the prosecution's case against him.HoldingThe petition was allowed, the petitioner was granted bail upon furnishing a bond, and the case was directed for an expedited trial. The court's observations were deemed tentative, not binding on the trial's outcome.Key PointsAn accused's liberty during pre-trial stages should be carefully considered, especially in cases where the evidence of involvement is not strong.The defense's evidence, such as an alibi, must be weighed alongside the prosecution's evidence at the bail stage.The principle of granting the benefit of the doubt to the accused applies at the bail stage as well.

Summary: PLJ 2015 Karachi 10 (DB) Present Faisal Arab Salahuddin Panhwar JJ WAJID ALI MEMON - - Petitioner versus CIVIL JUDGE JUDICIAL MAGISTRATE NO 1 TANDO MUHAMMAD KHAN and 5 others - - Respondents CP No D - 1845 of 2013 decided on 24102013 Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Pakistan Penal Code (XLV of 1860) Ss 353 147 149 341 506 (2) - - Anti - Terrorism Act 1997 Ss 67 - - Quashing of FIR - - No cognizable offence was made out and FIR was lodged without recording statement of victims and obtaining signatures - - Wrongly issued direction for lodgment of FIR - - Simple threats were not sufficient to constitute criminal intimidation - - Legal and factual position - - Question of - - Whether Sections 67 of ATA and S 506 (ii) PPC were applicable - - Domain and jurisdiction of police - - Validity - - FIR only means to bring law into motion so as to collect material as to whether in reality a cognizable offence is made out which requires its determination by a competent Court of law after a legal trial or it shall require a legal disposal at end of police which shall be subject to approval by Court - - Administrative jurisdiction should only be exercised where subordinate functionary is found guilty of negligence in performing its function and not otherwise which too be not in a manner to pre - empt authority of subordinate functionary - - Sections 6 and 7 of Act are not applicable in matter - - Ingredients of criminal intimidation as defined under Section 503 PPC are also missing in matter which must exist for application of Section 506 (ii) PPC - - It is settled principle of law that quashment of FIR could only be ordered when material available on record if taken as gospel truth yet does not provide a chance of accused being convicted for any offence - - Proceeding culminating to FIR are pending before trial Court thus petitioner is at liberty to avail alternate remedy before trial Court - - Sections 6 7 of ATA Section 506 (ii) PPC are not applicable in matter in hand hence same are accordingly ordered to be deleted consequently jurisdiction lies to regular Court [Pp 15 19 20] A B C D E F Mr Ghulamullah Chang Advocate for PetitionerJudgement Result:Petition accepted

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending