Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
Present: Mian Saqib Nisar CJ Umar Ata Bandial and Ijaz ul Ahsan JJ GHEE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN (PRIVATE) LTD vs SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES LTD and others
Summary: Summary pending
Messrs KOT ADDU POWER COMPANY LIMITED vs COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE REGIONAL TAX OFFICER MULTAN and others
Summary: Summary pending
AHSANULLAH VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
FAWAD ALI VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
KITCHEN CUISINE PVT LTD VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS GERRYS INTERNATIONAL PVT LTD THROUGH MANAGER VS MESSRS AERO FLOT A RUSSIAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES
Summary: Summary pending.
Fawad Ali VS Haris Iqbal etc
Summary: Summary Pending
ABDUL HASEEB SHEIKH VS THE REGISTRAR, LAHORE HIGH COURT, LAHORE
Summary: The appellant, a Judicial Officer, had faced disciplinary proceedings following a complaint against him. Initially, a show cause notice was issued, but it was withdrawn. Subsequently, a fresh charge-sheet was issued, leading to a regular inquiry. The Inquiry Officer recommended a minor penalty of withholding the appellant's promotion for four years. However, the penalty was not imposed, and the record was forwarded to the authority. The tribunal referred to Rule 7(7)(a) of the Punjab Civil Servants (Efficiency & Discipline) Rules, 1999, which outlined the procedure for imposing and enhancing penalties. According to this rule, if the Inquiry Officer recommended a minor penalty, the Inquiry Officer or Inquiry Committee should pass an order accordingly. If the authority was dissatisfied with the quantum of punishment, it could initiate a de novo inquiry or enhance the penalty after affording the accused a chance to be heard. The tribunal concluded that since the Inquiry Officer had not imposed any minor penalty, the AC had no jurisdiction to issue a notice for the enhancement of penalty. Therefore, the impugned notification awarding a major penalty was set aside. As the appellant had already reached the age of superannuation during the appeal process, no order of reinstatement was passed. The appeal was accepted, and the impugned notification was declared unsustainable.
M/S KITCHEN CUISINE PVT LIMITED VS PIA ETC
Summary: The petitioner, a company providing flight catering services, had previously been awarded a contract in 2014 by PIA, which was later terminated in 2016. The main issues raised in the case included objections to the evaluation report, the alleged improper filling of the tender schedule by PC Hotel, and concerns about the bid validity period not being extended as required by the Public Procurement Rules, 2004 (PPRA Rules). The petitioner argued that these issues rendered the procurement process unlawful and sought its annulment. The court emphasized the importance of fairness, transparency, value for money, and efficiency in procurement processes. It found that the bid validity period had not been adhered to, with the evaluation report and contract award occurring well after the bid's validity period had expired. The court also noted deficiencies in the grievance redressal process and declared the procurement process and contract award null and void. As a remedy, the court allowed PIA to conduct a fresh procurement process, provided it followed the PPRA Rules and ensured compliance with the principles of fairness and transparency. This case underscores the significance of adhering to procurement rules and maintaining transparency in procurement processes. The court's decision invalidated the previous contract award and mandated a new procurement process for PIA.