Summary: Background: The petitioners challenged the concurrent orders passed by the Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge (West), Islamabad, directing them to vacate the rented premises under Section 17 of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001 (IRRO). The premises were originally leased to the petitioners for residential purposes, but they were later used as a school in violation of the lease agreement. Despite repeated notices from the owners and the Capital Development Authority (CDA) regarding non-conforming use, the petitioners failed to vacate. -----Issues: 1- Whether the use of the premises as a school violated the lease agreement and warranted eviction under IRRO. -----2- Whether the expiration of the lease period constitutes a valid ground for eviction under Section 17 of IRRO. -----3- Whether an oral agreement to extend the lease could justify the petitioners’ continued occupation. -----4- Whether the petitioners are entitled to additional time for vacating the premises. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome --Violation of Lease Terms: The court upheld that the petitioners violated Clause 9 of the lease agreement, which restricted the use of the premises to residential purposes. The use of the premises as a school constituted a breach, justifying eviction under Section 17(2)(ii)(b) of IRRO. --Expiration of Lease Period: Expiration of the lease was considered a valid ground for eviction, as confirmed by precedents. Section 6 of IRRO, read with Section 17(2)(ii)(b), establishes that failure to vacate after lease expiration constitutes a breach of tenancy terms. The court referred to Muhammad Mushtaq Vs. Muhammad Zubair (2016) to affirm that the tenant’s refusal to vacate after lease expiration provides grounds for eviction. --Oral Agreement for Extension: The court rejected the petitioners' claim of an oral agreement to extend the lease for 20 years. Under Section 5 of IRRO, all tenancy agreements must be in writing. Moreover, Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 prohibits evidence of oral agreements that contradict written contracts. --Request for Additional Time: The court denied the petitioners’ request for additional time to vacate, noting that they had already been given ample time and had subjected the landlords to protracted litigation. The writ petition was dismissed in limine, with no further indulgence or costs awarded to the petitioners. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Mushtaq Vs. Muhammad Zubair (2016): Expiry of lease agreement provides grounds for eviction if possession is not surrendered. Qaiser Javed Malik Vs. Pervez Hameed (2009 SCMR 846): Expiry of lease and non-vacation justify eviction under IRRO. Section 5 of IRRO: Requires tenancy agreements to be in writing. Article 103, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984: Prohibits oral evidence that contradicts written contracts.

Summary: S. 336PPC --- Medico-legal report and Circumstantial evidence...Prosecution has to prove the guilt of the accused above reasonable doubts. --- Muhammad Shakeel, the appellant, had been convicted under Section 336 PPC and sentenced to three years of rigorous imprisonment, with additional penalties under Section 337-R PPC. The complainant, Mst. Seema Ahad, had also filed a revision petition seeking enhancement of the appellant's sentence.The facts of the case were briefly summarized, indicating that the appellant was accused of beating his wife, the complainant, resulting in injuries. The complainant alleged that the appellant dragged her into the house, assaulted her, and snatched her luggage. Motive behind the incident was cited as strained relations.The judgment scrutinized the evidence, noting discrepancies in the complainant's statements and inconsistencies in the medical evidence. It questioned the delayed reporting of the incident and highlighted contradictions in the testimony of witnesses, including the complainant and the investigating officer.Based on these factors, the court concluded that there were serious doubts in the prosecution's case, and the evidence presented could not be relied upon for the appellant's conviction. Consequently, the appeal was accepted, the conviction and sentence were set aside, and Muhammad Shakeel was acquitted of the charges. The court ordered his immediate release unless required in another case. The criminal revision filed by the complainant was dismissed.

Summary: The petitioner, who owned land in Mouza Chalk Bharat Lahore, entered into an agreement with DHA in 2003, involving the sale of land in exchange for 17 exempted plot files. A conveyance deed was registered, and possession was handed over to DHA. However, the petitioner, while attempting to sell another plot, discovered a caution marked by DHA, preventing the sale. The petitioner challenges this embargo, claiming fulfillment of obligations under the agreement. DHA argues that the caution is justified due to the petitioner's failure to meet obligations. The court noted that DHA failed to demonstrate any legal provision authorizing the imposition of such restrictions. The petitioner's counsel argues that the embargo violates constitutional rights, particularly Articles 23 and 24, protecting citizens' property rights. The court supported the petitioner's stance, emphasizing the constitutional protection of citizens' property rights and the necessity for legal provisions to impose restrictions. The judgment concluded that DHA lacks the legal authority to place an embargo on the petitioner's rights and declares the embargo unsustainable.

Summary: The petitioner had imported a shipment of miscellaneous items and submitted the necessary documentation to customs authorities for clearance. The valuation of the goods was conducted using Valuation Ruling No. 272. However, the petitioner disagreed with this valuation, primarily arguing that the Valuation Ruling could not be applied retrospectively to assess goods that had already been imported and for which a Goods Declaration (G.D) had been filed before the Valuation Ruling was issued. The court disagreed with this interpretation, stating that the terms "goods imported into Pakistan" and "imported goods" should be treated as synonymous. They argued that the legislature's intention in enacting section 25A, which is an exception to section 25 for determining customs values, was to apply to goods that had already been imported. The court emphasized that the purpose of section 25A was to align the valuation of goods with international trade agreements and that it could not be restricted to goods yet to be imported. The court dismissed the petitioner's challenge, asserting that section 25A applied to goods that had already been imported, and there was no need to differentiate between the terms "goods imported into Pakistan" and "imported goods."

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss.392, 419, 420 & 170-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 22-Robbery, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, personating a public servant-Reappraisal of evidence-Test identification parade-Infirmities-Only piece of evidence on which the courts below relied, was the identification parade, conducted in central jail where the accused was identified however, beside being the weakest piece of evidence it lost its judicial efficacy because the face feature complexion etc. were not given in the report-Identification parade had not been conducted according to the requirements of law on the subject because the dummies and the accused were not produced in the (fake) uniform of a government agency that the accused was allegedly wearing at time of incident-Complainant further disclosed that he came to know about the name of the accused, facing trial, from the police at the time of identification parade-Moreover the identification parade was held almost after one year of the incident-Convictions and sentences recorded against the accused were set aside in circumstances and he was acquitted of all charges-Appeal was allowed accordingly. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)- -Ss. 392, 419, 420 & 170-Robbery, cheating by personation, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, personating a public servant-Reappraisal of evidence-Accused and his accomplices allegedly stopped complainant's taxi, introduced themselves as officials of a government agency, took the complainant in their car and snatched a large amount of foreign currency from him-Held, that the complainant failed to produce any document about where he collected such a huge amount of foreign currency from-Complainant did not disclose why he was bringing such a huge amount of foreign currency without any escort or guard-Accused remained in police custody for sufficient time however, not a single note of foreign currency was recovered from him nor was the (fake) uniform of a government agency that he was allegedly wearing-Accused was a serving police officer, attached to a police station therefore, daily diary or the police-line register would have proved as to whether at the relevant time he was present on duty or was absent there-from, but his duty roaster was not taken into possession by the prosecution-Neither the car, in which the accused was travelling along with two accomplices nor the taxi in which the complainant was travelling, were taken into possession or traced out by the police-Convictions and sentences recorded against the accused were set aside in circumstances and he was acquitted of all charges-Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending