Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.324,337F(III),427 PPCCommon intention & specific role not proved,charged two person for single injury (Appeal partially allowed)

Summary: Status of Shamilat-e-Deh and Malikan-e-Qabza of future.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Part VII, Chap. 3 (Arts.192 to 203_risdiction---Scope---High Court is the apex Court of aprovince but is creature of Constitution---High Court is vested with that jurisdiction which hasbeen conferred on it by Constitution or under any law for the time being in force.Shaheen Akhtar v. Government of Punjab 1998 PLC (C.S.) 70 rel.(b) Jurisdiction-------Determination---Mandatory for Court to decide at first instance question of its jurisdiction---Without deciding question of jurisdiction, proceedings on merits may ultimately prove a futileexercise.Registrar High Court of Balochistan, Quetta v. Mazar Khan 2014 PLC (C.S.) 1275 rel.(c) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)-------Ss. 4 & 5(2)---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 212(1)---Constitutional petition---Maintainability---Judgment of Service Tribunal---Implementation---Petitioner, civil servantwanted to implement judgment passed by Service Tribunal---Validity---Service Tribunal was acivil court for the purpose of deciding any appeal regarding terms and conditions of a civilservant---Service Tribunal had all powers of civil court including those required to implement itsorders as provided under the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908---In case of disobedienceof orders of Service Tribunal, the same could be enforced under applicable provisions of CivilProcedure Code, 1908---Underlying object of incorporation of Art.212 in the Constitution andestablishment of Service Tribunal by legislation was to provide efficacious, expeditious andinexpensive remedy to civil servants for redressal of their grievances arising out of violation ofterms and conditions of their service---Establishment of Service Tribunal aimed at prevention ofintrusions into or inroad on terms and conditions of civil servants by departmental authorities---Unlike Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court under Art.199 of the Constitution confined toquestion of law without venturing upon resolution of factual controversies, it was within thejurisdiction of Service Tribunal and it was its obligation to decide all questions of law and factsought to be raised by petitioner---High Court declined to issue direction for implementation ofjudgment/orders passed by Service Tribunal purportedly in favour of petitioner---Petition wasdismissed in circumstances.Niaz Muhammad Khoso v. Government of Balochistan 2012 PLC (C.S) 106; Black'sLaw Dictionary (Eighth Edition p.881); Ghulam Murtaza v. The State PLD 2009 Lah. 362;Dossani Travel Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Messrs Travels Shop (Pvt.) Ltd. PLD 2014 SC 1; Secretary,Ministry of Education, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad v. Muhammad Azam Ch. 2009SCMR 194 + 2009 PLC (C.S.) 539; 2010 SCMR 1301=2011 PLC (C.S.) 1130 and PLD 2010Federal Statute 684 ref.Ahmad Nawaz Khan v. Senior Accounts Officer (Admn.), Pakistan Railways, Lahore1989 PLC (C.S.) 398; Asma Hafeez v. City Police Officer, Gujranwala 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1025; Ch. Sadiq Ali (Retd.) Assistant Engineer/S.D.O., P.W.D. v. The Chief Secretary, Azad Jammuand Kashmir Government PLD 1996 SC (AJ&K) 29; Zahooruddin Sheikh v. Pakistan AtomicEnergy Commission through Chairman, Islamabad 2007 PLC (C.S.) 959; Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq v.Federation of Pakistan through Ministry of Law PLD 2013 SC 501; Imran Raza Zaidi v.Government of Punjab 1996 SCMR 645; Tariq Transport Company v. The Sargodha-Bhera BusService PLD 1958 SC 437; Muhammad Hashim Khan v. Province of Balochistan PLD 1976Quetta 59; Iftikhar Ahmad v. Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. PLD 1984 Lah. 69; Mehram Aliand others v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1998 SC 1445 and Messrs Ranyal Textiles v. SindhLabour Court PLD 2010 Kar. 27 rel.(d) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)-------S. 4---Appeal to Service Tribunal---Limitation---Scope---Strict application of law oflimitation in service matters has logic behind it that public interest requires that there should bean end to litigation---Law of limitation provides element of certainty in conduct of human affairsand statutes of limitation and prescription are statutes of peace and repose---Law of limitationdoes not support sluggish person, who sleeps over his rights and that law would lull a personwho slept over his right and Courts must not exercise their inherent power in favour of such aperson--- Limitation creates right in favour of other party that cannot be taken away bycondonation of delay.Cap. (R) Mukhtiar Ahmed Shaikh v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministryof Law, Islamabad PLD 2014 FSC 23 rel.(e) Constitution of Pakistan-------S. 212---Civil service---Matter relating to terms and conditions of service and disciplinarymatters---Jurisdiction of Courts---Scope---Any matter pertaining to terms and conditions ofservice of civil servant or disciplinary matter cannot be entertained by any Court including HighCourt.(f) Balochistan Service Tribunals Act (V of 1974)-------Ss. 4 & 5---Judgment of Service Tribunal---Implementation-- Principle-- Government is notunder obligation to straightaway implement judgment of Service Tribunal but it must actpromptly and invoke appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court, if so advised---If operation ofjudgment of Service Tribunal is not suspended by Supreme Court, mere grant of leave to appealcannot defeat implementation process of judgment/order passed by Service Tribunal.Chairman/Managing Director P.I.A.C. v. Nisar Ahmed Bhutto 2005 SCMR 57; AbdulHafeez Abbasi v. Managing Director, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi 2002PLC (C.S.) 1083 Masood Ahmed Changwani v. Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad1999 PLC (C.S.) 443; Azkar Ahmed v. Secretary, Ministry of Information and Technology (ITand Telecom Division), Islamabad 2012 PLC (C.S.) 1101 and Muhammad Ayub Rizvi v.Education Secretary 1982 PLC (C.S.) 242 rel.(g) Interpretation of Constitution-------Trichotomy of power, principle of---Applicability---Principle of trichotomy of power is oneof the foundational values of Constitution where-under all three organs of State, namely thelegislature, the executive and the judiciary are required to perform their functions and exercisetheir power within their allotted sphere---Such organs are exclusive in themselves with regard torespective domain or jurisdiction and cannot make inroad or transgress spheres of each other.(h) Constitution of Pakistan-------Part VII (Arts.175 to 212-B)---Judiciary---Duties and functions---Constitution makes it theexclusive power / responsibility of judiciary to ensure sustenance of system of 'separation ofpower' based on checks and balances---Such is a legal obligation assigned to Judiciary and it iscalled upon to enforce Constitution and safeguard Fundamental Rights and freedom ofindividuals.(i) Constitution of Pakistan-------Arts. 4 & 5(2)---Rights of individuals and obedience of Constitution---Scope---Executive authorities, by virtue of Arts.4 & 5(2) of the Constitution, are bound to obey the command ofConstitution and to act in accordance with law and decide issues after application of mind withreasons as per settled law.Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division v. Tariq Pirzada 1999SCMR 2744 and Ch. Zahur Ilahi v. Zulfikar Ali Bhutto PLD 1975 SC 383 rel.

Summary: Acquittal allowed---There are significant doubts regarding the involvement of the appellant, as no specific role or overt act has been attributed to him. Additionally, there is no direct evidence linking him to the crime, and the eyewitness testimonies have discrepancies and inconsistencies. The judgment of the trial court appears to be against the law and facts on the file. The appellant has raised valid points challenging the credibility of the prosecution's case. Therefore, considering the principle of giving the benefit of doubt to the accused, it is reasonable to set aside the judgment of the trial court. In conclusion, the appellant's appeal is justified, and the judgment of the trial court was set aside. The appellant, acquitted of all charges due to insufficient evidence and reasonable doubt in his involvement in the alleged crime.

Summary: ----whether the classification of the court order sanctioning the scheme of arrangement/amalgamation as an "instrument" and whether it falls within the definition of "conveyance." ---the Lahore High Court ruled that orders passed by the court under Sectio

Summary: ''A lease which is not in consonance with section 107 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 and section 49 of the Registration Act, 1908 cannot at all be held to be permanent in nature under any circumstances and since the lease in question was not in perpetuity, the Tax department has no lawful authority to demand/levy property tax from the lessee in term of section 4 (a) & (b) of the Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958.'' ---- Issues:Is the property leased by The Board to Muhammad Shafi exempt from tax under Section 4(a) of The Act?Did the High Court correctly apply legal principles from the case of Mehran Associates Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi?Judgment:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the property in question is not subject to property tax. The Court clarified that the lease does not constitute a lease in perpetuity as it contains a fixed term of 30 years with conditions for the constructed property to revert to The Board, making it exempt under Section 4(a) of The Act.Reasoning:The Court determined that a lease in perpetuity implies an irreversible or non-returnable transaction, which was not the case here. The lease contained specific conditions, including the return of constructed property to The Board, approval requirements for construction and sub-leasing, and a termination clause, all indicating the lease was not in perpetuity. The Court also differentiated this case from Mehran Associates Ltd., as it involved the interpretation of lease under The Act rather than income tax laws.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the lease arrangement between The Board and Muhammad Shafi does not make the property liable for property tax under The Act due to its non-perpetual nature and specific conditions that align with an exemption under Section 4(a) of The Act.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending