Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Background: The case involves an appeal against an enforcement order issued by the telecommunications regulatory authority to a private service company. The appellant had been granted a license under the Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-organization) Act, 1996, for providing services across Pakistan. This license imposed obligations, including the payment of annual regulatory dues and a Radio Frequency Spectrum Fee (spectrum fee), with late fees calculated at 2% per month. The appellant argued that the spectrum fee was not payable as the spectrum was unused during the specified period, citing economic hardships and requesting relaxation in payment terms. -----Issues: 1- Is the spectrum fee payable only if the allocated spectrum is used? -----2- Is the late payment fee independent or contingent upon Regulation 23(7) of the 2006 Regulations? -----3- Can the appeal be deemed competent if a valid Board Resolution was not appended at the time of filing? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Spectrum Fee Obligation: The court held that the spectrum fee applies upon allocation of the spectrum as it is a scarce state-owned resource. Its use is not a condition for payment, and fees are required regardless of whether the licensee earns revenue from it. --Late Payment Fee: The late payment fee stipulated in the license (Clause 4.2.3) is binding, as the appellant agreed to these terms when accepting the license. Thus, the late fee is enforceable independently of the 2006 Regulations, rendering the appellant’s argument about the regulatory provisions irrelevant. --Competency of Appeal: The appeal was deemed incompetent. The court ruled that an appeal by a corporation must be backed by a valid Board Resolution authorizing the filing, and this must be submitted within the statutory limitation period. Subsequent ratification does not cure the defect of an initially unauthorized filing. -----Citations/Precedents: Mian Ejaz Shafi v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 1997 Karachi 604] Rahimullah Khan v. Government of N.-W.F.P. [1990 CLC 550] Telecard Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority [2014 CLD 415] Messrs Razo (Pvt.) Limited v. Karachi City Region Employees Old Age Benefit Institution [2005 CLD 1208] Qarman Construction (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Saleemullah [2008 CLD 239] American Life Insurance Company v. Sindh Employees Social Security Institution [2009 CLD 1329] WAPDA v. Messers Ghulam Rasool & Co. (Pvt) Ltd. [2005 MLD 1165] Sirajuddin Paracha v. Mehboob Ellahi [PLD 1997 SC 276] Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot v. Messers Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd [PLD 1971 SC 550] Pakcom Limited v. Federation of Pakistan [PLD 2011 SC 44] Pak Telecom Limited v. Pakistan Telecommunication Authority [PLD 2014 SC 478] Government of Pakistan v. Premier Sugar Mills [PLD 1991 Lahore 381] Dr. S.M. Rab v. National Refinery Ltd [PLD 2005 Karachi 478] Abdul Rahim v. United Bank Ltd of Pakistan [PLD 1997 Karachi 62]

Summary: S.54 Land Acquisition Act:Appointment of Local Commission--- Determination of market value.

Summary: Art.199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Period of limitation to file further execution petition.

Summary: Transfer of land to get a job in Govt. department as Class IV employee

Summary: This petitionis accepted and consequently, the ejectmentpetition also stands accepted with the result thatthe respondents shall vacate the premises withina period of two months from this order.

Summary: PLJ 2015 ShC (AJK) 23 Present Muhammad Mushtaq Chaudhry J Mst FARZANA SIDDIQUE - - Petitioner versus STATE through Advocate General AJK 11 others - - Respondents Crl Misc Petition No 105 of 2013 decided on 3012014 Inherent Jurisdiction - - - - - - Principle - - It is will settled principle of law that inherent jurisdiction of High Court under Section 561 - A CrPC is neither alternative nor additional in its character and is to be rarely invoked only in interest of justice so as to seek redress of grievance for which no other procedure is available and that provision should not be used to obstruct divert ordinary course of criminal procedure - - Section 561 - A CrPC confers upon High Court inherent powers to make such orders as may be necessary to give effect to any order under CrPC or to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justice - - These powers are very wide and can be exercised by High Court at any time - - In exceptional cases High Court can exercise its powers under Section 561 - ACrPC without waiting for trial Court to pass orders under Section 249 - A or 265 - K CrPC if facts of case so warrant to prevent abuse of process of any Court or otherwise to secure ends of justices [P 25] A Criminal Procedure Code 1898 (V of 1898) - - - - - - S 561 - A - - Inherent Jurisdiction of High Court - - Quashment of FIR - - In such like where there are two claimants of Nikah of a woman statement of that woman is of vital importance to decide controversy between parties - - Moreover according to injunctions of Islam consent of adult sane couple is sufficient for Nikah - - Petitioner and Proforma - Respondent No 4 being sui - juris have lawfully married each other and in these circumstances offences as alleged in FIR are not made out and continuance of investigation under circumstances against spouses may amount to unnecessary harassment - - It reveals from perusal aforesaid unreported judgment that a case under Sections 447 109 APC and 14 EHA was registered and FIR was quashed by ShC (AJK) Court thereupon matter went up en in Honble Supreme Court whereby judgment of ShC (AJK) Court was set - aside and application under Section 561 - A CrPC was dismissed - - Offences and circumstances in aforesaid unreported judgment were totally different from case in hand because present case has been registered in offences under Sections 10111619 ZHA - - Whereby FIR was quashed - - Even otherwise it has been held by Apex Court that each and every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances and it should be judged in of its peculiar facts - - Therefore ruling cited by Counsel respondents does not attract in present case - - Application was accepted and FIR was quashed [Pp 25 26] B C D Messrs Azad Tariq and Ch Muhammad Riaz Advocates for Petitioner Ch Ghulam Nabi Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Application accepted

Summary: Summary pending