Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Administrative Law—Direction to Decide Pending Petitions—Principle of Fair Hearing. (a) Administrative Redress—Pending Petitions. ----Where grievances were raised through pending petitions before the Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) and another relevant authority, the Court directed the respondents to address the pending petitions expeditiously in accordance with law, ensuring procedural fairness. (b) Right to Fair Hearing—Obligation of Authorities. ----Respondent authorities were directed to provide the petitioner with an opportunity of hearing before deciding the pending petitions. This ensured that the petitioner’s grievances were considered in compliance with principles of natural justice. (c) Judicial Discretion—Fair Stance by Petitioner. ----Petitioner’s consent to resolve the matter by directing respondent authorities to decide pending petitions reflected a fair stance, facilitating an efficient resolution without prolonging litigation. ----Result: Petition disposed of with directions to respondent authorities to decide the pending petitions in accordance with law after granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

Summary: The appellant questioned the order dated 02.06.2014 passed by the trial court, which had issued status quo in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages.The appellant was a multinational company engaged in manufacturing and bottling aerated waters and beverages. They awarded a construction contract to the respondent for setting up a plant in Multan. However, the respondent allegedly failed to fulfill its contractual obligations, leading to the termination of the contract. The appellant filed applications under sections 20 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking arbitration and an injunction to restrain the respondent from en-cashing bank guarantees. Subsequently, the respondent filed a second suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of damages.During the appeal, the appellant argued that the second suit was not maintainable due to the principles of res judicata and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure, as it raised the same cause of action as the earlier proceedings under the Arbitration Act. The respondent countered that the second suit was valid as it was not a full-fledged civil suit, but an application under the Arbitration Act.The court ruled in favor of the appellant, stating that the application under the Arbitration Act should be treated as a suit, and res judicata applies in this case. The court found that the second suit was barred by law, lacked territorial jurisdiction, and should be rejected under Order VII Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the second suit's plaint was rejected.

Summary: Ss. 337-A(ii), 337-F(i)(ii) & 34---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 417(2-A)--- Accused would carry double presumption of innocence in case of acquittal.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending