Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Bail granted----Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898)—Post-Arrest Bail—Grant of Bail in Non-Bailable Offense. (a) Bail—Considerations for Grant—Circumstantial Evidence. ----Accused petitioner was implicated in a case under sections 342/447/448, 395/506(ii) PPC, and 6/7 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, alleging armed robbery and extortion. The investigation recovered only a club (Danda) from the petitioner, despite allegations of being armed with a Kalashnikov. The circumstantial evidence was deemed insufficient for denying bail at this stage, as its credibility would depend on trial evidence. (b) Parity Principle in Grant of Bail. ----Co-accused in the same case had already been granted bail by the Court, which served as a relevant factor in extending the same relief to the petitioner, ensuring consistency and fairness in judicial discretion. (c) Accused’s Background—Relevant Factors. ----The petitioner was a first-time offender with no prior convictions or criminal record. Additionally, the investigation was concluded, and the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation. ----Result: Bail granted to the petitioner subject to furnishing bail bonds in the amount of Rs.200,000/- with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Background: M/s Shifa International Hospitals Ltd. (Petitioners) filed a civil revision against the order dated 27th March 2014, passed by a Single Judge in Chamber. The respondents filed a civil suit seeking damages amounting to Rs. 210 million for alleged gross professional negligence, mental agony, loss of quality of life, emotional distress, and financial loss. The petitioners sought rejection of the suit under Order VII Rule 11 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, claiming the suit was barred by law under Section 31(4) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, as amended by the Medical and Dental Council (Amendment) Act, 2012. ----Issues: Whether the suit for damages filed by the respondent is maintainable without first establishing professional negligence before the Disciplinary Committee of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council as required by Section 31(4) of the Ordinance. Whether the provisions of Section 31(4) of the Ordinance bar the ordinary jurisdiction of civil courts. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Islamabad High Court dismissed the civil revision, upholding the decision of the learned Single Judge in Chamber. The court determined that Section 31(4) of the Ordinance does not bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts. The provisions of Section 31 are intended to manage the registration and disciplinary actions concerning medical practitioners and dentists, and the requirement to establish professional negligence before the Disciplinary Committee pertains only to proceedings for removal of names from the register, not to suits for damages. The court emphasized that statutes must be read as a whole and harmoniously. Furthermore, the court cited established legal principles that the exclusion of civil court jurisdiction must be explicit and unambiguous, which was not the case here. The court dismissed the civil revision in limine, finding no defect or infirmity in the order of the Single Judge in Chamber. ----Citations/Precedents: Secretary of State vs. Mask & Co., A.I.R. 1940 Privy Council 105 Abdul Latif vs. The Government of Pakistan & others, PLD 1962 SC 384 Karamat Ali vs. Mohammad Younis, PLD 1963 SC 191 State vs. Qaim Ali Shah, 1992 SCMR 2192 Federation of Pakistan vs. Ghulam Mustafa Khar, PLD 1984 SC 26

Summary: S.302 PPCAppreciation of evidence,presence of eyewitness doubtful,prosecution failed to prove the case, benefit of doubt(Acquitted)

Summary: Inherent Powers of High Court regarding correction of Typographical errors

Summary: Appellate Court cannot remand the case after accepting application under Order XLI Rule 27 of CPC for production of additional evidence. Rule 1 Order XIII of CPC also interpreted---The dispute revolved around a passage, which was the subject of a suit for declaration with permanent and mandatory injunction filed by respondent No. 1. The trial court had dismissed the suit, but in the appellate stage, an application was made by the respondent to produce additional evidence. This application was accepted by the Appellate Court, leading to a remand of the case for a fresh decision. The petitioners contested this remand, arguing that the application for additional evidence should not have been accepted since it was not filed before the trial court. The order sheet included a detailed examination of the relevant rules, specifically Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC), which governs the production of additional evidence in appellate courts. The Lahore High Court judge, after examining the rules and principles, determined that the production of additional evidence should be discouraged as a rule, and permission for its production should be granted only when good cause is shown for its non-production to the satisfaction of the court. In this case, the judge found that the Appellate Court's decision to remand the case after accepting the application for additional evidence was not justified. As a result, the impugned judgment by the Appellate Court was set aside, and the application for the production of additional evidence was to be decided afresh by the Appellate Court strictly in accordance with the provisions of Rule 27 of Order XLI of CPC.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Azad Jammu and Kashmir Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974: ----S. 15-A Vesting of acquired land in Mirpur Development Authority—Creation of housing scheme—Allotment of plots—Effect of subsequent cancellation of de-award notification. Under S. 15-A of the Mirpur Development Authority Ordinance, 1974, land acquired for the Mangla Dam project but not utilized for its construction was vested in the Mirpur Development Authority (MDA). The Authority subsequently developed a housing scheme and allotted plots to various individuals after due process. The Government initially de-awarded the land in favor of the original landowners through a notification dated 19-6-2001 but later withdrew the de-award via notification dated 21-10-2004 upon realizing that the land had already been allotted by the MDA. The High Court, in an earlier judgment dated 8-6-2011, upheld the cancellation of the de-award, and appeals against the decision were withdrawn before the Supreme Court. The Government, despite these judicial findings, issued a fresh notification on 13-12-2012 granting proprietary rights to affected persons without consideration of previous allotments. The High Court ruled that the Government had no authority to transfer land vested in the MDA and that the subsequent notification was in violation of the principles of audi alteram partem, as no opportunity of hearing was provided to the allottees before canceling their plots. (b) Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894): ----S. 48 Cancellation of land acquisition—Effect of vested rights—Res judicata and estoppel—Judicial review of executive actions. Once land has been acquired under the Land Acquisition Act and vested in a statutory body, such as the Mirpur Development Authority, it cannot be arbitrarily re-allocated without due process. The High Court held that the Government's action in canceling previously allotted plots and reassigning them to other persons violated settled judicial principles, including res judicata and estoppel, since the matter had already been adjudicated and upheld in prior litigation. The notification dated 13-12-2012 was declared unlawful as it sought to overturn finalized judicial determinations without new legal justification. The Court reaffirmed that state land cannot be distributed arbitrarily or without compensation, citing established legal precedents. ----Cited Cases: • Ghulam Rasool and Another v. Said Ahmed and Others, 2012 CLC 1655 • Abdul Rasheed and 85 Others v. Board of Trustees and 3 Others, 2008 SCR 817 • Syed Nazir Ahmed Gillani and 12 Others v. Azad Govt. and 5 Others, Civil Appeal No. 163/2002 (Unreported) ----Disposition: Writ Petitions Nos. 2015/2012 and 2062/2012 allowed; notification dated 13-12-2012 declared unlawful. Writ Petition No. 175/2012 dismissed with costs.