Summary: The Plaintiff Bank is entitled to the Decree for recovery of defaulted amount under the Restructuring Agreement.

Summary: When a party is impleaded at the appellate stage under Order 1 Rule 10 CPC, principles of natural justice necessitate remanding the matter to the trial court to afford the newly added party the opportunity to file pleadings, adduce evidence, and fully contest the matter.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: the Tribunal is vested with the powers to remand the case to the Commissioner for making such enquiry or taking such action as the Tribunal may direct or make such order as it deems fit. 474Crl. Revision 39709/24 Shiraz Ahmad Vs The State etc. The Chief Justice 14- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3190 2025 PCr.LJ 1791 (Lahore)

Summary: 473ITR (Income Tax Reference) 40-25 AMIR SAJJAD VS CIR ETC Mr. Justice Mirza Viqas Rauf 14- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3156 2025 PTD 1764 [Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench)]

Summary: In a complaint filed under Section 25 of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2025 ("the Act"), objection of limitation was taken in terms of Section 28(4) of the Act and application under Section 35 of the Act was filed for summary dismissal of the complaint, which was dismissed by the Trial Court through impugned order. Held that there is no cavil to the legal position that the limitation period provided under Section 28 (4) of the Act, for filing a claim, is 30 days from the date of accrual of cause of action. However, the said period of limitation is not so absolute as to leaving no room for filing claim beyond the stipulated period of 30 days as evident from the first proviso to Section 28(4) of the Act, which vests discretion within the Court to allow a claim to be filed within such time as the Court may allow if it is satisfied that there was sufficient cause for not filing the complaint within the specified period. Similarly, the second proviso lays down an upper ceiling of 60 days from the expiry of warranty or guaranty and if no period is specified one year from the date of purchase of the product or providing of services. Thus, the legislature in its wisdom has conferred discretion for extending the limitation for filing of a claim beyond the stipulated period of 30 days. Suffice to observe that such discretion is to be exercised in judicial manner. In the present case, it is not denied that a contractual warranty clause existed. The case of Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited through Manager v. Faisal Jameel Butt and another (PLD 2023 SC 482) relied upon by the petitioner is hardly of any help to the case of the petitioner as the August Supreme Court while upholding the view of this Court rendered in case reported as Muhammad Ashraf v. Sheikh Muhammad Akram etc. (2022 CLD 638) enunciated that the statutory period of 30 days is to run from the date of accrual of cause of action. However, the said case, by no means denuded the Trial Court from its discretionary power of extension of limitation period vested under the law. Further held that Section 35 of the Act pertains to summary dismissal of the frivolous and vexatious claims and a complaint that is barred by time may ultimately fail on legal grounds, but it does not, on that count becomes frivolous or vexatious when relationship of customer-service provider is admitted. 472Review Application (Civil) R.A 25308/25 Munir Ahmad Bhatti Vs Mehmood Ahmad Tahir Bhatti etc Mr. Justice Sultan Tanvir Ahmad 14- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3300

Summary: The Plaintiff Bank is entitled to the Decree for recovery of defaulted amount under the Restructuring Agreement. 471Misc. Writ 28913/25 Sympl Energy Pvt. Ltd. through Taimoor Tanveer Vs Presiding Officer District Consumer Court Gujranwala etc. Mr. Justice Anwaar Hussain 14- 05- 2025 2025 LHC 3362 2025 CLD 1317 (Lahore)