Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pre Arrest Bail

Summary: **Maintainability of appeal on the count of ???Aggrieved person???:- Aggrieved person not necessarily be one facing financial losses; a person/entity feels and considers a process as an intervention to business decisions and actions are being an intervention to business decisions, it can qualify as basis of being an aggrieved person. To be an aggrieved, you do not have to show yourself in a frame of financial loss alone. An attempt to justify that intervention to the business understanding is unnecessary by regulator, notwithstanding financial gains, the intervention can be objected by objector as being aggrieved person. **Public interest:- Laws are made to protect public interest and the enforcement of such laws is in eminent public interest. The distribution arrangement between Searle and IBL has unfairly benefitted IBL and its shareholders to the prejudice of Searle and its shareholders which include minority shareholders from the general public. The general public minority shareholders have no other appropriate remedy through which they could have corrected such arrangement or recovered their losses. It is therefore a matter of public interest that action should have been taken by the Authority to redress the situation

Summary: The respondent No.3 being the domestic industry moved an application upon which investigation was started by the "Commission" on 15th January, 2016. In furtherance of which preliminary determination was made on 21st April, 2017 which later on matured into final determination on 30th March, 2018. Feeling offended from the final determination a large number of exporters preferred their appeals before the "Tribunal" alongwith two importers i.e. M/s April International Enterprise, Private Limited and M/s PT. Indah Kiat Pulp and Paper TBK, which are directly related to the petitioners being their importers. Through judgment dated 06th August, 2020 the "Tribunal" proceeded to dismiss all other appeals whereas Appeals No.275 & 276 of 2018 were remanded to the "Commission" for fresh decision strictly in accordance with law after providing an appropriate opportunity of hearing to the appellants therein. Due to one reason or the other "Commission" could not conduct the proceedings and instead after passing considerable period issued the impugned notification for sunset review. It is thus evident without any hint of doubt that the impugned notice is an offshoot of the proceedings which not only came up in appeal before the "Tribunal" but the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad. In such a case exercise of constitutional jurisdiction by this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 would amount to launch parallel proceedings, which would certainly result into overlapping and conflicting of judgments. Moreover not only the "Commission" but the "Tribunal" are established at Islamabad. Even otherwise as an outcome of sunset review the matter would again became the subject of appeal before the "Tribunal".

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Anti-Dumping Duties Act (XIV of 2015)--- ----Ss. 58 & 64---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Anti-dumping duties, matter of---Territorial jurisdiction of Islamabad High Court---Scope---Constitutional petition was filed before the Lahore High Court calling in question an order passed by the National Tariff Commission, Government of Pakistan, ('Commission') whereby the Commission decided to initiate sunset review---Validity---Court/Tribunal has to make sure that it has jurisdiction to ponder upon an issue-in-question---Jurisdiction cannot be vested to the court with the consent of the parties or at their whims unless it is so equipped under the law---In order to give effect in Pakistan to the provisions of Article VI of the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade, 1994, and to the Agreement on implementation thereof and to amend and consolidate the law relating to imposition of anti-dumping duties to offset, etc. such dumping, Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015 ('the Act, 2015'), was promulgated---Any person aggrieved or interested from the initiation of investigation or preliminary determination or even final determination can prefer an appeal before the Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal Pakistan ('Tribunal') constituted by the Federal Government in terms of S. 64 of the Act, 2015---In the present case, upon an application moved by a domestic industry (respondent), investigation was started by the Commission; in furtherance of which preliminary determination was made which later on matured into final determination---Feeling offended from the final determination a large number of exporters preferred their appeals before the Tribunal along with two importers, which were directly related to the petitioners being their importers---Tribunal proceeded to dismiss all but two appeals, which (two appeals) were remanded to the Commission for decision a fresh---Due to one reason or the other the Commission could not conduct the proceedings and instead after passing considerable period issued the impugned notification for sunset review---Thus, undoubtedly, the impugned notice was an offshoot of the proceedings which earlier not only came up in appeal before the Tribunal but the Islamabad High Court, Islamabad, also---In such a case exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction by (Lahore High) Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution would amount to launching parallel proceedings, which would certainly result into overlapping and conflicting judgments---Moreover, not only the Commission but the Tribunal were established at Islamabad---Even otherwise, as an outcome of sunset review the matter would again become the subject of appeal before the Tribunal---Thus, the Lahore High Court had no territorial jurisdiction to entertain the matter-in- hand---Petition was returned to the petitioner for institution of the same before Court of competent jurisdiction (Islamabad High Court)----Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly. Izhar Alam Farooqi, Advocate v. Sheikh Abdul Sattar Lasi and others 2008 SCMR 240; Syed Muhammad Hussain Shah v. Abdul Qayyum and others 2011 SCMR 743; Pir Sabir Shah v. Shad Muhammad Khan, Member Provincial Assembly, N.-.W.F.P. and another PLD 1995 SC 66; Hassan Shahjehan v. FPSC through Cahirman and others PLD 2017 Lahore 665 and Taufiq Asif and others v. General (Retd.) Pervez Musharraf and others PLD 2024 SC 610 ref. Shafqat Mehmood Chohan and Adnan Ahmed Paracha for Petitioners. Tahir Raheel Awan, Assistant Attorney General Pakistan. Waqas Amir for Respondent No. 2, Saif Ullah Khan and Rais Mehmood Ali for Respondent No.3. Date of hearing: 28th June, 2024.

Summary: M/S Madni Paper Mart, through its proprietor, filed a writ petition challenging the National Tariff Commission's decision to initiate a sunset review under Section 58 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. The sunset review aimed to determine the likelihood of continued or recurring dumping of certain uncoated writing/printing paper from several countries, potentially harming the domestic industry. ---Issues: 1) Whether the National Tariff Commission's initiation of the sunset review was within the legal time frame stipulated by the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015. ----2) Whether the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, had the jurisdiction to hear the case. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that it did not have territorial jurisdiction over the matter, as both the Commission and the Appellate Tribunal are established in Islamabad. The court emphasized the principle that jurisdiction cannot be assumed by consent or convenience of the parties but must be vested by law. The court directed the petitioners to present their petition before the Islamabad High Court. ---Citations/Precedents: IZHAR ALAM RAROOQI, ADVOCATE vs. Sheikh ABDUL SATTAR LASI and others (2008 SCMR 240) Rashid Ahmed v. State (PLD 1972 SC 271) Syed MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN SHAH vs. ABDUL QAYYUM and others (2011 SCMR 743) MUNAWAR HUSSAIN and 2 others vs. SULTAN AHMAD (2005 SCMR 1388) Pir SABIR SHAH vs. SHAD MUHAMMAD KHAN, MEMBER PROVINCIAL ASSEMBLY, N.-.W.F.P. and another (PLD 1995 Supreme Court 66) M/s Ashfaq Brothers and another vs. Anti-Dumping Appellate Tribunal of Pakistan and others (2023 LHC 484 LHC website) HASSAN SHAHJEHAN vs. FPSC through Chairman and others (PLD 2017 Lahore 665) Messrs KARACHI IRON AND STEEL MERCANTS ASSOCIATION through Authorised Representative and 30 others vs. ANTI-DUMPING APPELLATE TRIBUNAL and 22 others (2021 PTD 1150) TAUFIQ ASIF and others vs. General (Retd.) PERVEZ MUSHARRAF and others (PLD 2024 Supreme Court 610)

Summary: Background: The Federal Cabinet, headed by the Prime Minister, decided to file a reference under Article 186 of the Constitution regarding the judicial process in the murder trial of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto, the former Prime Minister of Pakistan. The President submitted the reference to the Supreme Court, seeking its opinion on whether the trial and subsequent conviction of Mr. Bhutto met the constitutional requirements for a fair trial and due process. ----Issues: 1. Whether the Lahore High Court and Supreme Court decisions in the murder trial of Zulfiqar Ali Bhutto met the requirements of fundamental rights guaranteed under various articles of the Constitution. ---2. Whether the conviction leading to Mr. Bhutto's execution could be termed a decision of the Supreme Court binding on other courts. ---3. Whether the death sentence awarded to Mr. Bhutto was justified or amounted to deliberate murder given the alleged bias against him. ---4. Whether the trial and conviction of Mr. Bhutto fulfilled the requirements of Islamic laws as codified in the Quran and Sunnah. ---5. Whether the conviction and sentence against Mr. Bhutto could have been recorded based on the conclusions drawn from the evidence and material in the case. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court determined that the trial and appeal proceedings did not meet the requirements of a fair trial and due process as enshrined in Articles 4, 9, and 10A of the Constitution. The Constitution and the law do not provide a mechanism to set aside the judgment convicting Mr. Bhutto, which had attained finality after the dismissal of the review petition. The Court did not find a specific principle of law in the Bhutto case that could be binding or overruled as it was not clearly enunciated. The death sentence was questioned due to glaring bias against Mr. Bhutto, indicating it may not have been justified. The Court could not reappraise the evidence or undo the decision in its advisory jurisdiction but identified significant lapses in constitutional and legal principles affecting fair trial and due process. ----Citations/Precedents: Article 4 of the Constitution: Inalienable right to be treated in accordance with law. Article 9 of the Constitution: Prohibition of deprivation of life and liberty except in accordance with law. Article 10A of the Constitution: Right to fair trial and due process. Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC): Punishment for murder. Section 307 of the PPC: Attempt to commit murder. Section 109 of the PPC: Abetment of an offense. Section 120B of the PPC: Criminal conspiracy. Section 376 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.): Confirmation of death sentence by the High Court. Article 45 of the Constitution: President's power to grant pardon, remit, suspend, or commute sentences. Various precedents cited in the opinion relating to the right to fair trial, due process, and judicial conduct.

Summary: The court has ordered an inquiry into potential mismanagement or corruption in the affairs of the housing society, to be conducted by the Chairman Anti-Corruption and the Secretary of the Cooperative Society. The inquiry aims to determine the legality of the loan, its usage, and the involvement of university officials.