Summary: Defamation Act (Damages and Defamation )---damages awarded---The appellant, a postgraduate officer in the Department of Statistics, Government of Pakistan, accused the respondent of repeatedly publishing defamatory materials about him in an unregistered newspaper called "AKHBAR." The publications had occurred over five years and included false and damaging information. The appellant sent a legal notice to the respondent, demanding compensation for loss of reputation and mental anguish. The appellate court found that the trial court had erred in its assessment. It determined that the appellant had successfully established that the respondent had published defamatory material that harmed his reputation. The court noted that the burden of proof lay on the defendant to establish the truthfulness of the publications, which the defendant failed to do. The court also rejected the defendant's argument that the publications were protected by freedom of speech under Article 19 of the Constitution, emphasizing that such protection was not absolute and must respect decency, morality, and the rights of individuals.The appellate court reversed the trial court's decisions on various issues. It concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to relief and awarded him compensation in the form of general damages, setting the minimum damages at Rs. 300,000 due to the nature of the defamation and the defendant's failure to establish the truthfulness of his publications. The appeal was successful, and the appellate court overturned the trial court's dismissal of the defamation suit, awarding the plaintiff damages and emphasizing the limitations of freedom of speech in cases of defamation.

Summary: Background: The appellant filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) challenging the order of a learned Single Judge, which dismissed his constitutional petition seeking to secure his daughter's admission into an MBBS program under the 2% minority quota for religious minorities. The appellant relied on a notification issued by the Government of Punjab under the Punjab Minorities Empowerment Package. He claimed that his daughter was entitled to benefit from this quota for admission to the MBBS program, which the respondents denied, and the Single Judge dismissed the petition. -----Issues: 1- Minority Quota for Admissions: Does the 2% minority quota under the Punjab Minorities Empowerment Package apply to admissions for MBBS programs? 2- Locus Standi: Does the appellant have the legal standing to file the petition on behalf of his daughter? 3- Judicial Authority over Policy: Can the Court extend the policy decision, which is intended for employment opportunities, to the admissions process for educational institutions? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Minority Quota for Admissions: The Court held that the notification dated May 18, 2020, reserved a 2% minority quota for employment in public sector institutions, not for admissions to educational institutions, including MBBS programs. Admissions to such programs are based on merit, and no separate quota for religious minorities exists for MBBS admissions. The notification could not be applied to the appellant’s case. Locus Standi: The Court found that the appellant, who filed the petition and appeal in his own name, lacked the standing to do so. The appellant should have filed the petition on behalf of his daughter, either as her attorney or next friend (if she was a minor). As he failed to do so, the petition and appeal were found to be non-maintainable. Judicial Authority over Policy: The Court emphasized that it could not extend the scope of a government policy intended for employment to educational admissions. The role of policy-making lies with the executive, and the Court cannot modify or extend such policies unless expressly provided by law. The appeal was dismissed on the grounds of lack of merit and maintainability, and the decision of the learned Single Judge was upheld. ------Citations/Precedents: 2012 PLC (CS) 917 / 2011 SCMR 1864 2006 PSC 1284 PLD 1975 SC 667 1978 SCMR 327 2022 SCMR 2080 2021 SCMR 1979 PLD 2018 SC 189 2017 SCMR 1427 2016 CLD 2025 (SC) / PLD 2016 SC 995 PLD 2013 SC 255 2014 SCMR 1015 PLD 2011 SC 512 2007 SCMR 1086 2007 CLC 483 (Karachi)

Summary: The basic issue relates to actual/correct date of death of the donor, namely, Jalal-ud-Din who admittedly was predecessor-in-interest of the respondents. The petitioners/defendants claim that the donor was their maternal grandfather and validly made the gift. It is also assertion of the petitioners that the respondents assailed the impugned mutation on the revenue side and their claim was rejected and hence, subsequent suit on the same subject is hit by doctrine of res-judicata and the suit was badly time barred, while it is case of the respondents that the donor was already dead on the date of recording of the impugned mutation, after suffering from serious illness, and the correct date of death has been clearly established through the inquiry conducted by the Officials. Held that any decision, on the revenue side, does not operate as bar on a subsequent civil suit, more particularly, when question of fraud is involved in respect of which the jurisdiction of the Revenue Authorities is barred, for the reasons that the proceedings before the Revenue Officers and/or the Revenue Courts are summarily conducted without recording of evidence. Section 11 of the CPC that is based on doctrine of res-judicata clearly stipulates that no subsequent suit shall be entertained in which the matter is directly and substantially the same in a former suit between the same parties and decided by a Court of competent jurisdiction. Therefore, Section 11 of the CPC is applicable only where earlier as well as the subsequent proceedings are before the Courts, which are competent to decide both the matters. Further held that it is by now well-settled that a mutation by itself does not create any title unless it can be substantiated to be backed by a valid transaction more particularly if the transaction is in the nature of Hiba depriving legal heirs of the donor. In the instant case, such detail is conspicuous by its absence inasmuch as neither the time of offer and acceptance of the gift has been mentioned in the written statement nor any witness has been produced in support of the said contentions.

Summary: Acquittal granted/ --- summary pending

Summary: Background: A contractual agreement for the supply of ethanol was entered into between two companies in 2015. The agreement included a clause for arbitration in the London Court of International Arbitration (LCIA) under English law. A dispute arose when one party (the respondent) allegedly failed to fulfill its obligations under the agreement, leading the other party (the applicant) to approach the LCIA. The LCIA tribunal, formed in 2016, passed a final arbitral award in favor of the applicant in April 2017. The applicant then sought recognition and enforcement of this foreign arbitral award in Pakistan under the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011. The respondent filed objections, primarily challenging the validity of the agreement and the enforceability of the arbitral award in Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Lahore High Court has jurisdiction to enforce a foreign arbitral award under the 2011 Act. 2- Whether the applicant met the document submission requirements under Section 5 of the 2011 Act. 3- Whether the foreign arbitral award was unenforceable due to the invalidity of the agreement under Article V(1)(a) of the New York Convention. 4- Whether the enforcement of the arbitral award would be contrary to public policy under Article V(2)(b) of the New York Convention. 5- Whether the doctrine of pro-enforcement bias applies in Pakistan's courts. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Court held that it has exclusive jurisdiction to enforce foreign arbitral awards under Section 3 of the 2011 Act, as only the High Courts in Pakistan are empowered to handle such matters. The Court found that the applicant had fulfilled all document submission requirements by providing certified copies of the award and agreement in accordance with Article IV of the New York Convention. The respondent's challenge to the validity of the agreement, based on an alleged lack of authority of its signatories, was dismissed. The tribunal had determined that the individuals signing the agreement had at least ostensible authority, and the Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid under English law. The Court rejected the argument that enforcement of the award would violate public policy. It emphasized that public policy objections must be narrowly construed, and enforcement would not be contrary to the basic notions of morality and justice in Pakistan. The Court reiterated the pro-enforcement bias embedded in the New York Convention, holding that foreign arbitral awards should be enforced unless exceptional circumstances apply. Consequently, the arbitral award was recognized and enforced, with the court converting the application into execution proceedings. -----Citations/Precedents: Redfern and Hunter on International Arbitration, Sixth Edition Justice Jawad Hassan, Role of Judiciary and Jurisprudence in Domestic and International Arbitration (2018) CLD Journal Hitachi Limited vs. Rupali Polyester (1998 SCMR 1618) Enka Insaat Ve Sanayi AS v Insurance Company Chubb [2020] UKSC 38 Kabab-Ji SAL v Kout Food Group [2021] UKSC 48 Orient Power Company (Private) Limited vs. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Limited (2019 CLD 1069) POSCO International Corporation vs. Rikans International (2023 CLD) Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse SA vs. Acro Textile Mills Ltd. (PLD 2018 Lahore 597) Dhanya Agro-Industrial (Pvt.) Limited vs. Quetta Textile Mills Ltd. (2019 CLD 160) M.C.R. (Pvt.) Ltd. Franchisee of Pizza Hut vs. Multan Development Authority (2021 CLD 639)

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----Ss. 22-A & 561-A---Applicant/one of the sisters of the victim, had impugned the order passed by Justice of Peace, whereby her prayer for issuance of direction to concerned S.H.O. for registration of F.I.R. against accused had been dismissed---Earlier, S.H.O. concerned, in collusion with main accused had lodged F.I.R., allegedly on the complaint of other sister of the victim, but said F.I.R. failed to reflect true facts and real incident reported by the complainant; her statement was not properly incorporated in the F.I.R.---Applicant, on having come to know about manipulation in the F.I.R., filed application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. for registration of separate F.I.R.---Justice of Peace, on the report of S.H.O. to the effect that second F.I.R. could not be lodged for the same incident as alleged by the complainant, dismissed application filed under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. and applicant had filed application under S.561-A, Cr.P.C. for setting aside said order---Collusion of Police with accused had been confirmed---Justice of Peace had not relied upon any authority, and had ignored the two judgments of the High Court, which were binding upon her in terms of Art.189 of the Constitution---Impugned order was set aside by High Court and application was allowed as prayed---S.H.O. was directed to record the statement of the applicant. 2013 PCr.LJ 117 and 2013 PCr.LJ 660 distinguished. 2001 SCMR 1556 and PLD 2005 SC 297 ref. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 154---first Information Report---Right to contest contents of F.I.R.---Scope---Accused was not entitled to contest the contents of F.I.R. before it was registered against him---Accused would have right to approach the court only after the lodging of F.I.R. and could take any defence at the trial.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- Bail Matters (Bail after arrest-497, Offences under S.302/324/ 337/396/449/460)----Qatl-e-amd, attempt to commit qatl-e-amd, rioting, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly, mischief causing damage to the amount of fifty rupees, intentional insult with intent to provoke breach of peace---Bail, grant of---Further inquiry---Tribal enmity--- Cross-version F.I.Rs.---Discrepancies in prosecution evidence---Persons belonging to complainant party and accused party both lost their lives during the occurrence---Complainant party contended that deceased from accused party was also killed by their own firing---Validity---Prima facie it was difficult to say that fatal injuries caused to deceased from both sides were caused by one and the same weapon, as the post-mortem report did not suggest the same---Police refused to register cross-version F.I.R. of accused party, and it was only registered subsequently on the directions of Justice of Peace---Refusal of police to register counter-version of accused party, prima facie under the influence of complainant party could not be ruled out---Contents of the mashirnama regarding place of occurrence and dead bodies and the post-mortem report of a victim from the accused party's side gave credence to the counter-version case/F.I.R. of accused party---Another discrepancy in the prosecution story was that mashirnama of dead bodies of deceased from both sides was prepared at the same time and they were sent to the hospital, but body of deceased from accused party's side reached the hospital five hours after the other one---Accused was no more required for further investigation as he had already been remanded to jail custody---Case against accused called for further inquiry into his guilt---Accused was admitted to bail accordingly. (b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)--- ----S. 497(2)---Bail, grant of---Scope---Heinous crime---Bail could not be refused merely on the ground that accused was involved in a heinous crime, particularly when he had made out a case of further inquiry into his guilt on several counts.

Summary: Appeal Dismissed---The judgment stated that the appellants had availed and utilized finance facilities of Rs. 23,000,000/-, against which they had made payments, leaving an outstanding balance. They argued that the statement of account presented by the respondent did not match the required account number. They also contended that the requirements of the Financial Institutions Recovery of Finance Ordinance, 2001 were not met by the respondent when filing the suit. The respondent's counsel refuted the appellants' arguments, asserting that the appeal was time-barred and the grounds were frivolous. They presented evidence of a new finance agreement executed in 2008 and pointed out that the account number was properly designated. The respondent contended that the appeal should be dismissed. Upon examination, the court noted that the appeal was filed one day late and thus time-barred. The appellants' argument regarding the date of the certified copy's readiness was found unconvincing. The court also observed that the finance agreement between the parties was properly executed, and the outstanding amount was acknowledged in correspondence. The court upheld the Impugned Judgment, stating that the appeal lacked merit and dismissing it.

Summary: Transfer of cases---The court noted that both parties had offices in Karachi, and it was decided that the entirety of the claim should be tried in the High Court, considering the practicality and fairness of the situation. The court also mentioned that this decision wouldn't influence the ongoing main suit. Consequently, the court partially set aside the previous order, allowing the entire claim to be tried in the High Court. The appellant's appeal was partly accepted, and each party was to bear their respective costs. The judgment concluded by specifying the date and location of the decision.

Summary: Background: This case involves an appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The incident occurred following a dispute over the sale of a plot. The prosecution alleged that the accused shot and killed the victim during an attempt to resolve the dispute, witnessed by several individuals. The accused was convicted by the trial court and sentenced to life imprisonment, while four other co-accused were acquitted. The defense argued that the victim was intoxicated and accidentally shot himself. The appeal challenges the conviction, and the complainant also sought to overturn the acquittal of the co-accused and enhance the sentence of the convicted individual. -----Issues: 1- Whether the prosecution proved the motive and involvement of the accused in the murder beyond a reasonable doubt. 2- Whether the forensic and medical evidence supported the prosecution's version of events. 3- Whether the presence of key witnesses at the crime scene was credible. 4- Whether the delay in reporting the crime impacted the validity of the prosecution's case. -----Holding / Reasoning / Outcome: The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The prosecution's case was weakened by the following factors: Lack of clear documentary evidence regarding the property dispute, which was alleged to be the motive for the crime. Doubts about the presence of key witnesses at the crime scene, especially since one witness did not reside near the location of the incident. The delay in reporting the crime raised suspicions about the credibility of the prosecution's narrative. Forensic inconsistencies, including the lack of blackening around the wound and the presence of intoxicants in the victim's body, aligned more with the defense's version that the victim accidentally shot himself while intoxicated. The court acquitted the appellant, finding that the prosecution failed to prove the charges against him beyond a reasonable doubt. Additionally, the appeals for enhancing the sentence and challenging the acquittal of the co-accused were dismissed. -----Citations/Precedents: Abdul Majeed v. The State (2011 SCMR 941) Nasrullah alias Nasro v. The State (2017 SCMR 724) Nazir Ahmad v. The State (2018 SCMR 787) Bashir Muhammad Khan v. The State (2022 SCMR 986) Khalid Mehmood alias Khaloo v. The State (2022 SCMR 1148)