Summary: . It was observed that the complaints were characterized as mala fide, politically motivated, and lacking in jurisdiction. The Court also considered the questions of law raised in the petitions, all of which were related to the complaints.In light of these considerations, the Court concluded that the informers/complainants should be made parties in the petitions. The Court emphasized that in the interest of justice and to ensure that no one is condemned unheard, the complainants/informers should be given an opportunity to be heard. The Court cited Rule 9 of Order XXV of the Supreme Court Rules, 1980, to support the impleadment of the informers as respondents. It deemed their presence as essential for a comprehensive examination of the complaints.The Court ordered the petitioners in Constitution Petitions No. 43, 44, and 45 to include all the complainants/informers as respondents in their respective petitions. Additionally, the petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 45 was directed to include the petitioner from Constitution Petition No. 43 as a respondent in their petition. Similarly, the petitioner in Constitution Petition No. 46 was instructed to include the petitioners from Constitution Petitions No. 43 and 44 as respondents in their petition.Finally, the Court rejected the request for a stay of proceedings before the Supreme Judicial Council at this stage and instructed the petitioners to file amended petitions. Once the necessary amendments were made, the office was directed to schedule the matters for future hearings.

Summary: The petitions, filed by various parties including Justice Sayyed Mazahar Ali Akbar Naqvi of the Supreme Court, the District Bar Association Gujranwala, and Mian Dawood, an advocate from Lahore, challenge the proceedings initiated by the SJC. They raise questions about the validity and motives of the complaints against the petitioner judge, arguing they are mala fide, politically motivated, and lack jurisdiction. The petitions include detailed arguments and references to legal provisions, including the Contempt of Court Act and Order I Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC).The Court emphasized that the non-joinder of necessary parties does not warrant dismissal of a suit but highlighted the importance of having all relevant parties, especially the informers/complainants, included for a comprehensive adjudication. The bench directed the petitioners in CP Nos.43, 44, and 45 to implead all complainants/informers as respondents. Furthermore, in CP No.45, the petitioner was instructed to implead Justice Naqvi (petitioner in CP No.43) as a respondent, and in CP No.46, the petitioner was directed to implead the petitioner of CP Nos. 43 & 44.The Court dismissed a request for a stay of the proceedings against the petitioner in CP Nos.43 & 44, noting that the situation differed from a cited precedent case involving Mr. Justice Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry. The bench directed the filing of amended petitions to include the necessary parties and adjourned the case for a subsequent hearing after the amendments.This order represents a meticulous application of legal principles to ensure fairness and comprehensive adjudication in a matter involving high constitutional significance, particularly in the context of judicial accountability and the safeguarding of fundamental rights.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908---- ----S. 115---Scope of revisional jurisdiction---Interference in concurrent findings---Two Courts below concurrently dismissed the suit of the plaintiffs challenging revenue entries and claiming ownership of ancestral property. Held, revisional jurisdiction under S. 115, C.P.C. is limited to instances of misreading, non-reading of evidence, or jurisdictional errors. Findings based on proper appraisal of evidence cannot be disturbed merely because another interpretation is possible. Referred cases: Nasir Ali v. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054) Salamat Ali v. Muhammad Din (PLD 2022 SC 353) Muhammad Sarwar v. Hashmal Khan (PLD 2022 SC 13). (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984---- ----Art. 117---Burden of proof---Plaintiffs failed to prove ownership of property through documentary evidence and relied solely on oral assertions. Held, burden of proof rests on the party seeking relief, and a case cannot be built on the weaknesses of the adversary's evidence. Referred cases: Nisar Ali v. Muhammad Asghar (2022 SCMR 1054) Qahaim Khan v. Amar Khan (2022 CLC 335). (c) Revenue Law---- ----Presumption of correctness of first-ever settlement record---Plaintiffs challenged entries made during the first-ever settlement of the area (1981–1986). Held, strong presumption of correctness attaches to first settlement records, and extraordinary evidence is required to dislodge such entries. Referred cases: Nawab Khan v. Said Karim Khan (1997 SCMR 1840) Mazloom Hussain v. Abid Hussain (PLD 2008 SC 571) Haji Allah Bakhsh v. Abdullah Khan (2001 SCMR 363). (d) Limitation Act, 1908---- ----Art. 120---Declaratory suits---Limitation period---Entries in revenue records made during the first settlement (1981–1986) were challenged in 1999, well beyond the six-year limitation period prescribed under Art. 120 of the Limitation Act. Held, plaintiffs’ suit was time-barred. Referred case: Khushi Muhammad v. Fazal Bibi (PLD 2016 SC 872). (e) Documentary vs. Oral Evidence---- ----Preference of documentary evidence---Revenue records indicated ownership by defendants, while plaintiffs relied on oral assertions. Held, documentary evidence recorded by public officials prevails over oral assertions. Referred cases: Shamshad v. Arif Ashraf Khan (2010 SCMR 473) Muhammad Rasheed v. Mst. Saeeda Bano (2014 CLC 990). (f) Judicial Findings---- ----Reliance on evidence---Judicial pronouncements must be based on evidence and reasoning. Courts cannot base decisions on assumptions or evidence beyond pleadings. Referred cases: Hyderabad Development Authority v. Abdul Majeed (PLD 2002 SC 84) Government of West Pakistan v. Haji Muhammad (PLD 1976 SC 469). -----Disposition: The revision petition was dismissed, and the concurrent findings of the trial and appellate courts were upheld.

Summary: (a) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----S. 36 (now S. 11), S. 74, & S. 7---Adjudication period---Limitation and jurisdiction---Effect of delay in adjudication---Show-cause notice under S. 36 issued to Peshawar Electric Supply Company (PESCO) resulted in adjudication exceeding statutory limits of 180 days (120 days + 60 days extension) without sufficient justification. Held, under Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons v. Collector of Sales Tax (2017 SCMR 1427), such proceedings are void if adjudication exceeds time limits without lawful extension. However, WAK Ltd. Multan Road v. Collector Central Excise (2018 SCMR 1474) clarified that such time limitations are not mandatory but directory, aimed at expeditious disposal, not extinguishment of liability. Time extension granted under S. 74 must not exceed six months beyond statutory limits, per Super Asia Muhammad Din's case. (b) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----S. 7 & S. 8---Input tax adjustment---Taxable activities and losses---PESCO claimed input adjustment for transmission and distribution losses, including theft, contending these fall within taxable activities. Held, losses incurred during distribution are natural and inevitable; therefore, input adjustment is permissible as such losses are part of taxable activities. Reliance placed on Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Secretary Revenue Division (PTCL 2002 CL 115) and Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2023 SCMR 279). (c) Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)---- ----S. 3 & S. 7---Supplies to erstwhile tribal areas---Non-applicability of charging and machinery provisions---At the relevant time, the Sales Tax Act, 1990, was not extended to Federally and Provincially Administered Tribal Areas (FATA/PATA). Held, as per M/s. Gul Cooking Oil v. Collector of Customs (2008 PTD 169) and Hazrat Hussain v. Pakistan through Chairman FBR (2018 SCMR 939), supplies to FATA/PATA were exempt, and input tax adjustment could not be claimed for such supplies. (d) Tax Administration---- ----Judicial consistency---Consolidated judgment disposing of multiple sales tax references involving common questions of law and facts to ensure uniformity in legal interpretation and application. -----Cited Cases: Super Asia Muhammad Din and Sons v. Collector of Sales Tax (2017 SCMR 1427) WAK Ltd. Multan Road v. Collector Central Excise (2018 SCMR 1474) Attock Cement Pakistan Ltd. v. Commissioner Inland Revenue (2023 SCMR 279) Mayfair Spinning Mills Ltd. v. Secretary Revenue Division (PTCL 2002 CL 115) Hazrat Hussain v. Pakistan through Chairman FBR (2018 SCMR 939) -----Disposition: References answered in terms of findings. Input adjustment allowed for transmission losses; disallowed for supplies to exempt areas.

Summary: (a) National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance (VIII of 2000): ----Scope and powers of NADRA—Blocking of CNIC—Determination of citizenship status—Jurisdictional limits. The National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) lacks jurisdiction to determine the citizenship status of individuals or to block their Computerized National Identity Cards (CNICs) based on reports from intelligence agencies. The power to adjudicate citizenship disputes is exclusively vested in the competent authority under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, and the rules framed thereunder. Blocking or suspending a CNIC effectively amounts to suspending an individual's citizenship, which NADRA has no authority to do under the NADRA Ordinance, 2000. ----Cited Cases: Hafiz Hamad Ullah Sabbor v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) (b) Pakistan Citizenship Act (II of 1951): ----Determination of citizenship—Exclusive jurisdiction of competent authority—Illegality of NADRA’s actions. Under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, citizenship status can only be determined by the competent authority designated under the Act. NADRA, being an administrative body, cannot usurp this function or make citizenship determinations based on reports from intelligence agencies. Any such action is ultra vires of NADRA’s authority and constitutes a violation of the statutory framework governing citizenship rights. ----Cited Cases: Hafiz Hamad Ullah Sabbor v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) (c) Constitutional Rights: ----Fundamental rights—Right to citizenship—Unlawful blocking of CNIC. Blocking or suspending a CNIC without lawful authority infringes upon fundamental rights, including the right to identity, property ownership, and access to essential services. Such an act by NADRA constitutes an overreach of its statutory powers and is in violation of constitutional protections afforded to citizens. ----Cited Law: Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951 National Database and Registration Authority Ordinance, 2000 (d) Administrative Law: ----Jurisdictional limits of NADRA—Intelligence agency reports—No evidentiary value without determination by competent authority. Reports from intelligence agencies, without adjudication by the competent authority under the Pakistan Citizenship Act, 1951, do not hold legal weight in determining citizenship status. NADRA cannot rely solely on such reports to block or suspend CNICs. ----Cited Cases: Hafiz Hamad Ullah Sabbor v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2021 Islamabad 305) ----(e) Relief: ----Unblocking of CNIC—Direction to NADRA. NADRA was directed to immediately unblock the CNICs of the petitioners, as its actions were deemed illegal, ultra vires, and beyond its statutory mandate. ----(f) Disposition The writ petition was allowed, and NADRA was directed to unblock the CNICs of the petitioners forthwith.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969 – Sections 2(s), 16, 168, and 171: Seizure of Goods – Limitation for Issuance of Show-Cause Notice – Time-Barred Proceedings Appeal challenging the legality of proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1969, following the seizure of goods (foreign-origin cooking oil and ghee) on allegations of smuggling. The appellant contended that the show-cause notice was served beyond the time prescribed under Section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, rendering the proceedings illegal. Held: Section 168(2) mandates that a show-cause notice must be issued within two months of the seizure, extendable by an additional two months for reasons recorded in writing. In the present case, the notice was issued after nearly ten months, exceeding the permissible time limit. Consequently, the show-cause notice and all subsequent proceedings were declared void ab initio. The appeal was allowed, and the impugned order was set aside. ----Cited Cases: Assistant Director Intelligence and Investigation v. M/s B.R Herman PLD 1992 SC 485 M/s. Skindar A. Kharim v. The State 1995 SCMR 387 PLD 1974 SC (sic) PLD 1988 Lahore 177 1991 SCMR 1753 ----Disposition: Appeal allowed. The proceedings and impugned order were quashed as being time-barred under the Customs Act, 1969.