Summary: Crl.Appeal

Summary: ''1) The standard of evidence is not uniform when challenging a registered document as compared to challenging an unregistered document. (2) A mere denial by the executant of a registered sale deed is insufficient to shift the burden onto the beneficiary to prove the valid execution of the registered document.'' ---- The appellants claimed ownership of a piece of land, alleging that the respondents obtained it fraudulently from their minor family members.The respondents, in response, contended that the property was legally transferred to them, and they denied any fraudulent activity. The dispute was initially heard by a trial court, which conducted a visual comparison of signatures on the relevant documents.In the trial court's judgment, it was found that the appellants failed to provide sufficient evidence to prove their claim of fraud. The trial court relied on the principles of Muhammadan Law by Mulla and various articles of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 (Q.S.O.) to establish the burden of proof and evidentiary requirements. The court cited precedents such as Ghulam Ghous v. Muhammad Yasin (2009 SCMR 70) to emphasize that fraud allegations needed to be proven and that a simple denial was not sufficient.The trial court also referred to the case of Zar Wali Shah v. Yousaf Ali Shah (1992 SCMR 1778), which supported the practice of visual comparison of signatures. This comparison did not favor the appellants' case.As a result, the trial court ruled in favor of the respondents, emphasizing that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proof. The appellants appealed to the High Court, which allowed the respondents' civil revision under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.).The appellants then brought this appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan under Article 185(2)(d) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Supreme Court considered various precedents, including Ahmed Hassan Khan v. Naveed Abbas (1998 SCMR 346), Mehr Manzoor Hussain v. Muhammad Nawaz (2010 SCMR 1042), Abdul Ghani v. Mst. Yasmeen Khan (2011 SCMR 837), and Yar Muhammad Khan v. Sajjad Abbas (2021 SCMR 1401) to examine the burden of proof, the shifting of that burden, and evidentiary requirements in property disputes.In the final judgment, the Supreme Court upheld the decision of the lower courts, emphasizing that the appellants failed to meet the requisite burden of proof. The material official witness, Muhammad Aslam, the Sub-Registrar, did not support the appellants' version, further weakening their case. The Court concluded that the respondents had established their legal ownership of the property in question.

Summary: Issue:The central issue was the validity of the impugned order by the District Judge dismissing the petitioner's application under Section 12(2) CPC, considering the allegations of fraud and non-service of notice.Judgment:The Lahore High Court dismissed the civil revision petition. The Court found that evidence contradicted the petitioner's claims of non-participation in the initial proceedings. It was established that the petitioner was actively involved, having submitted a Wakalatnama, written statement, and reply through counsel. Despite claims of non-receipt of appeal notice, the record showed the petitioner was served through due process, including newspaper advertisement, but failed to appear in the appellate court.The Court ruled the petition under Section 12(2) CPC was barred by limitation, referencing Bashir Ahmed through Legal Representative and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (PLD 2019 Supreme Court 504), which clarifies the three-year limitation period for such applications, commencing from the date of knowledge of the contested decision. The Court also referred to Faizum alias Toor v. Nander Khan and others (2006 SCMR 1931) and Fida Hussain v. Ghulam Sarwar (2002 SCMR 1554) to support its conclusions on limitation and fraud allegations.The Court dismissed the petitioner's fraud allegations due to lack of substantial proof and emphasized the presumption of truth attached to judicial records under Article 129(e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. The Court further cited several Supreme Court judgments, including Mst. Musarat Parveen v. Muhammad Yousaf and others (2023 SCMR 1665) and Messrs Pak Suzuki Motors Company Limited through Manager v. Faisal Jameel Butt and another (PLD 2023 S.C. 482), to affirm that questions of limitation are not mere technicalities and require careful consideration.Legal Principles:Section 12(2) CPC: Pertains to challenging court decisions based on fraud or misrepresentation.Limitation Law: Emphasizes the importance of pursuing legal remedies within prescribed time limits.Fraud Allegations: Require significant evidence for inquiry or investigation.Presumption of Judicial Record Authenticity: Upheld unless substantial evidence to the contrary is presented.Conclusion:The Lahore High Court's decision to affirm the District Judge's dismissal of the petitioner's application underlines the critical nature of limitation laws and the necessity for substantial evidence when alleging fraud. The judgment reinforces the judiciary's commitment to maintaining legal certainty and the sanctity of judicial proceedings.

Summary: Background:In W.P No. 5915 of 2020, Muhammad Ilyas filed a petition against The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau (NAB) and others, challenging an order that placed his property under restriction and slated it for confiscation. This property, Ayesha Rice Mills, was to be used for the recovery of a Rs. 1286 Million fine associated with the corruption case of State vs. Zaheer Abbas Ghumman & others under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999. The background of the case involves a corruption and fraud scheme led by Syed Sibt-ul-Hassan Gillani alias Double Shah, with subsequent investigations leading to the conviction of Zaheer Abbas Ghumman and others who had agreed to a plea bargain.---Issues:The primary legal issues in this case were:Whether Muhammad Ilyas, the petitioner, could legally be considered a "benamidar" or a proxy holder of the property on behalf of Zaheer Abbas Ghumman.The validity and enforceability of the confiscation and restrictions placed on Ilyas's property under the National Accountability Ordinance.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Lahore High Court found that the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) failed to establish a legal basis for treating Ilyas as a benamidar or that the property in question was acquired with the proceeds of crime. It was noted that Ilyas had never been formally accused or summoned in relation to the Double Shah scam. The court determined that there were no reasonable grounds to link Ilyas's property to the crimes of Zaheer Abbas Ghumman, rendering the confiscation and the restrictions as baseless. Therefore, the petition was allowed, and the orders placing restrictions on the property and its confiscation were set aside.----Citations/Precedents:Key citations and legal precedents referenced in the judgment included:Eden Developers Ltd. vs. NAB and other (PLD 2011 Lahore 48)Ghani-ur-Rehman vs. National Accountability Bureau and others (PLD 2011 SC 1144)Ghulam Basit vs. The State and another (2013 PCR.LJ 1797)Saad Sumair vs. National Accountability Bureau (NAB) through Chairman and 2 others (PLD 2022 Islamabad 371)Mst. Bilqis Bano and another vs. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority through Administrator and 4 others (2019 PCR.LJ 962)Syed Azmat Hussain vs. Chairman, NAB and others (2011 PCR.LJ 104)Mst. Zahida Sattar and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 2002 SC 408)Iqbal Ahmed Turabi and others vs. The State (PLD 2004 SC 830)Shah Rukh Jamal Versus National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and Others (PLD 2022 Islamabad 1)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 44 of the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Interim Constitution 1974, seeking the annulment of a notification dated 23.07.2009 and the reinstatement of a lease for land measuring 119 kanals and 12 marlas. The petitioner also requested the ejection of the respondents, who were alleged trespassers on the land. The lease, initially granted on 10.11.1975, was canceled on 08.01.1979 due to political influence but was restored on 01.09.1990 after an inquiry. Subsequent challenges and notifications led to further disputes and litigation. ----Issues: 1- Whether the notification dated 23.07.2009, which revoked the lease of the land, was issued in accordance with the law. 2- Whether the petitioner was properly heard by the authorities before the cancellation of the lease. 3- Whether the petitioner concealed material facts regarding previous litigation and judgments. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Legality of Notification (23.07.2009): The court held that the notification dated 23.07.2009 was issued in accordance with the law and the conditions of the lease agreement. The land in question was occupied by refugees and other possessors, and the petitioner had violated the lease terms by constructing unauthorized structures. Thus, the lease cancellation was deemed lawful. --Hearing and Due Process: The court found that the petitioner was properly summoned and heard by the Commissioner Mirpur. The petitioner’s claim of not being heard was rejected, as records showed he had filed objections and was given an opportunity to present his case. --Concealment of Material Facts: The court noted that the petitioner had concealed previous litigation and judgments up to the Supreme Court of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, which had already decided against him. The petitioner's actions were seen as an attempt to misuse political influence and gain undue advantage. The petition was dismissed due to lack of merit, with no order as to costs. The court emphasized that ill-gotten gains cannot be protected through equitable relief, and the petitioner’s conduct of concealing facts and repeated litigation was condemned. -----Citations/Precedents: Notification dated 23.07.2009: Issued in accordance with the law, cancelling the lease for land measuring 88 kanals and 11 marlas due to the petitioner’s violations and the land's occupation by refugees. Previous Judgments: Writ petition dismissed on 13.03.2002. Judgment upheld by the Supreme Court on 25.06.2002. Previous litigation and judgments against the petitioner concealed from the court.

Summary: Background: The petitioner challenged the decision/order dated 18.06.2013 in a writ petition, arguing it was coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction. The learned counsel for the petitioner presented a document showing that on 19.02.2018, the author of the impugned judgment was no longer the Commissioner Rehabilitation, and the post had been taken over by Mr. Ataullah Atta. Despite this, the decision was rendered on 15.03.2018. ----Issues: 1- Whether the decision dated 11.02.2017 was coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction. 2- Whether the decision made by an officer no longer holding the office of Commissioner Rehabilitation is valid. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the decision dated 11.02.2017 was coram-non-judice and without jurisdiction. The principle of law states that an action required to be performed in a specific manner must be done so, or it is a nullity in the eyes of the law. The decision on 15.03.2018 by Tehzeeb Nisa, posing as Commissioner Rehabilitation, was invalid as she had been transferred from the office on 16.02.2018. The decision was deemed void because the author lacked the authority and jurisdiction at the time of the decision. The court quashed the impugned decision dated 15.03.2018, declaring it was made without jurisdiction. The case was remanded to the Commissioner Rehabilitation for a judicious decision in accordance with the law, allowing both parties an opportunity to be heard. ----Citations/Precedents: Decision dated 11.02.2017 declared coram-non-judice. Black's Law Dictionary definition of jurisdiction: "It is the authority by which Courts and Judicial Officers take cognizance of and decide cases." The petition was disposed of accordingly, with no order as to costs, and the file was archived.

Summary: (a) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)--- ----S. 24---Notification No.SRB-3-4/7/2013 dated 18.06.2013 issued by the Sindh Revenue Board---Services rendered by a restaurant---Registration---Scope---Exemption, entitlement to---Whether appellant being a restaurant was liable to be registered under S. 24 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 (‘the Act 2011’)?---Appellant claimed exemption as per Notification No.SRB-3-4/7/2013 dated 18.06.2013 (‘Notification SRB-2013’)---Held: Bare reading of Notification SRB-2013 categorically showed that services provided or rendered by restaurants and caterers are taxable in case its turnover exceeds 3.6 million rupees in a financial year or their total utility bills (gas, electricity and telephone) exceed Rs.40,000/- in any month during the subject financial year---In the present case , although appellant's turnover did not exceed 3.6 million rupees in the subject financial year but its total utility bills remained Rs.48,482/- i.e. exceeding Rs.40,000/- in the month of August 2022---Therefore, the appellant was liable to be registered under S. 24 of the Act 2011---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board maintained the findings of Commissioner - Appeal---Appeal, filed by Registered Person, was dismissed. (b) Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act (XII of 2011)--- ----Ss. 24, 24B & 43, Table, S.No.1---Taxable services, rendering of---Non-registration---Subsequent registration---Whether compulsory---Penalty, imposition of---Scope and effect---Whether penalty amounting to Rs.100,000/-imposed upon the appellant (restaurant) in terms of serial No.1 of the Table under S. 43 of the Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 (‘the Act 2011’) was justified?---Held: Penalties for non-registration before providing taxable services are provided in terms of serial No.1 of the Table under S. 43 of the Act 2011 ; which provisions shows that penalty in terms of serial No.1 of the Table under S. 43 of the Act, 2011 deals with two situations i.e. “not getting registered voluntarily ” and “ being registered voluntarily” provided under Ss. 24 & 248 of the Act, 2011 , respectively ; it is very much clear from the wordings of statute that the penalty provided in the first part (in column No. 2) is applicable in single situation i.e. “not getting registered voluntarily” and the assessing officer has discretion to impose penalty either of Rs.10,000/- or five per cent of the amount of sales tax---However, the penalty provided in the second part is applicable to twin situations i.e. “non-compliance of notice (requiring the taxpayer to get registered voluntarily)” or “when an order has been passed making taxpayer a taxpayer registered compulsorily", wherein the law to get registered prescribes minimum penalty of Rs.100,000/----Situations mentioned at serial No.1 (in column (2)) are interconnected---In case a person, liable to be registered, does not get himself registered, the assessing officer issues a notice requiring such person to get himself registered voluntarily---In case such person responds to such notice positively and gets himself registered, assessing officer, considering the existence of registration prior to providing taxable services, may impose either of the penalties i.e. Rs.10,000/- or five per cent of the amount of sales tax---However, in case of non-compliance of the notice, the assessing officer is liable to register said person compulsorily and also impose a penalty of Rs.100,000/----Word “shall” used with the penalty (in column (2)) makes it directory in nature, therefore; no discretion can be exercised by the assessing officer in case the taxpayer does not comply with the notice---Therefore, in the present case, the imposition of penalty amounting to Rs.100,000/- in terms of serial No.1 of the Table under S. 43 of the Act, 2011 was justified---Appellate Tribunal Sindh Revenue Board maintained the findings of the Commissioner Appeals---Appeal, filed by registered Person, was dismissed. Syed Armughan Memhmood (ITP) for Appellant. Ms. Komal Laghari, AC (Unit-34) for Respondents. Dates of hearing: 16th, 30th October and 20th November, 2023.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending