Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: (a) Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011----Ss. 6 & 7—Recognition and enforcement of a foreign arbitral award—Jurisdiction of Pakistani courts—Scope—Foreign arbitral award dated 30.06.2019 was rendered by an arbitrator appointed under the ICC Rules in an arbitration seated in Paris, France—National Highway Authority (NHA) challenged the award in the Paris Court of Appeal, which dismissed the appeal on 14.09.2021—Subsequently, NHA sought to set aside the award before the District Court, Islamabad, under Ss. 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940—Held, Pakistan courts lacked jurisdiction to set aside the foreign award as the curial law governing the arbitration was French law, not Pakistani law—Article V(1)(e) of the New York Convention limits setting aside authority to the courts of the seat of arbitration—The High Court is only empowered to recognize and enforce or refuse enforcement under the 2011 Act—Award was duly recognized and ordered to be enforced against NHA. (b) Arbitration Act, 1940----Ss. 30 & 33—Application for setting aside a foreign arbitral award—Maintainability—Scope—NHA sought to set aside the foreign arbitral award under Ss. 30 & 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, before the District Court, Islamabad—Held, provisions of the 1940 Act were inapplicable to foreign awards, as the 2011 Act provides an exclusive framework for recognition and enforcement of foreign awards—Reliance placed on Orient Power Company (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (PLD 2019 Lahore 607) and Taisei Corporation v. A.M. Corporation Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. (2018 MLD 2058)—District Court correctly dismissed NHA’s application for lack of jurisdiction. (c) New York Convention, 1958----Art. V(1)(e)—Grounds for refusal of enforcement—Challenge to arbitrator’s impartiality—Scope—NHA alleged bias on part of the arbitrator due to his previous professional associations—Held, Court of Appeal, Paris, had already adjudicated and rejected this claim—Under Gol Linhas Aereas SA v. Matlin Patterson Global Opportunities Partners (Cayman) II LP [2022] UKPC 21, an issue decided by the courts at the seat of arbitration creates issue estoppel—NHA was estopped from re-litigating the arbitrator’s impartiality in Pakistani courts—Mere dissatisfaction with arbitral findings does not constitute a valid ground for refusing enforcement. (d) Execution of Foreign Arbitral Awards—Procedure—Decree Requirement—Scope—NHA argued that the execution petition was premature as no formal decree was issued—Held, no requirement under the 2011 Act or New York Convention for issuance of a decree prior to enforcement—High Court’s recognition of the award suffices for execution—Reliance placed on Louis Dreyfus Commodities Suisse S.A. v. Acro Textiles Mills Ltd. (PLD 2018 Lahore 597) and POSCO International Corporation v. Rikans International (PLD 2023 Lahore 116)—Order recognizing the foreign award shall be enforced as a judgment. (e) Contract Law—Extension of Time (EOT) Claims—Arbitral Review—CWE’s claims for costs associated with EOT-1, EOT-2, and EOT-3 were upheld in arbitration, awarding Rs.3,435,255,571.32 with interest at 6% p.a.—Dispute Board and Engineer had already determined EOT-related claims—Held, arbitral award was based on agreed contractual mechanisms, including FIDIC conditions—NHA’s argument regarding re-evaluation of quantum dismissed, as judicial review of merits is not permissible in recognition proceedings—Reliance placed on Jess Smith and Sons Cotton LLC v. DS Industries (2019 CLD 23). (f) Corporate Law—Bank Guarantee—Obligations and Release—Bank guarantee of Rs.338,000,000/- was furnished by CWE to NHA—Arbitrator ordered its unconditional return—NHA resisted cancellation—Held, retention of bank guarantee was unjustified post-award—Reliance placed on Shipowner v. Time Charterer, Oberlandesgericht (6 Sch 3/98, XXV Y.B. COM. ARB. 641 (2000))—High Court ordered immediate return and cancellation of the guarantee. Disposition:Execution application allowed—Foreign arbitral award dated 30.06.2019 recognized and enforced—NHA directed to pay Rs.3,435,255,571.32, US$10,703.88, GBP£657,704.75, and US$161,708.59 plus 6% p.a. interest—Bank guarantee cancelled—NHA’s appeal (FAO No.94/2021) dismissed with costs.

Summary: Background: A defamation case arises from a blog post alleging misconduct by a public figure during a school board election. The post, claiming the candidate engaged in unethical behavior, was posted by a third party on a prominent local news site. The candidate sued the news site for defamation. ----Issues: 1- Whether the news site is liable for defamation based on the third party's blog post. 2- Whether the news site can claim immunity under the Communications Decency Act (CDA). ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the news site was not liable for defamation. It reasoned that under Section 230 of the CDA, interactive computer services are not publishers of third-party content and thus cannot be held liable for such content. The court found that the news site merely provided a platform for others to post content and did not contribute to or modify the content in question. Therefore, the news site was immune from liability under the CDA.

Summary: (a) Environmental Protection—Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) ----Sections 11 and 15 of AJ&K Environmental Protection Act, 2000—Requirement to file IEE/EIA before the commencement of a project—Appellants argued that their projects began before the promulgation of Regulations, 2009—Tribunal held that the requirement for IEE/EIA existed since the Act’s inception in 2000 and applies regardless of project commencement date—Regulations, 2009 were framed to operationalize pre-existing obligations. (b) Environmental Protection Orders (EPOs)—Legality ----Delegation of authority—EPO issued by the Assistant Director of EPA without delegation of powers under Section 5(5)—Tribunal dismissed the contention as baseless, holding that the impugned minutes of meeting were not an EPO but an intent to issue the same—Subsequent EPO dated 21-07-2014 was validly issued in accordance with Sections 7(c) and 15 of the Act. (c) Adverse Environmental Effects ----Definition and applicability—Section 2(i) of AJ&K Environmental Protection Act, 2000 defines adverse environmental effects, including RF radiations, noise, and pollution—Tribunal relied on scientific studies and case law (PLD 2011 Karachi 132) to confirm that BTS towers have significant environmental and health impacts, including risks of cancer, diabetes, and interference with medical devices. (d) Constitutional Principles—Right to Life and Clean Environment ----Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan and Article 4 of the AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974—Tribunal emphasized that environmental protection is intrinsic to the constitutional right to life and dignity—Measures to mitigate pollution and hazards from BTS towers were deemed necessary to safeguard present and future generations. (e) Compliance and Enforcement of Environmental Laws ----Sections 5, 6, and 7 of the AJ&K Environmental Protection Act, 2000—EPA empowered to establish standards, issue NOCs, and regulate projects to prevent adverse environmental effects—Mobilink’s compliance by obtaining NOCs was acknowledged, while other appellants were directed to obtain NOCs for their BTS towers—Tribunal affirmed EPA’s authority to enforce environmental laws and regulations. Disposition: Both appeals dismissed. Mobilink complied with the EPO by obtaining NOCs for its sites, while remaining appellants were instructed to secure NOCs. The tribunal affirmed the EPA’s actions as lawful and in accordance with the Act.

Summary: (a) Environmental Law—Compliance with Environmental Regulations ----Azad Jammu and Kashmir Environmental Protection Act, 2000—Installation of BTS towers—Requirement of Initial Environmental Examination (IEE) and Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA)—Appellants challenged the issuance of Environmental Protection Orders (EPO) and compliance requirements under Section 11 of the Act—Supreme Appellate Court upheld the requirement for filing IEE/EIA regardless of whether the project commenced before or after the promulgation of the 2009 Regulations—Held, the Act, 2000 applies to all projects to ensure environmental protection, irrespective of commencement date. (b) Environmental Law—Adverse Environmental Effects ----Definition and impact—The court discussed the adverse environmental effects caused by BTS towers, including RF radiation, noise pollution, and health hazards such as cancer and metabolic disturbances—Held, BTS towers fall under the ambit of projects requiring regulatory oversight due to their significant environmental and health impacts as defined under Section 2(i) of the Act. (c) Powers of the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) ----Authority to regulate BTS towers—Sections 5, 6, 7, and 32 of the AJ&K Environmental Protection Act, 2000—EPA empowered to enforce compliance, issue guidelines, and require NOCs for environmental approvals—Court affirmed that the EPA acted within its statutory mandate to regulate BTS installations. (d) Constitutional Rights—Right to Life and Environmental Protection ----Articles 9 and 14 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and Article 4 of AJ&K Interim Constitution, 1974—Court reiterated that the right to life includes the right to an unpolluted environment—Environmental regulations serve as a safeguard for present and future generations, and compliance with such laws is a constitutional obligation. (e) Judicial Precedent—Precautionary Principle ----Court emphasized the precautionary principle enshrined in environmental jurisprudence—Proactive measures are necessary to prevent environmental harm, even in the absence of conclusive scientific evidence, as noted in Shehla Zia v. WAPDA [PLD 1994 SC 693] and Messrs Rabbiya Associates v. Zong [PLD 2011 Karachi 132]. Disposition: Both appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. Appellant No. 1 (Mobilink) had complied with the EPO and obtained NOCs for its BTS towers, while other appellants were directed to secure NOCs for their operations. The Environmental Protection Orders were upheld as lawful and within the scope of the EPA's authority.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Ocular account proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Injured complainant was accompanying all the three deceased on the day of occurrence at the relevant time---Complainant was the victim and the sole survivor of the incident---Complainant got injured with fire shots and his testimony as an injured was of vital importance in the case--- Eye-witness admittedly was the brother of one of the deceased persons and close relative of others---Fact of complainant not seening eye-witness before the happening of the incident appeared to be true---Reason was that had the complainant seen him before the incident, he would have surely nominated him as the eye-witness---Close relationship of said witness was undeniably a factor that mattered regardless of the fact whether he was introduced as a chance witness or a natural eye-witness---No doubt, eye-witness rushed to complainant soon after the happening of the incident and managed to send information of the incident to the village---However, eye-witness correctly pointed out the crime scene to the Investigating Officer---Nothing was on record that the complainant might have tutored eye-witness about the mode and manner of the incident---As the testimony of eye-witness was found natural and confidence inspiring, therefore, the mere fact that his name did not figure in the FIR was no ground to discard his statement---Even otherwise, if the statement of said eye-witness was kept out of consideration, still the direct testimony of injured complainant was there---Statement of complainant was found natural, trustworthy and confidence inspiring---Deposition of complainant found complete support from the medical evidence as well as the circumstantial evidence, which was not convincingly shattered by the defence---Not the quantity, but the quality of evidence mattered--- Even a single testimony of an eye-witness is sufficient to sustain conviction if it rings of truth---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Rahat Ali v. The State and another 2018 PCr.LJ 206 and Muhammad Sadiq v. The State 2022 SCMR 690 rel. (b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Recovery of crime empties from the spot---Reliance---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---As many as 17 empties of 7.62 bore were recovered from the place of the incident---Presence of all the appellants and firing by each one of them coupled with the Forensic Science Laboratory Report that the empties were fired from different weapons substantiated the prosecution case---Such aspect not only excluded the possibility of the offence being committed by a single assailant, but also pointed toward the involvement of more than one assailant in the commission of the offence---Bloodstained earth from the respective places and their bloodstained garments with their positive Forensic Science Laboratory Reports further strengthened the prosecution case---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (c) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Motive not proved---Incosequential---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Motive for the occurrence was stated to be a dispute over a thoroughfare--- As far as motive was concerned, though the thoroughfare was stated to be bandobasti, and not privately owned by the accused party, both the complainant and the eye-witness candidly testified that the accused party was not happy that the complainant party should use it---Witnesses admitted having enmity with other persons in the village, but they remained firm in their depositions that they had no other dispute with the accused party other than the use of the thoroughfare---Even otherwise, the mere fact that the prosecution had failed to prove motive was not by itself a reasonable ground for acquittal, especially when the ocular account was natural, trustworthy and found complete support from the medical and circumstantial evidence---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. Nadeem Ramzan v. The State 2018 SCMR 148 rel. (d) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)--- ----Ss. 302(b), 324, 337-F(iii), 148 & 149---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S. 340---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i-amd, ghayr-jaifah-mutalahimah, rioting armed with deadly weapons, unlawful assembly---Appreciation of evidence---Plea of alibi not proved---Accused were charged that they made firing upon the complainant party, due to which three persons died while complainant received firearm injuries---Appellant recorded his statement on oath under S.340, Cr.P.C and set up a defence that during the day of the incident, he was not present in the locality---Said accused stated that two months prior to the incident, he had a money dispute with appellant/his elder brother; that due to such dispute, accused had gone to village where he was residing with another person; that after 10-15 days of Eid-ul-Fitr, he returned to his village and then left for Karachi city for some labour job---While under cross-examination, said accused could not satisfactorily establish that he was not available in the locality---Admittedly, sister of said accused had been married in the village where occurrence took place---It was not appealing to a prudent mind that his sister would not have been informed about the occurrence---Said accused opted to produce his witness but he failed to do so despite as many as five opportunities given to him by the Trial Court---Thus, said accused failed to prove his defence plea---Appeal against conviction was dismissed, in circumstances. (e) Criminal trial--- ----Motive not proved---Effect---Failure to prove---Motive can be considered as a mitigating circumstance in awarding punishment. Ghulam Muhammad and another v. The State and another 2017 SCMR 2048 rel. Syed Fakhar-ud-Din Shah for Appellant. Sultan Mehmood Khan for Respondents. Umer Qayyum, Asstt. A.G. for the State. Date of hearing: 3rd October, 2023.