Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Background: The National Highway Authority (NHA) awarded a contract for the rehabilitation of a national highway. After the completion of the project, road rutting occurred, leading to a dispute between the NHA and the Contractor. The NHA argued that the rutting was due to defective workmanship by the Contractor, while the Contractor contended it was due to design flaws and premature opening of the road by the NHA. The Contractor agreed to carry out repair works and submitted a payment claim, which was rejected by the Engineer and the Dispute Adjudication Board (DAB) but allowed by the Arbitrator. The Contractor filed an application to make the arbitration award a rule of the Court, which the NHA objected to but was dismissed by the Civil Judge for being time-barred. ----Issues: 1- Whether the NHA's objections to the arbitration award were dismissed correctly for being time-barred. 2- Whether the Arbitrator extended the scope of Clause 20.1 of the contract by accepting a claim filed beyond the stipulated timeline. 3- Whether the Arbitrator had the power to award financing charges prior to the date of the award. 4- Whether the rutting was due to the Contractor's defective workmanship or NHA's premature road opening. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Dismissal of Objections: The Court held that although the NHA received notice on 17.11.2021 and filed objections on 07.01.2022 (beyond the 30-day limitation), the NHA was aware of the award's existence. Therefore, the dismissal was appropriate, and NHA suffered no prejudice as the Civil Court scrutinized the award before making it a rule of the Court. ---Scope of Clause 20.1: The Arbitrator's interpretation of Clause 20.1 was upheld. The clause's timeframe for submitting a fully substantiated claim was not violated since the repair works were ongoing, and the ---Contractor had kept the NHA informed. The Arbitrator found that the spirit of Clause 20.1 was satisfied. ----Financing Charges: The Arbitrator awarded financing charges at the rate stipulated in the contract. The Court found this to be in line with Clause 14.8 of the FIDIC Contract, which allows for such charges without formal notice or certification. The Arbitrator’s award of financing charges from the date when the payment certificate should have been issued was deemed correct. ----Defective Workmanship vs. Premature Road Opening: The Arbitrator concluded that the rutting was due to NHA's premature opening of the road and design flaws, not the Contractor's defective workmanship. This conclusion was based on a meticulous analysis of the evidence, and the Court found no error apparent on the face of the award. ----Citations/Precedents: M/s Joint Venture KG/Rist vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1996 SC 108) Oil and Gas Development Company Limited vs. M/s Marathon Construction Company and another (2013 CLD 1483) Mian Corporation vs. M/s Lever Brothers of Pakistan Limited (PLD 2006 SC 169) Henry Boot Construction Ltd vs. Alstom Combined Cycles Ltd [2005] 1 W.L.R. 3850 CA Lahore Development Authority vs. Khalid Javed Co. (1983 SCMR 718) Defence Housing Authority, Islamabad vs. Multi-National Venture Development Private Limited (2019 CLD 566)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Acquittal granted----(a) Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (XXVII of 1997): ---- S. 7(1)(h) --- Terrorism charges --- Essential ingredients --- Accused convicted under multiple offenses including S. 7(1)(h) of ATA, 1997 for allegedly detaining an individual unlawfully and later resorting to firing in a public place, causing fear and panic --- Evidence revealed that accused fled upon arrival of the Judicial Magistrate, indicating lack of prior knowledge or intent to instill terror --- No premeditation or specific mens rea to commit an act of terrorism proved --- Mere fear or panic as an unintended consequence of an action does not constitute terrorism unless the act itself was designed to create such fear --- Conviction under S. 7(1)(h), ATA, 1997 was not sustainable and was set aside. (b) Pakistan Penal Code, 1860 (XLV of 1860): ---- Ss. 353, 504, 365, 395, 452, 506(2), 220, 342 --- Criminal charges --- Conviction and sentencing --- Material contradictions in prosecution evidence --- Witnesses contradicted each other on key points regarding the location of detention, manner of abduction, and treatment of the alleged victim --- No independent corroboration provided for key allegations, including kidnapping, illegal confinement, and use of force --- Absence of medical evidence despite claims of maltreatment and violence further weakened prosecution’s case --- Non-examination of material witnesses, including hospital staff and shopkeepers near the police station, created doubts in the prosecution version --- Convictions under various sections of the PPC found unsustainable and set aside. (c) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ---- S. 103 --- Search and recovery --- Violation of mandatory procedural requirements --- Accused allegedly arrested near a public place, yet no independent witnesses from the locality were included in the arrest memo --- Prosecution failed to explain non-compliance with S. 103, Cr.P.C. which mandates the presence of private witnesses for credibility of recovery proceedings --- Such non-compliance cast serious doubts on the veracity of the prosecution case. (d) Evidence Act, 1872 (I of 1872): ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 129(g) --- Adverse inference due to non-examination of material witnesses --- Investigation officer failed to record statements of two servants allegedly guarding the detained individual, the hospital staff, and shopkeepers near the police station --- Non-production of independent and material witnesses suggested that their testimonies, if recorded, would not have supported the prosecution’s case --- Inference drawn against prosecution under Art. 129(g), QSO, 1984. (e) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 (V of 1898): ---- S. 342 --- Defense plea --- Accused claimed false implication due to personal enmities with a local influential person and the Judicial Magistrate --- Prosecution failed to disprove the defense version convincingly --- Accused’s explanation created sufficient doubt regarding the motive behind his prosecution. (f) Benefit of Doubt: ---- Standard of proof in criminal trials --- Prosecution must prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt --- Contradictions in witness statements, absence of independent testimony, non-existence of crucial medical evidence, and delay in forensic examination of recovered weapon rendered the case doubtful --- Accused was entitled to acquittal as a matter of right, not as a concession. -----Cited Cases: • Tariq Pervaiz v. The State 1995 SCMR 1345 • Wazir Mohammad v. The State 1992 SCMR 1134 • Bashir Ahmed alias Manu v. The State 1996 SCMR 308 • Ghulam Hussain and others v. The State and others PLD 2020 SC 61 • State v. Bashir and others PLD 1997 SC 408 -----Disposition: Appeals allowed. Conviction and sentence set aside. Accused acquitted.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure – Burden of Proof: ---- Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Art. 117 Burden of proof lies on the party alleging a fact—Plaintiff claimed that limestone was illegally excavated from leased land and used in road construction without permission—No specific details in the plaint regarding the time, manner, or persons involved in the excavation—Any evidence beyond the scope of pleadings could not be relied upon—Plaintiff failed to discharge burden of proof—Reliance placed on Sheikh Ishtiaq Ahmad v. Muhammad Usman Ali Sheikh (2021 SCMR 1277). (b) Civil Procedure – Pleadings and Evidence: ---- Principle of preponderance of evidence—Plaintiff's claim relied solely on a privately conducted mining survey, which lacked any official verification or association of defendants—No revenue record or specific details of the leased land provided—Findings of the trial court regarding limestone excavation and compensation were beyond the record—Reliance placed on Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Anwar (2023 SCMR 1371), Messrs Pak Suzuki Motors Company Ltd. v. Faisal Jameel Butt (PLD 2023 SC 482), Muhammad Wali Khan v. Gul Sarwar Khan (PLD 2010 SC 295). (c) Mining Concessions – Jurisdictional Bar: ---- Punjab Mining Concession Rules, 2002, R. 236 Jurisdictional bar on courts to entertain matters within the domain of the Director General, Mines and Minerals, or Licensing Authority—Suit instituted by plaintiff was barred under Rule 236—Trial court lacked jurisdiction to adjudicate the claim—Impugned judgment and decree set aside on this ground alone. (d) Contract Law – Lease Agreements and Compensation: ---- Leased land specifications must be clear and identifiable—Agreement (Exh.P.1) contained no specific details of the leased land—Trial court erred in holding that the road was constructed on leased land without any supporting revenue record—No basis for determining the alleged compensation amount of Rs.136,002,410/—Inquiry required into how such a valuable limestone deposit was leased at a throwaway price of Rs.2,222,000/-. (e) Mining Regulations – Proximity to Public Infrastructure: ---- No excavation permitted within 100 meters of a road—Plaintiff’s witnesses (PW.1 & PW.2) admitted this restriction—No proof provided that excavation occurred within the prohibited zone or on the leased land—Plaintiff’s claim unsubstantiated. ----Disposition: Appeals allowed—Impugned judgment and decree set aside—Suit dismissed. ----Cited Cases: Sheikh Ishtiaq Ahmad v. Muhammad Usman Ali Sheikh (2021 SCMR 1277) Muhammad Aslam v. Muhammad Anwar (2023 SCMR 1371) Messrs Pak Suzuki Motors Company Ltd. v. Faisal Jameel Butt (PLD 2023 SC 482) Muhammad Wali Khan v. Gul Sarwar Khan (PLD 2010 SC 295)

Summary: Bail granted ----- (a) Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 – Sections 147, 148, 324, 34, 337-D, 169, 164, 497 – Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 – Sections 21-L, 6/7 – Bail After Arrest – Rule of Consistency – Further Inquiry —The petitioner sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under various provisions of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) and Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (ATA) for alleged involvement in an incident of firing and stone-throwing during a procession near Siddiqia Mosque, Gilgit. —The petitioner was not nominated in the FIR and was implicated based on CCTV footage, but no witness identified him from the footage, nor was the location of the CCTV camera disclosed during the investigation. —The alleged extra-judicial confession made by the petitioner was not recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by a Magistrate despite repeated remands. —No evidence indicated that the stone-throwing by the petitioner resulted in any injury. —During the investigation, co-accused Aitizaz Hussain (who allegedly fired a weapon and had a pistol recovered from him) was granted bail, and the petitioner’s case was found to be on better footing. —The petitioner had been in custody since 06.09.2022 and was no longer required for further investigation. —The rule of consistency applied, entitling the petitioner to post-arrest bail. (b) Bail – Grounds for Grant – Prolonged Detention Without Trial —The trial had not yet commenced despite the petitioner being in custody for over a year. —Prolonged detention without trial violates principles of justice, especially when the accused is no longer required for investigation and the prosecution cannot provide a timeline for completing the trial. (c) Judicial Observations – Tentative Findings —The Court clarified that observations made in the bail order were tentative in nature and would not prejudice either party during the trial. —The admissibility and veracity of the CCTV evidence and extra-judicial confession would be determined during the trial. ----- Disposition: Criminal Appeal accepted. Post-arrest bail granted to the petitioner upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 200,000 with one surety to the satisfaction of the trial court. Petitioner released if not required in any other case.