Summary: Background:The Human Rights Case No. 13316-P of 2018 concerns the colossal losses incurred by Pakistan Railways and the measures needed to address the issues affecting its operation and safety standards.---Issues:The status of the up-gradation of Railways through ML-I under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).Progress on the Karachi Circular Railway (KCR) project.Steps needed to improve railway crossings and safety measures.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The PC-I for the ML-I up-gradation project is pending approval from ECNIC. The court expects ECNIC to approve the PC-I within one month to initiate the work.Regarding the KCR project, considerable work has been done, but there are bottlenecks near Urdu University and Nazimabad. The Government of Sindh is directed to take immediate action to resolve these issues.The Government of Sindh is also instructed to ensure the completion of construction work for overhead or underground roads/paths at railway crossings.The Chief Secretary of Sindh is required to submit a report within two weeks on the progress of the above-mentioned tasks. Both the Chief Secretary and the Commissioner of Karachi must be present at the next hearing.The court expresses concern over the overall operation of Pakistan Railways, citing frequent accidents and inadequate infrastructure and employee competence. The Government of Pakistan is urged to take immediate measures to improve railway operations and safety standards, including overhauling the Railway Secretariat.The Government of Pakistan is directed to submit a report through the Planning Commission within one month regarding the measures taken to address the issues affecting Pakistan Railways.The case is adjourned and will be fixed for hearing after one month.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---- S. 22 --- Specific performance of contract --- Execution of agreement to sell --- Proof and enforceability --- Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 100 kanals to the respondent, receiving Rs.700,000 as sale consideration --- Agreement included penal clauses for both parties in case of default --- Petitioner denied the existence of the agreement, claiming it was fraudulent --- Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, which was upheld by the High Court --- Supreme Court held that where an agreement to sell is established through credible evidence, mere denial of execution by the vendor is insufficient to defeat a claim for specific performance --- Respondent successfully proved execution, payment, and terms of the contract through witnesses, including the scribe, property dealer, and attesting witnesses --- Petitioner failed to rebut the evidence or initiate legal action against alleged fraud --- Specific performance granted. Cited Cases: Muhammad Sattar v. Tariq Javaid (2017 SCMR 98) Sardar Ali v. Sardar Bibi (2010 SCMR 1066) (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ---- Art. 79 --- Proof of document --- Requirements for proving an agreement to sell --- Respondent proved the contract through direct evidence, including testimony of the scribe, marginal witnesses, and the property dealer who facilitated the transaction --- Supreme Court held that where execution of a document is proved in accordance with Qanun-e-Shahadat, mere technical objections regarding attestation under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot defeat an otherwise valid agreement --- The Court emphasized that attestation and proof are distinct requirements and that compliance with Qanun-e-Shahadat is the primary consideration for establishing the authenticity of an agreement. Cited Cases: Muhammad Sattar v. Tariq Javaid (2017 SCMR 98) (c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ---- S. 3 --- Definition of “attested” --- Interpretation --- Supreme Court held that while attestation generally requires two witnesses, strict adherence is not always necessary where the document is otherwise validly proved --- Court emphasized that practical realities must be considered, particularly where one witness is absent but other evidence sufficiently establishes execution. (d) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115) ---- Restriction on alienation of land --- Whether an agreement to sell government-granted land is void --- Petitioner argued that MLR 115 barred him from selling the land --- Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that once proprietary rights are fully transferred, the landowner cannot invoke MLR 115 to invalidate a sale agreement --- Petitioner failed to produce any official order proving a restriction on alienation --- Additionally, any such restriction would have elapsed due to passage of time --- Court held that even if an agreement is executed in violation of MLR 115, it does not render the transaction void ab initio, particularly where the vendor voluntarily entered into the contract. Cited Cases: Mohd. Saeed v. Province of West Pak. (PLD 1964 SC 572) Fakhar Imam Shah v. Abdul Haq (2006 SCMR 550) Sakhi Jan v. Shah Nawaz (2020 SCMR 832) (e) Conduct of the Parties & Equitable Relief ---- Vendor’s attempt to deny agreement --- Effect on claim for specific performance --- Petitioner’s refusal to honor the agreement, despite overwhelming evidence, was deemed an attempt to mislead the court --- Supreme Court held that failure to take legal action against alleged forgery and absence of any criminal or civil proceedings against the respondent indicated the petitioner's mala fide intent --- Court ruled that once a party voluntarily enters into a sale agreement, it cannot later claim illegality to evade contractual obligations. Disposition: Civil Petition No.3097/2015 and Civil Appeal No.1074/2015 dismissed with costs. Execution of decree to be completed within three months.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: FBR Case, Sales Tax Case, seeking direction for refund of tax and suspension of stay notice

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Bail granted----In this legal petition under Section 497 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.PC), the petitioner, seeks post-arrest bail in connection with FIR. The charges involve offenses 324 PPC, 334 PPC, 336 PPC, 377-A, including causing injuries with a hockey stick to the complainant's brother.The petitioner had previously sought bail, which was dismissed. Subsequently, he claimed juvenile status, and the trial court, after examining birth records, declared him a juvenile offender under the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018. The judgment emphasized Pakistan's commitment to the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the obligation to safeguard children's rights. It discussed the retrospective application of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, and the establishment of Juvenile Courts. The court noted that the delay in the trial is not attributable to the petitioner and cites international and domestic legal obligations to protect the rights of juveniles. It referred to the repealed Juvenile Justice System Ordinance, 2000, and the current Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018, which reduced the statutory delay for bail eligibility to six months. The court acknowledged the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on trial proceedings and the intention to record the complainant's statement through video link due to the complainant's residence abroad. The judgment underscored the petitioner's right to liberty and a speedy trial, granting post-arrest bail, subject to conditions.