Summary: Saqib Ali was convicted and sentenced for offenses under sections 302(b) and 364-A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) related to the abduction and murder of Muhammad Hashir. The judgment ultimately concluded that the prosecution evidence is full of doubts and that there are circumstances creating reasonable doubt about the guilt of Saqib Ali. As a result, the court accepted Saqib Ali's appeal, sets aside his conviction and sentence, and acquits him of the charges under Sections 302(b) and 364-A of the PPC, extending him the benefit of the doubt. The court also dismissed the criminal revision filed by Muhammad Azam Butt for the enhancement of Saqib Ali's sentence.

Summary: The appellant was prosecuted, convicted and sentenced under Section 316 P.P.C. by the learned Sessions Judge, Gujranwala------------In absence of there being any injury; external or internal found on the person of the deceased, nothing could be attributed to the accused--------According to report of Histopathologist, death in this case was occurred by probably vasovagal attack--------In absence of any corroborative evidence and the cause of death being vasovagal attack, the version of the complainant and others could not be believed---------The FIR was anti-timed as the same had not been recorded till the inquest proceedings were made over by the I.O. Resultantly, appeal is allowed.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497---Control of Narcotic Substances Act (XXV of 1997), S.9---Possession ofnarcotics---Bail, refusal of---Scope---Accused was alleged to have been found in possessionof two kilograms of charas while 200 grams of charas was also recovered from right side ofhis pocket---High Court observed that where the quantity of 400/500 grams marginallyexceeded the upper limit of 1000 grams, being borderline cases between Cls. (b) & (c) of S.9of Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, the accused persons were admitted to bail;however, in the present case, besides recovery of 2000 grams of charas 26 grams of crystalwas also recovered from the personal possession of accused, thus, it was not a case ofborderline---Petition for grant of bail was dismissed, in circumstances.Noor Khan v. State 2012 MLD 1542; Ghulam Murtaza v. State PLD 2009 Lah. 362and Jamal-ud-Din v. State 2012 SCMR 573 ref.(b) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)-------S.497---Bail---Principle---Scope---Court while hearing a bail application is not to keep inview the maximum sentence provided by the statute for the charged offence but the onewhich is likely to be entailed.Socha Gul v. State 2015 SCMR 1077 rel.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When the application of law has been extended to FATA then there is no question of jurisdiction by the authority and respondent No.3 as well. Admittedly, the respondent No.1 has submitted his application/complaint to respondent No.2, however, the same was entrusted to respondent No.3 under the provision of section 38 of the Nepra Act. No doubt, in case of any dispute pertainingto meter, demand or apparatus, the matter shall be decided by Electric Inspector as provided insection 26 (6) of Electricity Act 1937, During the course of arguments, learned counsel for the petitioner also criticized the impugned order by contending that under section 12A of the Act, a decision of the single member of the authority is heard and decided by the Tribunal but in the case in hand there was no decision of single member of the authority, thus, without referring the matter to the single member, no decision could be made, as such, the impugned order is perverse and illegal. This argument too is without force because in this case under section 38 (3) of the Act, appeal was preferred to the authority, however, section 12A of the Act provides the right of appeal to the personaggrieved from the decision or the order of single member of the authority or the tribunal. Forconvenience, section 12A is reproduced as under: -12A. Appeal. ? Any person aggrieved by any decision or order of the Single Member of the Authority or, as the case may be, Tribunal established under section 11 may, within thirty days of the decision or order, prefer an appeal to the Authority in the prescribed manner and the Authority shall decide such appeal within sixty days. This section was inserted by Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power (amendment) Act 2011, by which a remedy is provided to the person aggrieved from the decision of a Single Member or from the decision of tribunal, no such appeal was preferred before the authority under section 12A of the Act, rather there was an appeal under section 38(3) of the Act.

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan-------Art.199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court---"Aggrieved person"---Personalright---Locus standi---Public procurement---Scope---Petitioner sought cancellation of tenderfor installation of water-supply on lands allegedly belonging to petitioner and his forefathers---Validity---Petitioner was neither owner of said land nor his name was mentioned inmutation entries and he had no concern with the same; and therefore he did not fall withindefinition of "aggrieved person" in context of Art.199 of Constitution---Sine qua non forinitiation of proceedings under Art. 199 of Constitution was that petitioner should have locusstandi---Constitutional petition being not maintainable, was dismissed, in circumstances.N.W.F.P. Public Service Commission and others v. Muhammad Arif and others 2011SCMR 848 rel.

Summary: Background:Rizwana Altaf, after working as a school teacher, applied for the position of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate in Sindh. She was appointed to this position in June 2016. However, it was later discovered that she had withheld information about her employment history while applying for this position, leading to the initiation of proceedings for her dismissal.---Issues:Whether Rizwana Altaf deliberately misrepresented her employment history while applying for the position of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate.Whether her failure to disclose her previous employment and misrepresentation of herself as a practicing advocate warranted her dismissal from service.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Rizwana Altaf failed to disclose her employment history and misrepresented herself as a practicing advocate when applying for the position of Civil Judge & Judicial Magistrate. She deliberately kept certain sections of the application form blank, concealing her employment as a school teacher. Moreover, she misrepresented her status as an advocate by claiming to have practiced for at least two years, which was not the case.Given these deliberate misrepresentations, the Court found that her dismissal was justified under Rule 9(2) of the Sindh Judicial Service Rules, 1994. This rule allows for the dispensation of services during the probationary period if the employee's conduct is deemed against public interest.The Court dismissed Rizwana Altaf's petition, refusing to interfere with the decision of the Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal.

Summary: (a) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -Ss. 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 & 284-Compromise with creditors and members-Power of Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) to enforce compromise and arrangement-Information as to compromise or arrangement with creditors and members-Powers of Commission to facilitate reconstruction or amalgamation of companies-Amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries in holding company-Scope-Petitioners urged the Court to sanction a Scheme of Arrangement for reconstruction and de-merger-Securities and Exchange Commission took an objection regarding non-disclosure of the transferor company's intellectual property value in the Scheme of Arrangement-Raison d'etre given by the petitioners for non-valuation was that since the beneficial owner of the petitioners/companies was the same family, therefore, valuation was neither required to the Securities and Exchange Commission nor material to the Scheme of Arrangement-Validity-Held; reason given by the petitioners for non-valuation appeared to have due strength-All indispensable statutory benchmarks, requirements and formalities were accomplished and adhered to by the petitioners as envisioned under the relevant provisions of law-Scheme set up for sanction was reinforced and fortified by the requisite majority which seemed to be just and fair-Minutes of meetings unequivocally conveyed that all essential and fundamental characteristics and attributes of scheme was placed before the voters at the concerned meetings to live up to statutory obligations-No impediment existed in the way of grant and sanction of the Scheme of Arrangement-Petition was allowed. (b) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -Ss. 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 & 284-Compromise with creditors and members-Power of Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) to enforce compromises and arrangements-Information as to compromise or arrangement with creditors and members-Powers of Commission to facilitate reconstruction or amalgamation of companies-Amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries in holding company-Scope-Where the Scheme is found to be reasonable and fair, it is not the sense of duty or province of the Court to supplement or substitute its judgment against the collective wisdom and intellect of the shareholders of the companies involved-Nevertheless, it is the duty of the Court to find out and perceive whether all provisions of law and directions of the Court had been complied with and when the scheme seemed to be in the interest of the company as well as in that of its creditors, it should be given effect to-However, the Court has to satisfy and reassured the accomplishment of some foremost and rudimentary stipulations that was to say, the meeting was appropriately called together and conducted; the compromise was a real compromise; it was accepted by a competent majority; the majority was acting in good faith and for common advantage of the whole class; what they did was reasonable, prudent and proper; the Court was also to satisfy itself as to whether the provisions of the statute had been complied with; whether the Scheme was reasonable and practical or whether there was any reasonable objection to it; whether the creditors acted honestly and in good faith and had sufficient information; whether the Court in the public interest ought to override the decision of the creditors and shareholders. IGI Insurance Limited and 3 others's case 2018 CLD 572; International Complex Projects Limited and another's case 2017 CLD 1468; Sidhpur Mills Co. Ltd.'s case AIR 1962 Guj. 305; Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 506; Dawood Hercules Chemicals and others' case 2012 CLD 582 and Gadoon Textile Mills and others case 2015 CLD 2010 rel. (c) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -Ss. 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 & 284-Compromise with creditors and members-Power of Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission) to enforce compromise and arrangement-Information as to compromises or arrangements with creditors and members-Powers of Commission to facilitate reconstruction or amalgamation of companies-Amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries in holding company-Scope-One of the effects of the sanction of the Court is that it becomes binding upon the company and its members including those who voted against the scheme once the scheme of compromise and arrangement is approved by statutory majority it binds the dissenting minority and the company-Court has the power to give effect to all the incidental and ancillary questions in the effort to satisfy itself whether the scheme has the approval of the requisite majority-Court was not to examine whether there was a scope for better scheme-However, where the Court finds that the scheme is patently fraudulent, it may not respond or function as mere rubber stamp or post office but reject the scheme of arrangement. IGI Insurance Limited and 3 others's case 2018 CLD 572; International Complex Projects Limited and another's case 2017 CLD 1468; Sidhpur Mills Co. Ltd.'s case AIR 1962 Guj. 305; Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 506; Dawood Hercules Chemicals and others's case 2012 CLD 582 and Gadoon Textile Mills and others case 2015 CLD 2010 rel. (d) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -Ss. 279, 280, 281, 282, 283 & 284-Compromise with creditors and members-Power of Commission to enforce compromises and arrangements-Information as to compromise or arrangement with creditors and members-Powers of Commission to facilitate reconstruction or amalgamation of companies-Amalgamation of wholly owned subsidiaries in holding company-Scope-Court acts like an umpire in a game of cricket who has to see that both the teams play their games according to the rules and do not over stepped in limits-Propriety and the merits of the compromise or arrangement have to be judged by the parties who, as sui juris with their open eyes and fully informed about the pros and cons of the Scheme, arrive at their own reasoned judgment and agree to be bound by such compromise or arrangement. IGI Insurance Limited and 3 others's case 2018 CLD 572; International Complex Projects Limited and another's case 2017 CLD 1468; Sidhpur Mills Co. Ltd.'s case AIR 1962 Guj. 305; Miheer H. Mafatlal v. Mafatlal Industries Ltd. AIR 1997 SC 506; Dawood Hercules Chemicals and others case 2012 CLD 582 and Gadoon Textile Mills and others case 2015 CLD 2010 rel. (e) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -S. 279-Compromise with creditors and members-Scope-Basic requirements of S.279 of Companies Act, 2017 detailed. Basic requirements of section 279 of Companies Act, 2017 are as follows; (i) there must be a compromise/arrangement/scheme; (ii) proposed compromise/arrangement was between a company and its creditors; (iii) application to be made to the Commission; (iv) Compromise/arrangement supported by meetings; (v) mandatory filing of material facts relating to the company which is; (a) financial position; (b) auditor's report; (c) latest accounts of the company; (d) the pendency of any investigation proceedings; (e) supported by the affidavits. [p. 882] I (f) Company- -"Merger"- Marriage of companies-De-merger-Corporate divorce-Meaning-Scope-Frequent metaphor of mergers and acquisitions is the marriage of companies-Antonym to marriage is the divorce, and the term"corporate divorce"is used to define how previously merged companies are separated-De-merger is a situation where an entity undertakes a reorganization of its operations and structure, leaving its members in the same economic position as they were immediately before the reorganization-Marger is form of structural readjustment for corporations in which a corporate or trust group splits into two or more entities or groups. www.businessdictionery.com. ref. (g) Company- -"De-merger"-Meaning-Scope-Corporate strategy to sell off subsidiaries or divisions of a company is called de-merger. (h) Companies Act (XIX of 2017)- -Ss. 2(16) & 2(23)-Securities and Exchange Commission (Commission)-Scope-Court-Companies Bench of High Court-Powers given to Commission under S.2(16) of Companies Act, 2017 have been delegated to the Court vide Finance Division's Notification SRO No. 840(I)/2017 dated: 17th August, 2017-"Court"has been defined in S.2(23) of Companies Act, 2017, as a"Company Bench of High Court". (i) Company- -Valuation-Action of estimating or fixing the monetary or other value of something, especially by a professional evaluator. Alococer GA and Woodworth C,"Reasons for Valuation"(2005) Issue 150 managing Intellectual Property 76-8 ref. (j) Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012)- -S. 2(g)-"Intellectual property"-Valuation-Scope-Valuation of intellectual property is an act of estimating or fixing the monetary and other values of intellectual property rights (such as patents, copyright, design, trademark, trade secret and other recognized intangible rights). (k) Intellectual Property Organization of Pakistan Act (XXII of 2012)- -S. 2(g)-"Intellectual property"-Scope-Intellectual property refers to creation of the mind, such as inventions; literary and artistic works; designs; and symbols, names and images used in commerce and in general sense, it is used for a set of intangible assets owned and legally protected by a company from outside use or implementation without consent.

Summary: Summary pending