Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)- -Ss. 42, 54 & 55-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R.1-Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114-Suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction-Abandonment of claim-Estoppel-Scope-Plaintiff filed suit for declaration, mandatory and permanent injunction seeking regularization of his services-Validity-Plaintiff had initially, in the year 2001, approached the High Court (Lahore) for regularization of his contractual service in the employer Corporation, however, subsequently he had abandoned his claim-Plaintiff was estopped from agitating his same claim in the present case-Principle of acquiescence and waiver was attracted-Plaintiff had consciously given up his right to seek permanent absorption and/or seeking any benefit of permanent employment in the Corporation on the basis of his past contractual service while accepting new contract-Suit was dismissed, in circumstances. Nabeela Ashfaq v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Defence and 3 others 2020 PLC (C.S.) 24; Shahbaz Khan v. Additional District Judge, Ferozwala and others 2017 SCMR 2005; Saima Fareed and 4 others v. Divisional Director Schools Elementary/Secondary (Female Muzaffarabad) and 24 others 2018 PLC (C.S.) 338; A. George v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation PLD 1971 Lah. 748; Mst. Rani v. Pakistan International Airline Corporation and another 2017 PLC (C.S.) Note 11, p.11; Qazi Munir Ahmed v. Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital through Principal and others 2019 SCMR 648; Messrs Malik and Haq and another v. Muhammad Shamsul Islam Chowdhury and 2 others PLD 1961 SC 531; Attiya Sehrai v. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation through its President (Civil Petition No.1159 of 2018) and Mst. Rani v. Pakistan International Airline Corporation and another (High Court Appeal No.42 of 2016). ref. (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXIII, R. 1-Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim-Scope-Order XXIII, C.P.C. provides that a party, in case of withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of a claim without the permission, shall be precluded from instituting any fresh suit/lis in respect of subject matter or such part of the claim. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O. XXIII, R. 1-Withdrawal of suit or abandonment of part of claim-Scope-Rule 1(1) of O.XXIII, C.P.C. entitles the plaintiff to withdraw his suit or abandon his claim or a part thereof, against all or any one of the defendants at any stage of the proceedings and this is his absolute privilege and prerogative-Where the plaintiff has exercised his noted privilege he shall be precluded from instituting a fresh suit on the basis of the same cause of action in respect of the subject matter and against the same defendants-Such bar is absolute and conclusive. Muhammad Yar (deceased) through L.Rs. and others' case 2013 SCMR 464 and Shahbaz Khan v. Additional District Judge, Ferozewalla and others 2017 SCMR 2005 ref. Azhar Hayat v. Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and others 2016 SCMR 1916 rel. (d) Words and phrases- -"Waiver"and"Acquiescence"explained."Waiver"or"acquiescence"may be described as intentional relinquishment of a known right or such conduct as would warrant an inference of relinquishment of such right; implying consent to dispense with or forgo something to which a person is entitled, however to constitute waiver there must be some conscious giving up of a right and a person cannot be held bound unless he is aware of what exactly he was waving and what right he was giving up with knowledge of all the facts. Messrs Classic Marble and another v. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited 2006 CLC 702 ref. (e)"Waiver", doctrine of- -Where a person in spite of having full knowledge of violation of any of his rights of personal nature remains silent and does not take any measure for safeguarding it then he would be deemed to have impliedly waived it. Messrs Dadabhoy Cement Industries Limited and others v. Messrs National Development Finance Corporation 2002 CLC 166 ref. Ms. Farkhunda Shaheen for Defendants. Dates of hearing: 21st January, 11th and 27th February, 2020.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Criminal Appeal, against death sentence

Summary: Criminal appeal, against conviction of life imprisonment, having offense u/s 302/109/34 PPC

Summary: 1. No doubt Substitution in case of single accused is a rare phenomenon, but it never relaxes the court to take it for granted and awarded convictions that too on capital charge. It is bounden duty of the courts of law to assess and reassess the material on file so to avoid injustice having been committed.2. It is astonishing that why the deceased was chosen as the target, when the complainant being the prime target was present on the spot. The complainant admitted in his court statement that the deceased had no ill will with the accused, rather it was the complainant who was at the daggers drawn.3. Mere promptness of report is not a guarantee to success and it alone cannot certify the wittness as truthful, rather the court is to see the accumulative effect of what the prosecution has collected.4. True that abscondence of accused is relevant factor, but alone it cannot be considered as conclusive proof of a crime as the prosecution has to independently prove the charge on the basis of strong and cogent evidence.

Summary: Payment of 6% Interest.

Summary: Bail granted --- (Post-Arrest bail Granted u/s 353/324/302/34 PPC. ) Factual Background:The case arose from an incident reported on February 12, 2019, where police officers, while on patrol, were attacked by a group of individuals in Karachi, leading to the death of PC Muhammad Farooq. Sheeraz, among others, was implicated in this incident.Legal Arguments:For Petitioner: Advocated for Sheeraz's innocence, highlighting the lack of specific evidence or recovery of crime weapon, the general nature of accusations, and absence of any independent witnesses. Relied upon the judgments in Nadeem Burney v. The State (1999 MLD 1259), Fazil Khaliq alias Hafiz v. The State through Advocate-General, N.W.F.P. Peshawar and another (1996 SCMR 364), and Muhammad Shakeel v. The State and others (PLD 2014 S.C 458) to support the bail application.Against Petitioner: Asserted Sheeraz's direct involvement in the attack based on the FIR, recovery of a weapon at his arrest, and his previous criminal involvements to argue against the bail.Judicial Analysis:The Court noted the generalized nature of the accusations and the absence of specific evidence tying Sheeraz to the crime. It emphasized the legal principle that mere naming in an FIR does not constitute sufficient grounds for guilt and stressed the importance of independent identification for named individuals in FIRs.Holdings:The Court allowed Sheeraz's bail application, requiring a solvent surety and personal recognizance bond each set at Rs.2,00,000/-, citing the principle of consistency as applied in similar cases where co-accused were granted bail, notably Moundar and others v. The State (PLD 1990 S.C. 934) and Muhammad Rafique v. The State (1997 SCMR 412).

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in its original jurisdiction, convened to address the government's response to the COVID-19 pandemic. Various government officials, including Attorney Generals, Secretaries, and representatives from different provinces and territories, were present. Opinions from religious scholars and the Council of Islamic Ideology were considered.---Issues:Adequacy of government measures in combating the pandemic.Utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds.Legality of provincial taxation activities conflicting with federal laws.Treatment of medical staff and police actions against doctors.Transparency and efficacy of business reopening policies.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Court expressed concern over the closure of Haji Camp Quarantine Center due to inadequate facilities and instructed the NDMA to provide an explanation.The Court emphasized the need for a comprehensive national policy for COVID-19 instead of ad hoc decisions, expecting consensus among government stakeholders.Irregularities in the utilization of Zakat and Bait-ul-Mal funds were noted, and the Auditor General's report was requested for further action.The Court questioned the legality of provincial taxation activities conflicting with federal laws and directed the Attorney General and Advocate Generals to argue on this point.The Court instructed the Secretary (Health) of KP to investigate reported maltreatment of doctors by police officials and to take appropriate action.Concerns were raised about the transparency and efficacy of business reopening policies, and the Court urged for a more systematic approach.The Court directed government stakeholders to formulate and enforce a uniform national policy for COVID-19 within a week, with a report on policy implementation expected before the next hearing.---Citations/Precedents:Noor Ahmed v. State (PLD 1964 Supreme Court 120)Federal Legislative List (Constitution of Pakistan)Sindh Epidemic Diseases Act, 2014Fundamental Rights (Constitution of Pakistan)Muhammad Murad Abro v. The State (2004 SCMR 966)Ansar Mehmood v. Abdul Khaliq (2011 SCMR 713)Muhammad Amjad v. The State (PLD 2003 Supreme Court 704)

Summary: Background:Asmat Ali, the petitioner, was intercepted while driving a truck by the police from Police Station Cantt. Kohat. Upon search, 9600 grams of contraband identified as cannabis were found in the tool box of the vehicle. Following a trial, Asmat Ali was convicted under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, and sentenced to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment along with a fine of Rs. 100,000/-. The High Court upheld this decision, which is now being challenged by Asmat Ali before the Supreme Court.---Issues:The key issues before the court include the legality of the search and seizure, the sufficiency of evidence, and the correctness of the judgments rendered by the lower courts.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:After considering the arguments and examining the evidence, the court declined to interfere with the judgments of the lower courts. The statements of the recovery witnesses, including Muhammad Ali, SHO (PW-1), and Anwar Ali, Head Constable/Incharge Check Post (PW-2), were found consistent and credible. The substantial quantity of contraband discovered rules out any suspicion of a manipulated recovery. Asmat Ali's attempt to disprove the charge by admitting most parts of the transaction, except for the possession of contraband, was deemed insufficient. The defense witness presented by Asmat Ali failed to contradict his interception at the check post. Moreover, the alleged insufficiency of "protocol" mentioned in the forensic report was considered irrelevant, as the report conclusively established the narcotic character of the substance with sufficient details regarding the conducted tests. Since the conclusions reached by the lower courts were in accordance with the principles of fair administration of criminal justice, the petition was dismissed, and leave was declined.---Citations/Precedents:Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997.