Summary: The petitioner, seeking post-arrest bail under Section 497 Cr.P.C., had previously filed a similar petition, which was dismissed by the court. The petitioner argued that changes in the charges, specifically the deletion of one offense and the addition of another, constitute a fresh ground for seeking bail. Additionally, the petitioner cited the risk of contracting Covid-19 in prison as a reason for release, referencing a Supreme Court order in a related case. The court rejected these arguments, noting that the substitution of one offense for another does not create a fresh ground. The court also referred to the Supreme Court's stance on the Covid-19 pandemic, stating that the current situation does not provide a basis for bail. Furthermore, the court emphasized that the second bail application should be based on a fresh ground that did not exist during the filing of the first application. The court asserted that withdrawal of a bail petition results in the collapse of all grounds, obligating the petitioner to present a new ground for a subsequent application. Consequently, the court deems the present petition meritless and dismissed it.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: 1.Effect of disclaimer made under section 21 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 from exclusive use of a name. 2.The principle that registration of a trade mark gives rise to a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, that principle would be applicable where the trade mark was registered without a disclaimer. 3.In view of section 42(3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, the use of the disclaimed feature of the mark in question would not constitute trade mark infringement. 4.An action for passing-off is essentially to protect property in goods based on the reputation of those goods, as distinct from an action to protect a trade mark which is a property in itself. ---- Issue: Whether the use of "by Junaid Jamshed" by Jazaa Foods constitutes trademark infringement or passing-off against U&I Garments' "JunaidJ.Jamshed" trademark.Holding: The court dismissed U&I Garments' application for a temporary injunction (CMA No. 933/2020) and granted Jazaa Foods' application for a temporary injunction (CMA No. 745/2020), thereby allowing Jazaa Foods to continue using "by Junaid Jamshed" in conjunction with their registered trademark "Jazaa."Reasoning:The court noted that U&I Garments' trademark registration included a disclaimer denying exclusive rights to the use of the name "Junaid Jamshed," indicating that the name could be used by others in a non-deceptive manner.The court found no substantial similarity in the use of "Junaid Jamshed" by Jazaa Foods to that of U&I Garments, thus no trademark infringement occurred.The court also found no evidence of passing-off since U&I Garments had not established a reputation in the food products market that could be confused with Jazaa Foods' products.The balance of convenience and potential for irreparable harm favored Jazaa Foods, as they had been using "by Junaid Jamshed" since 2016 without objection, and Junaid Jamshed himself had authorized the use of his name for Jazaa Foods during his lifetime.Order: The Defendants in Suit No. 94/2020 (U&I Garments and others) are restrained from interfering with Jazaa Foods' use of "by Junaid Jamshed" in conjunction with their registered trademark "Jazaa."

Summary: Bail granted---Background:In Criminal Petition No. 299 of 2020, Raja Muhammad Nadeem challenged the order dated March 20, 2020, passed by the Islamabad High Court in Criminal Miscellaneous No. 214/2020. The High Court had issued directions for the release of certain categories of prisoners amidst the COVID-19 pandemic.---Issues:Whether the Islamabad High Court had jurisdiction to issue directions for the release of prisoners without individual bail petitions being filed.Whether the High Court's directions were lawful and in accordance with constitutional and statutory provisions.Whether the release of prisoners, especially en masse, was appropriate in light of the pandemic.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court observed that the COVID-19 pandemic posed challenges to various aspects of life, including the safe custody of prisoners. However, any actions to address these challenges must be within a legal framework.The Court examined Article 175(2) of the Constitution, which outlines the jurisdiction of courts. It noted that High Courts could release accused persons on bail after notice to the prosecution and based on case-by-case considerations. However, there was no provision for wholesale release of prisoners without individual bail petitions and notice to the prosecution.The Court cited the Prisoners Act, 1900, which provides mechanisms for dealing with overcrowded prisons and epidemics. It concluded that the impugned directions by the High Courts lacked legal basis and were beyond their jurisdiction.The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to the rule of law, even in times of crisis. It set aside the directions issued by the Islamabad High Court and the Sindh High Court for the release of prisoners. Orders granting bail to accused persons under various provisions were recalled.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: NAB (Conviction upheld, As accused misappropriation of funds, fraudulently prepared fake bills against procurement of material, through Ghost Shop) --- The appellant, Altaf Ahmed S/O Gul Hassan Shaikh, represented by Mr. Nisar Ahmed Tarar, Advocate, filed an appeal against the State, represented by R.D Kalhoro, Special Prosecutor for the National Accountability Bureau (NAB). The appeal challenges the verdict dated February 28, 2018, by the Accountability Court-III, Sindh Karachi in Reference No.50/2015, which convicted the appellant under section 10 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, sentencing him to seven years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.10,896,063. Failure to pay the fine would result in an additional year of imprisonment. The appellant was also disqualified from holding any public office or receiving any financial facilities from public sector banks or financial institutions for ten years following his conviction.The case originated from a complaint against TMA Sehwan Sharif officials regarding misappropriation of funds, leading to an inquiry and subsequent investigation by NAB. The investigation revealed that Altaf Ahmed Shaikh, while working as an electrician and falsely as a contractor, was involved in fraudulent activities, including the creation of fake bills and the illegal deposit of Rs.18,281,660 in his personal accounts.During the trial, the prosecution presented 11 witnesses and various documents to establish the appellant's guilt. The appellant, however, denied all allegations, claiming innocence and pointing out inconsistencies in witness statements. He argued that the evidence against him, particularly the banking documents, did not conclusively link him to the offense, suggesting that his identity was used fraudulently.The court, after reviewing the evidence and arguments, upheld the trial court's judgment, finding the prosecution's case against the appellant to be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant's plea that his identity was misused and that he was not involved in the fraudulent activities was not accepted by the court, given the lack of any initiative from his side to challenge or report the misuse of his identity after the case was filed. The court also noted the absence of any application from the appellant for the verification of signatures on the fraudulent documents, further weakening his defense.In conclusion, the High Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court's decision based on the substantial evidence presented by the prosecution, which included both oral testimonies and documentary evidence. The judgment emphasizes the thorough examination and consideration of all aspects of the case by the court, leading to the affirmation of the appellant's conviction and the dismissal of his appeal.

Summary: Bail granted----A petition filed under Section 497 Cr.P.C. seeked post-arrest bail for Israr Hussain Shah in connection with a traffic accident case. The incident occurred, involving a collision between a Toyota Hi-Ace Van, allegedly driven by Israr Hussain Shah, and a ten-wheeler troller. While the petitioner was accused of reckless driving, the document highlights that the troller driver, Muhammad Saleem, was granted post-arrest bail earlier. The court observed that the primary cause of the accident appears to be the careless approach of the troller driver. The document interpreted the relevant penal provisions and concludes that the offense under section 322 PPC is bailable, allowing for the grant of post-arrest bail. The court considered various factors, including the absence of exceptional circumstances, the nature of the offense, and the fact that the Diyat (compensation) under section 322 PPC is payable in installments. Consequently, the court granted bail to the petitioner, directing his release upon furnishing bail bonds.