Summary: Issue:Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail in light of the allegations and material available on record against him.----Decision:The Supreme Court set aside the High Court's order, granted the petitioner bail subject to the furnishing of a bail bond, and converted the petition into an appeal.----Reasoning:The Court found no sufficient incriminating material against the petitioner to infer guilt for the alleged corruption. It emphasized the constitutional rights to liberty, dignity, fair trial, and protection against arbitrary detention. The Court noted the lack of solid lawful basis for NAB's assessment of the petitioner's assets and the absence of evidence linking the petitioner to the assets held by alleged benamidars. The Court also highlighted the inordinate delay in the trial process, not attributable to the petitioner, and deemed the further detention as a breach of fundamental rights.----Rule:The decision was based on the constitutional standard of "reasonable grounds" for depriving a person of their fundamental rights, as well as the principles established in prior cases such as Muhammad Iqbal Khan Noori v. NAB and Talat Ishaq v. NAB, regarding the assessment of incriminating material and the impact of trial delays on bail decisions.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: PLJ 2022 Lahore 21 [Bahawalpur Bench Bahawalpur] Present Abid Hussain Chattha J Mst KHALIDA PARVEEN and 19 others - - Petitioners versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and 5 others - - Respondents WP No 2962 of 2021BWP heard on 6102021 Punjab Regularization of Service Act 2018 (XV of 2018) - - - - - - S 2 (c) - - Withdrawal of appointment letters - - Relationship of master and servant - - Maintainability - - Advertised posts of Ayas to be recruited in different Basic Health Units in various districts of Province - - Petitioners applied for recruitment against advertised post of Ayas and after due process they were appointed on contract basis - - Program Director of Program vide order dated 13032018 directed Respondent No 2 to withdraw offer of appointment letters issued to Petitioners and in response to said direction Respondent No 2 withdrew said appointment letters without conducting any regular inquiry or hearing Petitioners - - Petitioners moved their applications before Respondent No 1 for regularization or extension of their contract services - - Request of Petitioners was declined - - Clause 12 provided that contract appointments would neither confer any right of regular appointment to same post nor service shall be counted towards seniority - - Petitioners have been paid salaries till date of relieving or performance of duty - - Program was time bound - - Any project which is temporary in nature and character not part of non - development budget dependent on discretionary Government allocation and foreign funding aimed to achieve specific objectives and liable to termination abruptly upon lack of funding or fulfillment of objectives is a time - bound project - - In any time bound project contract employee has no right of regularization in service - - Relationship of master and servant is attracted and applicable with respect to contract employees and therefore a constitutional Petition is not maintainable - - Petitioners were appointed on contract basis under specific terms and conditions which were duly accepted by them - - Their contract was not extended and they were accordingly relieved after expiry of term of contract [Pp 22 23 25 26 27 28] A B C D E G I J Constitution of Pakistan 1973 - - - - - - Art 199 - - Maintainability - - Availability of remedy - - Constitutional Petition filed by a contract employee was not maintainable even when contract was terminated before term of contract - - Only remedy available to a contractual employee is to seek damages for wrongful termination or for any alleged breach of contract or failure to extend contract [P 26] F Punjab Regularization of Service Act 2018 (XV of 2018) - - - - - - S 2 (c) - - Contract employee - - Contract employees employed in a project such as Program were specifically excluded from benefit of regularization [P 26] H Mr Muhammad Hafeez Khan Mastoi Advocate Mrs Samina Qureshi Advocate Mr Shakeel Ahmad Malik Advocate Mr Sohaib Abdullah Akhtar Advocate Mr Muhammad Imran Pasha Advocate for Petitioner (s) Mr Haseeb Ahsan Javed Legal Advisor for IRMNCH Ch Shahid Mehmood AAG along with Dr Aneela DHO (HRM MIS) and Amir Mahmood Law Officer office of CEO (DHA) Bahawalpur for Respondent (s)Judgement Result:Petitions dismissed

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Appeal against return of plaint u/o 7 R10 CPC

Summary: Defendant of suit is aggrieved that ADJ has set aside return of plaint u/o 7 rule 10 order by civil court

Summary: The wording of section 20 of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Preemption Act,1987, is self-explanatory so far as the controversy is concerned, nonetheless, for equal division it is sine qua non that both the preemptor and vendee fall within the same class with respect to their right of preemption, only than the disputed property to the extent of their equal rights shall be divided between them equally. Both the vendees purchased the property in equal share through single mutation but one of the vendees i.e., Niaz Dil Khan, whose share were 9-Kanal 7-1/2 Marla, was stranger so his share on the basis of decree has been transferred in favour of decree holder whereas the petitioner whose shares were also 9-Kanal7-1/2 Marla shall be divided between preemptor and the vendee/petitioner in equal share, therefore, the petitioner is entitled for 4-Kanat 13- Marla and 8-1/3 Sarsai whereas the entitlement of the preemptors are l4-Kanal 1-Marta and 6-1/2 Sarsai. In such state of affairs mutation No. 594 dated 12.10.2017 has rightly been attested. The claim of the petitioner for the half of the shares of Niaz Dil Khan is misconceived.

Summary: 1. A supreme court judgment, though later in time, is not binding if it has not considered an earlier view of a bench of co-equal strength; nor has referred the matter for constitution of a larger bench. The earlier view will be the binding precedent till such time it is in the field.2. Family court has no jurisdiction under clause 9 of Schedule to Section 5 of the Family Court Acts, 1964 in cases of enforcement of clause 18 and 19 of the Nikahnama which are dependent on the happening of or related to KHULA or DIVORCE. It vests in the ordinary courts as settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtar Hussaid Shah (PLD 2011 SC 260)A supreme court judgment, though later in time, is not binding if it has not considered an earlier view of a bench of co-equal strength; nor has referred the matter for constitution of a larger bench. The earlier view will be the binding precedent till such time it is in the field. --- The appellate judgment had modified a trial court decision from December 6, 2018, regarding the enforcement of conditions stated in column Nos. 18 & 19 of the Nikahnama (marriage contract).The core issue revolved around the enforcement of specific conditions in the Nikahnama, which stipulated a sum of Rs. 1,000,000 to be paid to the wife in the event of divorce by the husband. The trial court had concluded that such conditions could not be enforced as they were contrary to the principles of marital ties, which should not be bound by stringent conditions. However, the appellate court granted relief to the respondent based on these conditions, arguing that the family court had jurisdiction over the matter.Upon review, the High Court noted discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence regarding the Nikahnama's conditions. It observed that the matter was not adequately addressed on factual grounds by the lower courts, which instead focused on legal interpretations without first establishing the factual basis of the case. The High Court emphasized the importance of resolving factual discrepancies before applying legal principles.Furthermore, the High Court discussed the jurisdiction of family courts in matters involving conditions stipulated in the Nikahnama, referencing various Supreme Court judgments to clarify the legal stance on such issues. It concluded that the appellate court's judgment granting relief based on the contested conditions was not only beyond its jurisdiction but also unsupported by the evidence on record.The High Court ultimately set aside the appellate court's judgment, restoring the trial court's decision. The petition was allowed, highlighting the necessity of a factual basis for legal decisions and the proper application of jurisdiction in family law matters.