Summary: Seeking direction against initiation of criminal proceeding by FIA.

Summary: Unregistered & Unaffiliated School.

Summary: Change of Nomenclature.

Summary: The case involves a dispute over a piece of land subject to various legal proceedings, including a suit for specific performance, a suit for possession through pre-emption, and subsequent appeals and revisions. The core issue pertains to the validity of a compromise decree obtained by the respondents in the pre-emption suit. The applicants challenge the decree on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and want of jurisdiction, particularly concerning mutations of exchange and the transfer of the disputed property during the legal proceedings. The respondents argue against the applicants' locus standi, citing legal provisions and precedents related to the Transfer of Property Act and the doctrine of lis pendens, Mst. Izat and others v. Khuda Bakhsh (PLD 1959 Karachi 221), Abdul Razzaq Hawaladar v. Sheikh Muhammad Shafi (PLD 1962 SC 134), Nagubai Ammal v. B. Shama Rao (AIR 1956 SC 593), SALEEM and another v. Malik JALALUDDIN and 07 others (PLD 1982 SC 457), MUHAMMAD ILYAS and others v. MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others (2001 CLC 1194), MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR v. MUHAMMAD TAHIR SHAFIQUE and another (PLD 2013 Lahore 154). The court examines the evidence, including the history of legal actions and the conduct of the parties involved, and concludes that the compromise decree was obtained fraudulently and collusively. It highlights the deliberate concealment of material facts and the improper transfer of the property during the legal proceedings. As a result, the court determines that the compromise decree is invalid and cannot stand.

Summary: The case involves a suit for specific performance filed by Khadim Hussain (respondent No.1) against the petitioner. Syed Alamdar Hussain Shah (respondent No.2) is also involved as he purchased the land in question from the petitioner before the execution of the agreement to sell between the petitioner and respondent No.1. According to respondent No.1, he entered into an agreement with the petitioner to purchase land measuring 16-Kanals 11-Marlas for Rs.6,00,000/-. He paid Rs.3,00,000/- as earnest money, and the agreement specified that the remaining amount should be paid by October 15, 2007. However, the petitioner sold 3-Kanals 4-Marlas to respondent No.2 without notice to respondent No.1, resulting in the filing of a suit for specific performance by respondent No.1. The petitioner contested the suit, claiming that the respondent's version was false and based on forged narrations. Respondent No.2, in his written statement, asserted that he is a bona fide purchaser and that respondent No.1's agreement is forged, fictitious, illegal, and based on fraud. The trial court and the appellate court decreed the suit in favor of respondent No.1, leading to the petitioner's appeal. The petitioner argued that Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was applicable, and the respondent had failed to deposit the remaining amount by October 15, 2007. The petitioner further contended that the execution of the agreement (Ex.P1) was not proven, as the witnesses did not establish it was written against consideration, and he, being illiterate, denied its execution. The court raised concerns about the genuineness of Ex.P1, questioning its issuance, alterations, and the lack of clarity on the purpose of purchasing the stamp paper from Jhang. The court noted discrepancies in dates and observed that the respondent failed to prove the execution of the agreement. Additionally, the court emphasized the petitioner's illiteracy, stating that the burden was on the respondent to prove the document's execution with free consent and understanding, which was not demonstrated. Regarding respondent No.2, the court found no evidence supporting the claim that he knowingly benefited from the agreement between the petitioner and respondent No.1. In conclusion, the court expressed dissatisfaction with the genuineness of Ex.P1 and ruled against respondent No.1. The court also upheld respondent No.2's title based on the registered sale deed.

Summary: Definition of Motor Vehicle as per Section 2(23) of Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965 interpreted in terms of requirement for registration.

Summary: The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree of the trial court and appellate court, which upheld the respondent's claim regarding a property dispute. The property in question, measuring 2 Kanals in Mouza Bosal Sukha, Tehsil Malakwal, District Mandi Bahauddin, was claimed by the respondent to have been purchased through an oral agreement. The petitioner allegedly colluded with the Revenue Department to cancel the mutation related to this property. The trial court decreed the suit for declaration and specific performance in favor of the respondent, which was upheld by the appellate court. However, the petitioner argued that the lower courts did not evaluate the evidence properly and failed to apply relevant legal principles. The judgment highlights discrepancies in the respondent's evidence regarding the oral agreement and mutation. Ultimately, the Lahore High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and dismissed the respondent's suit, citing failure to meet the legal standards of proof.

Summary: The appellant filed an Intra Court Appeal under section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, challenging the validity of an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber. The order disposed of Criminal Original No.1162-W of 2019 filed by the appellant, which sought redressal for non-compliance with a previous court order regarding outstanding payments to the appellant's deceased father, a government contractor. Despite previous directives, the respondent authorities failed to release the outstanding amount. The appellant's petition was disposed of by the learned Single Judge, citing compliance with previous court orders. The appellant contested the order through the Intra Court Appeal, arguing that it was against the law and principles of the subject matter. However, the court examined the matter and found that the Intra Court Appeal was not maintainable under the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003, based on legal precedents such as the case of Muhammad Mohsin Rafiq and others versus Messrs Siddiqui & Co.The court referred to legal precedents such as the case of West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority through its Chairman v. Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission (PLD 1979 SC 912) and M.H. Khondkar and another v. The State and another and M. Noman v. The Dacca Improvement Trust and 3 others (1971 SCMR 743) to clarify the scope of appealable orders in contempt proceedings. These cases established that only orders of conviction or final termination of contempt proceedings are appealable, while procedural or interim orders do not qualify for appeal under Section 19 of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003. The court clarified that only final determinative orders in contempt proceedings are appealable, and interim or procedural orders do not fall within the scope of appealable orders. As a result, the Intra Court Appeal was dismissed.

Summary: The petitioner requested post-arrest bail in FIR No. 05 dated 12.01.2021 under Sections 324/427/34 PPC at Police Station Shah Saleem, District Karak, in the interest of safe administration of criminal justice.According to the crime report, the petitioner was accused of firing a shot from a Kalashnikov at the request of co-accused Rehman Ullah, which hit the right heel of the injured complainant, Muhammad Wajid. The petitioner's initial request for post-arrest bail was denied by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karak, and subsequently challenged before the Peshawar High Court, Bannu Bench, which also rejected it.In the present petition, the petitioner argued that he was falsely implicated and that the injury sustained by the complainant was not severe enough to warrant the application of Section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC). The petitioner further contended that he had been in custody since 23.02.2021, and the investigation was complete, so he should be granted bail.On the other hand, the Additional Advocate General of KPK supported the order denying bail to the petitioner, arguing that he was specifically named in the crime report and accused of causing a firearm injury to the complainant. However, the Additional Advocate General conceded that no recovery of the alleged weapon was made from the petitioner during the investigation.After hearing the arguments and examining the record, the Supreme Court observed that certain aspects of the case required further determination to establish whether the petitioner was entitled to bail. There were discrepancies in the medical report, and the recovery of an empty bullet casing from the scene did not carry significant weight. The Court noted that the petitioner had been in custody for a considerable time, the investigation was complete, and no useful purpose would be served by keeping him in jail until the trial's conclusion.Based on these considerations, the Court granted bail to the petitioner, setting aside the impugned order, and allowed him to be released on bail upon furnishing a bail bond of Rs. 200,000/- with one surety in the same amount to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: [Constitutional grounds for grant of bail in NAB matters and the requirement of "sufficient material" against the accused under the fundamental rights to liberty, dignity, fair trial and protection against arbitrary arrest and detention]