Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioner is aggrieved that his vehicle has been confisiation by order of tribunal on basis of fareus report

Summary: Misc Matter: Pettion challanging vires of rule 5(c) and rule (6) of civil servants (Directory Retriement from Service) Rules, 2020.

Summary: Execution First Appeal against interim order dated 18.11.2019 passed by Civil Judge West Islamabad whereby application to proceedings with execution petition is accepted

Summary: Applicable principles enunciated to refer dispute to arbitration under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940----The case involves an appeal filed by the Appellant against orders dated 01.04.2019 and 22.04.2019 passed by the Civil Court, Lahore, under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The dispute arose from a contract between the Appellant (Employer) and the Respondent (Contractor) for the Lahore Orange Line Metro Train Project. The Respondent claimed additional compensatory payments due to delays caused by litigation, which was rejected by the Engineer. Despite attempts to settle the dispute, including arbitration notices, the Appellant declined arbitration. The Appellant contested the referral to arbitration, arguing that no genuine dispute existed, citing various legal precedents. However, the Court found that the dispute was legitimate and fell within the arbitration clause of the contract. The Respondent had met the prerequisites under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and the Court was satisfied that a real dispute existed. The Appellant's objections were deemed issues for the arbitrator to decide, and the Court upheld the referral to arbitration. Ultimately, the appeal was dismissed, affirming the orders to refer the dispute to arbitration.

Summary: The case involves an appeal filed by Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi against the dismissal of his constitutional petition challenging a notice issued under Sections 37 and 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, by the Directorate of Intelligence & Investigation Inland Revenue, Faisalabad. Sethi's counsel argues that the raid and seizure of documents from his business premises were illegal and unauthorized, conducted without proper notice or search warrant. The counsel contends that Section 38 of the Act only authorizes access to premises and records, not searches without a warrant. However, the Legal Advisor for the FBR defends the notice, stating that it merely sought information and did not constitute a show cause notice under specific provisions of the Act. Upon review, the court finds that the raid and seizure were conducted without proper adherence to Section 40 of the Act, which governs searches under warrant. It emphasizes that Section 38 grants access but does not authorize search and seizure without a warrant. The court rules in favor of Sethi, ordering the return of all documents seized during the unauthorized raid and vacating the notice issued under Sections 37 and 38. The respondents are allowed to proceed against Sethi in accordance with the law.

Summary: The case involves M/s. Muhammad Noor Dairies, the respondent, who applied for Lease Finance from ORIX Leasing Pakistan Limited, the appellant. The Lease Finance Agreements were dated 26.06.2006, 27.10.2007, and 31.07.2008. The dispute primarily revolves around outstanding monthly lease rentals, outstanding additional lease rentals and charges, and per month compensation. The trial court partially allowed the outstanding monthly lease rentals after deduction of security but disallowed additional lease rentals, charges, and further compensation. The appellant challenges this decision, arguing that the remaining amount should have been allowed. The appeal has been pending since 2014, and the respondents did not appear, leading to an ex-parte proceeding against them. The judgment discusses the legal provisions related to additional lease rentals and compensation, specifically referring to Article 18 of the Lease Agreements. The court emphasizes Section 3(2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which outlines the duty of the customer and the consequences of default. The court concludes that the claimed compensation by the appellant, including additional lease rentals and further compensation, is not justified. The court dismisses the appeal, upholding the decision of the learned Banking Court. The appellant's claim for a refund of the security deposit is also rejected based on the terms of the Lease Agreement. The court clarifies that the learned Banking Court had the jurisdiction to disallow partial claims without granting leave to appear and defend, citing relevant legal precedents.Muhammad Farooq Azam versus Bank Al-Falah Limited and others (2015 C L D 1439): This case appears to provide guidance on the issue of penalties and charges imposed by financial institutions, ensuring that such charges are reasonable and in accordance with the law. Habib Bank Ltd. versus Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. (2006 C L D 842): This case sets a precedent regarding mark-up based financing and prohibits financial institutions from charging additional sums beyond the original contracted amount, especially in cases of delay in repayment. Messrs United Bank Ltd. through Authorized attorneys versus M. Mubeen Khan (2012 C L D 1995): This case clarifies the entitlement of financial institutions to cost of funds from the date of default, emphasizing that customers should not be penalized twice for the same default. Emirates Global Islamic Bank Ltd. versus Muhammad Abdul Salam Khan (2013 C L D 1291): This case reinforces the principle that financial institutions cannot claim charges or amounts to which the customer had not agreed. Dr. Faiz Rasool and others versus The Askari Bank Limited through Branch Manager/authorized Authority (2015 C L D 1710): This case affirms that penalty charges cannot be claimed by financial institutions and that any charges imposed should be justified and agreed upon by the parties involved. Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. and others versus Soneri Bank Ltd. (2012 C L D 337): This Supreme Court case clarifies the jurisdiction of banking courts regarding the disallowance of claims without granting leave to appear and defend, providing legal guidance on such matters.

Summary: Framing of Proper issues, keeping in view pleadings of the parties-----The petitioner filed a suit for declaration with permanent injunction and recovery of possession against the respondents and others. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner, but the appellate court overturned this decision, finding faults in the trial court's handling of the case. Specifically, the appellate court noted that the trial court failed to properly frame issues based on the pleadings of the parties, leading to a lack of clarity in the trial process. The appellate court emphasized the importance of framing issues to ascertain the real dispute between the parties and ensure a fair trial. The appellate court highlighted the criteria for framing issues, including considering the pleadings, examining parties, and taking into account the evidence presented. It stressed that the framing of issues is essential for narrowing down the areas of conflict and determining the points of contention between the parties. Consequently, the appellate court allowed the civil revision, setting aside the judgments and decrees of both the trial court and the appellate court.