Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Wife of an employee of ISL is aggrived that her husband has been illegally disappeared, seeks writ of habeus for release

Summary: Tax Matter: Seeking direction to suspended the recovery notice issued u/s 138(I0 of the income Tax ordinance 2001.

Summary: It is settled law that the Court would always look at the overall structure of the prosecution case in order to see whether the evidence of the witnesses otherwise coincide with the other circumstance of the case. If the evidence given by witnesses coincide with the other circumstance of the case then any confusion of created through some contradiction or confusion in his cross examination would be of no help to the appellant because a witness at time may either be confused by a vigilant/shrewd lawyer escaping the attention of the learned presiding Officer or even the state counsel and would thus be able to extract something favoring or less favoring the appellant letting the witness know the purpose of the said question.

Summary: De-notification of Award under Section 48 Land Acquisition Act.

Summary: The perusal of the aforesaid APTTA and Section 129 of the Act clearly reveals that the goods imported by any person from other country for use and consumption in Afghanistan could not be said to have been imported into Pakistan merely because the said goods has crossed the custom barrier and entered into Pakistan, though to be transited to their destination i.e. Afghanistan. Such goods, infact, are goods in transit which shall be dealt with and transhipped to Afghanistan in accordance with APTTA and the Customs Law of Pakistan relating to the importation would not be, therefore, applicable to the said transaction. Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 5 others vs. Jamaluddin and others (1996 SCMR 727).The Customs Authority has no jurisdiction to issue any notification or imposed ban on the transportation of any goods under the APTTA in view of the clear provision of Section 16 of the Act as the same power lies with the Federal Government. The Customs Authority has no jurisdiction to deal with the goods which are in transit to Afghanistan in terms of APTTA as the same falls within the exclusive jurisdiction/function of the commerce Ministries/Federal Government. Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, Government of Pakistan Islamabad and 5 others vs. Jamaluddin and others (1996 SCMR 727).The goods in transit in terms of APTTA are not subject to the incidence of any taxes (custom duties, sales tax, income tax). Chapter-XIII (Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section IX of APTTA)Moving on to the Application of section 32 of the Act to the present case. The close perusal of this section clearly reveals that it deals with any purposely misdeclaration of any goods in order to avoid or evade a tax liability. It does not trigger in the circumstances; when the imported goods are not meant for home consumption, involving the payment of taxes and duties. Since the goods in question was not subject to impost of any local taxes and duties in view of section 129 of the Act and APTTA, therefore the alleged misdeclaration of goods destined for Afghanistan is inconsequential. Even otherwise section 32 of the Act constitutes an offence and in the absence of mensrea on the part of the person transporting it to Afghanistan under APTTA; it cannot be put in operation.

Summary: The case involves allegations of dishonestly and fraudulently luring and cheating a large number of people (4416 affectees) in the name of 'Mudarbat' and committing the offense of breach of trust, leading to embezzlement of a significant amount (Rs. 12,596,132,542). The accused-petitioner's counsel argues for bail due to the delay in concluding the trial, as the maximum punishment provided under the NAB Ordinance is 14 years, and he has already been in custody for over seven years. The court considers the arguments from both the accused-petitioner's counsel and the NAB authorities. The court notes that despite earlier directions from the Supreme Court to conclude the trial within four months, it has not been done, and only 174 witnesses out of 513 have been examined. Considering the extended detention period and the likelihood of further delays, the court grants bail to the accused-petitioner on the ground of statutory delay in concluding the trial. The court orders the release of the accused-petitioner on bail upon the fulfillment of certain conditions, including the provision of bail bonds and sureties.

Summary: Provisions of Punjab Healthcare Commission Act, 2010 interpreted in terms of enforcement measures adopted by the Punjab Healthcare Commission----The case involves a petitioner, a dispenser, who rented out a portion of his property to a qualified medical practitioner to run a clinic. Allegations surfaced that the petitioner was practicing allopathy without proper qualifications and licenses. The Punjab Healthcare Commission sealed the clinic, imposed a hefty fine, and demanded an affidavit promising no future allopathic practice. The petitioner appealed, citing procedural irregularities and lack of proper investigation into the doctor's responsibility. The court found numerous legal violations: Failure to appoint a proper inspection team as required by law, Inadequate investigation into the doctor's role, leading to his convenient dissociation from the case, Reliance on an inspection report without considering surrounding facts, Inconsistencies between the Regulations and the Act, giving excessive powers to the Commission.The court referred to legal precedents such as Suo Moto Case No. 1 of 2020 and H.R.C. No. 27813-P of 2017, which highlighted the issue of quackery as a societal menace. It emphasized that while the cause is noble, it doesn't grant the Commission license to bypass express provisions of the law. The court's decision emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and protecting individual rights even in cases of public interest. In conclusion, the court allowed the petitioner's appeal, overturned the Commission's decision, and directed the de-sealing of the petitioner's property, with any fine paid to be refunded to the petitioner's legal heirs.

Summary: The case involves Umar Zaib (petitioner) seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under Sections 394 & 411 PPC at Police Station Taxila, Rawalpindi. The prosecution alleges that four unknown perpetrators invaded the complainant's house, inflicted injuries, and robbed valuables. Umar Zaib, along with three others, was identified as the culprits during judicial identification proceedings. Initially, three co-accused were granted bail by the learned ASJ, Taxila, based on the ground of lack of recovery of stolen items. However, the court found flaws in the bail orders, particularly the disregard for identification proceedings and criminal antecedents. Therefore, a notice for cancellation of bail was issued. Upon examination, it was revealed that the accused had criminal track records and were identified during judicial proceedings. Additionally, stolen articles were recovered, and medical reports supported the complainant's injuries. The court determined that the bail orders suffered from perversity and contravened statutory and judicial directives. The court, invoking its powers under Article 203 of the Constitution and Sections 435 & 439 of the Cr.P.C., revoked the bail orders and ordered the accused to be taken into custody. It emphasized the importance of maintaining procedural stringency in criminal cases and ensuring justice is served. The State through Advocte-General N.W.F.P. v. Zubair and 4 others (PLD 1986 Supreme Court 173): Courts must consider fresh grounds in subsequent bail applications. Amir Masih v. The State and another (2013 SCMR 1524): The rule of fresh ground applies even if an earlier bail petition is withdrawn after some arguments. Mushtaq Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1966 Supreme Court 126): High Courts can exercise revisional powers over subordinate courts to ensure justice. The State v. Muhammad Nazir and others (PLD 1991 Lahore 433): High Courts can cancel bail granted by subordinate courts through suo moto notice in revisional jurisdiction. The judgment underscores the courts' duty to uphold justice and the need for adherence to legal procedures, particularly in cases involving serious offenses like robbery.

Summary: Suit for recovery under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is competent to recover cost of funds when Principal Finance has been paid.-----The appeal was filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, challenging a decision by the Banking Court No. II, Gujranwala, which dismissed the Bank's suit for recovery of funds against the respondents. In the suit, The Bank of Punjab sought recovery of outstanding dues from the respondents, who allegedly failed to repay a finance facility. The respondents argued that they had settled their liability and deposited an amount in the Banking Court. The High Court conducted a detailed analysis of Sections 9 and 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which outline procedures for filing suits and obtaining leave to defend. It emphasized the mandatory nature of these procedures and the importance of the Banking Court's adherence to them. Anees-Ur-Rehman v. Faysal Bank Limited (2019 CLD 1031): The court emphasized that a defendant's right to defend a suit arises only after the grant of leave to defend, and the plaint cannot be rejected before this stage. Amanullah Khan v. Habib Bank Limited (2014 CLD 1181): The court held that the Banking Court must first decide the application for leave to defend to determine the defendant's standing to defend the suit. Sh. Nazir Ahmed v. House Building Finance Corporation (2002 CLD 1634): Rejecting a plaint without deciding the leave application was deemed contrary to the law, and defendants could not defend a suit until leave was granted. Waheed Corporation v. Allied Bank Limited (2003 CLD 245): The Banking Court was required to decide the leave application before proceeding with other applications or rejecting the plaint. These precedents underscored the procedural requirements and the importance of granting leave to defend before a defendant can contest a suit. In light of the analysis and precedents, the Lahore High Court set aside the impugned judgment and directed the Banking Court to reconsider the suit and the application for leave to defend in accordance with the law within six months.