Summary: Bail granted---Counter cases between the parties entitles the petitioner to bail as it is yet to be determined which party is aggressor and which is aggressed upon.----Allah Wadhaya has filed a petition seeking post-arrest bail in a case where he is named as a suspect in FIR, registered under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at P.S. Ghamandpur, Bhawalnagar. The prosecution alleged that Wadhaya, along with five co-accused, launched a deadly assault on the complainant and her son, resulting in the death of the son, Muhammad Iqbal. During the proceedings, it was revealed that while Wadhaya is accused of firing shots resulting in Iqbal's death, five individuals from Wadhaya's side also sustained severe injuries, which were not mentioned in the initial FIR. Cross-versions of the incident have been recorded, and both sides have submitted challans to the Trial Court. Citing legal precedents such as "SAQIB and others v. The STATE and others (2020 SCMR 677)," "ABDUL HAMEED v. ZAHID HUSAIN alia.s. PAPU CHAMAN PATIWALA and others" (2011 SCMR 606), and "SHOAIB MEHMOOD BUTT v. IFTIICHAR-UL-HAO and others (1996 SCMR 1845)," the court notes the need for further inquiry to determine the aggressor in the case. In light of these precedents and the circumstances of the case, the court grants Wadhaya post-arrest bail, requiring him to furnish surety bonds to the satisfaction of the Trial Court.

Summary: The appellant filed the suit based on an agreement to sell, claiming a total consideration of Rs.7,50,00,000/-, of which Rs.1,50,00,000/- was paid, and the remaining Rs.6,00,00,000/- was outstanding. The trial court directed the appellant to deposit the balance amount along with court fees within two months, but the appellant failed to comply, resulting in the dismissal of the suit. During the hearing, the appellant's counsel argued that some shareholders were abroad, making it difficult to arrange the balance amount, and that the court fee was with the counsel but not submitted. The respondents' counsel contended that despite court directions, the appellant failed to fulfill the requirements.Hamood Mehmood vs. Mst. Shabana Ishaque (2017 SCMR 2022), Messrs Kuwait National Real Estate vs. Messrs Education Excellence (2020 SCMR 171), Aqeel Feroz vs. Shahid Jamil Sethi (2020 MLD 1669),Muhammad Kashif Vohra vs. Muhammad Ismail (2020 YLR 2024), Muhammad Zafar Iqbal vs. Hameeda Naz (2019 CLC 1866), Ghulam Nabi Shaikh vs. Firdous Matri (2019 YLR 223), these precedents collectively established the legal framework requiring plaintiffs to deposit the balance amount in court for specific performance claims, failure of which may result in dismissal of the suit. Consequently, the court found no illegality in the trial court's decision and dismissed the appeal with no order as to costs. The appellant's argument regarding shareholders abroad and non-submission of court fees did not absolve her from complying with legal requirements. Thus, the equitable relief of specific performance was lawfully denied.

Summary: The petitioner was accused of conducting illegal kidney transplants that led to the deaths of two patients. The FIR was registered under sections 9, 10, and 11 of the Transplantation of Human Organs and Tissues Act, 2010, and section 109 PPC. The petitioner argued that the FIR could not be registered without a complaint from the Monitoring Authority or an aggrieved person as per section 14(2) of the Act. Additionally, the petitioner contested the authority of the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to conduct the investigation. The court clarified that the registration of an FIR and the taking of cognizance by a court are separate processes. While section 14(2) of the Act governs the court's cognizance, it does not prohibit reporting the offense to the police or initiating an investigation. The court also cited a precedent "INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN and others v. Mian ASIM FAREED and others" (2006 S C M R 483) emphasizing that the registration of an FIR and taking cognizance are distinct concepts. Regarding the FIA's authority, the court noted that the Ministry of Interior had authorized the agency to investigate offenses under the Transplantation Human Organ and Tissue Act 2010. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the power to quash an FIR should be exercised sparingly. The petitioner was advised to avail himself of remedies under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure if he believed he was falsely implicated.

Summary: Writ Petition---Requirements of Sine qua non---principle of locus poeniteniae---appeal dismissed.---Background:The case involves two civil appeals (No. 754 and 755 of 2020) filed against an order issued by the Lahore High Court, which dismissed writ petitions (No. 206815 and 180175 of 2018). The appellants, Shakeel Ahmad Zaidi and others, were initially employed as Instructors in the Technical Education and Vocational Training Authority (TEVTA) and later absorbed into the Higher Education Department (HED) of Punjab. They received a special allowance meant for contract Lecturers appointed between 2002 and 2005. However, the Finance Department of Punjab discontinued this allowance and initiated recovery from the appellants' salaries.---Issues:Whether the recovery of the special allowance from the appellants' salaries is justified.Whether the principle of locus poenitentiae applies in this case.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the recovery of the special allowance from the appellants' salaries is justified. The appellants, being Instructors and not contract Lecturers, were not entitled to receive the allowance. Therefore, their claim of receiving it bona fide does not hold. The Court emphasized that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply because the payment was made under a mistaken order, which was not lawful. Hence, the recovery of the allowance from the appellants' salaries is upheld.---Citations/Precedents:Engineer Chief Branch through Minister of Defence, Rawalpindi v. Jalal-ud-Din (1992 SCMR 917): Application of the principle of locus poenitentiae was considered, emphasizing that once a government employee receives payment bona fide, it is not recoverable even if it was made due to a mistake by the government.Muhammad Feroz v. Deputy Director Officer Education (2005 SCMR 1490): Involving a case of erroneous salary increment received by a civil servant, it was held that even if the payment was received in good faith, it is subject to recovery if made under a mistake of law. The principle of locus poenitentiae does not apply to rectify mistakes of law.

Summary: upon review, the Supreme Court found that the appellant's evidence did not align with the pleadings, and major legal flaws were present in the claim. The evidence was not considered since it did not match the pleadings, and the oral sale agreement lacked necessary details. Additionally, prolonged possession with title documents alone does not establish ownership without proving the sale.The Supreme Court found no grounds for interference and dismissed the appeal.

Summary: The main question was whether the show cause notices issued to the respondent (MCB Bank Limited) under sections 161 and 205 of the Ordinance were lawful.Section 161 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, states that if a person fails to deduct tax as required under the relevant provisions, that person will be personally liable to pay the amount of tax to the Commissioner, who may pass an order to that effect and proceed to recover the same. The notices in question were served in respect of various heads of payments/outlays made by MCB Bank Limited for administrative, selling & financial expenses, and other charges.The Commissioner of Inland Revenue argued that the notices were justified, relying on a previous decision (Bilz case) as authority. However, the Supreme Court clarified that the Bilz case was limited to specific factual circumstances and did not create a broad proposition. It emphasized that the tax authorities cannot issue vague or general notices, and there must be an objective basis for suspecting a failure to deduct tax before issuing a notice.The Supreme Court found that the notices for TY 2003-2006 were mere fishing expeditions and dismissed the appeals related to those years. However, it allowed the appeal related to TY 2011, as that notice contained more specific information and application of mind, distinguishing it from the other notices.Regarding the issue of limitation, the court did not provide a conclusive decision, as the matter had been addressed in a different case (Habib Bank case) and left open for future consideration.In conclusion, the Supreme Court partially allowed the appeals related to the tax year 2011 and dismissed the appeals related to the tax years 2003-2006. The court provided a detailed explanation of the limitations on issuing show cause notices under the Income Tax Ordinance and clarified the misinterpretation of the Bilz case.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 251-20 (Misc Matter: Seeks direction against respondent to declare the action of Respondent (regarding cancellation of Registration), illegal)