Summary: Section of Law; 302,324,34,109,212 PPC(a) Unnatural conduct found dispelling from statement of an eyewitness, creates doubts regarding his presence on the spot.

Summary: There is no cavil with the proposition that attorney is required to take prior permission, approval and consent of the principal when he wants to transfer the property in the name of his close relatives.

Summary: (1) The Petitioner is claiming equal treatment as the other SPOs, who have been regularized under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019 vide Notification dated 8.4.2020. (2)This Court does not see any distinction between the petitioner and those, who stood regularized under the ambit of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Special Police Officers (Regularization of Services) Act, 2019 and we lurk no doubt in our mind that the petitioner deserves the same treatment.(3)Equal protection and equal treatment of citizens similarly placed is universally accepted and recognized principle which has been explained by many authors in text books and Judges in precedents.

Summary: The exception created through Article 165-A of the constitution after the SITE judgment referred above, it appears that only the State established instrumentality is liable to pay all the taxes on its income whereas the exemption provided by Article 165 of the Constitution to the Federal as well as Provincial Government from payment of property tax shall also be available to its instrumentalities inview of the law laid down by the Apex court in SITE Judgment.It can, therefore, be seen from the aforesaid judgments that for the Court(s) to make use of the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation, there must exist justifiable reasons to ascertain the real ownership and control of a corporation for the purpose of Article 165 of the Constitution. Moreover, a corporation or instrumentality of the Federal Government having a monopoly in the area of its operation being solely performing sovereign functions of the state , will be deemed a department of the Government and hence entitled to the exemption under Article 165 of the Constitution from payment of property tax. Similarly, the Court(s) would resort to the doctrine of lifting the veil of incorporation in the cases where a corporation whose entire shareholding is owned by Federal Government whereas a corporation which is not wholly owned by the Federal Government and part of the shareholding vests in other entities and persons as well, will not be extended the benefit of Article 165 of the Constitution. The Court(s) have extended the benefit of Article 165 of the Constitution toproperty owned directly by the Federal Government but the said benefit has also been extended to properties owned by the Federal Government through its instrumentalities and body corporates, however, a Government Corporation conducting commercial activities in the normal course of business and competing with similar entities has not been given the benefit of Article 165 for seeking exemption from property tax. It must, however, be noted that The Associated Cement case (supra), has set the tone for future jurisprudence, therefore, principles laid down in it must be considered carefully in respect of the applicability of the exemption under Article 165 of the Constitution toinstrumentalities and corporations claiming to be owned by the Federal Government.

Summary: Implementation petitions--- The petitioner's counsel refers to the Appellate Order that directed the release of a subject vehicle but notes that the order remains unimplemented. The court expressed concerns about the department's failure to implement orders and judgments from lower fora despite there being no evidence of any suspension of these orders. The court questioned why this court is being treated as the forum to execute orders from the departmental hierarchy of adjudication. The court directed that, unless the respondents have obtained an order from the appropriate jurisdiction suspending the operation of the Appellate Order, the order shall be implemented within two weeks. The Collector of Customs (Preventive) is directed to be present in person on the next date and to submit a compliance report and show cause as to why action should not be taken against him for abandoning duty. Furthermore, the court expressed its concerns about the increasing number of cases where individuals are seeking implementation of orders and judgments from lower fora and notes that the department's disregard for these orders has become a practice. The court emphasizes that the tax bench of the High Court is meant to address questions of law impacting public revenues and should not be burdened with execution matters. The court directed the Secretary of Revenue Division and the Chairman of the Federal Board of Revenue to scrutinize such cases and took appropriate action against those responsible for not implementing decisions.

Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Sohail Sheikh, challenged the legality of the letter and subsequent orders, contending that he is a legitimate businessman engaged in the export of footwear to Gulf countries. He argued that the freezing of his accounts would adversely affect his business operations and could lead to bankruptcy. The petitioner claimed that no evidence had been presented linking him to any criminal activity under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, examined the legal provisions governing the powers of the FIA, particularly Section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974. This section allows FIA officials to issue written orders to freeze property during investigations if they believe it is likely to be removed or disposed of. However, the court noted that such powers must be exercised sparingly and in exceptional cases, with strict adherence to procedural requirements. The court found that the FIA's actions, including the issuance of the freezing letter and subsequent orders, were in violation of legal procedures. The Deputy Director of the FIA had not obtained the necessary authorization from the appropriate authority, as required by the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947. Additionally, the court found that the FIA had failed to provide sufficient justification for the freezing of the accounts. The court mentioned the case of Muhammad Muslim v. Federal Investigation Agency (PLD 1984 Karachi 71) to emphasize the importance of lawful procedures in seizing property during investigations. This case underscored the necessity of obtaining proper authorization from the appropriate authority before exercising seizure powers under Section 5(5) of the Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974. Ultimately, the Lahore High Court set aside the impugned letter and orders, ruling in favor of the petitioner. The court's decision affirmed the principle that executive actions must be conducted within the bounds of the law and subject to judicial scrutiny when necessary to protect individual rights and uphold legal procedures.

Summary: Muhammad Naeem Khan, the appellant, challenged the decision of the National Bank of Pakistan (NBP) to demote him from the position of Assistant Vice President to Officer Grade-I. He was accused of negligence, dereliction of duty, and failing to take action against fraudulent activities occurring in the bank branch he managed.The appellant's counsel argued that the show cause notice was issued by an incompetent authority, and the disciplinary proceedings against him were tainted with illegalities. The counsel also claimed that the penalties imposed on him were disproportionate compared to others involved in the case.The Supreme Court examined the validity of the charge sheet issued to the appellant, the conduct of the inquiry, and the evidence presented. The court found that the show cause notice was validly issued by an authorized officer, and all relevant procedures were duly followed. The court also noted that the appellant, as a Branch Manager, was responsible for overseeing the branch's activities, and his failure to act responsibly allowed the fraudulent activities to continue.Regarding the disparity in penalties, the court observed that the penalties were imposed based on the gravity of each individual's involvement. The appellant's higher penalty was justified due to his senior position and supervisory role.The court rejected the appellant's arguments and upheld the judgment of the Peshawar High Court. The appellant's appeal was dismissed, confirming the demotion penalty imposed on him by the National Bank of Pakistan.

Summary: Facts: Mst. Munir Sultan, the daughter of Fateh Khan from his first marriage, filed a suit claiming her Shariah-based inheritance from her father's estate. She challenged three gift mutations made by Fateh Khan in favor of his second wife and their two sons, which transferred all his land to them, excluding her and her four step-sisters. The suit was initially dismissed, but on appeal, both the Additional District Judge and the Lahore High Court ruled in her favor, recognizing her right to inheritance.----Issue(s):Whether the gift mutations made by Fateh Khan in favor of his second wife and sons were valid and legally binding.Whether Mst. Munir Sultan, as a daughter, was entitled to her share of inheritance under Shariah law.Holding: The Supreme Court dismissed the petition, upholding the judgments of the lower courts that favored Mst. Munir Sultan's claim to her inheritance. The Court found the gift mutations suspect and not adequately proven by the petitioners.----Reasoning:The Court noted discrepancies in the gift mutations, such as the absence of detailed information about the gifts, the lack of signatures or thumb impressions by Fateh Khan, and the failure of the petitioners to prove the gifts conclusively.The Court highlighted the suspicious circumstances under which the gifts were made, considering Fateh Khan's advanced age and poor health, raising doubts about his state of mind and intention to disinherit five of his daughters.The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to Shariah law regarding inheritance, particularly the rights of female heirs, and criticized the practice of depriving legal heirs of their rightful shares through questionable transactions like the disputed gift mutations.The Court also criticized the Revenue department for its role in facilitating such dubious transactions and called for improvements in record-keeping and adherence to legal requirements to prevent similar cases of injustice.----Judgment: The petition for leave to appeal was declined, and the petition was dismissed. The Court imposed costs on the petitioners for depriving the legal heirs of their inheritance for 22 years and urged them to comply with the laws of inheritance.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending