Summary: Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)-------Ss.373 & 384---Succession certificate, application for---Title to property---Jurisdiction---Son of deceased sought succession to amount lying in Bank account of his deceased father---Widow claimed full amount lying in the account to the exclusion of other legal heirs on theplea that amount was sale consideration of plots owned by her---Trial Court issuedsuccession certificate to all legal heirs as per their shares---Validity---Petition for grant ofsuccession certificate was filed under S.373 of Succession Act, 1925, and such proceedingsbefore Trial Court were summary in nature---Intricate questions could not be resolved insuch proceedings---Questions of title to property was to be left to be decided in suit beforeCourt of plenary jurisdiction---High Court declined to interfere in Certificate issued by TrialCourt---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.Mst. Aisha and 2 others v. Mst. Mah Gul and 2 others 2015 CLC 1719; Aziz Ahmedv. Hakimzadi and 7 others 2013 CLC 406; Mst. Samina Sikandar v. Public-at-Large PLD2011 Lah. 192 and Banarasi Dass v. Tekka Dutta (2005) 4 SCC 4491 ref.

Summary: Background:The Gas Infrastructure Development Cess (GIDC) Act, 2011, imposed a fee on industrial and commercial consumers of natural gas to finance the import of natural gas via overland pipelines from Iran and Turkmenistan.The GIDC Act, 2011, was challenged and declared ultra vires the Constitution in the Durrani Ceramics case.Subsequently, the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Ordinance, 2014, was promulgated but faced a similar fate after a review petition was dismissed.The Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015, was enacted to impose a cess on natural gas consumers, excluding domestic users, for the same purpose as the earlier Acts.---Issues:Whether the GIDC Act, 2015, falls within the legislative competence of the Parliament.Whether the rates of cess imposed by the GIDC Act, 2015, are discriminatory and unconstitutional.Whether the amount collected as GIDC should be refunded to payers.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Legislative Competence: The GIDC Act, 2015, was found to fall within the ambit of Entry No. 27 of Part I of the Federal Legislative List, covering import and export across customs frontiers, including trade with foreign countries.Discriminatory Cess Rates: The rates of cess imposed by the GIDC Act, 2015, were deemed discriminatory as they lacked intelligible differentiation among different gas consumers. This inconsistency rendered the rates ex-facie discriminatory and unconstitutional.Refund of Amount Collected: The Court ruled that the amount collected as GIDC should be refunded to payers unless impractical, with a committee to be constituted for this purpose. Any unrefundable amount should be earmarked for infrastructure development in the gas sector.The appeals and petitions were allowed, with the direction for refunds and legislative action within six months.---Citations/Precedents:Durrani Ceramics case (2014 SCMR 1630)Pir Bukhsh & Others vs. Chairman Allotment Committee (PLD 1987 SC 145)Ujagar Prints V. Union of India and others (AIR 1989 SC 516)Molasses Trading & Export (Pvt.) Ltd Vs. Federation of Pakistan (1993 SCMR 1905)FECTO Belarus Tractor Ltd Vs. Government of Pakistan through Finance Economic Affairs (PLD 2005 SC 605)Dr. Mobashir Hassan Vs. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2010 SC 265)Contempt Proceedings against Chief Secretary, Sindh (2014 PLC (C.S.) 82)---Quote:Minority view per Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Mansoor Ali Shah: Fee. Service in return or quid pro quo must have a timeline. Gidc declared unconstitutional.

Summary: Background:The case revolves around the constitutionality and legality of the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess (GIDC) imposed under the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015. The GIDC is a fiscal levy imposed by the Federal Government on gas consumers (excluding domestic sector consumers) for the purpose of financing infrastructure development projects such as the Iran Pakistan Pipeline Project (IP), Turkmenistan-Afghanistan-Pakistan-India (TAPI) Pipeline Project, LNG, and other ancillary projects. Previous versions of the GIDC were also imposed under the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2011, which was subsequently struck down by the courts.---Issues:Whether the imposition of GIDC without a reasonable timeline for the completion of infrastructure projects violates the principle of quid pro quo?Whether the GIDC, imposed under the Gas Infrastructure Development Cess Act, 2015, is constitutional and legal?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The majority judgment, authored by Faisal Arab J. and concurred by Mushir Alam J., upholds the constitutionality and legality of the GIDC. It relies on the precedent set by Durrani Ceramics, which held that the infrastructure development projects funded by GIDC constitute a service or quid pro quo for the gas consumers. However, the dissenting opinion, articulated by another judge, disagrees with this reasoning. It argues that the lack of a reasonable timeline for the completion of infrastructure projects renders the imposition of GIDC unconstitutional. The dissenting judge emphasizes the importance of certainty and clarity in the legislative design, particularly regarding the timeline for the delivery of services in return for the levy.---Citations/Precedents:M/s Century Paper & Board Mills Ltd and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and othersM/s Umair Steel vs. Federation of Pakistan and othersAshraf Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural ResourcesMaster Textile Mills & 275 others vs. Federation of Pakistan & othersFederation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Petroleum and Natural Resources and another vs. Durrani Ceramics and others (Durrani Ceramics - I)Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources and another vs. Durrani Ceramics and others (Durrani Ceramics - II)Agriculture Market Committee, Rajam and others vs. Rajam Jute and Oil Millers AssociationM/s. Gasket Radiators Pvt. Ltd. v. Employees' State Insurance Corporation & anotherCape Brandy Syndicate vs. IRCPakistan Television Corporation Limited vs. Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal), LTU, Islamabad and othersCommissioner of Income Tax and another vs. Baluchistan Concrete and Block Works Ltd. and othersChairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad vs. Al-Technique Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and othersCommissioner of Income Tax Legal Division, Lahore and others v. Khurshid Ahmad and othersZila Council Jehlum through District Coordination Officer vs. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. and others---Quote:Fee. Service in return or quid pro quo must have a timeline. Gidc declared unconstitutional.

Summary: Bail granted---Background:Farman Ullah filed Criminal Petition No. 911 of 2020 challenging the order of the Single Bench of Peshawar High Court, Mingora Bench (Dar-ul-Qaza) Swat, dated June 29, 2020, which denied post-arrest bail to him in Criminal Miscellaneous (Bail Application) No. 293-M/2020. The petitioner sought bail in the interest of safe administration of justice.---Issues:Whether the denial of post-arrest bail to the petitioner by the Peshawar High Court was justified.Whether the delay in lodging the FIR and other circumstances cast doubt on the prosecution's case against the petitioner.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court, after hearing arguments from both parties, noted that while the injury attributed to the petitioner was severe, other circumstances needed consideration. The Court observed a nine-day delay in lodging the FIR without explanation from the prosecution. The injured was discharged from the hospital two days after admission, yet the incident was reported to the police only after a further seven-day delay, despite the short distance between the incident and the police station. Moreover, the incident appeared to be a sudden altercation without prior planning, with stone pelting from both sides. The recovery of the alleged stone after nine days from an open place raised doubts about the prosecution's case.Considering the principles of justice and liberty, the Court granted leave to appeal and converted the petition into an appeal. The Court allowed post-arrest bail to the petitioner, subject to the furnishing of bail bonds in the sum of Rs. 100,000 with two sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background:The case involves a dispute between the petitioner, Muhammad Jamil, and respondent No.1, Mst. Sajida Bibi, regarding recovery of dower, maintenance, and other related issues.Mst. Sajida Bibi, along with minors, filed a family suit against the petitioners for the recovery of dower, maintenance, and custody of minors.The trial court partially decreed the suit, and both parties appealed. The appellate court remanded the case for further findings on the issue of custody.Upon retrial, the family court decreed the suit partially in favor of Mst. Sajida Bibi.Both parties appealed again, and the appellate court partially allowed Mst. Sajida Bibi's appeal.Additionally, Mst. Sajida Bibi filed another suit for dissolution of marriage, which was decreed in her favor.The petitioner challenged the judgments of the lower courts through a constitutional petition before the Peshawar High Court, which was dismissed.---Issues:Whether the petitioner is liable to pay the dower amount immediately due to contracting a second marriage without permission.Whether the petitioner is liable to pay maintenance to Mst. Sajida Bibi.Whether the judgment of the High Court dismissing the constitutional petition should be upheld.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The petitioner contracted a second marriage without seeking permission from his first wife or the Arbitration Council, which renders the dower immediately payable according to section 6(5)(a) of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961.The Court found that the judgment of the High Court ordering the immediate payment of dower was in accordance with the law.As for the maintenance allowance, the Court found no reason to interfere with the High Court's decision to decline the prayer.Consequently, the petition was dismissed, and leave to appeal was declined.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending