Summary: Summary pending

Summary: -----Writ Petition for issuance of direction to National Highway Authority (a) Contract Law – Dispute Resolution Mechanism – Maintainability of Writ Petition: ----Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199 – Arbitration Act, 1940 – Contractual Obligations – Dispute Resolution Clause The petitioner, an operator of a toll plaza under contract with the National Highway Authority (NHA), challenged a show cause notice demanding penalty payments and outstanding dues due to reduced toll collections caused by external factors, including disruptions by transporters and law enforcement interventions. The court observed that the contract explicitly contained a dispute resolution clause (Clause 9.4) that provided a detailed mechanism for arbitration under the Arbitration Act, 1940. It was held that where a contract contains a valid arbitration clause, parties must exhaust the contractual remedy before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. ----Cited Cases: Mumtaz Ahmad v. Zila Council, Sahiwal (1999 SCMR 117) Abdul Qayyum Khan v. District Officer, Passenger and Freight (2003 MLD 670) Messrs Frontier Construction Company v. Bahauddin Zakariya University (2006 MLD 978) Signage Security System v. CDA (2010 CLC 567) ----Disposition: The petition was dismissed as not maintainable, with directions for the petitioner to pursue the arbitration and dispute resolution mechanism as specified in Clause 9.4 of the contract.

Summary: Criminal Appeal, against Conviction, against judgment of special court (life Imprisonment)

Summary: Against Recovery Proceedings Stay against Show Cause Notice u/s 147 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001

Summary: Background:The Human Rights Case No. 13316-P of 2018 concerns the colossal losses incurred by Pakistan Railways and the measures needed to address the issues affecting its operation and safety standards.---Issues:The status of the up-gradation of Railways through ML-I under the China Pakistan Economic Corridor (CPEC).Progress on the Karachi Circular Railway (KCR) project.Steps needed to improve railway crossings and safety measures.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The PC-I for the ML-I up-gradation project is pending approval from ECNIC. The court expects ECNIC to approve the PC-I within one month to initiate the work.Regarding the KCR project, considerable work has been done, but there are bottlenecks near Urdu University and Nazimabad. The Government of Sindh is directed to take immediate action to resolve these issues.The Government of Sindh is also instructed to ensure the completion of construction work for overhead or underground roads/paths at railway crossings.The Chief Secretary of Sindh is required to submit a report within two weeks on the progress of the above-mentioned tasks. Both the Chief Secretary and the Commissioner of Karachi must be present at the next hearing.The court expresses concern over the overall operation of Pakistan Railways, citing frequent accidents and inadequate infrastructure and employee competence. The Government of Pakistan is urged to take immediate measures to improve railway operations and safety standards, including overhauling the Railway Secretariat.The Government of Pakistan is directed to submit a report through the Planning Commission within one month regarding the measures taken to address the issues affecting Pakistan Railways.The case is adjourned and will be fixed for hearing after one month.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877) ---- S. 22 --- Specific performance of contract --- Execution of agreement to sell --- Proof and enforceability --- Petitioner entered into an agreement to sell land measuring 100 kanals to the respondent, receiving Rs.700,000 as sale consideration --- Agreement included penal clauses for both parties in case of default --- Petitioner denied the existence of the agreement, claiming it was fraudulent --- Trial court decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, which was upheld by the High Court --- Supreme Court held that where an agreement to sell is established through credible evidence, mere denial of execution by the vendor is insufficient to defeat a claim for specific performance --- Respondent successfully proved execution, payment, and terms of the contract through witnesses, including the scribe, property dealer, and attesting witnesses --- Petitioner failed to rebut the evidence or initiate legal action against alleged fraud --- Specific performance granted. Cited Cases: Muhammad Sattar v. Tariq Javaid (2017 SCMR 98) Sardar Ali v. Sardar Bibi (2010 SCMR 1066) (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 ---- Art. 79 --- Proof of document --- Requirements for proving an agreement to sell --- Respondent proved the contract through direct evidence, including testimony of the scribe, marginal witnesses, and the property dealer who facilitated the transaction --- Supreme Court held that where execution of a document is proved in accordance with Qanun-e-Shahadat, mere technical objections regarding attestation under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, cannot defeat an otherwise valid agreement --- The Court emphasized that attestation and proof are distinct requirements and that compliance with Qanun-e-Shahadat is the primary consideration for establishing the authenticity of an agreement. Cited Cases: Muhammad Sattar v. Tariq Javaid (2017 SCMR 98) (c) Transfer of Property Act, 1882 ---- S. 3 --- Definition of “attested” --- Interpretation --- Supreme Court held that while attestation generally requires two witnesses, strict adherence is not always necessary where the document is otherwise validly proved --- Court emphasized that practical realities must be considered, particularly where one witness is absent but other evidence sufficiently establishes execution. (d) Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 (MLR 115) ---- Restriction on alienation of land --- Whether an agreement to sell government-granted land is void --- Petitioner argued that MLR 115 barred him from selling the land --- Supreme Court rejected the argument, holding that once proprietary rights are fully transferred, the landowner cannot invoke MLR 115 to invalidate a sale agreement --- Petitioner failed to produce any official order proving a restriction on alienation --- Additionally, any such restriction would have elapsed due to passage of time --- Court held that even if an agreement is executed in violation of MLR 115, it does not render the transaction void ab initio, particularly where the vendor voluntarily entered into the contract. Cited Cases: Mohd. Saeed v. Province of West Pak. (PLD 1964 SC 572) Fakhar Imam Shah v. Abdul Haq (2006 SCMR 550) Sakhi Jan v. Shah Nawaz (2020 SCMR 832) (e) Conduct of the Parties & Equitable Relief ---- Vendor’s attempt to deny agreement --- Effect on claim for specific performance --- Petitioner’s refusal to honor the agreement, despite overwhelming evidence, was deemed an attempt to mislead the court --- Supreme Court held that failure to take legal action against alleged forgery and absence of any criminal or civil proceedings against the respondent indicated the petitioner's mala fide intent --- Court ruled that once a party voluntarily enters into a sale agreement, it cannot later claim illegality to evade contractual obligations. Disposition: Civil Petition No.3097/2015 and Civil Appeal No.1074/2015 dismissed with costs. Execution of decree to be completed within three months.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: FBR Case, Sales Tax Case, seeking direction for refund of tax and suspension of stay notice