Summary: Non mentioning the date of Scribing of notice of talb-e- ishad in plaint, when copy of notice, receipt along with acknowledgment due (AD Card) was appended with the plaint, is not sine qua non.

Summary: The instant constitutional petition involved a criminal case concerning financial embezzlement against the petitioner and four others. The petitioner's claimed vehicle, seized during the investigation, became the subject of legal proceedings and Supardari orders. Despite successive judicial orders, the vehicle was not handed over to the petitioner, leading to the filing of a writ petition. The court noted the police officials' defiance of court orders and issued a show cause notice. Eventually, the vehicle was released, and the court directed compensation to the petitioner for the unlawful delay. The court further imposed a financial penalty on a specific police official and directed the Chief Police Officer not to assign him duties dealing with the general public for two years. The decision emphasized the importance of upholding individuals' rights and deterring misconduct by public officials. The petition was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: Background:Mehreen and Mansoor married in 1995, with their Nikahnama containing terms regarding Mehr (dower), which included a property.Mehreen later filed a suit claiming the property as part of her Mehr.---Issues:Whether Mst. Khurshida, Mansoor's mother and owner of the property, consented to its transfer to Mehreen.Whether Mehreen's failure to include Mansoor as a party in the suit was fatal to her claim.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that Mst. Khurshida did not consent to the transfer of the property to Mehreen, as she was not a signatory to the Nikahnama and did not authorize such transfer.Mehreen's failure to include Mansoor as a party in the suit was not fatal to her claim, but it was noted that Mehreen could still claim any unpaid portion of her dower from Mansoor.The court emphasized the rights of married women in Islam regarding property ownership and upheld Mst. Khurshida's ownership rights over the property.The appeals were allowed, setting aside previous judgments, and Mehreen's suit against Mst. Khurshida and Haji Muhammad Ishaq Jan was dismissed. No costs were awarded.---Citations/Precedents:Muhammad Siddiq v Shahab-ud-Din (AIR 1927 Allahabad 364)Case of Kanwal Nain v Fateh Khan (PLD 1983 Supreme Court 53)Muhammad Anwar Khan v Sabia Khanam (PLD 2010 Lahore 119)Parveen Umar v Sardar Hussain (2003 YLR 3097)Muhammad Arif v District and Session Judge, Sialkot (2011 SCMR 1591)Cole v Van Riper (44 III 58, 1867)Bradwell v. The State (83 U.S. 130, 1873)Kazim Hussain v Government of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Federal Shariat Court 18)

Summary: Background: The appellant, a Lady Extension Officer (B-16) in the Agriculture Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir, challenged the seniority notification dated February 6, 2014, which placed her at serial No. 3. She filed an appeal before the Azad Jammu & Kashmir Service Tribunal on November 17, 2014, alleging she became aware of the notification only a few days prior and seeking condonation of delay. The respondents contested the appeal, citing the delay in filing. The Service Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the grounds of limitation, leading to the present appeal in the Supreme Court. ----Issues: 1- Was the Service Tribunal correct in dismissing the appeal solely on the grounds of limitation? 2- Can the publication of a notification in the official gazette be considered sufficient communication to the concerned parties? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court upheld the Service Tribunal's decision, confirming that the appeal was rightly dismissed due to being time-barred. It was established that the notification was published in the official gazette on February 15, 2014, making it officially communicated on that date. The appellant’s claim of being unaware due to personal reasons (death of her husband) was neither raised before the Tribunal nor substantiated with evidence. The Court reiterated that any order published in the official gazette is deemed communicated to all concerned parties from the date of its publication, aligning with the principle established in previous case law. The Court emphasized the need for precise and credible evidence when seeking condonation of delay, which was absent in this case. ----Citations/Precedents: Tariq Javaid vs. Azad Govt. & others [2015 SCR 653] Held that publication in the official gazette is sufficient for the information of the general public.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Seeks direction for speedy trial and early disposal of pending suit, pending before learned trial court

Summary: Rule No. 27 of Civil Servants Rules 1986, whereby it has been defined That:Rule No. 27 Commencement of leave.Notwithstanding any date or dates mentioned in the orders, granting any kind of leave, shall commence from the day following the day on which the Civil Servant hand over to leave charge of the post held by such civil servant, and end on the day preceding the day on which such civil servant, resumes duty The definition within the meaning of Rule 27 (supra) leaves no room to define it otherwise butwould lead to an irresistible conclusion that on 01.02.2017, Said Alam was granted leave but on 01.02.2017 he was not on leave as his leave would have to commence from 02.02.2017, so, the day on which he was on duty, then the certificate issued at serial No. 5 of the Award of Compensation would be of worth perusal wherein at the end, it was provided by the respondents that Said Amin died/ killed/ martyred/ permanently disabled/ injured serious or minor (as the case may be) while on bona fide government duty shall be read in juxtaposition with the definition of Shaheed at 2 (h) of Rule 2014, the last words are while on bona fide government duty . Thus, we are of the opinion thatdeceased falls within the definition of shaheed as provided in Rules and admitted by the respondent in the certificate .

Summary: Scope of revision under Section 45A of the Punjab Food Authority Act, 2011--The Punjab Food Authority framed the Punjab Pure Food Regulations, 2018, under the Food Authority Act. A business place, 'Amanat Khoya Point,' was inspected and found producing Khoya that did not meet prescribed standards. The Food Safety Officer seized various items, leading to an FIR. The Special Court dismissed Respondent No.1's application for superdari, but the Additional Sessions Judge accepted the revision petition. The petitioner argued that the Food Authority Act excludes revisional jurisdiction, making the order void. The respondent contends that Section 435 Cr.P.C. empowered the Sessions Judge to review lower court orders. The court examined constitutional provisions, emphasizing that jurisdiction must align with the Constitution and law. The court scrutinizes the Food Authority Act's Section 45A(2), finding it exclusionary but requiring explicit language. It compared the case to earlier rulings on ouster clauses and distinguishes revisional and supervisory jurisdictions. Referring to previous judgments, the court concluded that Section 435 Cr.P.C. applies to any inferior criminal court, irrespective of its establishment under a special law. The court stressed that the express exclusion of specific powers implies their exclusion, but supervisory powers under Sections 435 and 439 Cr.P.C. remain intact for checking correctness, legality, or propriety of findings or orders.