Summary: The case was divided into two sets (Schedule A and Schedule B) based on the outcomes of applications filed by NRSP under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. In Schedule A, the applications were dismissed, while in Schedule B, they were accepted, leading to the registration of FIRs. The petitioner, NRSP, argued that it has the right to pursue remedies under both civil and criminal law, including the registration of FIRs under Section 489-F PPC. The respondents counter by claiming that NRSP's applications under Section 22-A Cr.P.C. are not maintainable, and FIR under Section 489-F PPC is not competent. They asserted that the cheques were given as security and not intended for encashment. The court ultimately accepted the petitions related to Schedule A, setting aside the orders dismissing NRSP's applications. However, it dismissed the petitions in Schedule B, upholding the JOP's decision to accept NRSP's applications. The court directed the concerned SHO to register FIRs as per Section 154 Cr.P.C. if NRSP provides a copy of the notice under Section 30 of the Negotiable Instrument Act, 1881.

Summary: In this case, a petitioner, who claimed to be the paternal grandmother, sought custody of her grandsons, "Mazhar" and "Faizan," aged 12 and 10, respectively, under Section 25 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner argued that the minors' mother, respondent No. 3, had remarried, and the father of the minors, the petitioner's son, was paralyzed. The court observed that the lower courts correctly considered the evidence and concluded that the minors' welfare was best served by remaining in the custody of their real mother. The courts highlighted that the petitioner did not deny her remarriage, which was considered a negative factor. The court cited legal precedents emphasizing that the paramount consideration in custody matters is the welfare of the minors, regardless of the entitlement or disentitlement of a parent. The court found no legal error in the lower courts' decisions, noting that the mother had been caring for the minors since their birth, and any change in custody at this stage could negatively impact the minors' mental and physical well-being. The court dismissed the writ petition, affirming the decisions of the lower courts.

Summary: Background: The appellant, a partnership firm engaged in promoting tourism, entered into an agreement with the Tourism Department of Azad Jammu & Kashmir (AJ&K). As per the agreement, various tourism facilities were leased to the appellant-company. To further promote tourism, the Commissioner of Muzaffarabad Division identified and recommended land in Neelum Valley to be leased to the appellant-company. The lease was sanctioned, and the appellant paid the lease amount. However, the private respondents challenged the lease, leading to an inquiry which initially favored the appellant. Subsequently, the Government of AJ&K canceled the lease without providing a hearing to the appellant, prompting the appellant to challenge the cancellation in the High Court. ----Issues: 1- Was the lease cancellation by the Government of AJ&K without providing a hearing to the appellant-company lawful? 2- Is the principle of audi alteram partem (the right to be heard) applicable in this case? ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of AJ&K held that the cancellation of the lease without providing an opportunity of hearing to the appellant-company was against the principle of natural justice. The Court noted that the appellant had invested significantly in the tourism project, and the possession of the land had been delivered based on the lease agreement. The Court emphasized that the right to be heard is essential, and no party should be condemned unheard. Consequently, the Court set aside the notification canceling the lease, allowing the authority to recall the notification only after providing the appellant an opportunity of hearing. ----Citations/Precedents: Chaudhry Ali Muhammad Chacha vs. Azad Government & 4 others [2006 SCR 232] Held that the government must provide an opportunity of hearing before reducing allocated land. Tariq Javaid vs. Azad Govt. & others [2015 SCR 653] Established that publication in the official gazette is sufficient for informing the general public. The appeal was accepted, and the lease cancellation was set aside, ensuring the appellant's right to a hearing before any further action.

Summary: Background: On June 3, 2019, an incident occurred during an Iftar party organized by the National Students Federation (NSF) in Chota Galla, Rawalakot, where the complainant’s brother was shot and killed. The complainant reported the incident, stating that during the procession of NSF workers, several individuals, including the petitioner, started indiscriminate firing, resulting in the death of his brother. The petitioner, along with others, was arrested and charged with multiple offences under sections 302, 324, 337-A, 147, 145, 149, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code (APC). The petitioner’s application for bail was denied by the District Court of Criminal Jurisdiction, Rawalakot, and this decision was upheld by the Shariat Appellate Bench of the High Court. ----Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner is entitled to bail given the circumstances and evidence. 2- Whether the judgments of the lower courts denying bail were legally justified. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court of AJ&K held that the lower courts failed to exercise their discretion in a legal and just manner. The Court emphasized that while deep appreciation of evidence is not appropriate at the bail stage, a tentative assessment is necessary to ensure a balance between the accused, the complainant, and society. The Court noted that the petitioner was only accused of reloading the gun, not of firing, and those who were accused of indiscriminate firing were already granted bail by the trial court. The Court concluded that the petitioner’s role required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C., and he was entitled to bail based on the rule of consistency. The revision petition was accepted, and the judgments of the lower courts were set aside. ----Citations/Precedents: Amir vs. The State [PLD 1972 SC 277] Established that any benefit of doubt arising from the record at the bail stage should be resolved in favor of the accused. Muhammad Abbas & another vs. The State [PLD 1988 SC (AJ&K) 14] Held that bail cannot be refused solely on the allegation of committing an offense punishable with death or life imprisonment unless reasonable grounds disclose the accused’s complicity. Section 497(2) of the Cr.P.C. Provides that an accused is entitled to bail if there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry into their guilt.

Summary: Background:The Gilgit-Baltistan Business Group, along with other petitioners, filed a writ petition under Section 86(2) of the Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018 and enabling Articles of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenging the tender process for plantation of 5 million plants under a consolidated single tender. They argued that the process was unlawful, lacked jurisdiction, and was motivated by malafide intentions to protect vested interests.---Issues:Whether the tender process for the plantation project was conducted lawfully and with jurisdiction.Whether the decision to have a consolidated single tender process was fair and in the public interest.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Justice Ali Baig presided over the case and dismissed the writ petition. The court found that the Forest Department of Gilgit-Baltistan had received budgetary allocations from the Federal Government for the plantation project. The procurement process was carried out according to PPRA rules, and technical bid documents were formulated by a committee comprising senior technical officers. The court noted that the petitioners' argument to bifurcate the tender process for each district lacked merit, as it was the prerogative of the procuring agency to make administrative decisions. Furthermore, the respondents had already allocated plants to each district. The court directed the respondents to submit quarterly progress reports on the plantation project. Ultimately, the writ petition was dismissed.----Citations/Precedents:Gilgit-Baltistan Order 2018Constitution of PakistanPublic Procurement Regulatory Authority (PPRA) Rules 2004

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending