Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Fresh inquiry/ de novo inquiry.Competent authority is not bound to accept the recommendations/suggestions assubmitted by the Enquiry Officer to him nor the Authorized Officer, in any way,could impose his own findings or direct the competent authority to decide the matterin a particular manner as the competent authority is not his personal servant. He willhave to obey the law in its true spirit.

Summary: The consolidated judgment addressed a petition challenging the vires of Section 14(2) & (4) of the Anti-Dumping Duties Act, 2015, and the Final Determination by the National Tariff Commission imposing anti-dumping duties on Polyester Filament Yarn ("PFY") imports into Pakistan. The petitioner argued that the determination was made in violation of the ADD Act and the National Tariff Commission Act, 2015, claiming the PFY is not produced in Pakistan. The petitioner raised concerns about the Commission's authority, the imposition of Anti-Dumping Duty without due process, and alleges violations of constitutional articles. The judgment dismissed these contentions, affirming the legality of the ADD Act and the Commission's actions, while also emphasizing the availability of an appeal as an alternate remedy. The court rejected the challenge to the Commission's constitutionality, stating that the judiciary's role is limited to examining constitutional violations. The connected petitions were dismissed with no order as to costs.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Company Law – Winding Up – Application for Liquidation under Companies Act, 2017: Under Sections 301 and 304 of the Companies Act, 2017, the Additional Registrar of Companies, Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (S.E.C.P.), sought the winding-up of BRAC Pakistan, after its license under Section 42 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 was revoked due to its involvement in subversive activities. The failure to transfer the company's assets and liabilities, as per Section 43 of the 2017 Act, prompted the S.E.C.P. to initiate winding-up proceedings. The Court appointed an official liquidator to manage the liquidation process, citing a consensus among parties regarding the company’s liquidation as the only viable solution to resolve unpaid salaries and creditor claims. Disposition: Application allowed. Official Liquidator appointed. (b) Company Law – Revocation of License – Consequences under Companies Act, 2017 Following the revocation of BRAC Pakistan’s license under Section 42 of the Companies Act, 2017, the company was required to transfer its assets and liabilities within a specified period. The failure to comply with the requirements of Section 43(1)(c) led to the appointment of an administrator under Section 43(4) to manage the company. As efforts to transfer assets were unsuccessful, and with continued financial instability, the S.E.C.P. sought to wind up the company. Cited Provisions: Companies Act, 2017, Sections 42, 43(1)(c), 43(4), 304. (c) Company Law – Role of Official Liquidator: In accordance with Section 321(1) of the Companies Act, 2017, the Court appointed Mr. Muhammad Sohaib as the official liquidator of BRAC Pakistan, tasked with taking charge of the company's assets and proceeding with liquidation. The liquidator is responsible for reporting on the liquidation process by 23.04.2020. Disposition: Official Liquidator appointed with duties to proceed under the law. (d) Financial Obligations – Secured Creditor’s Rights: The Pakistan Microfinance Investment Company (P.M.I.C.), as the principal creditor, had initiated a suit for recovery against BRAC Pakistan for outstanding debts. The Court noted that P.M.I.C. was at liberty to pursue further action under Section 310 of the Companies Act, 2017, for the recovery of dues during the liquidation process. Disposition: P.M.I.C. free to file application for recovery under Section 310. (e) Employment Law – Employee Salaries in Liquidation: The winding-up of BRAC Pakistan was deemed necessary not only to resolve financial obligations to creditors but also to facilitate the release of unpaid salaries to the company's employees. The liquidation process was seen as essential to addressing the financial instability that had resulted in salary arrears. Disposition: Unpaid salaries to be addressed during liquidation process.

Summary: Crl Appeal: Against Death Sentence: a/w petition U/s 426 CrPC. Offences U/s 302 PPC ... Decided further two more judgements along with this appeal. i.e Jail Appeal No.130/2018 Chanzeb Akhtar v. The State and Murder Reference No.8/2018 The State v. Chanzeb Akhtar

Summary: Against impugned order dated 04.03.2020 whereby petition u/s 491 Cr.p.c was dismissed

Summary: The term interlocutory has been derived from Latin as Medieval Latin interlocutorius, from Late Latin interloqui and defined as Interlocutory is a legal term which can refer to an order, sentence, decree, or judgment, given in an intermediate stage between the commencement and termination of a cause of action, used to provide a temporary or provisional decision on an issue. Thus, an interlocutory order is not final and is not subject to immediate appeal In Legal dictionary, it has also been defined as This word is applied to signify something which is done between the commencement and the end of a suit or action which decides some point or matter, which, however, is not a final decision of the matter in issue as, interlocutory judgments, or decrees or orders. Vide Judgment, interlocutory. Provisional; temporary; not final. Something intervening between the commencement and the end of a suit which decides some point or matter, but is not a final decision of the whole controversy , as such, it is interim in nature.Legislature while promulgating the Act under the provision of 13(6) intentionally has not provided the right of appeal against interlocutory order, which read as; 13(6) No appeal review or revision shall lie against the order accepting or rejecting as application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the gas utility court which does not dispose of the entire case before the gas utility court.It is an established principle of law that interim order cant not be challenged in the constitutional petition.

Summary: Background:This appeal arises from a judgment of the Federal Service Tribunal, Islamabad dated 22.10.2018, dismissing an appeal filed by the appellant, now deceased. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal based on contentions that no regular inquiry was conducted against the appellant regarding allegations of embezzlement and fraud in Pakistan Railways Funds.---Issues:Whether the appellant's due process rights were violated.Whether the inquiries conducted against the appellant were fair and unbiased.Whether the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal were supported by the evidence on record.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Three successive inquiries found the appellant guilty of various charges related to procurement irregularities in the purchase of Bitumen Tape for Pakistan Railways. The Supreme Court, upon examination of the record, affirmed the findings of the Federal Service Tribunal. The lack of specific quantity specifications in the tender documents provided an opportunity for fraud, leading to the appellant's culpability. The Court concluded that the inquiries were conducted by qualified officers without apparent bias, and the findings were supported by evidence.