Summary: Section 36 FATA Interim Governance Regulations, 2018.a) With the repeal of Article 247 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, all the regulations promulgated by President of Pakistan or Governor of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa, ceased to exist, on coming into force of the 25th Constitutional amendment.

Summary: According to the terms and conditions of the appointment order of petitioners, they have been engaged on fixed pay on the basis of two years contract which is in continuance till date and therefore, they cannot be termed as retained employees against retained fee. Therefore, the objection raised by the respondents in their comments that petitioners are retained against a monthly retainer fee holds no water. Petitioners by all intents and purposes are contract employees of the project which is sustained from 2007 with no end in the future particularly after the 25th Constitutional Amendment, there is need to do much more to resolve the socio-economic problems in the erstwhile FATA.Criteria for appointment, responsibilities, objectives and SOPs of the male mobilizer or social mobilizer are defined in Clause 6.3.15 of the PC-1 of the Population Welfare Programme FATA (2010-15), according to which the social mobilizers play a pivotal role in enlighten adoption of family planning, responsible parenthood and mother & child healthcare. According to sub-Para-c, the Male Mobilizer has been re-designated as Social Mobilizer, Para-d denotes that the social mobilizer will be recruited on contract basis with fixed emoluments with fixed yearly increment. Thus, it has become crystal clear that the appointment of male/social mobilizer is on contract basis. Since petitioners have been serving for the last twelve years, it means the male mobilizers are eternal need of the department and now the merger of erstwhile FATA, has increased their importance. Their services have been matured and as such, they have earned entitlement for regularization of their services. Regularization of employees does not require any statutory rules rather the same depends on the length of their service, therefore, they are fully entitled to be regularized.

Summary: The appellant was sentenced to undergo twenty five years rigorous imprisonment under section 376 PPC.It is true that time of incident varies in the instant case but that by itself does not negate the prosecution case, as after short span of the time of incident, medical examination of the victim and accused was conducted and DNA report is positive. The evidence of victim has been corroborated by medical evidence. A girl or woman in our social setup will not normally make false allegations of sexual assault-.Even a woman would be extremely reluctant even to admit that any incident which is likely to reflect on her chastity ever occurred.Moreover, it is not disputed by the defence that rape was not committed on the victim. Resultantly, appeal was dismissed.

Summary: ----S. 41---Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), S. 5---Punjab Overseas Pakistanis Commission Act (XX of 2014), S. 2(i)---Constitution ofPakistan, Arts. 4, 5, 9, 18, 23, 24 & 260---"Overseas Pakistani"---Grievance, non-red

Summary: Background:M/s Kuwait National Real Estate Company (Pvt.) Ltd. (petitioners) entered into a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) with MIs Educational Excellence Ltd. (respondent No.1) for the sale of shares in the petitioner company. However, before the share sale and purchase agreement could be executed, respondent No.1 filed a suit for specific performance of the MoU, alleging the petitioners' failure to honor their commitment.---Issues:Whether the MoU between the parties constituted a legally binding agreement for the sale of shares?Whether the respondent No.1's suit for specific performance was justified based on the terms of the MoU?---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court held that the MoU between the parties did not constitute a legally binding agreement for the sale of shares. The MoU clearly stated that the sale was subject to the execution of a detailed and legally binding share sale and purchase agreement within 60 days, which had not been done. The court emphasized the importance of clearly delineating the terms of a contract and held that the MoU did not meet the requirements of a binding agreement.

Summary: Background:The petitioners, Samreena Qayum and Aliya, filed a writ petition under Article 86(2) of the Gilgit Baltistan Order 2018, seeking appointment against the reserved quota for women in the Department of Health Gilgit Baltistan as vaccinators. They argued that despite qualifying in the written test and interview, they were not appointed, alleging discrimination and violation of their fundamental rights.----Issues:Whether the respondents violated the reserved quota for women in the appointment process for vaccinators.Whether the petitioners were entitled to appointment against the reserved quota.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court found that the respondents had indeed violated the recruitment policy and the quota reserved for women, as stipulated in the advertisement and relevant government directives. Despite the petitioners' qualifications and eligibility, they were not appointed against the reserved quota, amounting to discrimination. Therefore, the court directed the respondents to appoint the petitioners against the vaccinator posts within two months, without disturbing the appointments already made. The court ordered compliance with the judgment and sent a copy to the respondents for information and action.----Citations/Precedents:Gilgit Baltistan Order 2018Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973Daily Ausaf advertisement dated 10 September 2018Chief Minister Secretariat GB letter No CM-SECTT-P-5(14)/2015/1032Services and General Administration, Information and Cabinet Department letter No.SO(S)-1-1(51)/2016

Summary: Background:Petitioners Abdul Rashid, Faqir Mohammad, Amir Khan, Abdul Sadiq, and Rehmat Wali filed a writ petition seeking compound interest on compensation for land acquired by the Government of Gilgit Baltistan. The land was taken on 20th April 2008 for the construction of a link road. The compensation was paid on 28th February 2017 without including compound interest, which the petitioners claimed they were entitled to under Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894.----Issues:Whether the petitioners are entitled to compound interest on the compensation amount for the acquired land from the date of possession until the payment.Whether the court has jurisdiction to entertain the writ petition regarding compound interest under the Land Acquisition Act 1894.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court, led by Justice Ali Baig, held that the writ petition was not maintainable. It was determined that the petitioners failed to provide documentary evidence of the actual date of possession of their land, which is crucial for calculating the compound interest. The court emphasized that writ jurisdiction is extraordinary and can only be exercised in special circumstances where there is no adequate alternative remedy. The proper forum for resolving such disputes, requiring evidence and detailed inquiry, is the Referee Judge/District Judge. Therefore, the petitioners were advised to file a reference petition under Section 34 read with Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 in the appropriate court.----Citations/Precedents:Section 34 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894Article 71(2) of Gilgit Baltistan (Empowerment and Self Governance) Order 2009Enabling articles of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973Judgment of the Supreme Appellate Court Gilgit Baltistan reported in 2011 GBLR 382

Summary: Background:The appellants, Mst. Gul Adam and Anwar Ali Khan, filed a civil suit No. 52/2016 seeking declaration and permanent injunction against the respondents, Ashraf Aman and Mst. Parveen Ashraf, claiming ownership of land measuring two kanals and one marla in Khomer, Gilgit. They alleged that the land was gifted to Mst. Gul Adam by Ashraf Aman in 1988 and that two marlas were purchased from Syed Akber Shah. The respondents contested the claim and filed a cross suit (No. 155/2016) for declaration and possession, asserting their ownership and alleging that the appellants had unlawfully occupied the land.---Issues:Whether the appellants could prove their claim of ownership through an alleged oral gift.Whether the trial court's judgment dismissing the appellants' suit and decreeing the respondents' suit was justified.----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Appellants' Claim:The appellants claimed the land was orally gifted to Mst. Gul Adam by Ashraf Aman in 1988.The appellants presented seven oral witnesses and documentary evidence (Exh. P/1 to Exh. P/5) to support their claim.Respondents' Defense:The respondents denied the gift and asserted that the land was allotted to Ashraf Aman by the government in 1978.The respondents presented documentary evidence (Exh. D/1 to D/20) and oral witnesses to support their claim.Trial Court's Decision:The trial court found the appellants' evidence insufficient and unreliable.The trial court noted that the only witness to the alleged gift was Saraf Jan, whose testimony was questionable due to his mental condition and familial relationship with the appellants.The trial court dismissed the appellants' suit and decreed the respondents' suit, confirming Ashraf Aman's ownership.----Outcome:The appeal was dismissed. The court upheld the trial court's judgment, finding no merit in the appellants' claims and confirming that the respondents had proven their ownership through credible evidence. The court emphasized that the appellants failed to prove the alleged oral gift with clear and convincing evidence.----Citations/Precedents:The court relied on the principle that heavy burden of proof lies on the donee in cases of oral gift.Reference to the requirement of proving offer, acceptance, and delivery of possession in gift cases.Case laws cited include AIR 1986 KARNATAKA 167 and 1991 CLC Peshawar Note-199.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending