Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Constitution of Pakistan 1973------Art. 199--Constitutional Petitions--Balochistan Industrial Relations Act, (XIII of 2010), S. 41--Requirement for post of Assistant Line man--Son quota--Scrutiny--Recommendations of--Selectioncommittee--Cancellation of--Grievance petition--Allowed--Appeal dismissed--Constitutional jurisdiction--Concurrent findings--Challenge to--Competent authority had approved their appointments andaccordingly they have been appointed on said posts and joined their duties, during course of theirservice nothing was brought on surface that they have concealed any required information fromcompany, however, a letter of Pakistan WAPDA Hydro Electric Central LAbour Union (CDA) dated 10-01-2011 appearing on record, which was issued by Provincial Chairman and General Secretary of Unionaddressed to Chief Executive Office--Record further transpired that in all cases affidavits of privaterespondents are very much available, wherein it was categorically mentioned that their brother; wereappointed in different period much prior to appointment of private respondents purely on basis of meritinstead of any son quota and this fact was also nowhere denied by petitioners that appointment of theirbrothers was not made on merits--Letter of Union, neither said condition was appeared inadvertisement nor covered under any statuary law, which is ultra vires of law constitution and act ofofficials/petitioners found in excess of jurisdiction and tainted with malafide--Judgments passed byCourts below are based on sound reasoning. It reveals that after properly appreciating evidenceavailable on record, both Courts below have rightly declared cancellation orders of appointments ofrespondents as null and void--Petitions were dismissed. [Pp. 35, 37 & 39] A, B, C & D1993 SCMR 1533, ref.

Summary: Background:Muhammad Aziz, the petitioner, filed a declaratory suit claiming co-ownership of land against multiple respondents. After the respondents absented themselves from the proceedings, the trial court decreed the suit in favor of the petitioner. Subsequently, the respondents filed an application under section 12(2) of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC), which was accepted, leading to the setting aside of the ex-parte judgment. The petitioner challenged this decision through a writ petition.---Issues:Whether the respondents' application under section 12(2) CPC was maintainable.Whether the respondents had the authority to file the application without proper sanction.Whether the respondents' absence from the trial court proceedings affected the validity of their subsequent application.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:Holding: The writ petition was accepted, and the impugned orders setting aside the ex-parte judgment were set aside.Reasoning: The respondents' application under section 12(2) CPC was deemed incompetent because it was filed without proper sanction, as required by the Law Department Manual. The respondents, being public servants, needed authorization to file the application, which they did not obtain.The respondents' absence from the trial court proceedings did not warrant the application under section 12(2) CPC. Furthermore, the application was deemed incompetent as it was filed without alleging fraud or misrepresentation in earlier proceedings, and the jurisdiction invoked under section 12(2) CPC was not applicable in this context.The court cited relevant case law to support its decision, emphasizing the importance of proper authorization for legal actions by public servants and the requirement to raise legal objections at any stage of the proceedings.---Citations/Precedents:2016 SCR 5862017 SCR 12902016 SCR 10042016 SCR 918

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: The case history reveals that a petition for winding up the company (referred to as "Company") was filed and later allowed by the court in 2008. The Official Assignee was appointed as the Official Liquidator to oversee the winding up process. Subsequently, the assets of the Company, including land and property, were auctioned off by the Official Assignee. The specific asset in question is a parcel of land with attached machinery, referred to as the "Property." The highest bid for this property was accepted, and an order was sought for the confirmation of the sale and the transfer of possession to the auction purchaser. The appellant, who was a shareholder in the Company, contested this order, leading to the High Court Appeal. However, the court dismissed the appellant's arguments, citing that the appellant was not a party to the original winding up petition and therefore lacked the standing to challenge the order. The court emphasized the distinction between the Company as a corporate entity and its shareholders. The court also stated that the appellant did not provide specific evidence of procedural violations or raise objections during the auction proceedings. The court referred to various legal precedents that established the sanctity of confirmed auction sales and the rights of auction purchasers. It held that the auction proceedings had concluded and the rights of the auction purchaser were protected. Consequently, the court upheld the Impugned Order that confirmed the sale and transfer of possession of the Property to the auction purchaser. Ultimately, the court declared that the appeal was not maintainable and lacked merit, leading to its dismissal.

Summary: (a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------Ss. 302(b), 354, 449, 452 & 34---Qatl-i-amd, assault or use of criminal force to womanwith intent to outrage her modesty, house-trespass after preparation for hurt, assault orwrongful restraint---Appreciation of evidence---Sentence, reduction in---Complainant asprosecution witness had correctly narrated the story as contained in the FIR and nowhere hewas derailed from his previous deposition---Statements of the most important and starwitnesses, the daughter and widow of the deceased, were similar with each other---Saidwitnesses had correctly identified accused in the Trial Court and correctly stated the date,time, the place of occurrence and the manner in which the occurrence had taken place---Saidwitnesses being dwellers of the house where occurrence took place, their presence in thehouse could not be doubted, rather their presence at the relevant time, was natural---Otherprosecution witness, the neighbourer of the deceased, had also identified the accused in thecourt---All prosecution witnesses were reliable, trustworthy and credible---Identity ofaccused, could not be doubted as prior to the incident, accused remained Buzgar ofdeceased's family---Defence had cross-examined the witnesses at sufficient length, but hadfailed to give any dent or damage to their testimony---Some minor discrepancies in theevidence of prosecution witnesses, were not substantive enough to create reasonable doubt inthe case of prosecution about the involvement and guilt of accused---Recovery of crimeweapon i.e. T.T. Pistol, was effected on the pointation of accused---Accused had confessedhis guilt by disclosing the names of absconding accused persons who persuaded him forcommitting the murder of deceased---Case of prosecution, had further been strengthened bythe confessional statement of accused under S.164, Cr.P.C.---Such statement was recordedwithout any coercion, pressure, torture or blackmailing---No reason existed to disagree ordisbelieve such confessional statement---Plea of 'alibi' taken by accused, was not of worthcredence---Prosecution had succeeded in proving the charge against accused through direct,circumstantial and medical evidence---No major contradiction or dishonest improvement hadbeen pointed out by the defence---Accused, throughout the proceedings, had not taken anyspecific plea with regard to his false implication, nor he had brought any ill-will or ulteriormotives for his false implication by the witnesses---Trial Court had discussed and dilatedupon each and every aspect of the case and rightly convicted accused.Muhammad Amjad v. The State PLD 2003 SC 704 and Hashim Qasim v. The State2017 SCMR 986 ref.(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)-------S. 302(b)---Qatl-i-amd---Awarding of capital punishment---Eight accused personsincluding the accused had been booked in the crime and except accused, all accused personswere absconding; their pleas were yet to be brought on record---Accused, his two sons andtwo other absconding accused persons, being armed with Kalashnikov and T.T. pistol hadmade indiscriminate firing upon the deceased, but the fact remained that the deceased hadonly received two bullet injuries and it was not certain that whose bullet hit the deceased---Awarding of capital punishment to accused was unwarranted, in circumstances---Whileupholding the conviction of accused, his sentence of death was converted into rigorousimprisonment for life---Amount of compensation and remaining sentence of accused weremaintained with benefit of S.382-B, Cr.P.C.

Summary: Sales Tax Act (VII of 1990)--- ----S. 8-B---Input tax adjustment---100% input tax instead of 90%, adjustment of---Procedural lapse or otherwise---10% excess input tax adjusted, recovery of---Department filed Reference Application as Appellate Tribunal Inland Revenue held recovery of excess amount from the taxpayer as not justified---Validity---Record revealed that respondent/taxpayer adjusted 100% input tax instead of 90% in violation of S. 8-B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990---Admittedly, respondent-taxpayer had deposited its total tax liability---Applicant/ Department was seeking recovery of said 10% excess input tax adjustment amount---Even if the said amount was paid, that would be part of carried forward amount and ultimately, respondent / taxpayer would be entitled to claim input tax adjustment of the said amount as well at the end of the year---Hence, the claim of 100% tax adjustment was only a procedural lapse---Thus, recovery of said amount from respondent / taxpayer was not justified---Answer of the High Court to the proposed question was in negative i.e. against Applicant / Department and in favour of respondent-taxpayer subject to payment of penalty and default surcharge as per order-in-original---Reference application, filed by the Department, was disposed of accordingly. Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s. Malik Enterprises 2021 PTD 945 ref. Barrister Pirzada Aurang Zaib for Applicant. Shahbaz Butt for Respondents.

Summary: (a) Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898) ----S. 342---Postponement of final arguments---Application for postponement of final arguments in Reference No. 20 of 2017 until the conclusion of evidence and recording of the accused's statement under S. 342 Cr.P.C. in References No. 18 and 19 of 2017, dismissed---Maintainability---Petitioner contended that deciding one reference separately would prejudice the defense and contradict earlier observations of the Trial Court regarding the simultaneous conclusion of references to avoid conflicting judgments---Trial Court dismissed the application, observing that no prejudice would be caused as no evidence had been presented by the Petitioner in Reference No. 20 of 2017. ----Held, the prayer made in the application became immaterial as final arguments in Reference No. 20 of 2017 were already underway and nearing conclusion---Supreme Court of Pakistan had directed the Trial Court to decide the pending references within a specific time frame, further rendering the application redundant---Petition declared infructuous and disposed of accordingly. (b) Principles of Simultaneous Trial ----Multiple references---Simultaneous conclusion of references---While the simultaneous trial of related references may prevent conflicting judgments, the decision to address final arguments in a single reference separately does not inherently prejudice the defense if no evidence has been presented in that reference and if the separation is mandated by judicial timelines. ----Result: Petition disposed of as infructuous.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)--- ----Arts. 4, 9, 10-A & 25--- Fundamental rights---Regularization of contract/daily wages employees in Federal Government departments---Discrimination---Legality---The Government of Pakistan introduced a policy for regularization of contract/daily wages employees working in various Federal Government departments in 2011---Employees who had completed one year of satisfactory service were entitled to be regularized under the policy---However, despite recommendations from the Cabinet Sub-Committee and the Establishment Division, certain employees were denied regularization, while others similarly placed were granted relief---Petitioners challenged the denial of regularization, arguing that it violated their fundamental rights under Arts. 4, 9, 10-A, and 25 of the Constitution, particularly the right to equal treatment and protection under the law---The Court found that the impugned judgment failed to consider precedents set by superior courts in similar cases and that the denial of regularization amounted to unfair discrimination---Impugned judgment was held to be inconsistent with previous judgments protecting employees from departmental exploitation. Cited Cases: - PLD 2001 SC 176 - 2002 SCMR 71 - PLD 2003 SC 724 - 2010 SCMR 739 - 2016 SCMR 1375 (b) Service Laws--- ----Regularization of contract/daily wages employees---Exercise of suo motu powers by the learned Single Judge in Chambers---Legality---The learned Single Judge in Chambers declared the 2011 Regularization Policy invalid and set aside its implementation, affecting thousands of employees who had already been regularized under the policy---Petitioners contended that once rights had accrued under a policy, they could not be taken away through subsequent judicial orders or administrative actions---The Court observed that once an employee had been regularized, their status could not be altered retrospectively, and any judgment setting aside such a policy must apply prospectively, not retrospectively---The Court reaffirmed that the policy of 2011 must be implemented for employees whose cases had already been decided in their favor. Cited Cases: - PLD 1990 SC 99 - 2009 SCMR 1169 - 2014 SCMR 122 (c) Administrative Law--- ----Judicial review---Non-implementation of notification for regularization---Effect---Cabinet Sub-Committee had approved regularization of petitioners and issued notifications in favor of many employees, but the concerned ministries failed to implement the decisions---Petitioners approached the Court for enforcement of these notifications---The Court held that once a policy decision was taken by the competent authority and implemented in some cases, selective denial of relief to similarly placed employees amounted to arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power, warranting judicial intervention---Failure to implement the notification was declared unlawful, and the concerned authorities were directed to comply with previous decisions and regularize the petitioners accordingly. (d) Civil Service--- ----Regularization of project employees upon conversion from development to non-development budget---Entitlement to continued service---Certain petitioners had been appointed under development projects, which were later converted into non-development projects and absorbed into the regular budget---The Court noted that once a project was brought under the regular budget and became permanent, the status of project employees also changed, and they were entitled to be treated as permanent employees---The denial of regularization was found to be discriminatory and without justification. Cited Cases: - 2017 PLC (CS) 428 - 2016 SCMR 1375 (e) Constitutional Interpretation--- ----Independence of Judiciary---Judicial interference in executive decisions regarding employment policies---Scope---The Court observed that while judicial review was permissible to correct legal violations and ensure fundamental rights, courts should not substitute administrative decisions in matters of policy unless they were patently illegal, arbitrary, or discriminatory---In the present case, the judiciary had a duty to protect employees from arbitrary executive actions and to ensure fair implementation of the regularization policy. Disposition: Appeals allowed. The impugned judgment was set aside, and the respondents were directed to regularize the petitioners in accordance with the 2011 policy and previous court rulings.

Summary: Summary Pending