Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Art. 199(4)(a) Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. Constitutional age of interim order.

Summary: Sub Article 4(A) of Article 199 of the constitution.

Summary: The petitioner sought the transfer of their bail application from one court to another, arguing that a previous judge's dismissal of the petition was contrary to judgments passed by the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The petitioner's counsel contended that the judge had erred in dismissing the petition and should have adjourned it until the relevant judge was available, citing legal precedence. However, the District Public Prosecutor opposed the petition, supporting the initial judge's decision. Upon review, the court found that the petitioner's grievance was not well-founded, citing judgments revisiting previous legal cases related to judge availability and stating that in the interest of justice, matters might be referred to other judges under specific circumstances. The judge's unavailability due to leave was considered a valid reason for the initial judge to handle urgent matters. Referencing various Supreme Court judgments, the court concluded that the impugned order did not warrant interference and emphasized the duty of courts to not only decide pending cases but also expedite their disposal. Consequently, the petition was dismissed due to its lack of merit.

Summary: The petitioner filed a writ petition to challenge the interim order passed by the District Judge of the Consumer Court, Lahore. The interim order allowed a complaint filed by the respondent regarding a solar energy system installed by the petitioner at his shop, "Milli Shoes." The petitioner contended that the respondent did not fall within the definition of a consumer as per the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005. The petitioner argued that the solar energy system was used for commercial purposes, and the complaint was time-barred. The court examined the definition of a consumer under the Act, emphasizing the need to interpret the term "commercial purpose" in common parlance, referring to various dictionary meanings and legal definitions. The court highlighted that a commercial purpose aims to generate profit and doesn't include a person using a product for their livelihood as a self-employed person. After detailed consideration, the court found that the respondent's use of the solar energy system at the shop primarily for customer comfort and worker facilitation, and not for profit-making or large-scale commercial activity. Therefore, the court concluded that the respondent did fall within the definition of a consumer under the Act. The court also noted that the writ petition challenged an interim order, stating the settled principle that such petitions against interim orders are generally not maintainable. As a result, the court dismissed the writ petition, stating that it lacked merit.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.22 Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances)Ord,2001:Sale of mortgaged property and responsibility of Revenue staff

Summary: Bail denied ---- Facts: The petitioner, Muhammad Haroon ur Rasheed, sought bail in a case registered under Section 489-F PPC at P.S. SMA, Tank, with FIR No.39 dated 28.01.2015. The Supreme Court was not inclined to grant bail due to the circumstances presented in the case.--- Issue: The primary issue was the petitioner's bail request in the context of the case registered against him. Additionally, the court addressed concerns related to the implementation and monitoring of the National Action Plan, specifically regarding the establishment of the Joint Investigation Directorate (JID), the funding and functioning of NACTA, and the monitoring of NGOs/INGOs in various provinces.--- Holding: The Supreme Court ordered the record of the case to be sent back to the trial court for proceeding with the trial expeditiously, denying the petitioner's bail request. The court also directed various government representatives to expedite efforts in gathering relevant data related to the financing and monitoring of NGOs/INGOs and to furnish this data to the Secretary LJCP for a comprehensive report.--- Reasoning: The denial of bail was based on the serious nature of the allegations and the circumstances of the case. The court's directives regarding the National Action Plan and the monitoring of NGOs/INGOs stemmed from the observed lack of urgency and insufficient progress in implementing the plan and ensuring transparency and accountability in the operations of NGOs/INGOs.

Summary: Issue: The primary issue was NAB's failure to report significant financial scams to the Court and the federal government's role and knowledge regarding NAB's functioning and accountability.--- Holding: The Supreme Court of Pakistan expressed dissatisfaction with the federal government's and NAB's handling of the matter. The Court sought clarification on the government's stance regarding possible amendments to the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) and directed NAB to provide a detailed breakdown of the 262 billion rupees recovered through voluntary return (VR) or plea bargain (PB) since 2008.--- Reasoning: The Court found the federal government's lack of oversight and knowledge about NAB's operations concerning, especially given the magnitude of the scams involved. The independence of NAB as a statutory body does not exempt it from accountability and transparency. The Court emphasized the need for the government and parliamentary leaders to ensure NAB's compliance with its statutory obligations and to consider necessary legislative amendments to enhance its effectiveness and accountability. ''Considering the report about investigation of major scams by NAB, the Court directs the law officer for the Federation to submit a report about possible amendment in the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) on the basis of instructions from the government; the NAB to add, in the chart reflecting the breakdown of the amount of rupees 262 billion which had been statedly recovered by it on the basis of voluntary return (VR) or plea bargain (PB), two further columns one mentioning the total amount given in the complaint and the other column indicating the amount determined after investigation; and the NAB to also submit a separate comprehensive report on the NLC Scam of Rupees four billion and other scams before the next date of hearing.''