Summary: The petitioner, had been employed as a Cashier at Muslim Commercial Bank since 1972 but was dismissed from his position in 1975. He filed a Grievance Petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, challenging his dismissal. Initially, his petition was accepted by respondent No.6, leading to his reinstatement in the job. However, during subsequent appeals filed by the bank, a fresh Charge Sheet was served on the petitioner, resulting in his dismissal once again.The petitioner raised various legal arguments, including the competence of the authority who ordered his dismissal, issues with the Charge Sheet, and compliance with statutory time limits. The judgment carefully examined these arguments and concluded that the Grievance Petition had been filed within the prescribed time limit. It ruled in favor of the petitioner's reinstatement but denied his claim for back benefits. The judgment partially accepted the petitioner's claims and set aside respondent No.1's decision, upholding the judgment of respondent No.6.

Summary: There is no material discrepancy or contradiction in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. The eye-witnesses have also been categorical in deposing that Tanvir-accused had fired at Ghulam Abbas hitting him below his right eye. The elaborate cross-examination of the eye-witnesses on behalf of the accused has failed to discredit their testimony in any manner whatsoever. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular account qua the appellant as the injury attributed to the appellant, was available on the dead-body of the deceased. We have observed the factors which have persuaded us not to uphold the capital sentence of the appellant. Firstly, the motive has not been proved by the prosecution and secondly it is a case of single fire shot. On the basis of grounds discussed hereinabove, we are of the view that mitigating circumstances exist in the quantum of sentence of the appellant. Therefore, in our view death sentence awarded to the appellant is quite harsh. It is well recognized principle that the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt as an extenuating circumstance while deciding his question of sentence. Criminal Appeal No. 2094 of 2011, filed by the appellant in private complaint (complaint case No.24 of 2011) is dismissed. However, his (the appellant) death sentence is converted into imprisonment for life.

Summary: Delay in lodging the first information report, quite often results in consultation and deliberation, which is a creature of after-thought. The prosecution failed to explain the delay in reporting the incident though the Police Station was at a distance of 6-44 kilometers. All the eye witnesses are chance and interested witnesses, who had animus against the appellant and their presence on the spot has been found doubtful. There are also material contradictions in the oral testimony of the eye witnesses and medical evidence. The prosecution miserably failed to prove the motive for the alleged occurrence, therefore, the story put forward by the prosecution stands falsified. we are of the opinion that there is insufficient material to conclude that the appellant was guilty of committing the offence he was charged with. The findings recorded by the learned trial court, therefore, are required to be set aside, and the same are set aside. Criminal Appeal accepted.

Summary: Acquittal Allowed---The case revolved around the appellant, who, while holding the position of Additional Collector Income Tax, Lahore, was accused of acquiring assets in the name of his dependents and benamidars through corruption and misuse of his authority, which were disproportionate to his known sources of income. The trial took place, with the appellant denying the charges and claiming his innocence. Despite some evidence being disbelieved by the court, the appellant was convicted based on other evidence, particularly regarding the non-disclosure of gold in his tax return and wealth statement. However, the High Court, upon reviewing the case, found several flaws in the prosecution's evidence and the trial process. Notably, they pointed out that incriminating material was not put to the appellant during his statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. This omission was considered fatal to the prosecution's case. Additionally, the Court noted discrepancies and deficiencies in the prosecution's evidence. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the appellant's conviction and releasing the confiscated properties. The High Court found that the appellant's conviction was not sustainable due to issues with the prosecution's evidence and procedural lapses, ultimately acquitting the appellant and releasing the confiscated properties.

Summary: The petitioner had a long career with the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and had been promoted over the years. When WAPDA underwent restructuring, he became part of the Lahore Electric Supply Company (LESCO). The petitioner argued that his suspension was improper because the power to suspend should lie with the Board of Directors, and he wasn't given a chance to defend himself or provided reasons for the suspension.The court found that the petition was indeed maintainable since the petitioner's employment was governed by statutory rules. It also affirmed the authority of the Federal Government to suspend him and noted that suspension was not a penalty. Given the petitioner's involvement in criminal cases, the court upheld his suspension. Considering that the petitioner was close to retirement and had applied for leave, and that disciplinary proceedings were ongoing, the court dismissed the petition, finding it lacked merit.

Summary: Facts:The appellants, descendants of the original mortgagors, sought declaration of title over land mortgaged in 1882 to evacuee mortgagees, which was recorded in the revenue records. Due to a clerical error, the mortgage year was incorrectly pleaded as 1914 in the suit, conflicting with the actual redemption year of 1913. This led to the dismissal of their suit by the lower courts as contradictory and self-destructive. The appellants sought to correct this error and challenge the impugned mutation that recorded the government's resumption of the mortgaged land under the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958.Issues:1)The effect of the clerical error in pleading the mortgage year and its impact on the appellants' claim.--2)The legality of the impugned mutation that resumed the mortgaged land in favor of the government.--3)The appellants' locus standi and entitlement to the mortgaged land based on the redemption mutation.----Judgment:The Supreme Court found the impugned mutation resuming the mortgaged land in favor of the government to be illegal, as it should have only affected the mortgagee rights and not the ownership rights of the land. The Court allowed the amendment to correct the factual error in the mortgage year in the plaint and remanded the case for fresh adjudication regarding the appellants' title to the land.---Rationale:The Court noted that the clerical error in pleading the mortgage year rendered a reasonable factual plea based on the redemption mutation futile. The Supreme Court emphasized that the impugned mutation was illegal as per the ruling in Samar Gul v. Central Government, which stated that only mortgagee rights could be resumed by the government, not the ownership rights of the land. The amendment sought by the appellants did not alter the nature of the case but brought clarity, allowing for a fair adjudication.---Decision:The appeal was partly allowed. The case was remanded to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the appellants' title to the land, considering the amendment to correct the mortgage year and the illegality of the impugned mutation. The respondents were entitled to hold only the interest of evacuee mortgagees in the suit land, necessitating correction in the relevant revenue records. No order as to costs was made.----''The amendment application by the appellants/plaintiffs for incorporating the correct date of the mortgage in the plaint does not alter the nature of the case pleaded by them. The prayer for the incorporation of an undisputed fact is of a formal nature and brings factual clarity which promotes the fair adjudication of the controversy and the interest of justice. Compliance with the said criteria satisfies the principles for allowing amendment in pleadings even by the highest Court.''

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.