Summary: The petitioner's bank account was attached by the respondents based on an alleged tax demand against another party (respondent No. 4). The petitioner filed a writ petition challenging the orders and seeking the return of a pay order, withdrawal of the illegal attachment, de-freezing of the account, and cancellation of the pay order. The petitioner also sought compensation for the alleged mental agony and reputation damage. The court, after hearing arguments from both parties, scrutinizes the impugned orders. It concludes that the petitioner is a separate legal entity from respondent No. 4, and therefore, the outstanding duty payable by respondent No. 4 cannot be recovered from the petitioner. The court cited Section 9 of the Federal Excise Duty Act, 2005, to emphasized that the department can recover outstanding duty from former partners of a dissolved business, but not from a different legal entity. The court allowed the petition, declares the impugned orders illegal, and directs the respondents to refund the amount illegally recovered from the petitioner within 15 days.

Summary: The background of the case involves an investigation into fraudulent tax adjustments by M/s Pearl Enterprises. The Director of Intelligence & Investigation issued a notice to M/s Pearl Enterprises and required the respondent to provide a power of attorney or authorization to represent M/s Pearl Enterprises before the Commissioner of Inland Revenue. The respondent refused to provide this information, leading to summons being issued to him under Section 37 of the Sales Tax Act 1990. The central issue in this case was whether the respondent, who was an advocate representing M/s Pearl Enterprises, should be compelled to disclose the identity of the client or person who engaged his legal services. The court held that unless the advocate was personally involved in the commission of an offense under the Act, he enjoyed immunity from appearing before the investigating officer. The court emphasized the importance of preserving the attorney-client privilege and confidentiality in legal matters. Ultimately, the court upheld the judgment of the Single Judge, ruling that the appellant had failed to establish a case for interference in the impugned judgment. Therefore, the appeal was dismissed.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Background: A civil suit was filed by the plaintiff, claiming damages to water and sewerage lines during repair works carried out on the 2nd and 3rd floors of a building owned by the plaintiff. The suit sought recovery of damages, permanent injunctions, and a declaration. The defendants failed to file their written statements within the prescribed time, leading the trial court to strike off their right to file written statements under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC). The legal heirs of one defendant, who had passed away during the proceedings, and other defendants sought to restore their right to defend the suit, arguing procedural irregularities, including a missing portion of the court record, which left uncertainties regarding their summons and appearance. -----Issues: 1- Whether the trial court was justified in striking off the defendants' right to file written statements without clarity regarding their compliance with procedural requirements. -----2- Whether the missing court record prejudiced the defendants' ability to contest the suit. -----3- Whether the legal heirs of the deceased defendant and other defendants should be permitted to file written statements and participate in the proceedings. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Procedural Fairness: The court found that the missing portion of the order sheet from 15.12.2010 to 14.02.2011 created uncertainty regarding whether the defendants were properly summoned and whether they had tendered appearance. Striking off their right to file written statements was deemed procedurally unfair in the absence of clarity. It was noted that defendants should have been proceeded against ex-parte if they failed to appear, rather than having their right to file written statements summarily closed. --Rights of Legal Heirs: The legal heirs of the deceased defendant were permitted to file written statements and participate in the proceedings, as their impleadment was delayed but not their fault. However, costs were imposed for the delay. --Negligence of Other Defendants: Other defendants, including one who had appeared but failed to file a written statement, were allowed to participate in the proceedings but were penalized with costs for their negligence. --Costs and Evidence: Costs were imposed on all defendants to compensate for delays and procedural lapses: Legal heirs of the deceased defendant: Rs. 25,000. A defendant who failed to pursue remedies diligently: Rs. 30,000. A defendant who appeared but did not file a written statement: Rs. 30,000. The evidence already recorded was preserved, but the defendants were granted the right to cross-examine the plaintiff’s witnesses and present their own evidence. Writ Petition No. 361/2016 was allowed, restoring the defendants’ right to defend the suit and file written statements. Writ Petition No. 360/2016 was partially allowed, permitting the legal heirs of the deceased defendant to file written statements and participate in the proceedings, subject to costs. -----Citations/Precedents: The judgment draws on principles of procedural fairness, emphasizing that technicalities should not override substantive justice. Key legal provisions referenced include: Order VIII, Rule 10, Civil Procedure Code, 1908: Powers to strike off the right to file written statements. Principle of adjudication on merits: Courts should prioritize resolving disputes based on substantive evidence over procedural defaults.

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Appointment of Local Commissioner... It is not the direction of the Court which is to be followed or acted upon but the Local Commissioner has to follow the law laid down on the subject.

Summary: Acquittal allowed---In this case, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to death for committing the murder of Muhammad Asad and Farhat Sultana. The complainant and eyewitnesses stated that Ghulam Mustafa, armed with a .30 bore pistol, along with several co-accused, confronted the victims in a street. During the trial, the appellant, claimed that he had shot the victims under grave and sudden provocation after finding them in a compromising (naked) position. However, the court found discrepancies and doubts in the prosecution's evidence and eyewitness testimonies. It questioned the presence of the eyewitnesses at the scene, the delay in reporting the incident to the police, and the absence of certain witnesses who could have supported the appellant's defense. As a result, the Lahore High Court acquitted Ghulam Mustafa, set aside his conviction and death sentence, and extended him the benefit of the doubt.

Summary: Contract Employees. Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Extension and Regularization. A contract employee has no vested right to claim for extension or regularization of is service.

Summary: Summary pending.