Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.302,34 PPC Two different FIRs registered by different complainants for the same incident against different accused, case wants further inquiry (Bail allowed)

Summary: Award of Foreign Scholarship & after completion not returned ,recovery of money spent upon him.

Summary: S.13 KP Pre emption Act:Requirements of Talabs

Summary: In this case, a contract was established in 1989 between the appellant, and respondent No.2, Multan Development Authority. Disputes arose due to allegations of contract breaches and non-payment. Arbitration proceedings were initiated, leading to an award in favor of respondent No.2. The appellant then filed a suit for declaration, the appeal by respondent No.2 was accepted, resulting in a judgment and decree. The primary issue addressed in the lower appellate court's judgment was the competence of the suit filed by the appellant. The court held that the suit was incompetent under Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, as it challenged the existence or validity of an arbitration agreement or award. The lower appellate court's reliance on Section 32 was found to be in error by the Lahore High Court. The Lahore High Court concluded that the lower appellate court's decision was flawed as it misinterpreted Section 32 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Furthermore, other substantial issues in the case were not addressed. Therefore, the judgment and decree of the lower appellate court were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Additional District Judge, Multan, for a fresh decision on all relevant issues in accordance with the law.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan-------Arts. 199 & 33---Constitutional petition---Civil service---Appointment of Additional Districtand Sessions Judges---Written test of candidates---Re-examination of answer sheets by the HighCourt---Discrimination---Mala fide---Effect---Petitioner appeared in the written test butremained unsuccessful---Plea of petitioner was that he had been discriminated only on the basisof caste and creed by the selection committee---Validity---Petitioner had made an effort toscandalize the Judges of High Court under the colour of parochial, racial and tribal approach---Every unsuccessful candidate had tendency to say that he had performed well but assessedpoorly---Request with regard to re-checking, re-evaluation and re-marking of solved paperscould not be acceded to without reasonable ground---No provision of law existed to allowinspection or evaluation of the answer sheets or to show it to the person concerned---Petitionerhad participated in examination and had failed in it---Petitioner had no right to challenge theproceedings on the ground of mala fide or violation of rules as he had failed to point out thesame---Answer books were collected by the committee and got evaluated in a very confidential and fair manner---Experienced Judges with proven integrity were nominated for evaluation ofanswer books---Examiner while checking the answer sheets did not know the identity of thecandidates as same were coded in order to ensure the secrecy---No question of discriminationhad arisen as examination was held in a fair, transparent and confidential manner---Only sevencandidates had obtained more than 50% marks and remaining eighty eight candidates securedless than the qualifying marks---Examiners had evaluated the answer sheets with care and best oftheir knowledge---Petitioner had levelled baseless allegations of bias attitude on the part ofexaminers without any reason---No mala fide existed on the part of the members of selectioncommittee---Answer sheets of petitioner had been evaluated fairly as per genuine assessment bythe examiners---Re-evaluation of answer sheets could be ordered subject to strong ground thatsame were not justly evaluated---Malice and mala fides were sufficient grounds to vitiate all theproceedings---Courts could determine its (malice and mala fides) existence on probabilities to beinferred from the circumstances---No ground existed to believe that the answer scripts were notjustly evaluated---High Court itself re-examined the answer scripts of the petitioner and foundthat total had been rightly brought forward---No portion of any answer had been left unmarked---No mistake existed in the grand total on the cover of answer book and answer books had notbeen changed---Examination in question had been conducted by a duly constituted committee---Candidates who had qualified for interviews belonged to indigenous tribes and to the ethnicity ofthe petitioner---Constitutional petition was dismissed in limine.Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Lahore v. Saima Azad 1996 SCMR 676and Haroon-ur-Rashid v. Registrar Balochistan High Court, Quetta 2013 PLC (C.S.) 81 rel.(b) Mala fides-------Malice and mala fides were sufficient grounds to vitiate all the proceedings---Courts coulddetermine their existence on probabilities to be inferred from the circumstances.

Summary: Issue:Whether the appellants, having been in continuous service for over a decade as contract employees, had vested rights for regularization, in light of the Supreme Court's decision in Province of Punjab v. Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547).--- Decision:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, directing the regularization of the appellants' services from the date of the Cabinet Sub-Committee's decision.ReasoningThe Court noted the appellants' long-term service, the permanent nature of their positions, and the absence of any misconduct or incompetence.It applied the "Function Test" from Abdul Wahab v. HBL (2013 SCMR 1383) and found TIP's actions in defiance of the cabinet sub-committee's decision to be illegal and malafide.The Court relied on precedents that emphasize the permanence of certain jobs and the expectation of regularization after long-term continuous service, such as Province of Punjab v. Ahmad Hussain and other cited cases.The Court highlighted the right to livelihood under Article 9 of the Constitution and the principles of good governance, including fairness, justness, and adherence to the rule of law as enshrined in Articles 4 and 25 of the Constitution.--- Rule of LawContinuous service in a position of permanent nature, especially in organizations owned or controlled by the government, creates a legitimate expectation for regularization, supported by the principles of fairness, equality, and the right to livelihood under the Constitution.--- SignificanceThis judgment underscores the Supreme Court's commitment to ensuring that employees, particularly those serving in government-owned entities, are treated fairly and in accordance with the principles of good governance and constitutional rights. It emphasizes the importance of regularization for employees who have served on a long-term contractual basis, especially when their roles are of a permanent nature.--- Precedents CitedProvince of Punjab v. Ahmad Hussain (2013 SCMR 1547): Established the principle that long-term continuous service in a position of a permanent nature creates a legitimate expectation of regularization.Abdul Wahab v. HBL (2013 SCMR 1383): Introduced the "Function Test" to determine the applicability of constitutional remedies to entities performing governmental functions.Other cases such as Province of Punjab v. Gul Hassan (1992 PLC 924), Punjab Seed Corporation v. Punjab Labour Appellate Tribunal (1996 SCMR 1947), Executive Engineer v. Abdul Aziz (PLD 1996 SC 610), and Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department Government of Punjab v. Mohammad Akhtar (2009 SCMR 320), were referenced to support the principles applied in the decision.

Summary: Summary pending