Summary: S.371 A-B,109 PPCNo written complaint,violation of S.103 Cr.PC,wants further inquiry(Bail allowed)

Summary: Gifted property--requirements/ingredients of valid gift--legacy of predecessor

Summary: O.VI,R-17 CPC:Suo moto power of court to direct amendment in pleadings

Summary: Scope of Appellate Tribunal's Power under Section 132 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 discussed, while deciding Appeals involving allegations of Tax Fraud based on fake flying invoices. Non-exercise of proper jurisdiction by Appellate Tribunal is a question of law in itself ? Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies Zone-II, Karachi v. Messrs Sindh Engineering (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi (2002 SCMR 527) relied upon.

Summary: Section 497 (2) Cr.P.C, Ss. 302, 324, 353, 186 & 427 PPC ---Explosives Substances Act (VI of 1908), Ss. 3, 4 & 5---Anti-Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), S.7---Qatl-i-amd, attempt to commit qatl-i- amd, assault or criminal force to deter public servant from discharge of his duty.

Summary: Issue:Whether the relocation of the mosque and clinic plots within the appellant's housing settlement constituted an unlawful conversion of amenity plots under the KDA Order and relevant case law.Holding:The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, overturning the judgment of the Sindh High Court that had declared the relocation of the plots as unlawful conversion.Reasoning:The Court noted several distinguishing factors in this case from previous precedents on the conversion of land use. It highlighted that the appellant's alterations were made at the planning stage, before the scheme was fully developed or inhabited, and did not reduce the amenity space but actually increased it. The Court found that the application of Article 52-A of the KDA Order, particularly the 1994 amendment that strictly prohibited conversion of amenity plots, was retrospective and unjustified in this context.The Supreme Court emphasized that the principle laid down in Abdul Razzak vs. Karachi Building Control Authority and other similar cases was meant to protect public interest and convenience. It ruled that where alterations in a housing scheme's layout plan do not adversely affect public interest or third-party rights, such as in the early stages of development, strict enforcement of Article 52-A may not be warranted.Key Citations and Precedents:Abdul Razzak vs. Karachi Building Control Authority (PLD 1994 SC 512): Established that amenity plots cannot be converted to commercial use without public notice and government approval.Ardeshir Cowasjee vs. Karachi Building Control Authority (1999 SCMR 2883): Reinforced the principle that conversion of amenity plots without following due process is illegal.Javed Mir Muhammadi vs. Haroon Mirza (PLD 2007 SC 472): Endorsed strict enforcement of building and land use regulations to protect public interest.Conclusion:The Supreme Court concluded that the appellant's relocation of amenity plots within the housing settlement at the planning stage did not constitute an illegal conversion of land use under the KDA Order or established case law. The decision underscored the importance of context and the stage of development in applying regulations related to land use conversion, emphasizing that alterations made before the development is inhabited or finalized may not always require strict adherence to procedures meant to protect established public and third-party interests.

Summary: Issue:The core issue revolved around the authority responsible for appointing judicial officers and determining their seniority within the KPK Judicial Service, specifically whether it should be the Chief Justice or the High Court as an institution, including its Administration Committee.Judgment:The Supreme Court dismissed the appeals, upholding the Tribunal's judgment. The Court clarified that according to the KPK Judicial Service Rules, 2001, and other relevant legal provisions, the "High Court" and not the "Chief Justice" individually, is the appointing authority and also responsible for determining seniority among judicial officers.Reasoning:The Court detailed the historical and legal evolution of the administrative and executive control within the High Court, emphasizing that the High Court, as an institution, has traditionally managed these responsibilities through various committees, notably the Administration Committee. The Court distinguished between administrative and statutory matters, pointing out that statutory responsibilities, such as appointments and seniority determinations, are governed by specific laws and rules which designate the High Court, not the Chief Justice individually, as the responsible authority. --- ''The appointment of members of District Judiciary and determination of their seniority is a statutory responsibility, in terms of Rule 16(ii) of the High Court Rules and Orders because it is regulated by sections 5 & 8 of the KPK Civil Servants Act and Rule 5 and 10 of the KPK Judicial Service Rules, 2001, to be exercised by the Administration Committee and the Chief Justice cannot do anything on his own in the scheme of the Rules of 2001 and High Court Rules and Orders.''

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S.371 A-B PPCHeinous offence,prima facie connect with commission of offence, fall in prohibitory clause(Bail dimissed)

Summary: S.324,109 PPCDirect charged,prima facie connected with offence( Bail dismissed)