Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Civil Procedure Code, 1908 (C.P.C.)—Order XXXVII—Leave to Defend—Discretion of Court. ----Conditional leave to defend a summary suit is not mandatory in every case but remains within the court's discretion. The court must exercise this discretion based on the circumstances of each case and in alignment with established principles. Factors such as the likelihood of absconding, transfer of assets, or thwarting a prospective decree may necessitate conditional leave. (b) Fiduciary Duty—Investment Institutions. ----Investment institutions have a fiduciary duty to act with the highest degree of care towards investors. Misrepresentation or failure to honor commitments involving hard-earned money entrusted by investors constitutes a breach of such duty. In this case, the petitioner admitted to receiving funds against issued TDRs/COIs/CODs but failed to honor its obligations. (c) Judicial Discretion—Grant of Leave. ----The grant of conditional or unconditional leave to defend a summary suit is a matter of judicial discretion, as observed by the Supreme Court in Mian Rafique Saigol v. Bank of Credit and Commerce International (PLD 1996 SC 749). The exercise of such discretion should be legal, fair, and reasonable, ensuring the protection of both parties' interests. (d) Investment Disputes—Public Interest. ----In cases where investments involve public funds or contributions from individuals such as employees of hospitals, courts are inclined to secure the respondents' interests by exercising powers justly and fairly, as seen in this case where the investment institution was required to furnish security. ----Result: Civil revision dismissed. The court upheld the Additional District Judge's order requiring the petitioner to furnish surety, deeming it a fair exercise of discretion aligned with legal principles. Observations made are not to influence ongoing proceedings in the trial court.

Summary: According to the accusation levelled in the F.I.R., Muhammad Khan, Deed Writer got verified power of attorney on the basis of forged National Identity Card and impersonation of Nasim Khan. It is also notable that Nasim Khan-appellant himself had not reported the matter to the police. The alleged special power of attorney was also not produced in evidence. The learned trial Magistrate has discussed the entire evidence but there is nothing in this case which could be deemed to be arbitrary or against the record to warrant interference in the judgment of the acquittal. Crl. Appeals are hereby dismissed.

Summary: According to the prosecution's case, the appellants, along with two other individuals, attacked Ali Ahmed with Tokies (a type of weapon), resulting in his death. The motive behind the murder was stated to be a grudge held by the appellants against Ali Ahmed because their mother had divorced their father and married the deceased.The appeal was heard, and the High Court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution. The court found several discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of key witnesses, including the complainant, Muhammad Abbas, and Khalid Javed, who claimed to be eyewitnesses to the crime. The court also highlighted delays in registering the FIR and conducting the postmortem examination.Additionally, the recovery of the alleged murder weapon, Tokies, was surrounded by doubts, as the positive reports of the Chemical Examiner and Serologist did not match the actual recovery memos, which did not indicate bloodstains on the weapons.The High Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, and the evidence provided by the witnesses was not credible. Consequently, the court acquitted Muhammad Aslam and Gulzar Ahmed of the charges, set aside their convictions and death sentences, and ordered their release if not required in any other case. The Murder Reference was answered in the negative, and the death sentences were not confirmed.