Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001-- ----S. 22--Suit for recovery along with mark up and cost of funds recoverable through sale of mortgaged property--Denial of availing of loan and allegation of fraud without any prima facie proof was not sustainable--Validity--Mere denial of loan and other documents without any prima facie proof does not constitute a substantial question of law and fact entitled appellant for grant of leave--Appellant has raised serious allegations of fraud against his elder brother, but as per record, he has taken no action against him--Appellant has not challenged veracity of documents and revenue record before any competent Court of law--No substantial question of law and fact is made out, appellant was also unable to point out any illegality in impugned judgment and decree passed by Court--Appeal has no merits and same is, hereby dismissed. ------- Background: The appellant, Muhammad Ishtiaq, appealed against the judgment and decree of the Banking Court, which dismissed his petition for leave to defend and decreed a suit filed by Z.T.B.L. (Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited) for recovery of Rs. 623,888 along with costs and cost of funds. The appellant contended that he never applied for or received a loan and that the loan was fraudulently obtained by his elder brother, Muhammad Akram, in collusion with bank officials. ----Issues: 1) Whether the denial of loan and the allegations of fraud raised by the appellant without prima facie proof entitle him to the grant of leave to defend. ---2) Whether the appellant’s claim of fraud by his elder brother shifts liability for the loan away from him. ---3) Whether the documents and records submitted by the bank, including signatures, thumb impressions, and loan agreements, were valid and binding on the appellant. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Denial of Loan and Allegation of Fraud: The court held that mere denial of loan and allegations of fraud without prima facie proof do not constitute a substantial question of law or fact that would entitle the appellant to the grant of leave to defend. The Banking Court had reviewed the original documents, which showed the appellant's signatures and thumb impressions on the loan documents, including the loan agreement, mortgage deed, and passbook. The court found no substantial question of law and fact in the appellant’s arguments. Fraud by Elder Brother: The appellant alleged that his elder brother, Muhammad Akram, fraudulently obtained the loan in collusion with bank officials. However, the appellant did not take any legal action against his brother nor did he challenge the authenticity of the relevant documents in any competent court. As such, the court dismissed the allegations of fraud as unsupported and irrelevant to the case at hand. Validity of Documents: The court upheld the findings of the Banking Court, which had thoroughly reviewed the original loan documents and found the appellant's signatures, thumb impressions, and CNIC number to be genuine. The appellant failed to provide any evidence to challenge the authenticity of the documents. -----Citations/Precedents: Mst. Zamurd Begum vs. I.D.B.P and others (2002 CLD 386) Ghazala Asif vs. Union Bank Ltd. (2000 CLC 1201) Habib Bank Limited vs. Orient Rice Mills Ltd. (2004 CLD 1289) Outcome: The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. The court found no substantial question of law or fact and held that the appellant was liable for the loan. The Banking Court’s judgment and decree were upheld, and the appellant was ordered to pay the decretal amount along with costs and cost of funds.

Summary: Background: The case involved a dispute between the appellants (Messrs Pace Pesticides Pvt. Ltd. and others) and the respondent (Saudi Pak Commercial Bank Ltd.) regarding a financial facility availed by the appellants. The respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of an outstanding amount, claiming that the appellants had defaulted on repaying a running finance facility. The appellants contested the suit on the grounds that the respondent bank charged markup beyond the agreed expiry date of the finance facility. The Banking Court issued an interim decree in favor of the bank, and the appellants appealed. -----Issues: 1- Whether the bank was entitled to charge markup beyond the expiry date of the finance facility. 2- Whether the interim decree of the Banking Court was correct, considering the bank's claim for markup beyond the contract period. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court held that the respondent bank could not charge markup beyond the expiry date of the finance facility, which was set at June 30, 2005. The court relied on the precedent set in Muhammad Tariq v. Bank of Punjab (2004 CLD 162), which stated that in markup-based finance agreements, banks cannot charge markup after the expiry of the contract period unless otherwise agreed or provided by law. The court disallowed the markup charged after June 30, 2005, amounting to Rs. 9,38,512, and modified the decree accordingly. The appeal was partly allowed, and the decree was modified to the amount of Rs. 57,27,834 in favor of the respondent bank, with costs of the suit and cost of funds from the date of default (June 30, 2005) until the realization of the full decretal amount. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Tariq v. Bank of Punjab (2004 CLD 162)

Summary: S.8 SRA,S.11 CPC:Suit for possession of immovable property--Res judicata--principle of--Applicability

Summary: The petitioner is involved in different cases of Dacoities---evidence collected by the I.O in form of mobile data regarding incoming and outgoing calls and copies of CNIC relating to callers is admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 and the same connects the petitioner with the alleged crime----In the supplementary statement specific motive was assigned to the petitioner and same was found correct during investigation---The act of the petitioner appears to be heinous, brutal and shocking. Post arrest bail dismissed.

Summary: (Barred by jurisdiction contained in Art. 212 of theConstitution) The record made available before this Court clearly depictsthat while holding inquiry, the Commissioner, Sahiwalcommunicated the petitioners through Govt. offices and nototherwise and till the passing of impugned orders/recommendations whole the process was conducted in a fairway. As discussed above, the jurisdiction of this Court is oustedby way of Art. 212 of the Constitution and it is only the ServiceTribunal before whom such like matters can be agitated, eventhough the departmental orders have been passed withoutjurisdiction and with mala fide intention. Therefore, mereadding a word that fundamental rights have been infringed byway of impugned orders, the writ jurisdiction of this Courtcannot be invoked and civil servants cannot bypass Service Tribunal, the proper forum to agitate the questions/mattersregarding service. In this regard guidance can be sought fromSharwani and othersí case (1991 SCMR 1041), wherein it hasbeen held that, ìCivil Servant cannot bypass Service Tribunal byadding a ground of violation of fundamental rights----Tribunal hasjurisdiction even in violation of fundamental rules.î Even in SaghirAhmed Naqviís case (1996 SCMR 1165), it has been held that,ìStatute excluding a right of appeal from interim order could not bebypassed by brining under attack such interim order in Constitutionaljurisdiction---Party effected had to wait till it matures into final orderand then to attack it in proper exclusive forum.î In the present case,the petitioners Ahmed Raza Sultan and Umer Farooq have hadample opportunity to assail their suspension order before thelearned Service Tribunal, which is the proper forum in thisregard for getting their grievance redressed. Moreover, the otherallegations levelled by the parties are concerned, when the writpetitions are not competent and this Court has no jurisdiction,there is no need to discuss the same.

Summary: It is settled law that bank cannot charge markup beyond the expiry date of the facility---is settled law that bank cannot charge markup beyond the expiry date of the facility. In this regard reliance is placed on case---In our view no presumption of truth can be attached to this incomplete statement of accounts and it is not sufficient to decree the suit unless supported with corroborative documents.

Summary: ''The appointment of Air Marshal (r) Khalid Chaudhry as Director General, Civil Aviation Authority has been made in a non-transparent manner. Further, contracts awarded for construction and completion of New Benazir Bhutto International Airport Project, Islamabad to 17 contractors and their subsequent performance as noted in the Inquiry Report and Audit Report is not transparent.'' --- The court emphasized the duty to confine itself to questions of legality when reviewing administrative actions. It identified three grounds for judicial review: illegality (failure to understand and apply the law), irrationality (unreasonableness), and procedural impropriety. The review aims to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism, especially in matters of public interest.The court cited the case of Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651, which established the broad grounds for administrative action control. It also highlighted that the principles of judicial review apply to government bodies exercising contractual powers to prevent arbitrariness or favoritism.Additionally, the court underscored the need for transparency in the implementation of policies and the awarding of contracts, citing various cases such as Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority and Reliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corp. Ltd.The judgment declared that the appointment of Air Marshal (R) Khalid Chaudhry as DG, CAA, was made in a non-transparent manner, violating the law and rules on the subject. The court directed the Federal Government to appoint a new DG in accordance with the law and principles of transparency. The court also found irregularities, corruption, and delays in the New Benazir Bhutto International Airport Project, ordering a thorough investigation supervised by the FIA. The judgment further directed the return of passports to respondents, with an undertaking for cooperation in investigations.Citations:Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651Asia Foundation and Construction Ltd. v. Trafalgar House Construction (1997) 1 SCC 738Sterling Computers Ltd. v. Messrs, M. and N. Publications Ltd (AIR 1996 SC 51)Iqbal Haider v. Capital Development Authority (PLD 2006 SC 394)Matter of Privatization of Pakistan Steel Mill (PLD 2010 SC 759)HRC No. 4688/06 (PLD 2001 SC 619)In the matter of: Alleged Corruption in Rental Power Plants etc. (2012 SCMR 773)Ramana Dayaram Shetty v. International Airport Authority of IndiaReliance Energy Ltd. v. Maharashtra State Road Development Corp. Ltd.Muhammad Ashraf Tiwana v. Pakistan and others (2013 SCMR 1159)Khawaja Muhammad Asif v. Federation of Pakistan (2013 SCMR 1205)M/s Airport Support Services v. The Airport Manager, Quaid-e-Azam International Airport, Karachi (1998 SCMR 2268)M/s Ramna pipe and General Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. v. M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipe Lines (Pvt) Ltd. (2004 SCMR 1274)In re: Action regarding huge loss to public exchequer in awarding LNG Contract. (PLD 2010 SC 731)

Summary: PLJ 2013 AJK 35 Present Munir Ahmed Chaudhary J ABDUL RAUF - - Appellant versus COLLECTOR LAND ACQUISITION MANGLA DAM RAISING PROJECT MIRPUR ZONE - II 13 others - - Respondents CA No 67 of 2011 decided on 1652012 Civil Procedure Code 1908 (V of 1908) - - - - - - O XXXIX Rr 1 2 - - Interim injunction - - Balance of convenience did not lie in his favor - - Irreparable loss - - Compensation of land - - Reference was dismissed - - If there was any will it can not be made in favor of one of heirs until rest of heirs voluntarily consent to that will - - In whose names compensation was assessed were entitled for that compensation - - Validity - - Compensation of acquired land legally owned by all of them had been assessed in their names so all of them were entitled for compensation assessed to extent of their legal sharers in acquired land - - Appellant had got no arguable case balance of convenience did not lie in his favor and if interim injunction was issued against official and private respondent then other legal heirs shall suffer an irreparable loss - - They cannot be deprived of compensation for which they had been declared entitled by authorities - - If at all version taken by appellant was accepted by any competent forum he will be at liberty to approach an proper forum for his redressal - - Interim injunction was vacated [P 37] A Mr Liaqat Ali Khan Advocate for Appellant Ms Sardar Muhammad Razzaq Khan Ch Muhammad Jamil Syed Gohar Abbas Advocate for RespondentsJudgement Result:Injunction vacated

Summary: Summary pending.