Extension

2023 PCrLJ 810 ISLAMABAD Judicial Precedent

S. 167Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss. 124-A, 131, 153, 153-A, 505, 506 & 109Physical remandExtension

Accused was arrested for committing offences of sedition, provocation of riots, public mischief and criminal intimidation, against members of armed forces

Physical custody of accused extended to investigating officer by Trial Court was maintained by Lower Appellate Court in exercise of revisional jurisdiction

Validity

Lower Appellate Court had jurisdiction to hear revision petition against order under S. 167, Cr.P.C.

Remand was not to be allowed in a mechanical way nor refused on the basis of conjectures or surmises without application of mind

Such order was to be passed on the basis of material available on record including police diaries

Examination of police diaries led Lower Appellate Court to the conclusion that further 48 hours of remand in police custody was required

Investigating Officer also made reference to reasons for which physical custody was required which was to recover cellular phone from where the statement was allegedly read out by the accused

High Court declined to interfere in the order assailed, as the same did not suffer from any error of law

Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly.

2023 PTD 1758 CUSTOMS-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Ss. 179(3), 2(s), 15, 16, 156(1), Cls. (8) & (89) & 194-ASmuggling foreign origin goods loaded on trailer/container, allegation ofAdjudicationTime-limit to decide the caseExtensionScope

Contention of the importer/appellant was that the order-in-original passed by the adjudicating authority was issued in violation of mandatory provision of time limit contained in S. 179(3) of the Customs Act, 1969

Validity

Impugned order passed the adjudicating authority mentioned that the extension in completion of adjudication proceedings had been duly given by the competent authority, which clearly explained that the contention of the appellant/importer, regarding time-barred issuance of order-in-original, was not of any legal significance, hence had no bearing on proceedings of the present appeal as the time period was extended by the competent authority

Appeal filed by the importer was dismissed , in circumstances.

2022 PLC(CS) 469 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Suit for declaration by servantRejection of plaintScopeContract appointmentContract between master and servantExtensionScopeCivil suitMaintainability

Plaintiff, having served for about five years, filed suit seeking declaration that failure of the Master (CAA) in giving him extension till the completion of project was against the law

Master (CAA) contended that the suit of the plaintiff (Servant) was not maintainable, not having a cause of action, as the applicable relationship between the parties was that of master and servant

Validity

Admittedly, plaintiff was initially appointed on contract basis for a period of one year (extendable) subject to a clause of the letter of appointment

Said letter of appointment provided that the appointment during the period of contract would be liable to termination on thirty day's notice on either side or immediate termination on payment of basic pay in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason whatsoever

Another term of said letter of appointment was that if the terms and conditions of the appointment were acceptable to plaintiff, he should send written confirmation by registered post to the Master, whereafter the plaintiff submitted his letter of acceptance of appointment by confirming the acceptance of offer of appointment; hence, it was an admitted position that the appointment of the plaintiff was on contract basis, the terms whereof were acknowledged and accepted by him

Appointment in question was for a period of one year or for extended period on the option of the appointing authority and the same did not contain any provision for continuation/extension of the plaintiff' appointment till the completion of the project for which he was appointed

Terms and conditions enunciated in the appointment letter, showed that the appointment/contract was revocable

Master was within its right to dispense with the service of the servant after the expiry of his contract or during the period of contract on thirty days' notice or immediate termination on payment of basic pay in lieu thereof, without assigning any reason whatsoever

After accepting the terms and conditions of his appointment, the servant was precluded under the law to claim extension of his contractual service till the completion of project and the law did not recognize any such right of plaintiff (contract employee)

Declaration sought by the servant for extension of service could not be granted as the suit was barred under S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877

Plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11(d), C.P.C. and suit was dismissed, in circumstances.

2015 YLR 789 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

ExtensionPrinciple

No Court can extend or enhance period of limitation prescribed by law for filing any other proceeding before proper forum, if the proceedings have been filed in wrong forum.

2012 CLC 1571 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 199Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3Intra court appealFactual controversyMining contractExtensionConstitutional jurisdiction of High CourtScopeDispute related to mining and quarrying lease, which lease was cancelled by the authorities to save the areaValidityContract of three years in favour of appellants had already come to an end and extension granted was withdrawnNo contract existed in favour of appellants, who had no locus standi to file constitutional petition

Single Judge of High Court had rightly held that it was not a matter of mere interpretation of contract, there were disputed questions of facts which the parties controverted and needed to be resolved

High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction, could not resolve disputed questions of fact

Division Bench of High Court declined to interfere in judgment passed by Single Judge of High Court

Intra-court appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.