Grounds

Petitioner was aggrieved of refusal of authorities to migrate his son from one Balochistan Residential College (BRC) to another near his residence, as the child was suffering from adjustment disorder - a mental health condition

Validity

Son of petitioner was student of 8thclass and for students of such age, it was quite natural to experience such adjustment challenges when they were away from their home and family

Such situation was not unique to the son of petitioner alone but was often encountered by many students who were placed in distant educational institutions

Adjustment disorders are typically short-term conditions that arise in response to specific stresses which are often resolved as the individual / student adapts to new environment and circumstances

High Court declined to interfere in the matter as adjustment disorder alone was not sufficient to justify migration of petitioner's son from one College to any other near residence of petitioner

Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.

The grounds were that facts alleged did not constitute an offence; that there was no evidence or incriminating material on record; that the evidence collected was insufficient and would not sustain conviction; and that the prosecution evidence recorded did not make out a case for conviction.

One of the grounds to exercise the power of review is when some mistake or error apparent on the face of record is found

An error on the face of record must be such an error which must strike one on mere looking at the record and would not require any in-depth process of reasoning on the points where there may conceivably be two opinions

Thus an error which is required to be detected by a process of reasoning can hardly be said to be an error on the face of the record

Error apparent on the face of the proceedings is an error which is based on clear ignorance or disregard of the provisions of law

Any order or decision or judgment cannot be corrected merely because it is erroneous in law or on the ground that a different view could have been taken by the court/tribunal on a point of fact or law.

Principles for cancellation of bail were quite different, and once the Trial Court granted bail to the accused by exercising well-reasoned discretion, then the scope for interference under appellate or revisional jurisdiction of the High Court was very limited and restricted

Grant of bail was nothing but shifting of the custody of the accused in the hands of surety to secure his attendance during trial

Grant of bail during pendency of trial was not a vested and qualified right of the accused, such a concession could be withdrawn when misused

Court would not hesitate to exercise its discretion to cancel bail, if it was established on record that the accused, after securing bail, was involved in a mischief that undermined the administration of justice, attempted to influence or intimidate witnesses, tampered with evidence, repeated the offence while on bail, or violated the conditions imposed by the Court, failed to appear before the Court without just cause, or if new facts come to light that controvert the facts on which bail was granted; the Court may in such a situation revoked the concession of bail

Court may interfere and cancel the bail when it transpires that bail granting order was perverse on the face of it, or the bail was granted in clear disregard and contravention to the settled proposition of law, or the bail was granted against the weight of material available on record, or the Court while granting bail entered into a deeper analysis of material available which prejudiced the case of either side, or the bail granting order was capricious, whimsical or arbitrary in nature and was based upon some erroneous conclusions

In the present case, no illegality or infirmity had been pointed out in the impugned orders to attract any of the grounds for cancellation of bail

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in limine.

Carelessness, intentional or obvious sluggishness, or dearth of bona fide are no reason for condonation of delay.

Courts are slow in interfering with an acquittal judgment, unless it is shown to be perverse, passed in gross violation of law, or suffers from errors of grave misreading or non-reading of the evidence

Such judgments should not be lightly interfered with and a heavy burden lies on the prosecution to rebut the presumption of innocence which the accused has earned and attained on account of his acquittal

Interference in a judgment of acquittal is rare and the prosecution must show that there are glaring errors of law and fact committed by the Court in arriving at the decision, which would result, into grave miscarriage of justice; the acquittal judgment is perfunctory or wholly artificial or a shocking conclusion has been drawn

Acquittal judgment should not be interjected until the findings are perverse, arbitrary, artificial, speculative, and ridiculous

Court of appeal should not interfere simply for the reason that on the re-appraisal of the evidence a different conclusion could possibly be arrived at, and the factual conclusions should not be upset, except when palpably perverse, suffering from serious and material factual infirmities.

Eviction petitioner had set-up the number of grounds of eviction in relevant paragraph of his eviction-petition in which he had included the ground of requirement of property for personal use also, which (ground) was not available in the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009 whereas other grounds of default in payment of rent etc.were dependent on the relationship of landlord and tenant

Petitioner failed to establish said relationship between himself and respondent

Petitioner alleged that respondent was tenant of previous owner but he could not prove the same by leading dependable evidence

No illegality or irregularity had been noticed in the impugned judgments and orders passed by both the Courts below

Constitutional petition filed by the eviction petitioner was dismissed, in circumstances.

Five Member Bench of the Supreme Court constituted for hearing Constitutional petitions challenging vires of a notification by which the Federal Government formed an Inquiry Commission to probe into the veracity of certain alleged audio leaks

One of the alleged audios contained conversation of the Chief Justice's mother-in-law ('relative')

Recusal application filed by the Federal Government seeking recusal of the Chief Justice from the Bench due to his alleged conflict of interest in the matter

Held, that the present recusal application filed by the Federal Government is devoid of merit and legal force; its object lacks good faith for aiming to harass a Member of the Bench without cause in order to avoid adjudication on the constitutional failings pointed out in the impugned notification by present Constitutional petitions

Recusal application suffers from the common defect of being motivated and hence constitutes an attack on the independence of the Judiciary

Detailed reasons for dismissing the recusal application stated.

Evaluation of the performance of a subordinate officer by his Reporting or Countersigning Officer, primarily being a matter of personal assessment based on the direct observation of the work of the officer concerned, is not to be usually interfered with by the Tribunal or the Supreme Court unless mala fide with full particulars, or the gross violation of the instructions, on the part of the Reporting or Countersigning Officer, as the case may be, is shown.

Only limited grounds exist for interfering with ECP's decisions, namely, when these involve the exercise of illegal, or mala fide, or manifestly arbitrary or unjustifiable jurisdiction and discretion by the ECP.

Said petitions were allowed subject to certain condition/limitation i.e. they shall not however claim arrears of salaries or other back benefits for the service they had rendered on contract basis before regularization

High Court, while concluding the said order, emphasized the words incorporated in last portion of the judgment (regarding condition/ limitation) by underlining the same

Later, the petitioners again moved application before the High Court and prayed for deletion of the underlined words contending that the said underlined words were liable to be corrected being a result of accidental slip or omission

High Court, however, directed that the application be converted into review petitions

Validity

Record (judgment-in-question and subsequent notification) showed that the order was actually passed subject to the condition/limitation (for not claiming back-benefits)

Respondents/ authorities had assailed said judgment and order and the Supreme Court had set-aside the same; thus, the very foundation on which the matter-in-hand was allowed no longer existed

No case for review was made out

Review petitions were dismissed, in circumstances.

Inalienable obligation of a litigating party is to keep itself abreast of the proceedings of the case and pursue the matter diligently as adjudication of a case cannot be left pending at the whims and caprice of the party to select the suitable time for challenging or pursuing the matter according to their own choice

Moreover, it is requirement of law that if the counsel is not available then the party itself must be present to pursue the case vigilantly and any communication gap between the counsel and the client is not a good ground for condonation of the delay

Adjudicating forum has to administer/regulate proceedings and also to make diligent/bona fide effort to decide the matter within shortest possible span of time whereas the indolent litigant is not entitled for any relief.

Strong and cogent reasons are required for cancellation of bail as the grounds for grant of bail and that of cancellation of bail granted by a competent Court of Law are different

Bail granted to the accused can only be cancelled on the following grounds: (i) That if bail granting order is perverse or disregards settled principles regulating the grant of bail; (ii) That accused has tried to hamper prosecution evidence by pressurizing the prosecution witnesses; (iii) That it is patently illegal, erroneous, factually incorrect and has resulted in miscarriage of justice; (iv) That the accused after grant of bail has misused the concession of bail; and (v) That there is likelihood of absconsion of the accused.

Long service is no ground for regularization.

Grant of bail in disregard to the settled principles of law or on a premise factually incorrect, by itself, presents a conscionable justification to recall the concession.

During the pendency of the revision petition, the defendant, who was the original owner of the suit property passed away, therefore, his legal heirs were impleaded as respondents in the revision petition

Respondents submitted an. application for submission of a fresh written statement before the Trial Court

High Court, considering their defence, remanded the case to the trial Court permitting them to file a fresh written statement

Held, that when the plaintiffs' plaint had been rejected by the Trial Court on the ground that it did not disclose cause of action, the filing of an application by the legal heirs of the defendant i.e. the respondents for permission to file afresh written statement was not a valid ground with the High Court for setting aside the order of rejection of plaint and dismissal of appeal

High Court had no reason to dilate upon the application filed by the legal heirs of the defendant for permission to file afresh written statement as well as on the application of the plaintiffs for amendment of the plaint when the plaintiffs were fighting for survival of their lis and were under obligation to convince the revisional court/High Court in that their plaint did disclose a cause of action, and it had wrongly been rejected by the Trial Court

Appeal was allowed, impugned remand order was set-aside and it was directed that the revision petition would be deemed to be pending before the High Court, which shall decide the same on its own merits.

Court has no discretion or power to condone the delay in filing the suit on humanitarian grounds or by invoking the principles of equity unless any of the grounds prescribed in the Limitation Act, 1908 is available to the plaintiff and is duly pleaded.

Petitioners (applicants under S.24, C.P.C, 1908) sought transfer of case on the basis of alleged statement/utterance made by the opposing side that they would get favour from the Court

Held, that contention of the petitioner did not constitute sufficient ground for transfer of case as they had failed to establish the bias in judge which was not supported by any sort of evidence or some act or expression of judge visible on ground adversely affecting the case

Mere assumption and apprehension could not be entertained as a tangible evidence, therefore, a mere statement could not be made basis for transfer of case

Case would not be transferred as a matter of routine or at the whims of the parties

No illegality or infirmity was found in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Court rejecting application of petitioners to transfer their civil suit to another civil court

Revision petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

Ill-advice by the counsel was not a ground for condonation of delay.

In many cases, accused persons were granted pre-arrest bail after the court found that there were no reasonable grounds for believing their involvement in the commission of the alleged offences and the court did not require independent proof of mala fide on part of the police or the complainant before granting such relief

Despite non-availability of the incriminating material against the accused, his implication by the complainant and the insistence of the police to arrest him were the circumstances which by themselves indicated the mala fide on the part of the complainant and the police, and the accused need not lead any other evidence to prove mala fide on their part.

Mala fide being a state of mind could not always be proved through direct evidence, and it was often to be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case.

Acknowledged grounds of judicial review are illegality, irrationality, procedural impropriety and proportionality.

Wife averred in her plaint that husband had been raising undue demands from her family and used to give mental and physical torture to her and in support of allegation of torture, she referred to the application submitted by her at a police station alleging therein the maltreatment at the hands of her husband

Held, that cruelty on the part of the husband was a valid ground for Khula

Relationship between the parties, in the present, case, were severely strained making it impossible for them to live as husband and wife

Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.

After dismissal of his appeal before the Appellate Tribunal, the petitioner waited for eleven months to file the Customs Reference before the High Court, which was hopelessly barred by time

Application for condonation of delay stated that the entire process was followed up by a special attorney of the petitioner

Said special attorney was allegedly a chronic patient of some disease and was therefore unable to file the Reference within time

Petitioner was unable to explain plausibly why he did not pursue the matter himself and why was he not following up the same

Plea/explanation that petitioner was not available and his special attorney was unwell were neither convincing nor plausible and did not constitute sufficient grounds for condonation of delay for about eleven months

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed and leave was refused.

As per the Memorandum of Association (MOA) of the petitioner-company its object was to carry on the business of, inter alia, risks assessments; analysis and management; business consultancy; project implementation consultancy, with an emphasis on market entry advisory; project implementation support and risk management consultancy, etc.

Additional Registrar CRO reported that the company was engaged in security related matters, such as provision of security services to foreigners, using trackers during movements, attempting to visit restricted areas, collecting information about armed forces, using fake number plates, which activities/ business were not only ultra vires its MOA but also posed a security risk to the country

Additional Registrar sought sanction from the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) under S. 309(b) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 to present a petition before the competent jurisdiction (High Court) for winding up of the petitioner-company, which sanction was granted

Petition for winding up the petitioner-company was allowed by the High Court

Held, that petitioner-company was providing risk management and security-related services to foreign companies and foreign embassies and it had ex-foreign military officials on its payroll

Furthermore, the record clearly suggested that the petitioner's response had throughout been evasive

Reports of intelligence agencies were received in support of the allegations communicated to the petitioner and its representatives were confronted with such reports and were asked to explain whether the provision of risk assessment and intelligence reports with respect to the security scenario in Pakistan fell within the ambit of the MOA, however, the representatives of the petitioner-company were unable to provide a plausible answer in such regard

Petitioner-company was indeed providing services that were beyond the scope of its MOA

High Court had ordered for winding-up of the petitioner-company for cogent reasons which were upheld by the Supreme Court

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

In a situation where a property was sold for less than its value, by availing the benefit of O.XXI, R. 89, C.P.C., the judgment debtor or any other person holding interest in such property may challenge the sale and retrieve the property from the purchaser by depositing the purchase price together with 5% of such price in Court

Subject land, in the present case, measuring 25 acres was sold for a paltry sum of Rs. 2.6 Million which translated into Rs.96,635 per acre

Said amount was not only less than the actual market value of the land, but was also substantially less than the Deputy Commissioner (DC) rate which was in the sum of Rs.6,06,400/- per acre

Calculated as per criteria of DC rate and not considering the real market value of the land, the value of 25 acres came to Rs.15,160,000

No plausible or reasonable explanation was provided for the huge difference between the value represented by the auction price and the real market value

Land in question was indeed sold at a throw away price causing substantial injury and loss to the judgment debtor

Further, there was evidence on record that the auction proceedings were not conducted at the spot

Such fact casted serious doubts upon the sanctity of the auction and the entire process which led to such auction

Upon coming to the conclusion that a property had been sold for less than its market value, the Court was not denuded of its jurisdiction to set aside such sale on account of inadequacy of price alone

Record indicated that the executing court never confirmed the auction, therefore, no vested right had accrued in favour of the auction purchaser

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed in circumstances.

Admittedly, the appellant was unable to bring on record any evidence, oral or documentary, regarding the payment of rent to the landlord after a specific date

In such circumstances tenant was rightly held to be a "willful defaulter"

Furthermore as per the lease agreement the tenant took the property on rent for residential purposes, but he had converted the property to commercial use, thus he violated the terms of the lease agreement

Court below had rightly allowed the ejectment petition of the landlord and ordered the tenant to vacate the premises

Appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Wife was not required to present logical objective and sufficient reasons regarding her claim of khula, rather it was enough for her to show that she had developed a fixed aversion against her husband.

Appellant assailed the decree passed by Family Court whereby it had dissolved the marriage on the ground of non-performance of matrimonial obligations by the husband for four years and dismissed the suit regarding cruelty and non-payment of maintenance

Validity

Appellant had not performed his marital obligations from 2012 to 2016

Said fact was admitted by witnesses produced by appellant as well as appellant himself that he went abroad on 8/3/2012 and came back to Pakistan in 2017

Man who intentionally neglected his wife's physical needs was not only abandoning his obligations, but also manifested a lack of understanding of the true nature of what Islam entailed in practice

Husband was duty bound to fulfill the matrimonial obligations of his wife and he could not neglect her without any genuine reasons or excuse from performing marital obligations

Trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence and reached at just and proper conclusion

Appeal was dismissed.

Fairness, like equal treatment, was a fundamental principle of a democratic society but not necessarily one which was directly translatable into a justiciable rule of law

Simple/substantive unfairness was not a ground for judicial review, but it was well established that procedural unfairness or impropriety could render a decision unlawful

Substantive unfairness, namely whether that had been unfairness in all the circumstances, was not a distinct legal criterion, nor was it made so by the addition of terms such as "conspicuous" or "abuse of power", which added nothing to the ordinary principles of judicial review.

Mere omission to list an asset could not be labeled as dishonesty unless some wrongdoing was associated with its acquisition or retention which was duly established in judicial proceedings

No set formula could be fixed with regard to every omission to list an asset in the nomination paper and make a declaration of dishonesty and impose the penalty of lifetime disqualification on a candidate

Element of bad intention with regard to an undeclared asset had to exist before it was described as dishonest

Intervention through a writ in the nature of quo warranto in financial matters against an elected member could only be justified when non-disclosure of an asset was meant to conceal a wrongdoing

Law did not envisage that every rejection of nomination papers on account of non-disclosure of an asset would lead to disqualification under Art. 62(1)(f) of the Constitution therefore unless some wrongdoings or dishonesty associated with an undeclared asset was established the outcome of the case would not culminate into disqualification for life

Where a matter with regard to an undisclosed asset was taken to court, it would not form the opinion that it was a case of dishonest concealment without first calling upon the elected member to explain the source from which such an asset was acquired

Where no satisfactory explanation was forthcoming and the undeclared asset also did not commensurate with the elected member's known sources of income, it would give rise to the presumption that unlawful means may have been applied with regard to such an asset.

After expiration of the tenancy period, a tenant, though could continue to hold over the possession of the rented premises, but his tenancy was rendered invalid, in that, it had come to an end, and if there was no express consent of the landlord to extend the tenancy period the tenant shall be guilty of having infringed the conditions of tenancy, rendering him liable to be evicted under S.17(2)(ii)(b) of the Islamabad Rent Restriction Ordinance, 2001.

Tenant who ran a business in the rented premises as a sole proprietary concern converted the same into a private limited company

Pay orders for rent which were previously sent in the name of the tenant were now sent in the name of the company

Landlord refused to accept such pay orders, where after the company started depositing the rent with the Rent Controller; held, that admittedly the tenant had failed to pay the rent and it was the company which offered the rent to the landlord and on refusal deposited the same with the Rent Controller

Since the company admittedly was not the tenant of the landlord, therefore, the landlord was right in declining to receive the rent and such deposit with the Rent Controller could not save the tenant from the consequences of default in payment of rent in terms of S. 15(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979

Supreme Court directed the tenant to hand over the vacant peaceful possession of the premises in question to the landlord within 30 days

Appeal was allowed accordingly.

Instances where courts leaned towards winding-up of a company were, where the patent, which the company had to work on, was not granted; where the bulk of the property of the company had been sold and its liquidity and capital exhausted; where there was no reasonable chance of the grant of a contract or concession which the company was supposed to undertake; where on account of a deadlock in management the company could not carry on business for several years, nor there was any evidence of plans and prospects of revival; where there was suspension of business for over a year, the number of members was reduced to less than two, all Directors but one was absconding and assets were taken over by the lending institution, and the petition by the sole remaining Director for winding-up was admitted; where various Banks and financial institutions refused to advance term loans on account of the antecedents of the managing Director, and by change of management also, the position of the company could not be revived, and where directors of a company which had cheated investors, Banks and financial institutions were also involved in the company.

Circumstances when High Court could transfer case or try the same itself.

Issue of bias in a judge was a very serious matter and in the very least cogent and specific particulars thereof must be pleaded by an applicant and the same may be bolstered with plausible corroboration.

Beside making out a prima facie case for grant of pre-arrest bail, the accused had to show some mala fide on the part of the complainant and the investigating agency, motivated by caprice and ulterior motives to humiliate and disgrace the accused person in case of arrest

At bail stage, however, it was difficult for an accused person to furnish tangible proof about the element of mala fide or foul play on the part of the complainant or the arresting agencies therefore, the court had to look at the material available on record and to draw inferences there-from about the mala fide or ulterior motive, on account of which the intended arrest of the accused was motivated.

Grounds

Any order passed or sentence awarded by a Court Martial or other forums under the Pakistan Army Act, 1952, as amended by the Pakistan Army (Amendment) Act, 2015, was subject to judicial review both by the High Courts and the Supreme Court, inter alia, on the ground of coram non judice, without jurisdiction or suffering from mala fides including malice in law.

Where there was a fundamental legal flaw in the constitution of the Field General Court Martial (FGCM) the actions taken thereby would be coram non judice and hence, also without jurisdiction

Actions complained of could even otherwise be without jurisdiction, a separate and independent ground available to challenge the sentences and convictions of the FGCM, therefore, it must necessarily be examined whether the FGCM had the jurisdiction over the person tried and the offence for which such trial had taken place and to ascertain existence or otherwise of any other defect or a gross illegality in the exercise of jurisdiction denuding the same of validity.

Any proceedings taken, convictions and sentences awarded by the Field General Court Martial (FGCM) could be called into question on the ground of mala fides of fact i.e. being tainted with bias or bad faith or taken for a collateral purpose or inspired by a personal motive to hurt a person or benefit oneself or another

Mere allegation that an action had been taken wrongly was not sufficient to establish mala fide of fact

Specific allegations of the collateral purpose or an ulterior motive must be made and proved to the satisfaction of the Court.

Any decision of the Field General Court Martial (FGCM) could be challenged on the ground of malice in law or constructive or implied malice for which purpose it was sufficient to establish that the action complained of was not only illegal but so unreasonable and improbable that it could not be said to be contemplated or countenanced by the law where under such action had purportedly been taken

Malice in law would include an act done wrongfully and wilfully without reasonable or probable justification.

Name of respondent had been placed on Exit Control list as she was nominated in a case of murder of a customs officer in connection with smuggling of foreign currency

Legality

Notification/memorandum, whereby name of respondent was placed on the Exit Control List, was issued purportedly for a reason which did not conform to the criteria as laid down in the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Rules, 2010 and the exit control policy

Liberty of a citizen could not be curtailed by mere registration of a criminal case

Registration of an FIR had no nexus with and was extraneous to the object of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981

Furthermore while issuing the impugned notification/ memorandum the Ministry of Interior had also overlooked an order of High Court whereby the said Ministry was restrained from placing the respondent's name on the Exit Control List without the prior approval of the High Court

High Court had therefore rightly struck off the impugned notification/memorandum

Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed accordingly.

Omission whereby the (Supreme) Court had over-looked important material that would alter the decision in the case constituted a fit ground for the grant of review under Art. 188 of the Constitution.

Failure on the part of the prosecution to establish the motive may react upon a sentence of death.

Mere fact that the difference in the number of voles cast for the winning and losing candidate was small was not by itself a justification for recount, especially so where a recount was not claimed at the appropriate stage before the competent-forum and no ground to justify such recount was pleaded or established.

Cross version by itself was no ground for bail.

Appellant/ Commissioner Inland Revenue, sought condonation of delay of 37 days in filing of intra-court appeal, on the ground, inter alia, that the procedural constraints required permission to be sought from the Department, which caused delay

Validity

Said reason was neither cogent nor confidence inspiring and in time-barred proceedings, defaulting party must explain delay of each day caused in preferring valid proceedings in accordance with law and the same was not done in the present case

Sufficient cause must be shown by person seeking condonation of delay, which meant "circumstances beyond control of the party concerned", and nothing shall be deemed to have been done in good faith which was not done with due care and attention

High Court observed that for purposes of limitation, Government (departments) could not be treated differently

Intra-court appeal being barred by time, were dismissed, accordingly.

Wrong advice or ill advice of the counsel was not a ground for condonation of delay.

Although accused was named in FIR, yet the fact remained that role assigned to him therein could not be established during course of investigation and accused was merely found present at the spot at the time of occurrence but did not cause any injury to the deceased

Complainant had never challenged the outcome of investigation in respect of accused either by moving application for change of investigation or by private complaint, which prima facie showed his satisfaction about the outcome of investigation

Allegations contained in FIR and facts emerged during course of investigation had made the case of two versions i.e. one put forward by complainant in FIR and the other came on record during investigation

As to which version was correct was to be determined by Trial Court after recording evidence

Challan had already been submitted before Trial Court and trial against accused had commenced, so at such stage it would not be in the fitness of things to recall the concession of post-arrest bail granted to accused by Trial Court after considering merits of case

Grounds for grant of bail and cancellation of bail were entirely different

For cancellation of bail very strong, exceptional and cogent reasons regarding misusing, abusing, hampering with prosecution evidence and repeating the same offence were required

No allegation was on record with regard to misusing or abusing of concession of bail against accused

Counsel for complainant had not addressed any argument before High Court in that regard so as to make basis for cancellation of bail

Application for cancellation of bail was dismissed in circumstances.