Grant of

Plea that High Court should have decided case on merits and that petitioner was entitled to be released on bail, repelled

All that petitioner could legitimately request was that earlier direction of High Court to record evidence without further delay should be acted upon

Trial Court directed to grant priority to case in matter of recording evidence particularly of eye-witnesses

Leave to appeal refused

Petitioner convicted and sentenced to death on solitary evidence of chance witness who had seen petitioner, standing near deceased on morning of occurrence

Plea raised that it was not by itself sufficient to hold that he had been proved to be murderer beyond any shadow of doubt, without any further corroboration of recovery of articles belonging to deceased or extra-judicial confession which was disbelieved by Courts below

Leave to appeal granted to consider whether well-established principles of appreciation of evidence in criminal cases had been followed in instant case.

Questions raised having been satisfactorily met by the Courts below, which, after detailed discussion accepted prosecution case as factually correct

Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions that civil Courts were not competent to entertain suit of respondent on account of bar contained in S.36 of Act (V of 1912) and since objection in this regard went to the very root of jurisdiction of civil Courts, High Court ought not to have declined to consider it, and that finding of Trial Court was based upon misreading of evidence.

WAPDA employee removed from service under S.17(1-A) of WAPDA Act and denied pensionary benefits by reason of amendment made in Rules with retrospective effect

Order set aside in appeal

Held: Employee having acquired a vested right to pensionary benefits could not be deprived of by a subsequent notification issued by WAPDA.

Leave to appeal having already been granted to re-examine liability of accused petitioners, application for grant of bail allowed in respect of those who were not attributed grievous injuries to complainant party.

Report in case prepared by a person who was himself accused in first instance but was acquitted under S. 249-A, Cr.P.C. and subsequently produced as a prosecution witness alongwith seven other persons who also were accused in case but had been produced by prosecution in support of its case and were probably persuaded to support prosecution case in order to get themselves exonerated

Bail granted to petitioner during pendency of main petition.

adjournments having been obtained thrice earlier on similar grounds, Supreme Court declined to adjourn case for fourth time on same plea and disposed of matter on merits.

Co-accused having been admitted to pre-arrest bail and case of petitioners being at par with him at present stage of investigations, petitioners, also admitted to pre-arrest bail with the observations that if during investigations evidence became available which prima facie indicated that any of petitioners was guilty of non-bailable offence, investigating agency could apply for cancellation of his appeal.

Tribunal itself feeling difficulty in finding satisfactory evidence on record as to questions (i) whether alleged disqualification was known to voters and (ii) whether finding on issue of age of appellant would be gone into in light of evidence on record in statutory appeal by right

There being prima facie case for interference so far as interim stay was concerned, operation of impugned order suspended.

Petitioners charged with offence under S. 302/34, P.P.C. whether shared common intention to murder-Matter required enquiry

Bail allowed by High Court

Order impugned-High Court after taking note of all relevant facts forming a view which was neither perverse nor entirely wrong

Discretion possessed by High Court having been exercised, did not call for interference nor required further examination

Leave to appeal refused.

Leave refused.

Leave granted to consider whether interim injunction granted and confirmed by trial Court was a perverse exercise of discretion

Practice of subordinate Courts to grant ad interim orders freely, deprecated by Supreme Court.

Order upheld in appeal and revision inter alia on ground that competently instituted proceedings before Revenue Court could not be frustrated by issuance of restraining order

Supreme Court while maintaining impugned order, held, injunction could not be granted by a Court to stay proceedings another Court which is not subordinate to Court from which injunction is sought

Petition for leave to appeal dismissed.

Petition being devoid of merits, dismissed.

Plea that place of occurrence at relevant time being crowded, neither raiding party could hear conversation nor petitioner could accept tainted money, not sustained

Evidence on record having been believed by two Courts and presenting no peculiar feature to require further appraisal at Supreme Court level, leave to appeal refused.

Appellant removed from service solely on account of his convictior in criminal trial-Conviction and sentence set aside by High Court giving him benefit of doubt

Appellant denied reinstatement on strength of r. 7.3(a) of Civil Service Rules Punjab, Vol. 1, Part I

R. 7.3(a) dealing with entitlement of pay and allowances of civil servants under suspension, held, not relevant

Concept of honourable acquittal unjustifiably imported in determining question of validity of appellant's removal from service-Very basis on which order of removal stood, having disappeared and no other departmental disciplinary proceedings having been taken against appellant, order of removal rendered ineffective

High Court having exercised discretion to relieve tenant of consequence of non-payment of rent on finding that landlord was deliberately refusing to accept rent in view of dispute between parties over amenities provided in demised premises

Supreme Court ordinarily not to interfere with discretionary order unless shown that discretion was exercised capriciously and on principles other than judicial

No such circumstance having been pointed out, leave to appeal refused.

Supreme Court declined to interfere with exercise of judicial discretion by Courts below in interlocutory matters.

No legal error having been committed and there being no question requiring further examination, leave to appeal refused.

High Court holding on basis of proved evidence that suit land was granted to respondent for purpose of public utility and since property no longer required for said purpose, same was to revert to Government and that contract between parties was not enforceable in law

Plea raised by petitioner against such finding found to be without merit

Leave to appeal refused.

State land-Grant of Board of Revenue remanding case for decision on merits-Colonization Officer, instead of hearing parties involved in case, inviting fresh offers with result that petitioner also applied for disputed land-Barrage Authorities, held, were not competent to invite fresh offers ant allow other persons, to be interested in such land-Commissioner's order holding petitioner not a party to case, upheld.

Grant of-Grantee making his water pass through another's land for deriving monetary benefits-Matter not one in which Condition No. 8 of Colony Conditions could be considered to be applicable-Government cannot interfere in such matter which should be settled between parties by mutual consent.

Such order, held, bad in law and without jurisdiction.

No justification to disturb grant of petitioner.

Horse-breeding tenancy-Grant of-Ownership of applicant in chak proved by entry in mutation register-Revenue Officer not to concern himself as to how applicant acquired his title.