Bar also challenges judges' seniority list
The Islamabad High Court Bar Association (IHCBA) has also approached the apex court against a new seniority list issued by the former IHC chief justice, Aamer Farooq, after transfer of three new judges to the capital's high court earlier this month.
The constitutional petition filed under Article 184(3) of the Constitution urges the Supreme Court to declare that the president does not have unlimited powers under Article 200(1) to transfer judges. Judges cannot be transferred from one high court to another without public interest.
The petition requests that judges transferred to other high courts should be recognized as judges of those respective courts until they take a new oath.
It also seeks to nullify the appointment of the IHC acting chief justice, Sardar Muhammad Sarfraz Dogar; to count seniority only after the new judges take their oaths, and to direct the IHC registrar to issue a revised seniority list.
The Ministry of Law on February 1 issued notification for the transfer of Justice Dogar, Justice Khadim Hussain Soomro and Justice Muhammad Asifrespectively from the Lahore High Court, the Sindh High Court and the Balochistan High Courtto the IHC.
Later IHC former chief justice Aamer Farooq issued a new seniority list in which Justice Dogar appeared as the senior puisne judge. Five IHC judges, including former senior puisne judge Mohsin Akhtar Kayani, filed representations against the move, which Justice Farooq rejected.
The judges later approached the Supreme Court against the new seniority list.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Express Tribune
3 hours ago
- Express Tribune
'Offer met with silence can't be accepted later'
The Lahore High Court (LHC) has set aside a family court's ruling, observing that an offer or proposal which is not expressly accepted and is instead met with silence, conduct or behaviour indicating disinterest or unwillingness, cannot be accepted at a later stage. The case involved petitioner Ahmed Raza, who, during family court proceedings, offered that he had no objection to the decreeing of two suits - one for recovery of maintenance allowance and another for dowry articles and gold ornaments - in favour of Respondent No.2. However, he made this conditional upon her parents or real brothers swearing a special oath on the Holy Quran, affirming that her claims were truthful. Interestingly, at the time, the respondents did not respond to the offer, neither accepting nor rejecting it. The petitioner subsequently closed his oral evidence, sought time to produce documentary evidence, and the case was fixed for final arguments on November 16, 2020. However, before the final arguments could proceed, the respondents filed an application expressing their willingness to accept the petitioner's earlier offer made during cross-examination. The petitioner contested this application, requesting the court to decide the suits on merit. Nevertheless, the family court ruled that the petitioner could not back out of the offer or proposal he had made. Challenging this decision, the petitioner approached the LHC, which overturned the family court's order. Justice Malik Waqar Haider Awan held that once the trial had moved forward, leaving the offer unaccepted, it became ineffective. "The party missed the train by not expressly accepting the offer promptly," the judge noted. Thereafter, the petitioner's documentary evidence was recorded, and the matter was set down for final arguments. Counsel for Respondents No. 2 to 4 contended that once the offer for a special oath was made, the petitioner could not withdraw from it. Subsequently, the LHC held that a lack of timely acceptance rendered the proposal null and void.
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
Section 30 of 1940 Act: SC explains court's jurisdictional extent
ISLAMABAD: The arbitration is an autonomous and final forum, and judicial interference is permissible only in narrow and clearly defined circumstances envisaged by Section 30 of the 1940 Act; i.e., jurisdictional error, proven misconduct, or a patent legal mistake visible on the face of the record. A three-judge bench, headed by Chief Justice Yahya Afridi and comprising Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, rendered this verdict on Pakistan Railways' petition against Lahore High Court (LHC) judgment dated 04.03.2024. The disputes between the petitioner (Pakistan Railways) and the respondent (CRRC Ziyang Co Limited) arose from a contract executed on 01.11.2017 were referred to arbitration by a two-member arbitral tribunal, which rendered the award on 02.07.2021 and filed it before the civil court. The petitioner on 01.09.2021 filed objections to the said award praying for the award to be set aside and the disputes to be remitted back to the arbitrators. The civil court on 23.11.2022 under amended provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, framed the issues requiring the parties to submit the list of witnesses for the production of evidence within a period of seven days. The respondent under Section 30 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, assailed the civil court's order dated 23-11-2022 before the LHC, which on 04-03-2024 set aside the said order and remanded the case to the civil court for a decision afresh on the basis of available record. The petitioner approached the apex court against the LHC verdict. The nine-page judgment authored by Justice Miangul Hassan Aurangzeb, upholding the LHC order, dismissed the petition. It said objections to arbitration awards, ought to avoid framing issues and record evidence unless absolutely necessary. 'The framing of issues and recording of evidence; however, undermines the core objectives of the 1940 Act, which are efficiency, finality, and minimal judicial intervention.' The judgment noted that arbitration offers several time-related advantages compared to traditional court litigation. Arbitration typically takes less time because the process is more streamlined, with fewer procedural steps and less formality than court proceedings. Justice Hassan wrote that the Courts are expected to pronounce judgment and decree in terms of the award, intervening only on narrow grounds such as misconduct or invalidity of the award, without re-opening factual issues through evidence recording. It is now well settled that arbitrators are entitled to regulate their own procedure and are not governed by the strict procedure prescribed by the CPC and the rules regarding evidence contained in the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Arbitrators decide disputes based on evidence presented during arbitration proceedings. They are under no obligation to frame issues as provided in the CPC. The judgment said that courts recording fresh evidence disregard the procedural safeguards in arbitration, such as the Arbitrator's exclusive jurisdiction to assess evidence and apply law. This may lead to inconsistent outcomes and procedural unfairness. If the court frames issues and records evidence after objections to an award are filed, parties may use this as an opportunity to re-litigate the entire dispute, leading to multiple proceedings on the same issues besides undermining both the legislative intent and the integrity of the arbitral process. The framing of issues, recording of evidence and hearing arguments post the filing of the award in the court is bound to increase litigation costs for parties and add to the already heavy workload of courts. This again defeats the purpose of arbitration as an economical and efficient alternative dispute resolution mechanism. The recording of evidence and conducting a trial effectively converts the court into an appellate or fact-finding forum, which would be contrary to the statutory scheme envisaged by the 1940 Act. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
Business Recorder
4 hours ago
- Business Recorder
IHC halts FBR tax recovery under Tax Laws Ord, 2025
ISLAMABAD: In a major development, Islamabad High Court (IHC) has stopped the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) from immediate tax recovery against taxpayers under the controversial Tax Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025. In this regard, IHC has issued an order on Tuesday in favour of the private limited companies (petitioners). The National Assembly Standing Committee on Finance has also categorically conveyed to the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) that the government has bypassed Parliament for promulgating Tax Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025, and urgently communicated ordinance to the FBR's field formations for recovery from taxpayers. Tax laws bill: NA panel defers Sec 114C until FBR system overhaul According to the order of the IHC, the court has issued notices to the FBR to submit comments and meanwhile, no coercive measure to be taken by the FBR against the petitioners. The petitioners have requested the IHC to declare that the Tax Laws (Amendment) Ordinance 2025, promulgated on May 2, 2025, as Ultra Vires of the Constitution and void ab initio. IHC should declare that sections 138 (3A), 140(6A), 175 C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (as amended), and section 27 (4) of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 are inconsistent with Articles 4, 8, 10-A, 18, and 25 of the Constitution, hence void. IHC should suspend the operation of impugned Tax Laws (Amendment) Ordinance, 2025 dated 02.05.2025, till pendency of this Writ Petition and restrain the Respondents (FBR) from enforcing or taking any coercive action under the impugned provisions till pendency of this Writ Petition, petitioners added. Copyright Business Recorder, 2025
