The Honourable Lahore High Court recently appointed Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, as an Amicus Curiae to assist the Court regarding Islamic Jurisprudence in respect of Talaq-i-Mubarat i.e. divorce between husband and wife with mutual consent, and whether such a divorce is unilaterally revocable by the husband.
On 19-04-2016, through a judgment that has since been reported at 2016 SCMR 1225, the Supreme Court of Pakistan dismissed a Civil Appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court. The Appellant was represented by Senior Advocate and former High Court Judge, Syed Qalb-e-Hassan Shah. The Respondent was successfully represented by Ch. Imran Hassan Ali.
The dispute concerned about 57 kanals (approx. 7 acres) of valuable land, which the Appellant before the Supreme Court claimed to have purchased from the Respondent. However, the Respondent’s case was that it was a bogus and fraudulent transaction. She had challenged the alleged sale through a civil suit, which was dismissed by the Civil Judge. Her appeal to the District Judge was also dismissed.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali successfully represented the lady before the Lahore High Court, which allowed her Revision Petition. The High Court set aside the judgments of the Civil Judge and the District Judge, and declared that the alleged sale transaction was the result of fraud and deception.
On 19-04-2016, the Supreme Court upheld this judgment of the High Court and dismissed the appeal.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, successfully represented the convict/appellant, Shabbir Hussain, before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, in Murder Reference No. 24/2012, Crl. J. Appeal No. 30-J/2012 and Crl. Revision No. 206/2012. The Court answered the reference in the negative and also dismissed the complainant’s revision petition for enhancement of compensation. Consequently, death sentence was converted into life sentence.
On 03-03-2016, Ch. Imran Hassan Ali represented the convict/Appellant, Muhammad Ramzan, in Murder Reference No. 98/2011 and Crl. Appeal No. 538/2011 before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The Court answered the reference in the negative, partly allowed the appeal and, while upholding conviction, converted death sentence into imprisonment for life.
On 19-02-2016, Ch. Imran Hassan Ali was interviewed and recommended for enrolment as Advocate Supreme Court of Pakistan by the Enrolment Committee of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. The committee was headed by the Senior Puisne Judge, Mr. Justice Mian Saqib Nisar, and included two members of Pakistan Bar Council, namely Mr. Shoaib Shaheen, ASC, and Mr. Ghulam Mustafa Kandwal, ASC. Aged 35, Imran has become one of the youngest advocates ever to be admitted as an Advocate Supreme Court. All praise is for Allah Almighty alone.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali was appointed amicus curiae by the Honourable Lahore High Court to assist the Court as to what would be the appropriate remedy against an order of rejection of plaint passed in exercise of revisional jurisdiction. The said case was fixed before Honourable Mr. Justice Arshad Mahmood Tabassum – may his soul rest in peace – on 02-12-2015 when Ch. Imran Hassan Ali appeared as amicus curiae and addressed the Court on the question of maintainability. Accepting his submissions, the Court held that the only remedy available against such an order would be a constitution petition (writ of certiorari) and that an appeal would not be maintainable. The judgment is reported as “Ghulam Akhtar vs. Naseer Ahmed” (2017 CLC Note 29 Lahore).
On 12-10-2015, Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, successfully defended the nomination papers of Akhtar Hussain Shahbaz. The case was heard by Mr. Justice Mamoon Rashid Sheikh – a judge of the Honourable Lahore High Court – who sits as the Election Appellate Authority. Mr. Shahbaz is a candidate for election in the Local Government Elections. His candidature was challenged by Saeed Akhtar.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate, represented the successful Petitioner in a Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The Petitioner was the hapless mother of a 4-year-old boy. She had been deserted by her husband, the child’s father, who wanted to marry another woman. The child was living with the mother when one day he was forcibly taken away by the father, a serving army commando. The mother had no option but to take recourse to legal proceedings. She filed a Writ Petition in the High Court.
The Court ordered the bailiff to produce the child in Court. The bailiff, along with police, raided the father’s family house. Despite some resistance by the father’s influential family, the child was recovered and brought before Court. Both sides were heard at length. Eventually, the Court found in favour of the mother. It was guided by principles of Shariah/Islamic Jurisprudence, which give a mother priority in matters of custody/guardianship of minor children.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate, represented the successful appellant in a criminal appeal against conviction before the Honourable Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench. The appellant, Muhammad Saleem, had been convicted of rape under S. 376 of the Pakistan Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Trial Court. The High Court accepted the appeal and acquitted the appellant of all charges against him.
Ch. Imran Hassan Ali, Advocate, represented the successful Petitioner in a Writ Petition against Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. (“PTCL”) before the Honourable Islamabad High Court. The Petitioner was employee of PTCL. He opted for Voluntary Separation Scheme (“VSS”) launched by PTCL. He was just 22 days short of the period of service required before an employee becomes entitled to pension. PTCL hastened to accept his application for VSS before he completed the said period. He was thus deprived of pension despite having worked at PTCL for more than 19 years. He challenged it before the Islamabad High Court.
The Respondent argued that after its privatisation PTCL is not amenable to Constitutional Jurisdiction of the High Court. The Court rejected this objection by employing the “function test”.
The Court accepted the Writ Petition on merits and declared that the Petitioner was entitled to pension.