Summary: A petitioner challenged a preventive detention order issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Lahore, detaining 13 individuals based on allegations of subversive activities aimed at inciting public disorder through protests. The petitioner argued that no substantive material supported the preventive detention and that the detainees were not informed of the grounds for detention, nor were they allowed access to legal counsel or family. The respondents justified the detention, claiming it was necessary for maintaining public order, as the detainees were politically active and involved in disruptive activities. -----Issues: 1- Whether the preventive detention order was arbitrary and violated the detainees' fundamental rights. 2- Whether sufficient material existed to justify the preventive detention under the Punjab Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance. 3- Whether the court had the jurisdiction to review the validity of the preventive detention order. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court found the detention order to be arbitrary and unsupported by sufficient evidence. It highlighted that preventive detention must be based on credible, tangible material, such as social media evidence, surveillance reports, or other concrete sources. The respondents failed to provide such material, despite being given multiple opportunities. Additionally, the court held that mere assertions or suspicions could not justify preventive detention, and conjecture could not replace substantive proof. The court further reasoned that preventive detention laws must be strictly adhered to, with the burden on the detaining authority to demonstrate the legality and necessity of such orders. In this case, the grounds provided were vague, and the detainees had not been informed of their rights as mandated by law. The court concluded that the detention was a violation of the detainees' constitutional rights to liberty and due process. As a result, the court set aside the detention order and directed the immediate release of the detainees. -----Citations/Precedents: Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior Islamabad v. Mrs. Amtul Jalil Khawaja (PLD 2003 SC 442) Muhammad Irshad v. Government of the Punjab (2020 P Cr. L J 206) Shahid Rasool v. Government of the Punjab (2023 YLR 333) Muhammad Abdaal alias Abdali v. Government of Punjab (PLD 2020 Lahore 471) Sheikh Muhammad Musa v. Government of East Pakistan (1969 P Cr. L J 862) Purnendu Dastigar v. Government of East Pakistan (1970 P Cr. L J 11) The Government of East Pakistan v. Mrs. Rowshan Bijaya Shaukat Ali Khan (PLD 1966 SC 286) Muhammad Younus v. Province of Sindh (PLD 1973 Karachi 694) Government of Sindh and others v. Mst. Najma (2001 SCMR 8) State v. Mst. Taji Bibi (2002 SCMR 914) Abdul Latif Shamshad Ahmed v. District Magistrate, Kasur (1999 P Cr. L J 2014)

Summary: Background: The appellant entered into an agreement to purchase a plot from respondent No. 1, Shahzad Iqbal Malik, on 22.03.2013. The agreed consideration was Rs.1,250,000/-, and Rs.100,000/- was paid as earnest money. The balance was due by 27.03.2013. The appellant alleged that despite his readiness to pay, respondent No.1 delayed transferring the property, leading him to file a suit for specific performance of the agreement on 18.09.2014. During the litigation, the appellant deposited the remaining sale consideration on 17.10.2014 upon the court's direction. The lower court refused the specific performance but directed the respondent to return double the earnest money. On appeal, the decision was partly modified by the appellate court, which upheld the return of double the earnest money along with interest. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant was entitled to specific performance of the agreement despite the clause providing for double earnest money in case of non-performance. 2- Whether the appellant fulfilled his contractual obligations in time and demonstrated readiness and willingness to complete the transaction. 3- Whether the lower courts correctly exercised discretion in refusing specific performance and instead awarding compensation. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The appeal was dismissed. The court held: Time is of the essence: The agreement specifically required the appellant to pay the remaining amount by 27.03.2013. Although the appellant claimed he was ready and willing to pay, the court found contradictions in the testimony of his witnesses. There was no credible evidence (such as bank statements) to show the appellant had the necessary funds on the required date. The payment made on 17.10.2014, well after the deadline, did not demonstrate timely readiness. Discretionary nature of specific performance: The court reiterated that specific performance is a discretionary remedy, as per Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The court found that the appellant's delay in fulfilling his part of the contract and the rising value of the property in the interim period would give the appellant an unfair advantage if specific performance were granted. Therefore, it was just and equitable to refuse the specific performance. Double earnest money: The court upheld the appellate court’s decision to order the return of double the earnest money with interest. The contract explicitly provided for this compensation in case of non-performance by the seller, and since the seller did not appeal the decision, this relief remained intact. The appeal for specific performance was dismissed, and the court upheld the relief of compensation by awarding double the earnest money. The court determined that the discretionary remedy of specific performance was not warranted given the circumstances. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Latif Khokhar vs. Abdul Latif Khan (2018 CLC Note 40) Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat Ali vs. Mst. Safia Khatoon (1994 SCMR 2189) Muhammad Abdur Rehman Qureshi vs. Sagheer Ahmad (2017 SCMR 1696)

Summary: The order sheet indicates that the plaintiffs filed a suit for the rendition of accounts and permanent injunction. The plaintiffs claimed that plaintiff No. 1 provided transport services to defendant No. 10 for supplying oil to Afghanistan for NATO forces. Plaintiff No. 1 engaged the services of plaintiff Nos. 2 to 8 for this purpose. The dispute involves unpaid dues and obligations between the plaintiffs and defendants. The court examined whether there was a cause of action against defendant No. 10 in this case. The court considered the arguments presented by various legal counsels and discussed legal principles regarding necessary and proper parties in a lawsuit. The court ultimately allowed the application under Order 1 Rule 10 (2) of the Civil Procedure Code, which means that defendant No. 10 (Sher Ali Mengal) was struck off from the array of defendants. The court found that there was no valid cause of action against defendant No. 10 and directed the plaintiffs to file an amended title for the case.

Summary: Mere absondence of Applicant cannot be made ground for rejection of bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail. Co-accused was already admitted to bail, hence, Applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. Case calls for further inquiry. Bail granted.

Summary: Background: This appeal was filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, challenging orders passed by the Banking Court-VI, Lahore. The appellant contested two specific orders: the first, dated 13.03.2023, dismissed the appellant’s objections to the execution proceedings, and the second, dated 09.02.2023, set a reserve price for the mortgaged property being auctioned. The appellant argued that the reserve price, based on an evaluation by Masud Associates Pvt. Limited, significantly undervalued the property compared to a separate evaluation conducted by Diamond Surveyors Pakistan. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Banking Court properly dismissed the appellant's application challenging the reserve price set for the auction of the mortgaged property. 2- Whether the reserve price for the mortgaged property was accurately assessed in light of conflicting valuation reports. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court upheld the Banking Court's decisions, dismissing the appeal. It found that the appellant had failed to file timely objections to the evaluation report prepared by Masud Associates Pvt. Limited, which had been appointed by the Banking Court. The appellant's delayed objections were considered a tactic to delay the auction proceedings. The court noted that the valuation conducted by the court-appointed evaluator should be given preference over the appellant’s privately commissioned report, which could not serve as a basis to challenge the reserve price. Furthermore, the court highlighted that a transparent auction process, not the reserve price, would ultimately determine the property’s final value. The court cited established case law on estoppel and the principles of judicial sales, concluding that no irregularity or injustice had occurred. The appeal was dismissed for lack of merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Dr. Muhammad Javaid Shafi vs. Syed Rashid Arshad and others (PLD 2015 SC 212) Al-Hadi Rice Mills (Pvt.) Ltd vs. MCB Bank Limited (2023 CLD 85) M/s Colony Textile Mills Limited vs. First Punjab Modaraba (2021 CLD 1212)

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Civil transfer Application dismissed. )] These cases involved the transfer of Suit from a Family Court in Hyderabad to the Family Court in Umerkot, and challenged to the orders of the Family Court under Rules 5 & 6 of the Family Court Rules, 1965. The petitioner, contests the jurisdiction of the trial court where her husband filed a suit for judicial separation under Hindu Family Laws. While the husband claimed residency within the jurisdiction of Police Station Bhitai Nagar Hyderabad, the petitioner contested this assertion, claiming the husband's last residence was in village Rajo Khanani, District Hyderabad. The court examined Rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Court Rules 1965, which determined jurisdiction based on the cause of action and the residency of the parties. It noted that the husband, being Hindu, filed a suit for judicial separation under Hindu laws, attempting to establish jurisdiction based on the cause of action. However, the court found discrepancies in the addresses provided by both parties and questioned the validity of the cause of action at the mentioned police station. The court partially allowed the petition, setting aside the impugned order and restoring the application for reconsideration based on the facts presented. It emphasized that the transfer of a case should not be solely for the convenience of the parties and directed the trial court to frame and dispose of the issue of jurisdiction within one month, with evidence if necessary, in accordance with Rule 6 of the Family Court Rules 1965. The order rendered the transfer application moot, as the trial court would now reconsider the jurisdictional issues. The court instructed expeditious handling of the matter, not exceeding six weeks, to decide the question of jurisdiction.

Summary: [Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 (Mitigating Citrcumstances )] The motive is always a double-edged weapon. No doubt, the previous enmity can be a reason for the appellant to commit the alleged crime, but it can equally be a reason for the complainant side to falsely implicate the appellant in the case of a previous grudge.

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a former Prime Minister of Pakistan, is facing multiple FIRs, including FIR No. 242/2023, registered at the Police Station Khannah, District Islamabad, under Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997. The petitioner was granted protective bail by the Lahore High Court on 17.03.2023 to allow him to approach the appropriate court for regular pre-arrest bail. The protective bail was set to expire on 24.03.2023. However, due to security concerns and other personal commitments, the petitioner was unable to approach the relevant court within the given timeframe. As a result, the petitioner sought an extension of his protective bail through this new application. ----Issues: Whether a second application for protective bail is maintainable after the expiration of the first. Whether the court should extend the protective bail period based on the circumstances presented by the petitioner. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Lahore High Court ruled in favor of the petitioner, allowing an extension of his protective bail until 27.03.2023. The court overruled the office's objection that a second application for protective bail was not maintainable. The court reasoned that the concept of protective bail is deeply linked to fundamental constitutional rights, such as liberty, dignity, and access to justice. Given the petitioner’s justifiable reasons for not being able to approach the relevant court within the initial bail period, including a serious security risk and other legal proceedings, the court found that the petitioner had demonstrated bona fide grounds for the extension. The court noted that the petitioner had already filed a pre-arrest bail application in the Anti-Terrorism Court, Islamabad, but it had not yet been heard. The court concluded that the petitioner’s actions were in good faith and that an extension was warranted under the circumstances. ----Citations/Precedents: Sh. Zahoor Ahmad v. The State (PLD 1974 Lahore 256)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking directions to the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP), the Chief Secretary of Punjab, and the Inspector General of Police, Punjab, to conduct transparent elections in accordance with Articles 218(3) and 220 of the Constitution of Pakistan. The petitioner argued that the authorities had failed to implement constitutional provisions and sought enforcement of the Supreme Court’s order regarding the timely conduct of elections in the Province of Punjab. ----- Issues: ----- 1) Whether the Election Commission of Pakistan and other relevant authorities were failing in their duty to conduct fair and transparent elections as per Articles 218(3) and 220 of the Constitution. ----- 2) Whether the apprehensions regarding the inability to conduct elections in a fair manner warranted judicial intervention at this stage. ----- Holding/Reasoning: Constitutional Provisions for Elections: The court reproduced Articles 218(3) and 220 of the Constitution, which mandate that the ECP is responsible for organizing and conducting elections honestly, fairly, and in accordance with the law, while all executive authorities in the provinces must assist the ECP in fulfilling these duties. ----- Supreme Court’s Direction: The court referred to the Supreme Court’s judgment in Suo Motu Case No. 1 of 2023, which directed the ECP to hold elections within the constitutional timeframe. The Supreme Court’s judgment, dated 01.03.2023, clarified the roles of the Governor and President in appointing election dates for the dissolution of provincial assemblies and instructed the ECP to ensure elections were held in a timely manner. ----- Election Schedule Issued: The court noted that in compliance with the Supreme Court's order, the ECP had already issued an election schedule, with polling set for 30.04.2023. The ECP was actively proceeding with the election process, and no substantial evidence was presented to show that the elections would not be held fairly or that the authorities were failing in their duties. ----- Apprehensions without Evidence: The court found that the petitioner’s concerns were based on apprehensions without substantial evidence. The petitioner referred to news reports and certain incidents, but no material was provided to prove that the ECP was unable to perform its duties or that the elections would not be conducted in a transparent manner. The court emphasized that the ECP had not raised any objections regarding the conduct of elections, and no specific failures by the authorities were identified. ----- Premature Petition: Since the petition was based on unfounded apprehensions rather than concrete evidence, the court held that it was premature and dismissed it accordingly. ----- Outcome: The petition was dismissed as being premature and based on mere apprehensions, without any substantial evidence to support the claims that the elections would not be conducted fairly. ----- Citations/Precedents: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, Articles 218(3) and 220 Suo Motu Case No. 1 of 2023, Supreme Court of Pakistan ----- Quote: ''Nothing substantial is presently available on the record to establish the claim of the petitioner that the Inspector General of Police, Punjab and the Chief Secretary of Province of Punjab were reluctant to holding the election within the stipulated time as directed by the august Supreme Court of Pakistan and the Election Commission of Pakistan had failed to implement Articles 218 and 220 of the Constitution and was not proceeding with the matter of conduct of elections in fair manner as election schedule has been issued and the Election Commission of Pakistan was proceeding with the matter in accordance with the schedule, therefore, the constitution petition being pre-mature and based on apprehensions only was accordingly dismissed.''

Summary: Background: An appellant filed an Intra Court Appeal (ICA) under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, challenging an order of a Single Judge, which dismissed their constitutional petition. The appellant had contested their termination from a private bank, seeking intervention from the State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) to reinstate them. The SBP had declined jurisdiction over the employment matter, citing legal precedents, and the Single Judge upheld this position. -----Issues: 1- Does the State Bank of Pakistan have the jurisdiction to intervene in employment disputes between private bank employees and their employers? 2- Was there any discrimination in the treatment of the appellant’s case compared to other employees of the same bank? 3- Can the SBP exercise authority under Section 11 of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, in employee-related matters? -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the State Bank of Pakistan does not have jurisdiction over employment-related matters between private banks and their employees. The SBP’s regulatory role, as outlined in the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, is limited to banking operations and public interest matters, not HR disputes. The court affirmed that the SBP’s statutory role is to regulate banking activities but does not extend to employee management or service disputes within private banks. The appellant’s reliance on Section 11 of the Banking Companies Ordinance was misplaced, as that provision deals with specific employment restrictions and does not cover general employment disputes. Furthermore, the appellant’s claim of discrimination was dismissed, as previous cases did not address SBP's jurisdictional authority over employee matters. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the Single Judge's ruling that the SBP had no jurisdiction over the appellant’s service matter, and the appellant's claims were without merit. -----Citations/Precedents: Noor Badshah vs. United Bank Limited and others (2015 PLC (C.S.) 468) MCB Bank Limited vs. State Bank of Pakistan and others (2010 CLD 338) Eden Builders (Pvt.) Limited vs. Muhammad Aslam and others (2022 SCMR 2044) Water and Power Development Authority vs. Abdul Shakoor (PLD 2008 Lahore 175) Mall Development (Pvt.) Ltd. vs. Waleed Khanzada and others (2022 SCMR 2080) Attaullah Khan vs. Ali Azam Afridi and others (2021 SCMR 1979) Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs. Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189) The Collector of Sales Tax vs. Super Asia Mohammad Din and Sons (2017 SCMR 1427) Shahida Bibi and others vs. Habib Bank Limited and others (PLD 2016 SC 995) Muhammad Anwar and others vs. Mst. Ilyas Begum and others (PLD 2013 SC 255) Zia Ur Rehman vs. Syed Ahmed Hussain and others (2014 SCMR 1015) Khalil-ur-Rehman vs. Dr. Manzoor Ahmed and others (PLD 2011 SC 512) Muhammad Akram vs. Mst. Zainab Bibi (2007 SCMR 1086)