Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Interim Custody 10 days allowed In Section 12 G&W by Civil Judge ,Maintained by ADJ and High Court . Petition dismissed----In the case of Syed Zia Abbas vs. Mst. Mahiya and others, the petitioner contested the order granting interim custody of the minor to Mst. Mahiya. Represented by M/s Farhatullah & Syed Ahsan Imam Rizvi, the petitioner's counsel argued that the decision overlooked the minor's welfare, citing legal precedent (2016 SCMR 2023). The petitioner's counsel further questioned the jurisdiction of the XII Civil Judge, Karachi, Central, emphasizing that the judge did not consider crucial aspects of the case. Despite Mst. Mahiya asserting her rights as the minor's mother, the judge upheld the interim custody decision, emphasizing the paramountcy of the child's welfare in custody matters. While the petitioner raised factual controversies, the court maintained that they could not be resolved at this stage, echoing the principles established in Muhammad Younis Khan and others vs. Government of NWFP and others (1993 SCMR 618). Consequently, the court dismissed the petitioner's appeal, affirming the interim custody decision and underscoring the natural guardian's right to interim custody unless prejudicial to the minor's welfare.

Summary: It is settled principle that the Courts must aid the fair administration of justice by ensuring that litigation must come to an end by not allowing a litigant to agitate a particular ground and/or cause of action again and again, by filing successive applications, as the same amounts to abuse of process of law, causes hardship to the other side and runs counter to public policy that issue once decided and attained finality, cannot be reopened. Therefore, once order dated 24.10.2019 of the learned Executing Court was upheld by the learned Appellate Court below, the respondent cannot be allowed to agitate the same ground as such a leverage to a litigant to file successive applications defeats the principle of public policy discussed hereinabove. On another plain, this Court is cognizant of the fact that in case the judgments of the learned Courts below are at variance, preference should be given to the judgment of the learned Appellate Court below, more particularly, in family matters as held in case reported as "Mst. Farah Naz v. Judge Family Court, Sahiwal and others" (PLD 2006 SC 457). However, in view of the above discussion, this is a fit case for interference in constitutional jurisdiction by this Court as the learned Appellate Court below has acted without appreciating the material available on record. In fact, the learned Appellate Court below acted in excess of jurisdiction inasmuch as by passing the impugned order, the learned Appellate Court below has reviewed its earlier order dated 22.01.2020 whereby the learned Appellate Court below upheld the order of the learned Executing Court dated 24.10.2019 dismissing the claim of the respondent to receive alternate value of dowry articles. Jurisdiction to review its earlier order is not vested with the learned Appellate Court below. Therefore, the impugned order cannot sustain.

Summary: Transfer and posting orders of a Civil Servant against Own Pay and Scale (OPS) fall within the Terms and Conditions of Service, prescribed under Section 9, Chapter-II of the Punjab Civil Servants Act, 1974, for purpose of jurisdiction with the Punjab Service Tribunal (PST).

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a mother, challenged the order passed by the Guardian Judge in Lahore, which returned her application for custody of her mentally disabled minor daughter, Wania, under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890 (the "Act"), claiming that the case fell under the jurisdiction of the Court of Protection under the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 (MHO 2001). The petitioner’s request for interim custody of her other two minor daughters was also denied, with only visitation rights granted. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Family Court has jurisdiction over the custody of a mentally disabled minor, or if such cases fall under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Court of Protection under the MHO 2001. 2- Whether the denial of interim custody of the other two minors was justified based on their current education and residence with their father. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Family Court retains exclusive jurisdiction over the custody of minors, including mentally disabled minors, under the Family Courts Act, 1964 (FCA 1964), and the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The court found that the Mental Health Ordinance, 2001 (MHO 2001), deals primarily with the treatment and management of mentally disordered persons, but it does not repeal or override the provisions of the FCA 1964 concerning the custody of minors. The petitioner’s application for interim custody of Wania was wrongly returned by the Guardian Judge. Regarding the interim custody of the other two minors, the court found that the mere fact that they were receiving education while in their father’s custody was insufficient to deny the mother’s custody claim. The court emphasized that a mother is generally entitled to the custody of her minor daughters, unless there is evidence to disqualify her. The failure of the lower court to properly assess the welfare of the minors and the ability of the father to care for their needs was noted. The court set aside the impugned order and directed the Family Court to reconsider the matter of interim custody of the minors expeditiously. -----Citations/Precedents: Muhammad Khalid Karim vs. Mst. Saadia Yaqoob (PLD 2012 SC 66) Mst. Feroze Begum vs. Lt-Col. Muhammad Hussain (1983 SCMR 606) Munawar Bibi vs. Muhammad Amin (1995 SCMR 1206) Mst. Tahira vs. Additional District Judge, Rawalpindi (1990 SCMR 852) Mir Bat Khan vs. Mst. Sherin Bibi (2019 SCMR 520) Yasmin Jang vs. Advocate General, Punjab (PLD 2022 Lahore 495)

Summary: Background: The petitioner, a university, challenged the judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts regarding a suit for declaration with mandatory injunction. The respondent claimed to have passed the Bachelor of Arts (B.A.) examination in 1991, obtaining 414 marks according to the university’s result card. The respondent sought the issuance of his degree, which the university refused, alleging tampering in his examination marks, specifically in English Paper-A, where the respondent allegedly altered the marks from 13 to 43. -----Issues: 1- Whether the respondent is entitled to obtain the B.A. degree based on the result card issued by the university. 2- Whether there was sufficient evidence of tampering or forgery in the respondent's examination marks to justify the refusal to issue the degree. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Entitlement to the Degree: The court upheld the respondent’s entitlement to the degree as the evidence, including the university’s own records (Exhibit D7), confirmed that the respondent had passed the examination with 414 marks. The result card issued by the university reflected this, and there was no visible evidence of tampering in the official records. Lack of Evidence of Forgery: The university claimed that there was tampering in the marks of English Paper-A but failed to provide any concrete evidence, such as an expert forensic report, to support the claim. The court noted that the university did not initiate any action or departmental proceedings against its officials within the stipulated period of three years after declaring the result, as required by university regulations. Time-Barred Action: According to the university's regulations, any action to quash a result or withdraw a degree had to be initiated within three years from the date of the result declaration. Since the result was declared in 1992 and no action was taken within that time frame, the university was barred from taking action against the respondent. The court dismissed the petitioner’s revision, ruling that the lower courts had correctly applied the law and that the respondent was entitled to the degree. No illegality or material irregularity was found in the judgments of the lower courts. -----Citations/Precedents: Shahid Saleem vs. Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education & Others (1987 MLD 3053) Tariq Mahmood vs. Vice-Chancellor, University of the Punjab, Lahore & Another (2022 MLD 155) Mst. Zaitoon Begum vs. Nazar Hussain & Another (2014 SCMR 1469)

Summary: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Mother filed 491 CRPC dismissed By ADJ ,High Court Sat aside and Ordered to hand over custody to mother .)

Summary: Appointment against son quota---The petitioner's main contention was that after retiring from the Karachi Dock Labour Board (Board) his son Jahangir Khan was entitled to be appointed based on a "son quota" under an agreement between the Board and the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA). The petitioner argued that he had deposited the required amount with the respondent-board for this purpose, but they had failed to appoint his son as per the quota. The petitioner's counsel contended that the SLAT had ignored important factual and legal aspects of the case and that the petitioner was a permanent worker in the Board, making his Grievance Application maintainable before the SLC. The petitioner sought relief under Article 199 of the Constitution. The court examined the evidence and legal arguments and focused on whether the petitioner qualified as a worker at the time of filing the grievance application before the SLC. It noted that the petitioner had retired in 2005 and did not fit the criteria of a "worker" as defined in the law. The court found that the dispute did not constitute an industrial dispute and that the petitioner's case fell outside the scope of the relevant sections of the Act. The court held that retired workers cannot raise an industrial dispute, as stipulated in the law.

Summary: The petition under consideration is brought forth under Section 284 along with Sections 285 to 288 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, aiming for the endorsement of both a Scheme of Amalgamation and a Scheme of Arrangement. The petitioners include entities engaged in general insurance services and investment finance activities as a Non-Banking Finance Company. The objective involves the integration of various segments of their businesses through amalgamation and arrangement, sanctioned by their respective boards of directors.The learned counsel for the petitioners presented arguments highlighting the approved arrangements, which entail the division and amalgamation of insurance and investment segments among the petitioners. They provided documentation illustrating the swap ratio calculation and resolutions passed by the boards.The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) expressed concerns regarding regulatory requirements, particularly regarding licenses and approvals. However, the court examined the schemes meticulously, considering their objectives and compliance with relevant laws.The court's role is characterized as supervisory, ensuring fairness and legality in corporate actions. It emphasizes that schemes should be scrutinized based on their reasonableness and adherence to legal provisions, rather than technicalities. Once statutory requirements are met and the scheme is deemed fair and just, the court approves it, barring instances of fraud or malpractice.In this case, the court found that all essential statutory requirements were fulfilled, and the proposed schemes were not in violation of laws or public policy. Hence, the Schemes of Amalgamation and Arrangement were sanctioned, subject to compliance with specific sections of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000. The petition was accordingly disposed of by the judge.

Summary: [Specific Relief Act, (Section 42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877) ------Declaration of ownership, injunction and compensationsanctity of Registered DocumentsThe Sindh Government Land Ordinance 2000, Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC and section 42 of Specific Relief Act 1877

Summary: Delay in F.I.R; the name of the appellant had already come to light in this case as an accused much prior to holding his identification parade and that no features of dummies have been mentioned in the report of identification parade, therefore, I.D. parade has no worth; It was also hold that disclosure of co-accused regarding involvement of appellant in this case is hit by the provision of Article 38 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and cannot be used as evidence against the appellant.