Summary: The case centered around the respondent's application for the position of Assistant Vice President (AVP) (Operations) at the petitioner's bank. The respondent initially provided qualifications of BA Degree in Punjabi, Political Science, Journalism, and MBA (Marketing). The bank processed his appointment mentioning both qualifications. However, during the course of the proceedings, issues arose concerning the authenticity of his MBA Degree.The respondent challenged the bank's actions through writ petitions, contesting various notices and proceedings. The Lahore High Court had issued directions for a regular inquiry in which the appointing authority of the respondent should be associated. The Supreme Court noted that such a direction was not legally supported and had no precedent, and it might influence the inquiry's transparency and independence.The Supreme Court found that the direction given by the High Court was not equitable and set it aside. The petitioners were directed to continue the inquiry and pass a final order within 15 days after following proper formalities. The respondent was to appear before the relevant authority, and no further opportunity would be provided for concluding the proceedings.

Summary: Bail Allowed---The petitioner sought pre-arrest bail in a case where he was accused of breaking locks, stealing belongings, and misusing his authority. The incident reportedly took place during the night of August 17/18, 2019. The petitioner argued that the accusations were baseless and driven by ulterior motives, and that the delay in reporting the incident raised suspicions. The petitioner, an Army officer, claimed to have been posted in an operational area at the time of the alleged occurrence.The respondent, representing the State, contested the petitioner's claim, asserting that the accusations were not made out of malice and that the complainant had passed away during the case's pendency. The petitioner's claim for pre-arrest bail was denied by the Lahore High Court.Upon reviewing the arguments and the available record, the Supreme Court noted that the prosecution had been initiated after a considerable delay of about seven months. It also highlighted a prior attempt to proceed against the petitioner, which had been found baseless after inquiry. The Court observed that the allegations lacked specific details and that the petitioner was the sole proprietor of the house in question.The Court further addressed the involvement of a lady claiming to be the sister-in-law of the deceased complainant and highlighted that she lacked the legal status to initiate prosecution. The Court acknowledged the petitioner's status as an Army officer, which indicated a low risk of absconding. Considering these aspects, the Court converted the petition into an appeal, granted pre-arrest bail to the petitioner, and set aside the earlier order.

Summary: Case involving the marriage of a minor under the age of 18 --- A child is defined as a person who has not reached the age of 18 and must be under the care of a parent, guardian, or other caregiver. --- A female child below the age of 18 cannot be considered legally competent to give consent to a marriage contract solely based on physical signs of puberty. --- Sections 375 and 377A of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) are considered mandatory provisions, and any marriage contract involving a child under the age of 18 is void from the beginning. --- Consent for sexual conduct cannot be given by a child under the age of 18 or by a parent or guardian on behalf of the child. Sexual conduct with a child is considered a crime. --- Various laws within Pakistan establish the age of 18 as the threshold for various rights and responsibilities, such as obtaining a National Identity Card, voting, and obtaining a driver's license. --- Protecting the rights and well-being of children is a paramount duty of society, and the legal system must ensure their protection. -- The court orders the release of a minor from a shelter into the custody of her mother, with responsibilities outlined for the mother and her husband under the Islamabad Capital Territory Child Protection Act, 2018. --- The court directs the relevant authorities to take note of inconsistencies and potential conflicts in existing laws regarding the marriage age and child protection.

Summary: Facts:The appellants challenged a High Court of Peshawar judgment that overturned the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's pre-emption suits regarding four pieces of land situated in Tehsil Lahor, District Swabi, KPK. The trial court had dismissed the suits based on the respondent's failure to perform Talab-i-Muwatibat as required by Section 13 of the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987, and one suit being time-barred.----Issue:Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's findings regarding the failure to perform Talab-i-Muwatibat and the applicability of the statute of limitations.Whether the respondent's pre-emption claims were maintainable given the procedural and substantive requirements under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987.Decision:The Supreme Court allowed the appeals, set aside the High Court's judgment, and restored the trial court's dismissal of the respondent's pre-emption suits.----Reasoning:The Supreme Court found that the testimony of Muhammad Nabi, the informant to the plaintiff, was flawed and lacked credibility, especially concerning the timings and manner of acquiring and conveying information about the sales. The Court noted the physical impossibility of Nabi's actions given the distance between his village and the District Courts of Nowshera. Additionally, the repetitive nature of the informant's actions and the coincidences involved were deemed implausible. The Court also held that the fourth sale, being subject to a court decree, required the pre-emption suit to be filed within 120 days, which was not adhered to by the respondent. Thus, the trial court and the first appellate court's decisions were found to be within the legal bounds, and the High Court's interference was deemed unjustified.----Rule:The decision emphasized the importance of credible and consistent evidence in pre-emption suits and the adherence to procedural requirements, such as Talab-i-Muwatibat and statutory time limits, under the Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Pre-emption Act, 1987.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Minimum age of marriage 18 years --- marriage of children under the age of 18 is unlawful and the marriage contract is void ab initio. The IHC observed that the courts continue to rely on the Supreme Court?s judgement in Bakhshi v Bashir (1970): in this case, the court had observed that where a girl below the age of 16 was married in violation of the CMRA, the marriage itself would not become invalid.The High Court observed that the Supreme Court?s judgement is now distinguishable because Pakistan is a party to the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child (UNCRC) and is under an obligation to comply with its provisions. The Parliament of Pakistan has enacted legislation for the specific purpose of bringing the laws of Pakistan in conformity with its obligations under the UNCRC. These include the Protection of Women (Criminal Laws Amendment) Act 2006 (the 2006 Act) and the Criminal Law (Second Amendment) Act 2016 (the 2016 Act).The 2006 Act amended the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 (PPC) and inserted sections 375 and 376. The High Court stated that these sections prohibit sexual intercourse with a child under the age of 16. The Court added that even if a child were to consent to engaging in sexual intercourse, the action of the accused would still constitute rape for purposes of section 375 and would be punishable with death or life imprisonment under section 376.Further, the High Court observed that the 2016 Act added sections 377A and 377B to the PPC. The sections define the attempt to persuade, induce or entice a child below the age of 18 to engage in any sexually explicit conduct, either with or without their consent, as an offence of sexual abuse, punishable with a jail term of up to 25 years.The High Court observed that in a contract of marriage, the parties agree to engage in sexual relations, recognised by the State and society as legitimate, for the purpose of procreation. The High Court noted that in view of the 2006 and 2016 amendments and Pakistan?s obligations under the provisions of the UNCRC, any contract of marriage where one of the contracting parties is below the age of 18 would be a contract which is executed for an unlawful purpose (child rape and sexual abuse). The High Court held that as a result, such a contract would be void ab initio under the Contract Act 1982. Therefore, the marriage contract can neither be registered nor can it be given effect to by a court.