Summary: Leave to contest was granted to the tenant by holding that the Ejectment Petition of the landlord was not maintainable in the absence of particulars of oral tenancy which established that relationship of landlord and tenant did not exist between them which is pre-requisite for the Rent Tribunal to exercise jurisdiction under the Punjab Rented Premises Act, 2009. Further, the Ejectment Petition was dismissed, accordingly without providing an opportunity to record evidence as the Rent Tribunal is divested of jurisdiction upon such determination.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: (a) Customs Act, 1969----S.13---Private bonded warehouse---Diplomatic bonded warehouse---Nature and effect of licence---Section 13 expressly authorized licensing of private warehouses for deposit of dutiable goods without immediate payment of customs duty and prescribed complete procedure for suspension or cancellation upon breach of licence conditions or violation of law---Petitioner held valid diplomatic bonded warehouse licence subsisting until 31.07.2027 and no proceedings for its suspension or cancellation had been initiated---So long as licence remained valid, legal existence of warehouse and entitlement to operate under special statutory framework could not be neutralized indirectly through refusal of import authorization. (b) Customs Rules, 2001----R.333(a)---Import and transshipment of spirits---Diplomatic bonded warehouses and diplomatic missions---Rule generally prohibited transshipment of spirits but expressly created exception for spirits imported by diplomatic bonded warehouses and diplomatic missions after obtaining authorization from Ministry of Commerce---Specific exception constituted statutory acknowledgment that import of spirits by such entities was legally permissible subject to authorization---Had law intended absolute prohibition, no express exception would have been created. (c) Customs Act, 1969----S.13---Customs Rules, 2001, R.333(a)---Customs General Order No.12 of 2002---Ministry of Commerce Office Memorandum dated 23.09.1992---Diplomatic bonded warehouses---Special statutory regime---Combined framework regulated licensing, importation, warehousing, supervision, documentation, payments and restricted sales to diplomatic missions, diplomats and other privileged persons---Diplomatic bonded warehouses constituted a distinct class recognized by law and could not be equated with ordinary commercial importers. (d) Ministry of Commerce Office Memorandum dated 23.09.1992---Import of liquor by diplomatic bonded warehouses---Continued operation---Memorandum authorized bonded warehouses to import liquor on behalf of foreign diplomatic missions, diplomats and privileged foreign persons subject to prescribed safeguards---No notification, statutory instrument or executive order expressly withdrawing, rescinding or superseding said memorandum was produced---Mere promulgation of later Import Policy Order did not establish implied repeal of special administrative framework. (e) Customs General Order No.12 of 2002----Cls.21 & 22(b)---Diplomatic bonded warehouses---Sales to entitled persons---General Order recognized diplomatic bonded warehouses established under S.13 of Customs Act, prescribed foreign-currency payment arrangements and permitted entitled expatriates and foreign nationals to purchase alcohol and specified goods from such warehouses---Condition that import remained subject to Import Policy Order regulated process but did not abolish warehouse regime, invalidate licences or repeal special exception under R.333(a). (f) Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972---Vienna Convention on Diplomatic Relations, 1961---Vienna Convention on Consular Relations, 1963---Diplomatic bonded warehouses---International obligations---Ministry of Foreign Affairs had acknowledged bonded warehouses as recognized mechanism through which foreign missions and their members obtained relief from duties and taxes on hard drinks, tobacco, fragrances and other commodities through exemption certificates---Warehouse regime implemented Pakistan’s diplomatic obligations and was not an ordinary commercial trade arrangement. (g) Customs Act, 1969----Ss.83, 84 & 104---Bonded goods---In-bonding and ex-bonding---Distinction---Goods deposited in bonded warehouse remained under customs custody, supervision and control and were not integrated into domestic commerce merely upon physical arrival or in-bonding---Importation for home consumption and application of commercial trade restrictions attained legal significance at stage of ex-bonding under S.104---Warehousing under customs control was a deferred-duty storage mechanism distinct from clearance for home consumption. Cited Case: • Collector of Customs v. M/s A.R. and Company 2022 PTD 1408 (h) Import Policy Order, 2022----Appendix-A, Serial No.14---Alcoholic beverages and spirits---Diplomatic bonded warehouse---Goods stored under customs custody and cleared only against diplomatic exemption certificates did not enter unrestricted local market---Where supply remained confined to foreign missions, diplomats and privileged persons under comprehensive customs supervision, physical entry into bonded warehouse did not amount to prohibited commercial import for home consumption---No material showed diversion, misuse, breach of licence or circulation in local market. (i) Statutory interpretation---Generalia specialibus non derogant---General law and special law---Import Policy Order, 2022 constituted general framework governing ordinary commercial imports, whereas S.13 of Customs Act, R.333(a) of Customs Rules and Customs General Order No.12 of 2002 formed specialized regime for diplomatic bonded warehouses---General prohibition on alcoholic beverages could not override or defeat specific statutory pathway created for licensed diplomatic bonded warehouses. Cited Cases: • Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Limited PLD 2018 SC 322 • Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd., Islamabad v. S.K. (Pvt.) Limited 2025 SCMR 570 (j) Statutory interpretation---Expressio unius est exclusio alterius---Rule 333(a) expressly mentioned diplomatic bonded warehouses and diplomatic missions as exceptions to general prohibition on transshipment of spirits---Deliberate inclusion demonstrated legislative intent to treat them as separate and permissible category and exclude them from restrictions applicable to ordinary importers. (k) Statutory interpretation---Ut res magis valeat quam pereat---Harmonious construction---Interpretation rendering R.333(a), Office Memorandum dated 23.09.1992 and Customs General Order No.12 of 2002 redundant or meaningless was impermissible---Import Policy Order and customs framework were to be read harmoniously so that general ban remained applicable to ordinary commercial imports while special diplomatic bonded warehouse regime continued to operate. Cited Case: • Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-II, Large Taxpayers Unit, Lahore v. Coca Cola Export Corporation 2026 PTD 318 (l) Import Policy Order, 2022----Para.5(1)(b) read with Appendix-A, Serial No.14---Diplomatic exception---Although alcoholic beverages were ordinarily banned, para.5(1)(b) expressly exempted goods imported by foreign diplomatic missions enjoying customs-duty exemption under Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972---Said exception, read with R.333(a), Office Memorandum of 1992, Customs General Order No.12 of 2002 and Ministry of Foreign Affairs communication dated 20.09.2022, preserved lawful import mechanism through diplomatic bonded warehouses---Minister erred by reading prohibition in isolation and ignoring express exception. (m) Administrative law---Locus poenitentiae---Accrued and vested rights---Petitioner had operated for years under valid licence, invested capital, maintained staff, entered international supply arrangements and imported consignment in reliance upon subsisting statutory and regulatory framework---Administrative authority could reconsider its decision before rights crystallized, but once lawful order or representation had been acted upon and valuable rights created, it could not be withdrawn to detriment of beneficiary without lawful basis---Sudden refusal of authorization, absent change in primary legislation or statutory rules, unlawfully impaired accrued rights. Cited Case: • Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance v. Muhammad Himayatullah Farukhi PLD 1969 SC 407 (n) Rules of Business, 1973----Rr.8 & 13---Inter-divisional consultation---Diplomatic bonded warehouse regime concerned Commerce Division, Federal Board of Revenue and Ministry of Foreign Affairs and affected implementation of international diplomatic privileges---Prior meaningful consultation with Ministry of Foreign Affairs was mandatory before Commerce Division could declare 1992 framework repealed or dismantle diplomatic supply mechanism---Unilateral decision taken without such consultation suffered from procedural illegality. Cited Case: • Mustafa Impex, Karachi v. Government of Pakistan PLD 2016 SC 808 (o) Administrative law---Speaking order---Requirement of reasons---A valid speaking order was required to demonstrate application of mind, consideration of relevant statutory provisions and rational nexus between facts and conclusion---Impugned order merely assumed implied repeal of 1992 Memorandum and applied general prohibition without addressing S.13 of Customs Act, R.333(a), diplomatic exception in para.5(1)(b), Customs General Order No.12 of 2002, Ministry of Foreign Affairs’ position or distinction between in-bonding and home consumption---Order therefore lacked essential ingredients of lawful reasoned decision. Cited Cases: • Secretary, Ministry of Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others v. Dr. Rehana Hameed and others 2010 SCMR 511 • Fasih-ud-Din Khan and others v. Government of Punjab and others 2010 SCMR 1778 • Messrs United Woolen Mills Ltd. Workers’ Union v. Messrs United Woolen Mills Ltd. 2010 SCMR 1475 • Government of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer and others v. Muhammad Juman and another 2009 SCMR 1407 (p) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.199---Judicial review of import policy decision---Policy discretion---Although trade and import policy ordinarily fell within executive domain, constitutional interference was warranted where decision misconstrued governing law, ignored special statutory regime, disregarded relevant material, violated Rules of Business and deprived valid licence of practical effect without lawful suspension or cancellation---Impugned speaking order was arbitrary, based upon misdirection in law and issued without lawful authority. Disposition---Writ petition allowed---Speaking Order dated 30.10.2025 passed by Minister-in-Charge, Commerce Division, set aside and declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect---Ministry of Commerce directed to issue forthwith requisite import authorization for petitioner’s consignment of 812 cases of alcoholic beverages imported under Invoice No.DIPL-010 and Bill of Lading No.SOCJEAKHI2400323 and intimate Deputy Registrar (Judicial) of High Court. M/s Diplomats Duty Free (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others, Writ Petition No.525 of 2026, Islamabad High Court, heard on 16.06.2026.

Summary: Remedy of appeal in terms of Section 14 of the Family Court Act, 1964 being available against dismissal of application under Section 476 Cr.P.C. by the Family Court, which was not available, hence, constitution petition was premature and not maintainable.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Justice Ayesha Malik's note: (a) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.188---Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI, R.1---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLVII, R.1---Review jurisdiction---Scope---Review was neither substitute for appeal nor disguised rehearing of matter already adjudicated---Court could not revisit a conscious determination merely because another view was possible---Jurisdiction was confined to discovery of new and important matter, mistake or error apparent on face of record or other sufficient reason---Error had to be patent, self-evident and capable of being noticed without elaborate reasoning---Review was nevertheless available where judgment proceeded on erroneous assumption of material fact, overlooked a fundamental legal question or ignored a pivotal aspect of record having direct bearing upon result. Cited Cases: • Inter Quest Informatics Service v. Commissioner Income Tax 2025 SCMR 257 • Supreme Court Bar Association of Pakistan v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 2024 SC 1199 • Haji Musharraf Mahmood Khan v. Sardar Zada Zafar Abbas PLD 2023 SC 588 • Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority v. Gas & Oil Pakistan Ltd. PLD 2025 SC 351 • District Education Officer v. Sonia Begum PLD 2025 SC 720 • Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi v. MSC Switzerland Geneva 2023 SCMR 1011 (b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Failure to answer interrogatories or comply with discovery order---Striking out defence---Nature of provision---Rule was penal in character and its invocation could result in dismissal of suit or complete deprivation of defendant’s right to defend---Being strictissimi juris, provision was to be construed strictly and exercised with utmost judicial caution---Two foundational requirements were existence of a specific order directing answers, discovery or inspection and a failure to comply with such order---Penal consequence was not automatic and could be imposed only where default was proved to be wilful, deliberate, intentional, obstinate or contumacious. Cited Cases: • Messrs United Bank Limited v. Yousuf Haji Noor Muhammad Dhadhi PLJ 1987 SC 636 • Messrs Babar Sewing Machine Company v. Tirlok Nath Mahajan AIR 1978 SC 1436 (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Wilful default---Test---Wilfulness was to be assessed with reference to circumstances attending non-compliance with particular order on relevant date rather than retrospectively inferred merely from earlier adjournments or past procedural conduct---Default caused by accident, incapacity, force majeure or circumstances beyond party’s control could not be characterized as contumacious disobedience---Provision was intended to discipline recalcitrant litigant, not punish one physically incapable of compliance. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Defendant injured in widely reported shooting incident and hospitalized---Failure to submit answers to interrogatories---Trial Court had accepted hospitalization and inability to contact defendant as sufficient grounds on 08.11.2022 and 17.11.2022 but struck out defence on 24.11.2022 while same incapacity continued---Once Court accepted factual inability to comply, element of wilfulness stood negated---Failure to sign affidavit, consult counsel or finalize answers while hospitalized with gunshot injuries was physical impossibility, not deliberate defiance---Law did not compel performance of an impossible act: lex non cogit ad impossibilia. (e) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.10-A---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XI, R.21---Fair trial and right of defence---Striking out defence was an exceptional and drastic measure, described as death knell of party’s defence---Court contemplating deprivation of substantive right to defend was required to exercise maximum restraint, consider all relevant circumstances and prefer adjudication on merits over technical knockout---Expeditious disposal, though important, did not authorize summary injustice. (f) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Judicial discretion---Proportionality and alternative sanctions---Rule vested discretion in Court and did not oblige it to strike out defence in every case of default---Before imposing ultimate penalty, Court was required to assess explanation, duration and nature of default, prejudice to opposite party and overall conduct, and consider lesser measures including realistic peremptory directions and compensatory or deterrent costs---Power could appropriately be exercised where party persistently absented itself or caused prolonged, inordinate and inexcusable delay resulting in substantial prejudice---Mechanical invocation without recorded finding of wilful disobedience was impermissible. Cited Cases: • Asha Rani Gupta v. Vineet Kumar 2022 SCC OnLine SC 829 • Miss Santosh Mehta v. Om Prakash and others (1980) 3 SCC 610 • Bimal Chand Jain v. Sri Gopal Agarwal (1981) 3 SCC 486 • Qazi Naveed-ul-Islam v. District Judge 2023 SCP 32 (g) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Past history of adjournments---Effect---Earlier delay and repeated adjournments could inform case management but could not retrospectively convert a presently justified and involuntary default into wilful disobedience---Trial Court had routinely granted numerous adjournments for years without imposing costs or recording deliberate obstruction, yet abruptly resorted to most severe sanction less than a month after defendant’s shooting and hospitalization---Such disproportionate shift ignored immediate circumstances and constituted mechanical exercise of discretion. (h) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Application by interrogating party---Jurisdictional prerequisite---Statutory sequence required: a specific discovery or interrogatory order; non-compliance attracting potential penal consequence; and an application by party interrogating or seeking discovery or inspection for an order to that effect---Phrase “may apply to the Court” vested initiative in aggrieved party and kept penal jurisdiction dormant until formally invoked---Unlike provisions expressly authorizing Court to act on its own motion, O.XI, R.21 did not confer suo motu power to strike out defence. (i) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Formal written application---Requirement---For grave penal action depriving a party of defence, informal opposition to adjournment or presumed oral request was legally insufficient---Record showed respondent had sought imposition of costs but had not filed an application seeking striking out of defence---Formal, written and documented application was mandatory statutory trigger---Trial Court acted without jurisdiction by invoking R.21 suo motu, and majority judgment under review committed patent error by treating repeated opposition to adjournments as equivalent to an oral application. Cited Cases: • Mrs. Namita Dhar v. Dr. Amalendu Sen AIR 1977 Calcutta 187 • Ranipet Chemicals & Engineering Co. Pvt. Ltd. v. Swastik Stainless Steel Stores AIR 1986 Calcutta 76 (j) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.188---Error apparent on face of record---Review of majority judgment---Original majority validated striking out of defence by relying upon petitioner’s historical conduct while overlooking immediate medical incapacity and also assumed suo motu jurisdiction under O.XI, R.21 despite absence of formal application---Both errors were patent, went to root of penal jurisdiction and resulted in manifest miscarriage of justice---Review was therefore maintainable and necessary to prevent finality of judgment from becoming shield for injustice. (k) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)----O.XI, R.21---Case management---Duty of Trial Court---Courts were responsible for timely progression of litigation and could discourage adjournments through diligent case management, costs and lawful procedural sanctions---Nonetheless, balance between expedition and fair trial had to be maintained---Public shooting, surgery and hospitalization furnished legitimate cause for reasonable adjournment, and right to defence prevailed over mechanical insistence upon immediate compliance. (l) Constitution of Pakistan----Art.188---Review jurisdiction---Dissenting opinion---One learned Judge found no error apparent, considered record to demonstrate persistent delay including filing of written statement after approximately four years and repeated failure to answer interrogatories, and would have dismissed review petitions---By majority of two to one, however, review concerning order striking out defence was allowed. Disposition---Civil Review Petition No.1-L of 2023 dismissed---Civil Review Petition No.2-L of 2023 allowed by majority of two to one---Majority judgment dated 29.12.2022, along with judgments of Lahore High Court and Trial Court striking out petitioner’s defence, set aside---Matter remanded to Trial Court to provide reasonable opportunity to petitioner to file answers to interrogatories in compliance with order dated 20.10.2022 and thereafter proceed with suit in accordance with law. Imran Ahmad Khan Niazi v. Mian Muhammad Shahbaz Sharif, Civil Review Petitions Nos.1-L and 2-L of 2023, Supreme Court of Pakistan, heard on 08.04.2026 and announced on 11.06.2026, approved for reporting.

Summary: A conjoint reading of Sections 391 and 306 of the Companies Act, 2017 ("Act") demonstrates that while Section 391 regulates transfers and alterations effected after the commencement of the winding up proceedings, Section 306 merely identifies the point in time from which such commencement is to be reckoned. By itself, Section 306 of the Act neither invalidates nor does render void any transfer, disposition, or alteration in the status of a member of the company. The legal consequence contemplated by Section 391 of the Act is not attracted merely upon the filing of a winding up petition; rather, the provision becomes operative upon the passing of a winding up order. A transfer of shares made after the presentation of a winding up petition but prior to the passing of a winding-up order does not ipso facto becomes void under Sections 306 and 391 of the Act, as the presentation of a winding up petition cannot be treated as equivalent to a winding up order so as to automatically invalidate bona fide transactions undertaken during the intervening period.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending