Summary: The primary issues revolved around the treatment of trust property and the application of the doctrine of cy-pr?s, which allows the court to modify the terms of a charitable trust when the original objectives cannot be fulfilled. The judgment discussed the legal principles governing interim orders, the preservation of the corpus of litigation, and the conditions under which the court may employ the doctrine of cy-pr?s.In HCA 235 of 2009, the court found that the Single Judge's decision regarding the stay applications did not adequately protect the trust property pending the suit's adjudication. Thus, it set aside that part of the impugned order and issued directions to prevent any third-party interests or construction on the property until the suit's final decision.In HCA 239 of 2009, the court upheld the Single Judge's findings regarding the O.VII r.11 Applications, concluding that the plaint was not barred by law and that issues of res judicata, limitations, and the applicability of the Specific Relief Act were addressed appropriately.The judgment concludes with the appeals being resolved accordingly: HCA 235 of 2009 was allowed with specific directions, and HCA 239 of 2009 was dismissed. The learned Single Judge was instructed to proceed with the suit uninfluenced by the High Court's observations.

Summary: Discussion on Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act 1940 - Award)---The plaintiff filed a suit invoking the arbitration clause of the contract. The court referred the matter to arbitration, which resulted in an award. The plaintiff sought to have the award upheld, while the defendant raised objections, attempting to set aside the award. The objections were based on various grounds, including the alleged cursory treatment of certain issues in the award, failure to consider amounts paid by the defendant, the nature of the contractual relationship, and the claim that the award was void. The court reviewed the objections and examined whether they were valid within the scope of the Arbitration Act. The court emphasized that the arbitrator's role was to be the final judge of both legal and factual matters, as long as they adhered to the contract and law. The court noted that an award could only be set aside on specific grounds, such as arbitrator misconduct, invalidity, or errors on the face of the award. The court determined that the objections raised by the defendant were either not substantiated or fell outside the permissible grounds for setting aside an award. Additionally, the court found that the objections were time-barred, as they were filed after the statutory limitation period. Despite discussing the objections on their merits, the court upheld the award, considering it well-reasoned and in accordance with the evidence presented during arbitration. Consequently, the objections to the award were dismissed, and the award was made the rule of the court.

Summary: [Family matter ( Remarrying after Khulla )] I would, respectfully, add that bona fide be attached with her act of second marriage as same is,undeniably, after resort to her available course i.e approaching honourable Court for khula and obtaining thereof; technical remand order as well dismissal of her suit (challenged by her) shouldnot be allowed to undo a legal and rightful act i.e remarrying afterkhula because such act (remarriage) can be nothing but a seal on door of her first-marriage and that she is happy with decision of khula. Any technical defect, in such peculiar circumstances, needs to be ignored because law favours the rights over procedure.

Summary: Petition Dismissed----The petitioners, sought a declaration that a notification issued by the Government of Sindh, was illegal and unconstitutional. The notification had stopped the salaries of the petitioners who were appointed in the Education Department on various teaching and non-teaching positions in the years 2012. The petitioners claimed that the notification misinterpreted a previous order by the Hon?ble Supreme Court of Pakistan related to inquiries initiated by the National Accountability Bureau (NAB) against certain education officers. The petitioners argued that they were legally appointed and had been exonerated by the NAB's investigation, thus the stoppage of their salaries violated their rights. The court questioned the maintainability of the petition, considering the involvement of the Hon?ble Supreme Court's order. The petitioners' counsel argued that the petition was maintainable since the notification adversely affected the petitioners' rights and had been misinterpreted. The court examined relevant legal precedents and observed that the jurisdiction of the case fell within the realm of the Sindh Services Tribunal due to its association with terms and conditions of service. Therefore, the court dismissed the petition, stating that the appropriate forum for addressing the matter was the Sindh Services Tribunal.

Summary: School Fees Judgement---The petitioners include individuals, schools, and parents, while the respondents consist of the Province of Sindh through various government officials. The case primarily revolves around the legality and regulation of fee increases imposed by private educational institutions. The court examines the Sindh Private Educational Institutions (Regulations and Control) Ordinance, 2001, and the associated rules, which provide a framework for the operation and regulation of private schools. The court highlights the importance of education as a fundamental right and cites constitutional provisions supporting free and compulsory education. Schools argue against the restriction on annual fee increases to 5% and claim it infringes upon their autonomy and business rights. Parents and students assert that the mechanism in place is not being enforced effectively, resulting in unjustified fee hikes and financial strain on families. The court dismisses the schools' argument against the 5% fee increase restriction, emphasizing that the issue is not the mechanism but the percentage itself. The court acknowledges that determining the appropriate percentage requires a thorough consideration of various factors, which falls outside the scope of writ jurisdiction. The court rules in favor of the parents and students, highlighting that the existing mechanism is not functioning as intended. It orders the Department of Education to strictly enforce the rules and regulations, ensuring compliance with the 5% fee increase rule.

Summary: Principles of recusals of a Judge.

Summary: (a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)-------S. 12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 17 & 79---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 113 & S. 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R. 10---Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), Ss. 290 & 309---Suit for specific performance of contract---Impleadment of party during pendency of suit---Limitation, commencement of---Agreement to sell by the Directors of a private limited company---Effect---Document---Proof---Procedure---Private limited company was impleaded as one of the defendants during pendency of suit on 07-09-2015---Suit against the said defendant was to be deemed to have been instituted from the date when company was impleaded as defendant---Plaintiff had stated in the plaint that cause of action had accrued on 26-08-2011---Present suit was time barred against newly impleaded defendant private limited company---Remaining defendants were not owners of the suit property---Suit to compel the said defendants to execute sale in favour of plaintiff was not maintainable---Plaintiff was bound to prove execution of agreement to sell with the lawful owner of suit property---Alleged agreement to sell was not executed by the company or any duly authorized person by the company in accordance with law---Managing Directors of a company had to act on the basis of authorization by the Board of Directors of company or on the basis of its Articles of Association---Even plaint/suit on behalf of a company could not be filed by the Director of a company for its benefit without proper authorization---Nothing was on record with regard to any meeting of the company to propose sale of its property---Even sale consideration was not paid to the company---Immovable property owned by a private limited company could not be sold by its Director---Suit property remained to be the property of company in the record of Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan---Documents including alleged agreement to sell appeared to be forged and fabricated---Even legal heirs of Director of company could not step into the shoes of Director on his/her death to deal with the assets of a private limited company---Suit property belonged to a private limited company and possession of plaintiff on the suit property was result of fraud and mismanagement of the assets of private limited company---Plaintiff had not produced any of the marginal witnesses of agreement to sell and payment receipts---Photocopy of document was inadmissible in evidence---Business of registered company was to be transacted through Bank account held by the said company---Any transaction by or between the third party with any person who was even Director of company could not be treated as transaction binding on the company itself---Plaintiff had failed to establish contract with the lawful owner of suit property---Plaintiff had made attempt to misuse the process of court on the basis of forged documents---Court was bound to protect such immovable property owned by the company---Company had abandoned its business and its property should be dealt with in accordance with law---Suit property could only be protected or disposed of by winding-up of the company for the benefits of its affectees, if any---Security and Exchange Commission of Pakistan was directed to initiate proceedings against the company and wind-up the same---Nazir of the High Court was directed to inspect the suit property and take over possession of entire suit property till final order by the Court---Member Inspection Team was directed to examine affidavit filed by the plaintiff in his examination-in-chief on oath and file a complaint against him if any case was made out---Suit was dismissed in circumstances. Bashir Dawood v. Haji Suleman Goawala and Sons Ltd. and others 2010 CLC 191 rel.

Summary: Umaid Ali challenged an order issued by the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) that disqualified him from holding office based on Section 36(1)(i) of the Act, which disqualifies individuals with pecuniary interests in council affairs. The petitioner's argument revolves around whether he had a direct pecuniary interest in the town committee's affairs and whether the ECP had the jurisdiction to disqualify him based on this provision. The court discusses the evidence presented and refers to an unreported Supreme Court order in a similar case (Saadullah) and a previous case involving Abdul Latif to analyze the situation. The court concludes that the petitioner failed to prove that he had no pecuniary interest in the town committee's affairs, as he had received payments for contracts related to the committee. The court also upholds the ECP's jurisdiction to disqualify the petitioner based on Section 36(2)(b) of the Act, which allows the ECP to unseat a member for contravening Section 36(1) provisions. As a result, the court dismissed the petitioner's claim, upholds the ECP's decision to disqualify Umaid Ali, and holds that the petitioner has not demonstrated a valid case.

Summary: 1. Dismissal of suit in Non-prosecution under Order 9 CPC, upheld till High Court operates as a Bar to a 2nd Suit by the same plaintiff in respect of the same cause of action; notwithstanding, any subsequent Judgment in the Suit of Defendant, either way. No fresh cause of action can accrue.

Summary: Drug Appellate Board has no jurisdiction of revision of its own orders under Rule 5 of the Drugs (Appellate Board) Rules 1976; however, the Drug Registration Board can exercise powers under Section 7(11) of The Drugs Act 1976. Injunction allowed and impugned order passed by Drug Appellate Board suspended.