Summary: [Sindh Civil Servant Welfare Fund Ordinance 1979 (Group Insurance)] Without prejudice to above, since there is consent order, no review was preferred even that order was not assailed. In case, if there was no deduction by the department and they were sending salary directly to the account; that is not justification to withhold group insurance. Accordingly, Secretary Health, Government of Sindh shall ensure that group insurance amount is paid as per her entitlement to the nominee without any delay. While parting this order, learned AG Sindh shall ensure presence of any focal person of Accountant General Sindh (A.G. Sindh) to assist this Court that under what capacity complete salary was transferred and they failed to deduct the amount and who were responsible with regard to such irregularity, if any. This exercise shall be completed within 15 days.

Summary: [Specific Relief Act, (Section 27 - Relief against subsequent buyer )] Sale deed of appellant as being enjoyed by appellant cannot be set-aside automatically as the defence of the appellant isprotected being buyer without notice of any dispute. As stated above it has tobe proved independently through impartial evidence failing whereof theaforesaid provisions of law would protect the title of appellant. Section 27(b) isfor enforcing performance against those who acquired title with knowledge ofprevious agreement/contracts, whereas section 41 of Transfer of Property Actprotect title for those who acquired title without knowledge of previous litigation.Since it is a case of cancellation of sale deed I am of the view that section 41 ofTransfer of Property Act is more appropriate for its application

Summary: The precise controversy involved is that whether the Plaintiffs industry (beverage industry) is an agro-based industry, being entitled for exemption and benefits allowed vide SRO No.575(I)/2006 dated 05.06.2006 (SRO 575); and whether, can the Plaintiffs seek protection under the doctrine of departmental practice whereby in the past their industry has been recognized as an agro based industry. It has been held by the Court that the Plaintiffs have not been able to make out a case in their favor, in that the beverage industry cannot be called or classified as an agro-based industry for the purposes of exemption claimed under SRO 575; nor they are protected under the doctrine of past practice, once it is held that such practice was a wrong practice.

Summary: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XLI, R. 31---Suit for declaration without seeking possession---Main-tainability---Gift---Proof of---Contention of defendants was that no valid and legal gift was made in favour of plaintiff---Suit was dismissed concurrently---Validity---No attesting witness of gift was produced by the donee---Nothing was on record with regard to possession of plaintiff on the suit property---Plaintiff had failed to prove the execution of gift in her favour---Suit for declaration without seeking possession was not maintainable---Both the courts below had decided the matter by referring evidence on record---Case should not be remanded when there was sufficient material available to examine the issues to settle the dispute between the parties---Sufficient compliance had been made of the requirements of O. XLI, R. 31, C.P.C.---No effort was made to claim possession pending the appeal before the Appellate Court---Revision could be dismissed on account of failure of plaintiff to seek possession along with declaration of ownership in circumstances---Revision was dismissed in circumstances. National Bank of Pakistan v. Mst. Hajra Bai and 2 others PLD 1985 Kar. 431; Muhammad Subhan and another v. Mst. Bilquis Begum through Legal Heirs PLD 1994 Kar. 106; Messrs National Bottlers (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Additional Secretary, Federation of Pakistan and 2 others 1995 CLC 631; Auqaf Department v. Javed Shuja and others 1995 CLC 1173; Rashid Ahmed and others v. Sardar Bibi and others 1994 MLD 467; Nasrullah Khan v. Rasul Bibi 2001 SCMR 1156; Kanwal Nain and 3 others v. Fateh Khan and others PLD 1983 SC 53; Jam Pari v. Muhammad Abdullah 1992 SCMR 786; Haji Muhammad Din v. Malik Muhammad Abdullah PLD 1994 SC 291; Abdul Hakeem v. Habibullah and 11 others 1997 SCMR 1139 and Anwar Zaman and 5 others v. Bahadur Sher and others 2000 SCMR 431 ref. Nasir Abbas v. Mansoor Haider Shah PLD 1989 SC 568; Syed Iftikhar-ud-Din Haider Gardezi and 9 others v. Central Bank of India, Ltd., and 2 others 1996 SCMR 669; Abdur Razzaq v. Sabar Khan 2004 CLC 950; Sultan Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Qasim and others 2010 SCMR 1630; Sarfraz Khan v. Federation of Pakistan 1986 SCMR 1950; Niaz Ahmed Khan v. Kishwar Begum and 19 others PLD 2003 Lah. 48; Haji Ghulam Rasool and others v. The Chief Administrator of Auqaf, West Pakistan PLD 1971 SC 376; Amanat Ali v. Abdul Haque and 27 others 1999 MLD 1148; Muhammad Yousaf and 3 others v. Mst. Zubeda Begum and another 1993 MLD 2138; Mir Zaman v. Mst. Begum Jan and 11 others PLD 1983 Pesh. 100; Mian Tahir Shah and another v. Additional District Judge, Swabi and others 1998 SCMR 858; Muhammad Yousaf v. Abdul Majid PLD 1993 Lah. 245; Haji Jan Muhammad v. Provincial Water Board, Balochistan, Quetta PLD 1994 SC 242 and Allah Bakhsh and another v. Ghulam Janat and 6 others PLD 1993 Lah. 254 distinguished.

Summary: Confiscation of vehicle under Section 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969--- The vehicle had been altered to facilitate the transport of smuggled HSD, and the owner, Shahzad, was identified through the registration book. The Customs authorities issued seizure notices and a subsequent show-cause notice to the respondent under various sections of the Customs Act, 1969. The Customs Adjudication authority confiscated both the HSD and the vehicle due to lack of ownership challenge or dispute over the smuggled goods. Shahzad appealed to the Collector of Customs (Appeals), who dismissed the appeal due to inadequate justification. However, the Customs Appellate Tribunal overturned the confiscation order of the vehicle, concluding that there was no established link between Shahzad and the smuggled HSD. The court's analysis examined the relevant sections of the Customs Act, particularly Section 157(2), which deals with the confiscation of conveyances used in smuggling. The court emphasized that the mere absence of proof against the owner's direct involvement did not automatically preclude the confiscation of a conveyance used exclusively for smuggling purposes. The court cited precedence and legal provisions to support its decision that the Customs Appellate Tribunal had misinterpreted the law. Consequently, the court set aside the tribunal's decision and reinstated the original order of the Collector of Customs (Appeals).

Summary: The judgment discusses the relevant clauses from the 2016 Prospectus of the university, particularly those related to academic performance, probation, and cancellation of admissions. The petitioners argue that their admissions were canceled arbitrarily without proper notice and that they were treated unfairly compared to other students who also did not meet the required GPA. They also point out that other provisions of the Prospectus, such as allowing students to improve their grades, were not taken into consideration. The court reviews the relevant clauses of the Prospectus and minutes of a meeting where the university discussed the issue of students who did not meet the required GPA. The court notes that the university decided to relax the conditions for students who did not meet the GPA requirement, but the petitioners were treated differently without proper reasons. Ultimately, the court concluded that the petitioners were discriminated against and were not given the same opportunities as other students to improve their grades and complete their studies within the maximum allowed time frame. The court sets aside the cancellation of the petitioners' admissions.

Summary: [Custom Act, 1969 (147)] The imposition of impugned ten percent loading (charges) was ineffect a levy, which could not have been imposed or recovered exceptthrough a valid legislation or other permissible statutory method. Thisimpugned loading of 10% was/is illegal per se and cannot be sustained.

Summary: [Service matters (Section 3 of Sindh Regularization Act, )] Without touching the merits of the cases and by consent the competent authority of the respondent-department is directed to place the cases of petitioners for consideration of their regularization under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, before the relevant Committee constituted by the Government of Sindh.

Summary: [Service matters (Son Quota (Dismissed))] In the light of above discussion, it is crystal clear that Police Department cannot circumvent the law to make recruitment to the post of Junior Clerk on the basis of Son/ quota by issuing Standing Orders or by invoking Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The appointment in Sindh Police can only be made through competitive process on merit as provided under the recruitment rules and not otherwise

Summary: Family matter (Decree of dissolution Marriage In Section 10(2) Up held . CP dismissed.) --- Muhammad Aslam challenged the dissolution of his marriage by the Civil & Family Judge-II, Tando Adam, in favor of his wife (Respondent No.2) through Khula, a form of divorce initiated by the wife in Islamic law. The dissolution was granted on July 4, 2020, citing irreconcilable differences and a failure to reconcile. Aslam argued that the pandemic and lockdown restrictions prevented him from attending the pre-trial hearing, claiming the judgment was unfairly based on misinterpreted evidence and a disregard for his right to present his case, referencing Section 10 of the Family Courts Act, 1964.The High Court, led by Judge Adnan-Ul-Karim Memon, reviewed the case and found that Aslam had intentionally avoided the proceedings to delay the case, despite being given multiple opportunities to attend, including a specific adjournment to July 4, 2020, which he also missed. The court emphasized the importance of swift resolutions in family matters and dismissed Aslam's petition for lacking merit, upholding the original decree of dissolution by Khula. The ruling highlighted the court's dedication to procedural fairness and the critical role of personal presence in legal proceedings, especially in family law.