Summary: [ (Companies Ordinance, 1984)] The company claimed to have been authorized under Article 6.4 of its Articles of Association to pass special resolution in this regard which it did subject to confirmation of this Court, as required under section 89 of Companies Act, 2017. The Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was carried out on 30.01.2020 after issuance of notices dated January 8, 2020 and on the recommendation of the Board of Directors the resolution was passed on 08.01.2020. The Board unanimously through a special resolution passed on 30.06.2020 in terms of Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2017 resolved that the paid up share capital of the company be reduced in terms of the above.

Summary: The case involved the apprehension of a truck loaded with Iranian origin HSD oil during routine checking. The vehicle was found to have a tampered chassis number and was considered smuggled/non-duty paid. The order in original resulted in the outright confiscation of the vehicle and the oil. The appeal, specifically regarding the release of the vehicle, was allowed by the appellate tribunal based on an SRO (SRO 499(I)/2009 dated 13.06.2009), and this decision is referred to as the Impugned Judgment. The judgment allowed the release of the vehicle against the payment of a fine equal to twenty percent of the ascertained customs value. The judgment highlighted that the forensic report was not properly addressed during the proceedings, and the reliance on the registration of the vehicle without proper documentation was not sufficient. The judgment ultimately concluded that the Impugned Judgment is in dissonance with the law, particularly regarding the tampering of the chassis number and the applicability of the SRO. The release of the vehicle against only a redemption fine, without considering relevant duties and levies, is deemed inconsistent with the law.

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---[Civil Procedure Code CPC (Section 144 CPC)] ----S. 144 & O. XX, R. 12(1) (b)---Delivery of possession of property to the plaintiffs by Nazir of High Court in execution of decree which was set aside---Reversal of decree---Wrongful possession---Mesne profit, recovery of---Application on behalf of Official Assignee for restitution of said property acquired by the plaintiffs---Scope--- Property/benefits of decree must be restored to the position as the same was on the date of passing of decree which had been set aside/reversed---Court was bound to place the parties in the position which they would have occupied prior to execution of decree---Such was directory for the court to pass order consequential on such variation or reversal of decree; order to include refund of cost, payment of interest even damages and compensation and mesne profit by the beneficiary of the decree for the period he had enjoyed the property or any other benefit but for the decree---Property should be restored to the Nazir of High Court through whom plaintiffs had acquired possession of the same---Decree had been reversed and plaintiffs were to be placed in the position which they had occupied prior to such decree---Official Assignee was not party when execution was ordered and decree was set aside---Suit would revive along with pending applications on remand or setting aside of judgment and decree---Official Assignee/Liquidator had first to prove that he was dispossessed from the property in execution of decree---Possession of property could not be handed over to the Official Assignee as same would violate the status quo and even at that time neither he was party to the suit nor his claim of bona fide owner was before the court---Plaintiffs should hand over peaceful possession of suit property to the Nazir---Plaintiffs remained in possession of the suit property for more than 24 years and 6 months under a decree which had been reversed and their possession from the date of reversal of decree till date of possession was wrongful possession---Benefits enjoyed by the plaintiffs for such period were liable to be refunded which could not be determined without inquiry---Nazir was directed to hold inquiry to ascertain the mesne profit---Application was disposed of accordingly.

Summary: In this case, the plaintiff, the manufacturer and seller of personal care beauty creams, is seeking a declaration, permanent injunction, accounts, and damages against the defendant for allegedly distributing products using the plaintiff's brand name "Stillman's" in the local and international market. The plaintiff claims to be the registered trademark holder of the brand name.The court order mentions various legal arguments presented by both parties. The plaintiff argues that they acquired the rights to the "Stillman's" trademark through an assignment deed and that the defendant is distributing products using their brand name. The defendant, on the other hand, contends that they are a distributor of another company (Evan and Mayer), which is authorized to manufacture and sell "Stillman's" products. The defendant also raises issues related to the plaintiff's alleged concealment of certain facts and ongoing legal disputes.The court, after considering the arguments, emphasizes the complexity of the case due to multiple pending litigations involving the plaintiff, its directors, and Evan & Mayer. The court notes the importance of determining the actual ownership and rights to use the trademark, which is yet to be decided in the ongoing cases. Consequently, the court decides not to grant an injunction against the distributor (defendant No.1) at this stage and dismisses the application. The court criticizes the plaintiff for not disclosing various pending litigations and describes the conduct as "disgusting and repulsive."In summary, the court has not granted the requested injunction, emphasizing the need for a resolution of the underlying disputes regarding trademark ownership and use in other ongoing cases.

Summary: [Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)] It is trite law that contractual employees could not be considered to have a generic entitlement for regularization. In the present case the petitioners did not claim to be contractual employees of KPT but that of Aquatech, being a third party entirely. Petitioners counsel has been unable to identify any specific law conferring any right upon the petitioners to be considered for regularization. Petitioners contracts, albeit third party, have admittedly lapsed and any claim in pursuance thereof may lie, if at all, with respect to parties privy thereto and not with respect to others. It is, thus, our deliberated view that the petitioners have failed to set forth a case for exercise of the writ jurisdiction of this Court.

Summary: [Custom Act, 1969 (147) (section 195), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (section 79), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (section 193), Sale Tax Act 1990 (section 47)] Under Customs Act, 1969, Section 79 onwards is a procedurewhich regulates the import through filing of Goods Declaration alongwith necessary documents including examination of imported goods andclearance thereof. Such mechanism was adopted and exhausted by thecustoms when goods declaration was dealt with. The purportedallegation of misdeclaration was in fact within the domain andjurisdiction of Collectorate of Customs, which, in case of anycontroversy, could have retained the consignment/goods for furtherinquiry or chemical test and determine the duty provisionally tilldisposal of the inquiry or reassessment. This has not happened in theinstant case as had it been a misdeclaration of the goods, the officersconcerned may have taken cognizance and could have objected to the assessment in terms of Section 193 and 195 of Customs Act, 1969 readwith Section 32 of the said Act. Sales Tax Act, 1990 does not deal withissue of misdeclaration as being dealt with by the customs officials underCustoms Act, 1969. Therefore, unless a misdeclaration is established bythe customs officials such recourse of recovery of short levy of sales taxcould not have been triggered. The dispute of classification was neverraised at customs level.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Damages)] With regard to the claim of damages of Rupees Two Hundred Crores, for suffering mental agony and physical torture, no evidence has been led by the Plaintiff in support of the same. If Plaintiff was physically assaulted, the first thing, which comes to mind, is that whether any complaint was lodged with the Police? Plaintiff has not led any evidence, nor brought on record anything about the fact that he was physically tortured or suffered mental agony. Thus, this claim also cannot be accepted in absence of positive evidence, as onus to prove the same is on Plaintiff, but he failed to discharge it.

Summary: [Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules 1985 (Rule 10)] the common grievance of the Petitioners is against the issuance of notifications dated 09.12.2019 and 26.2.2021 by the respondent-Establishment Division, whereby the direction was given to the Police Service of Pakistan Officers (PSPO), who were not pleaded as parties to the Petition bearing No D-1555 of 2021, serving in the Province of Sindh to report to the Establishment Division, basically they were also posted outside the Sindh Province----We may hold that Section 10 of the Civil Servants Act 1973, and Rule 10 of the Police Service of Pakistan (Composition Cadre and Seniority) Rules 1985, provide transfer and posting of the civil servants/PSP officers to different Provinces and the competent authority can withdraw any such officer of Federal government before the expiry of their tenure limitation, additionally, Rotation Policy cannot restrict the process of the competent authority from withdrawing any civil servant/PSP officer from the Provincial governments at any time on administrative grounds/ valid reasons.

Summary: Islamic Law--- [Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration and Partition)] ----Inheritance---Nephew being son of pre-deceased brother could not claim inheritance even as vested inheritance as his father was not alive at the time of opening of succession---Daughter being sole legal heirs was entitled to half of the estate of the deceased as sharer and the remaining half which was to be treated as residue would also devolve on her---Both the courts below had passed judgments and decrees in violation of law of inheritance---Impugned judgments and decrees being contrary to law were set aside and suit filed by the plaintiffs was dismissed---Second appeal was allowed in circumstances.

Summary: [Custom Act, 1969 (147) (amendment of Import General Manifest IGM)] The amendment, as sought by the petitioner, could not have beencarried out in terms of Section 45(2) of Customs Act, 1969 as this sectionrelates to an obvious error in the import manifest or an omissionwhich in the opinion of such officer was result of an accident orinadvertence. Petitioners case has not fallen in any of such exceptionsinviting and/or calling for an amendment or issuance of supplementaryimport manifest as it is apparently a deliberate attempt to provide anumbrella to the original consignee as against recovery of Rs.71.179Million.--Previously there was absolutely no permission whatsoever forcarrying out any amendment in the import manifest except as providedin subsection (2). This subsection (3) was replaced by a provisointroduced through Finance Act 2021 which now provides that beforeberthing of vessel or the crossover of the vessel, as the case may be,the person incharge of a conveyance or his duly authorized agent mayamend the import manifest subject to rules notified by the Board.---The replaced subsection (3) of Section45 would be applicable in the sense that except as provided insubsection (2) no import manifest shall be amended. Event disclosed isprior to amendment carried out via Finance Bill 2021. This would leave avery little margin, in fact no margin, for the amendment sought to becarried out in the import manifest in terms of subsection (2) as it isspecifically for an obvious error or in fact an omission, which in theopinion of the concerned officer is a result of accident or inadvertence.In fact petitioners case has not fallen in either of the two i.e. its case isneither covered by subsection (2) of Section 45 nor the proviso recentlyinserted by Finance Act, 2021.