Summary: The plaintiffs contested the EOGM and questioned the transfer of shares by Defendant No. 2 to other individuals, alleging that these transfers violated the company's Articles of Association and other agreements.During the legal proceedings, various Civil Miscellaneous Applications were filed, including those seeking injunctive relief, suspension of appointments, and review of earlier orders. The plaintiffs argued that the EOGM was not held in accordance with the Company Law's mandatory provisions, specifically concerning the notice period for calling such meetings.The court ruled that the EOGM in question had not been convened in compliance with the statutory provisions of the Company Law and, therefore, deemed it null and void. The court ordered the restoration of the previous Board of Directors for a transitional period, with the sole purpose of conducting fresh elections in strict compliance with the law. The issues related to the transfer of shares and other pending disputes were referred for proper trial.Additionally, certain appointments made during the disputed EOGM, such as that of Buland Iqbal as the Head of Productions and Operations, were set aside. The court directed that the case be consolidated with other related cases to prevent conflicting decisions.

Summary: [Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction)] I- Despite different designations there are in fact `legal similarities` attached to both the documents i.e. standard letter of credit and standby letter of credit, if compared. There may be some differences in the banking practice but are functionally similar and makes no material difference when it comes to execution and implementation. The SBLC thus has evolved as one of the kind of letter of credit and forms on independent guarantee such as performance bond/surety ship guarantee.II-While in every instance where there is a fraud there would have been a lack of bonafides as well, however, to its contrast it does not mean that in every instance where beneficiary of credit lacks bonafides there is necessarily a fraud behind it. One may be compelled to or had no choice, despite having knowledge.III-The concept of unconscionability runs the same way i.e. the concept of unconscionability involves unfairness as distinct from dishonesty or fraud or conduct of a kind so reprehensible or lacking in good faith that the court of conscience either restrain the party or refuse to assist the party. Mere breaches of contract by a party would not by themselves be unconscionable. Thus unfairness is also excluded for the concept of unconscionability to prevail.

Summary: Whether the Sindh Human Rights Commission was/is empowered under Section 4 of the Sindh Protection of Human Rights Act, 2011, (Act, 2011) to entertain service-related issues and direct the reinstatement of the private respondents. --- The SHRC had ordered the reinstatement of certain employees to their original positions, along with financial compensation for the period they were unlawfully absent from their jobs, due to actions taken by Al-Ghazi Tractors.The primary legal question was whether the SHRC had the authority under the Sindh Protection of Human Rights Act, 2011, to entertain service-related disputes and direct reinstatement of employees. The court observed that the SHRC seemed to have overstepped its mandate by engaging in matters typically reserved for Labor Courts or the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), which are the appropriate forums for resolving such industrial disputes.Arguments were presented by advocates on behalf of the respondents and the petitioner, citing various sections of the Sindh Protection of Human Rights Act, 2011, and emphasizing the SHRC's role as a body meant to make recommendations without execution power. The court analyzed these arguments in light of existing legal precedents and the statutory framework, concluding that service-related matters, especially those involving trans-provincial establishments like Al-Ghazi Tractors, fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the NIRC.Ultimately, the court allowed the petition, deciding that the application initially filed with the SHRC should be considered as filed before the NIRC, without any limitations related to time constraints. The decision emphasized the exclusive and overriding jurisdiction of the NIRC in matters involving industrial disputes and unfair labor practices concerning employers with establishments in multiple provinces, thereby overriding the SHRC's jurisdiction in this context.The court's ruling clarified the jurisdictional boundaries between the SHRC and labor dispute resolution forums, ensuring that industrial disputes are addressed within the appropriate legal framework, and reinforced the principle that statutory bodies must operate within the confines of their legislative mandates.

Summary: [Baggage Rules, 2006 (Rule 17), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 89), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 139), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 156), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 8)] The Tribunal has also laid reliance on Rule 17 of the Baggage Rules, 2006which provides that the goods brought in commercial quantity shallbe allowed release only on payment of duty and taxes at the statutoryrates and redemption fine equal to thirty per cent of the value of thegoods in terms of the Notification No.SRO 547(1)/2005 dated 06thJune, 2005 wherein fine was subsequently reduced by a followingSRO in 2009. Thus in view of the definition of Section 2(s) of theCustoms Act, 1969 the commercial quantity of silver jewelry does notfall in any prohibition or restriction clause unless proved otherwise.The SRO 499(1)/2009 also allow commercial quantity baggage to bereleased on taxes or redemption fine.In view of Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1969 we are of theview that the passenger was at liberty to declare such contents of hisbaggage orally which he did as disclosed in the impugned order andsuch facts cannot be re-appreciated while hearing reference

Summary: Jamate-Islami, under whose banner the petitioner has participated and contested the election, has boycotted the election and such fact via speech was covered by electronic media when theleaders of the said political party expressed their views. In the light of such boycott as the petitioner was contesting as a candidate for Jamat-e-Islami he cannot said to be an aggrievedperson.

Summary: Promotion (it appears that the policy of the respondent is uniform and without any discrimination .CP dismissed.)

Summary: The petitioners through instant constitutional petition has challenged the concurrent finding of facts by the learned courts below, whereby the Rent Controller allowed the fair rent case of the respondent, which order was subsequently upheld by the Rent Appellate Court.Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was discussed. It was taken into consideration that law requires that while deciding such application the Rent Controller shall take into consideration the four factors as stated in clause (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, including the rent of similar premises situated in the similar circumstances, in the same adjoining locality, the rise in cost of construction and repair charges, the imposition of new taxes, if any, after commencement of the tenancy and the annual value of the premises, if any, on which property tax is levied. If a party succeeds in establishing through evidence the aforesaid factors, the Rent Controller is required to examine cumulative effect of all four factors as enumerated in section 8(1) for fixation of fair rent. It was discussed that where there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, this Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the entire evidence in the matter, as such jurisdiction besides being discretionary in nature is very limited and not plenary in nature.

Summary: Chairman UC Nazim case---The key facts of the case were that the petitioner had been elected as Chairman of the Municipal Committee Sanghar and was performing his duties since his election in August 2016. However, he was arrested on 23.02.2017 in connection with a case and was detained in District Jail Sanghar. Despite his arrest, he continued to perform his duties as Chairman, and the Anti-Terrorism Court granted permission for him to sign checks and handle financial matters for the Municipal Committee from jail. The Government argued that the notification was issued in accordance with Sub-section (2) of Section 80 of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, which allowed the Vice Chairman to perform the Chairman's functions in the Chairman's absence for any reason. The Court considered the legal provisions, specifically Section 80 of the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013, and determined that while the Vice Chairman could perform the Chairman's functions in the absence of the Chairman, all major and policy decisions must be made after meaningful consultation with the petitioner in prison. The Court disposed of the petition accordingly. The petition challenged a notification that temporarily assigned the Chairman's functions to the Vice Chairman due to the petitioner's incarceration, and the Court ruled that the Vice Chairman could perform day-to-day functions but important decisions should involve consultation with the petitioner in jail.

Summary: Section 202 of Customs Act, 1969 does not extend its arms againsta clearing agent acting in good faith without any collusion or negligenceto cause financial loss to national exchequer. As observed, neither ashow-cause was issued nor the assessment order declared such terms ofrecovery to be made against clearing agent. In fact the importer failedto substantiate his declared value in terms of Section 25 of the CustomsAct, 1969 read with Rule 109 of the Customs Rules, 2001. The declaredvalue may have varied with the advice of Director General CustomsValuation however, the connivance of clearing agent to cause losses tonational exchequer is missing. Not all such Goods declarations becategorized as false or untrue statement and hence require a burden tobe discharged by customs officials, if such is attributed separatelyagainst importer and clearing agent. Not necessarily a declared value,which is objected by the customs officials be always considered to be awillful act of causing losses to national exchequer in terms of duties andtaxes, however, a mechanism is provided to levy duties and taxes interms of transactional value i.e. price actually paid or payable for thegoods under section 25 of Customs Act, 1969 when sold for export fromPakistan, subject to provisos therein

Summary: The respondent filed an application under Section 152 of the Civil Procedure Code (CPC) along with Section 151 CPC, claiming that an "accidental slip" had caused the omission of service charges amounting to Rs. 5,33,656.40 in the judgment and decree. The appellant, dissatisfied with this decision, filed the present appeal. The appellant's argument was centered on the absence of a contractual relationship between themselves and the respondent, as well as the contention that service charges were not eligible for inclusion in the judgment as per Section 27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, a special law governing such matters. The appellant also disputed how the figure of Rs. 2,89,117/- was determined. The High Court reviewed the provisions of Section 152 CPC and Section 27 of the Ordinance 2001, emphasizing that the latter takes precedence in cases involving banking suits. Section 27 of the Ordinance 2001 allowed for the correction of clerical or typographical mistakes in judgments but did not extend to claims of "accidental slip." The High Court concluded that the application under Section 152 CPC was misapplied by the Banking Court, as the alleged accidental slip seemed to involve complex calculations and deliberations, not simple clerical or typographical errors. Therefore, the appeal was allowed, and the order granting the application to amend the judgment was set aside. High Court's judgment focused on the applicability of Section 152 CPC and Section 27 of the Ordinance 2001 in a case involving banking matters, ultimately ruling that the application to amend the judgment did not meet the criteria for correction under the relevant legal provisions.