Summary: Having agreed to arbitration clause in the lease agreement the appellant cannot wriggle out of the arbitration proceedings merely by stating that arbitration proceedings are not in terms of the arbitration clause for the reason that the parties could not be allowed to approbate and reprobate and having themselves agreed to have the matter decided through arbitration while entering into the lease agreement, the appellant could not be later on allowed to take a contradictory stand.

Summary: Appointment as Police-commandos (BPS-05) in SSU--whether a waiting list candidate, not declared successful, can be recommended for appointment against any vacancy occurring due to non-joining of any successful candidate.

Summary: Pension for family in case of deceased persons---The order in question pertains and concerns the eligibility for family pension of certain individuals in relation to a deceased employee. After considering the arguments and relevant laws, the court examined the applicability of Rule 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Servants Pension Rules 1963. The court determined that the petitioner, as the husband of the deceased employee, was entitled to the family pension under Rule 4.10(2)(i)(a).The court also evaluated Rule 4.10(2)(v), which addresses the entitlement of the eldest surviving son of a deceased government servant, and Rule 4.10(1)(b), which deals with the division of pension among widows and eligible children. The court found that neither of these rules provided any benefits to the sisters of the deceased employee. The respondents' counsel cited the case of Muhammad Mumtaz v. Mst. Umra Bevi and another, which pertained to the entitlement of a widowed sister of a deceased employee who died without issue. However, the court noted that this case did not apply to the current situation, as it involved a different scenario where the deceased employee's husband had not survived. The court allowed the petition and set aside the impugned order. The petitioner, in accordance with the relevant rules, was deemed eligible for the family pension of the deceased employee. The court's decision effectively disposed of the petition.

Summary: Service matters (Bar of Jurisdiction )---The court considered whether the transfer order issued to the petitioner was in violation of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974, and whether it was done with mala fide intent. The petitioner's counsel argued that the transfer order was against the rules and principles established by legal precedents. They also claimed that the transfer was carried out with malicious intent to accommodate another individual. The court acknowledged that transfer orders for civil servants fall within the realm of "terms and conditions" of their service. They cited relevant legal provisions, including the Sindh Service Tribunal Act and Article 212 of the Constitution, which grant the Service Tribunal exclusive jurisdiction over matters related to civil servants' terms and conditions of service. The court emphasized that transfer and posting are included in the expression "terms and conditions" of service. The court dismissed the petitioner's claim that the transfer was against the rules, noting that civil servants do not have a vested right to be posted to a specific position. The court concluded that the Sindh Service Tribunal was the appropriate forum to challenge orders issued by the departmental authority, even if they were without jurisdiction or mala fide. The court found no merit in the petitioner's arguments and dismissed the constitutional petition.

Summary: ATPL Lisence case---In this court order, a petitioner named Muhammad Jawad Mirza challenged a show cause notice issued by the Pakistan Civil Aviation Authority (CAA) due to alleged malpractice regarding an Airline Transport Pilot License (ATPL) examination. The petitioner's lawyer argued that the suspension violated certain rules and that no personal hearing was granted. The petitioner, who was employed as a First Officer/Pilot at Emirates Airline in Dubai, claimed that the delayed decision might negatively impact his job. The court noted that the petitioner had submitted a reply to the show cause notice, making certain admissions and requesting leniency. However, no further notice or personal hearing was provided, and the court pointed out that such proceedings should be conducted within a specific timeframe to respect due process. The court emphasized the importance of fair trial rights and the need for timely completion of investigations and inquiries. It directed the CAA to decide the fate of the show cause notice within one month, complete any ongoing investigation, and provide the petitioner with a fair opportunity for a hearing. The renewal of the ATPL license was stated to be subject to the final order from the CAA on the show cause notice.

Summary: Background: This civil revision petition was filed under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (CPC), challenging the judgment and decree dated 21.10.2013 passed by the District Judge, Kasur. The District Judge had allowed the respondents' appeal against the dismissal of their suit for declaration by the Civil Judge, Kasur, on 06.11.2010. The trial court had dismissed the respondents' suit as being time-barred. However, the appellate court remanded the case back to the trial court with instructions to frame issues, record evidence, and decide the case on its merits. -----Issues: 1- Whether the suit filed by the respondents, 25 years after the alleged cause of action, was time-barred. 2- Whether the respondents' suit should have been converted into an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC. 3- Whether the appellate court was correct in remanding the case to the trial court for fresh adjudication on the merits after framing issues. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the respondents' claim of fraud needed to be examined on its merits and could not be dismissed outright on the grounds of limitation. The appellate court was justified in remanding the matter for proper adjudication by framing issues and recording evidence. The claim, being based on alleged fraud, could potentially be governed by Section 18 of the Limitation Act, 1908, which provides for the extension of limitation when fraud is involved. The trial court’s failure to consider this was a clear error. Conversion to Application under Section 12(2) CPC: The court upheld the appellate court’s decision to treat the respondents' suit as an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC. It emphasized that procedural laws are meant to facilitate justice, and converting the suit into an application under Section 12(2) of the CPC was appropriate, given the nature of the allegations. The court referred to the precedent set in Noorul Amin and another v. Muhammad Hashim and others (1992 SCMR 1744), which supported such conversions in cases involving fraud. Remanding the Case: While remanding the case for fresh adjudication, the appellate court had directed the trial court to frame issues and record evidence. The Lahore High Court partially agreed with the remand but clarified that it is not mandatory in every case to frame issues or record evidence when disposing of an application under Section 12(2). The trial court should follow the procedure outlined in Section 12(3) CPC, which allows for expedited proceedings and the use of affidavits to prove or disprove facts, unless the court deems otherwise. The court, therefore, set aside the judgment of the District Judge, Kasur, and directed the civil court to adjudicate the application expeditiously, in accordance with Section 12(3) of the CPC. -----Citations/Precedents: Bashir Ahmed through Legal Representatives and others v. Muhammad Hussain and others (PLD 2019 SC 504) Noorul Amin and another v. Muhammad Hashim and others (1992 SCMR 1744) Sheikh Haroon-u-Rehman v. Muhammad Rafique and others (2022 CLC 167) Ghulam Muhammad v. Ahmed Khan (1993 SCMR 662) Amiran Bibi and others v. Muhammad Ramzan and others (1999 SCMR 1334) Ms. Amina Bibi v. Nasrullah and others (2000 SCMR 296) Warriach Zarai Corporation v. F.M.C. United (Pvt.) Ltd. (2006 SCMR 531)

Summary: Background: The consolidated petitions were filed by a political party, challenging the delay in the announcement of the date for holding general elections for the Provincial Assembly of Punjab after its dissolution. The petitioners sought a writ of mandamus under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, urging the court to direct the Governor and the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) to announce the election date within the constitutionally mandated 90 days. -----Issues: 1- Whether the Governor of Punjab or the ECP is constitutionally mandated to announce the election date after the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly. 2- Whether the delay in the announcement of the election date violates Articles 105, 112, 218(3), and 224 of the Constitution of Pakistan. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that under the Constitution, the general elections must be held within 90 days of the dissolution of the Provincial Assembly. It was determined that while Article 105(3)(a) mandates the Governor to announce the date for the election in case of the assembly's dissolution, the Election Commission of Pakistan (ECP) bears the ultimate responsibility to organize and conduct the election under Article 218(3). The court ruled that in the absence of an announcement by the Governor, the ECP is constitutionally obligated to step in and announce the election date to ensure the elections are held within the prescribed time. The court allowed the petition and directed the ECP to announce the election date after consultation with the Governor. -----Citations/Precedents: Shaheen Merchant vs Federation of Pakistan (2021 PTD 2126 Lahore) Hafeez ur Rehman Ch vs Federation of Pakistan (2022 MLD 2006) Federation of Pakistan vs Muhammad Saifullah Khan (PLD 1989 SC 166) Election Commission of Pakistan vs Javaid Hashmi (PLD 1989 SC 396) Muhammad Sharif vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 1988 Lahore 725) Rao Naeem Sarfaraz vs Election Commission of Pakistan (PLD 2013 Lahore 675) Ch. Pervaiz Elahi vs Deputy Speaker, Provincial Assembly of Punjab (PLD 2022 SC 678) Workers' Party Pakistan vs Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2012 SC 681) Sheikh Rashid Ahmed vs Government of Punjab (PLD 2010 SC 573) Administrator Municipal Corporation, Peshawar vs Taimur Hussain Amin (2021 SCMR 714)

Summary: Under Section 25 of The West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 High Court is empowered to transfer any suit/appeal/execution/proceedings etc. from one district to other and a Family Court, on its own, cannot transfer a suit/appeal/execution/precept to any a Family Court within same district or other district.

Summary: Background: This criminal appeal was filed by a juvenile, challenging his conviction under Sections 377 and 377-B of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) in FIR No. 353, dated 10.10.2020, Police Station City B-Division, Chishtian, District Bahawalnagar. The appellant was sentenced by the Juvenile Court to 10 years' simple imprisonment under Section 377 PPC and 14 years' simple imprisonment under Section 377-B PPC. Both sentences were ordered to run concurrently, and the appellant was also fined. The appellant challenged both the conviction and the sentence. -----Issues: 1- Whether the appellant's conviction under both Section 377 and 377-B PPC is legally valid, considering the doctrine of merger. 2- Whether the sentence imposed under Section 377 PPC is appropriate, given that the appellant was a juvenile and a first offender. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: --Conviction under Sections 377 and 377-B PPC: The court held that the appellant could not be convicted under both Section 377 (unnatural lust) and Section 377-B (sexual abuse) simultaneously. The court applied the doctrine of merger, which states that when a single act fulfills the definitions of two separate offenses, the lesser offense merges into the greater offense. In this case, the graver offense of sodomy under Section 377 PPC encompassed the lesser offense of sexual abuse under Section 377-B PPC. As a result, the conviction under Section 377-B PPC was set aside. --Sentence under Section 377 PPC: The court upheld the conviction under Section 377 PPC, finding that the prosecution had provided credible evidence, including a positive DNA report. However, considering that the appellant was a juvenile, a first offender, and a student at the time of the offense, the court reduced the sentence from 10 years to 2 years' simple imprisonment. The court also imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000, with a default sentence of two months’ simple imprisonment in case of non-payment of the fine. The benefit of Section 382-B Cr.P.C. was extended to the appellant, allowing for the time already served to be deducted from the sentence. -----Citations/Precedents: The State vs. Abdul Malik alias Malkoo (PLD 2000 Lah 449) Bashir Ahmed vs. The State (1985 P.Cr.LJ 1516 Lahore) Lashkar and others vs. The State (1987 P.Cr.LJ 1034 Lahore) Ahmad Daud-ul-Hussaini vs. The State (2008 SCMR 111) Fiaz Muhammad vs. The State (1981 P.Cr.LJ 12 Karachi) Zafar Iqbal alias Kala vs. The State (2013 P.Cr.LJ 645 Lahore) Khalid Iqbal vs. The State (1991 P.Cr.LJ 443 Federal Shariat Court)

Summary: Background: The petitioner filed a case challenging the issuance of an assessment alert dated 24.12.2022 by the Assistant Collector of Customs, East, Karachi. The alert set a minimum assessment value for tyre scrap cut into 2 or 3 pieces at US$ 0.07/kg. The petitioner argued that this action violated Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, which prescribes the use of a Valuation Ruling for determining the value of goods for assessment purposes. The respondents appeared in court, with the Assistant Collector defending the alert as having been issued with approval from competent authorities. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Assistant Collector of Customs has the legal authority to issue an assessment alert that sets a minimum value for goods in contravention of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969. 2- Whether the issuance of such an alert without a Valuation Ruling constitutes a lawful method of determining the value of imported goods. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The court held that the Assistant Collector had no legal basis to issue the impugned assessment alert. Under the Customs Act, 1969, the determination of value for imported goods must follow the methods outlined in Section 25, which requires a Valuation Ruling issued by the Director of Valuation. The court emphasized that the Assistant Collector could not fix or determine values without proper legal authority. The assessment alert in question was deemed an advice at best and held no binding force under the law. Additionally, the court clarified that only the Director of Valuation could determine values through a proper process, and any assessment should be conducted in accordance with Section 25 of the Customs Act. The court set aside the impugned assessment alert and directed that the goods in question be assessed strictly in terms of Section 25 of the Act. If required, the assessing officer must issue an appealable assessment order after providing the petitioner an opportunity to be heard, uninfluenced by the impugned alert. If the petitioner remains aggrieved, they may pursue further remedies under the Customs Act. ----Citations/Precedents: Kings Pen Company v Collector of Customs [2005 PTD 118] Habib ur Rehman & Company v Collector of Customs [2005 PTD 69] M.M.M. Traders v Deputy Collector of Customs [2006 PTD 313]