Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Background: Gujranwala Steel Industries appealed against orders dated 19.01.2023 and 23.01.2023 by the Banking Court, which declared the allotment in favor of the appellant void and directed the respondent Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (IDBP) to redeem the mortgaged property to the judgment debtors (Respondents No. 2 and 3) and deliver possession. The property in question, Plot No.24/B, SIE-II, PSIC, Gujranwala, was originally leased to Respondent No. 2 by the Punjab Small Industries Corporation (Respondent No. 8) and later mortgaged to IDBP. The leasehold rights were canceled, and IDBP sued for recovery, obtaining a decree in 2002. ----Issues: 1- Whether the Banking Court had jurisdiction to declare the allotment in favor of the appellant void after the decree was satisfied. 2- Whether the cancellation of the lease and subsequent allotment to the appellant were legally valid. 3- Whether Section 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO) applied to the transaction between the lessee and the appellant. ----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: ---Jurisdiction of Banking Court: The Banking Court's jurisdiction to declare the allotment void was questioned as the decree had already been satisfied. The court held that once the decree was satisfied, the Banking Court's jurisdiction ended, and it could not adjudicate disputes regarding the cancellation of the lease and subsequent allotment. ---Validity of Lease Cancellation and Allotment: The validity of the cancellation of the lease and the subsequent allotment to the appellant was not determined by the Banking Court. The court noted that the issue of the legality of the cancellation of the lease needed adjudication, which fell outside the Banking Court's jurisdiction after the decree was satisfied. ---Application of Section 23 FIO: Section 23 FIO, which protects the interests of the mortgagee, was deemed irrelevant once the decree was satisfied. The court explained that the voidness of the transaction under Section 23 applies only as long as the decree is outstanding or the mortgage is enforceable. Once the decree is satisfied, the Banking Court cannot declare the transaction void. The appeal was allowed to the extent that the declaration of voidness of the allotment in favor of the appellant was set aside. The court directed the lessor, lessee, and allottee to seek remedies in law for enforcement of their respective claims without being prejudiced by the observations in the impugned orders. The process of redemption of the property was to be completed, and possession delivered to the lessee. The lessee was given thirty days to challenge the cancellation of the lease, failing which the lessor could invoke remedies against the lessee. ----Citations/Precedents: The court referred to several precedents, including: “Mst. Farhat Fareed Sheikh Vs. NIB Bank Limited” (2019 CLD 632) “Siraj Din Vs. Khushi Muhammad” (2002 YLR 1643) “Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Vs. Syed Ataullah Shah” (2003 CLD 888) “The Bank of Punjab Vs. Messrs Magic River Services” (2016 CLD 171) “Haji Dad Muhammad Vs. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited” (2011 CLD 785) “Mazco Industries Ltd Vs. Habib Bank Ltd” (2011 CLD 186) “Messrs Data Laboratories (Pvt) Ltd Vs. Judge Banking Court No.III, Lahore” (2008 CLD 1326)

Summary: Background:This appeal involves Mst. Shahida Siddiqa, who was employed by Allied Bank Limited and faced dismissal following allegations of negligence in a fraud case at her branch. The Lahore High Court modified the decisions of the lower courts by converting her reinstatement, with a grade reduction but without back benefits, into compulsory retirement due to her length of service and the nature of the allegations.----Issues:Whether the Lahore High Court was justified in converting Mst. Shahida Siddiqa?s reinstatement into compulsory retirement.The appropriateness of the penalty in relation to the alleged negligence and its proportionality to the proven misconduct.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court found that the Lahore High Court?s decision to convert Mst. Shahida Siddiqa?s reinstatement into compulsory retirement was contradictory and harsh, especially given her long and previously unblemished service record. The Court noted that while Siddiqa was found negligent, there was no direct evidence of her involvement in embezzlement or fraudulent activities. Thus, the Court held that the penalty of compulsory retirement was disproportionate to the negligence attributed to her.The Supreme Court set aside the judgment of the Lahore High Court and reinstated the original decision of the Labour Court and Appellate Tribunal, which allowed for her demotion but preserved her employment. Additionally, the Supreme Court ruled that Siddiqa was entitled to all back benefits for a Grade-III Officer from the date of her dismissal to her retirement, along with full pensionary benefits.----Citations/Precedents:Saifullah v. Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services (2016 SCMR 1430)Auditor-General of Pakistan v. Muhammad Ali (2006 SCMR 63)Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803)

Summary: Background: Civil Petitions No. 1007 and 1112-L/2022 were filed before the Supreme Court of Pakistan against the judgment of the Punjab Service Tribunal. The petitioner, challenged the tribunal's decision to withhold 50% of his pension, contending that it was unjustified. ---Issues: 1- Whether the petitioner's conduct amounted to gross negligence justifying the withholding of pension. 2- Whether the penalty imposed by the Inquiry Committee was proportionate to the offense. ---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: The Supreme Court examined the concept of negligence, emphasizing that gross negligence involves a marked departure from the normal standard of conduct. While the petitioner's absence during the embezzlement was justified due to his supervisory role, his negligence did not meet the threshold of gross negligence.The Court criticized the Inquiry Committee's decision to withhold 100% of the petitioner's pension as disproportionate and unreasonable. It stressed the principle of proportionality, highlighting that penalties should reflect the degree of moral culpability associated with the offense. The Committee's decision failed the tests of proportionality, suitability, and necessity. ---Citations/Precedents: The Postmaster General Sindh Province, Karachi v. Syed Farhan (2022 SCMR 1154)Hunter v. Hanley (1955 &LT 213)Sabir Iqbal v. Cantonment Board, Peshawar (PLD 2019 SC 189)Divisional Superintendent, Postal Services v. Nadeem Raza (2023 SCMR 803)

Summary: PLJ 2023 SC 381 [Appellate Jurisdiction] Present Syed Mansoor Ali Shah and Mrs Ayesha A Malik JJ PUBLIC INTEREST LAW ASSOCIATION OF PAKISTAN Registered under the Societies Act 1860 through Authorized Person - - Petitioner versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through CHIEF SECRETARY CIVIL SECRETARIAT LOWER MALL LAHORE and others - - Respondents CP No 55 of 2020 decided on 222023 (Against order dated 18112019 passed by the Lahore High Court Lahore in WP No 56780 of 2019) Environmental Protection Act 1997 (XXXIV of 1997) - - - - - - Ss 12 33 - - Grant of small scale mining licences - - Lack of environmental approvals - - Requirement of IEE or EIA - - Fundamental and basic step - - Climate change - - Bidding process - - Petitioner in public interest challenged lack of environmental approvals for grant of small - scale mining licences or leases - - A ll projects need environmental approval from Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) - - The Regulations clearly specify requirement of an IEE or EIA which is a fundamental and basic step before a project starts so as to ensure that an adverse effect on environment has been considered and addressed - - Climate change is one of biggest global threats and combination of surface mining and climate change becomes a serious threat for ecological system - - Hence mining sector must adopt climate proof mining policy which must consider how climate change will impact mining areas so that climate change risks are integrated into environment assessment - - Without an IEE or EIA these matters are totally neglected - - There is no timeline provided within which these approvals are to be obtained nor does it specify any process to bind successful bidder of project to terms of any EMP or other measures provided for in IEE or EIA - - It would be useful for MMD to provide guidelines and SOPs to facilitate this process and also provide penalizing provisions within license or lease for any violation of EMP so as to ensure compliance - - Mining continues to provide for economy while also protecting health of our planet and its inhabitants - - Economic growth is important but it must be achieved in a way that is sustainable and respectful of natural systems that support it - - Petition disposed of [Pp 382 383 384 385] A B C D E F G Mr Rafey Alam ASC and Ch Akhtar Ali AOR for Petitioner Mr Qasim Ali Chohan Addl AG Mr Ashfaq Ahmed Kharal Addl AG Noman Sarfraz Deputy Director (Mines and Minerals) Nawaz Majid Deputy Director (L) Environment for RespondentsJudgement Result:Petition disposed of

Summary: Carriage by Air Act (IV of 2012)- -First Sched., Chapt. III, R. 17-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXII, R.26-Suit for recovery of damages-Right to sue-Death of plaintiff-Effect-Suit filed by appellant/plaintiff for recovery of damages was dismissed by Trial Court-During pendency of appeal before High Court appellant/plaintiff died-Plea raised by respondent/ airline was that appeal had abated due to death of appellant/plaintiff-Validity-Distinguishing feature between a 'right to sue' that survives death and one that does not is whether the right was a personal right of action-Right immediately connected with individuality of deceased does not survive-Personal right of action arising from tort cannot be distinguished from such right arising out of contract and/or under statute for the purpose of surviving death-Liability of carrier in the event of wounding of a passenger or any other bodily injury suffered by passenger pursuant to R. 17 of Chapt. III contained in the First Sched. to Carriage by Air Act, 2012, is a personal right connected with the passenger and as such dies with such passenger-If death occurs after conclusion of hearing but before pronouncement of judgment, it may be pronounced irrespective of whether cause of action survives or not-High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court-Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Zahid Hussain Awan v. United Bank Limited 2018 MLD 1369; A. Majid Sama v. The Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. 1996 MLD 803; Mir Shakeelur Rehman v. Yahya Bakhtiar PLD 2010 SC 612; Ali Muhammad Mirza and others v. Mst. Sardaran and others PLD 2004 SC 185; Mst. Nasri Begum v. Virgil L. Moore, Consular for Administration, Embassy of the United States of America 1989 CLC 511; Mercantile Co-operative Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Habib & Co. and others PLD 1967 Kar. 755; Sardar Muhammad Ali v. Federation of Pakistan PLD 1961 (W.P.) Karachi 88 and Syed Gayoor Hussain Shah v. Gharib Alam PLD 1990 Lah. 432 distinguished.

Summary: Veracity of protocols in narcotic analysis report can only be assessed once it is tendered in evidence; pre-mature termination of prosecution is deprecated.

Summary: Suit for recovery of the Plaintiff-Bank under Section 9 of the FIO, 2001 is decreed by rejecting the PLA; the Corporate Guarantee extended by associated company was not found beyond the scope of its Memorandum of Association; and the premature suit became mature in terms of alleged default during its pendency which was decreed subject to imposition of fine in order to adjust equities.

Summary: The petitioner being real father filed guardianship petition for custody of his minor daughter on the ground that respondent-mother has remarried and, hence, violated the agreement between the parties upon their dissolution of marriage that minor son will be kept by the petitioner-father while the respondent-mother will retain custody of the minor daughter until she contracts second marriage. Held that the children cannot be treated as commodities and their welfare cannot be compromised by their parents by executing any agreement. Suffice to observe that such agreements are against public policy and hence, not enforceable under the law. This Court is of the view that placing a Sword of Damocles of losing the custody of the child upon remarriage on the respondent is not only illegal but also raises a logical question as why such a condition was not placed on the petitioner himself, disentitling him from keeping the custody of the minor son and seeking the custody of the minor daughter. In this regard, suffice to observe that it is well-settled principle of law that re-marriage of the mother is not a stand-alone ground for depriving her from keeping custody of her minor children. Case reported as Raja Muhammad Owais v. Nazia Jabeen and others (2022 SCMR 2123) is referred. Further held that the right of minor siblings to develop bond of love and ownness among themselves by remaining united and grow up in the companionship has been ignored. While parents may submerge and get themselves subsumed in their lives respectively, it is the minor siblings who have suffered the most by lack of mutual interaction, in the most innocent manner, during the most innocent period of their lives, the playful memories whereof would have been indelibly etched into their past memories to be relished in future. Therefore, this Court considers it obligatory to observe that the learned Judge of the Family Court, while deciding the guardian petition, must in addition to and/or apart from other factors, also evaluate the adverse effects of separating the siblings from each other.

Summary: Summary pending