Summary: Rashida Bibi filed a petition under Section 491 Cr.P.C., seeking the recovery of her brother, Kamran, who was allegedly being held illegally by the respondents (police officers). Kamran was arrested in connection with three FIRs registered at Police Station City Dunyapur, but he had not been produced before any court of law within 24 hours of his arrest. The petitioner sought Kamran's release and challenged the legality of his detention. ---- Issues: 1) Whether the detention of Kamran by the police was illegal and in violation of the law. ---2) Whether the physical remand orders granted by the Duty Magistrates in connection with FIR Nos. 772/2023, 236/2023, and 544/2023 were valid and justified. ---3) Whether the conduct of the police officers, including their handling of police files and their failure to follow procedural rules, constituted grounds for disciplinary and legal action. -----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome: Detention Declared Illegal: The court held that Kamran's detention was illegal. He was arrested under Section 54 Cr.P.C., but no reasonable suspicion or credible information justified his arrest. The police failed to follow proper procedures, and there was no evidence connecting Kamran to the offenses mentioned in the FIRs. ----Physical Remand Orders Set Aside: The court set aside the physical remand orders granted by the Duty Magistrates. The court found that the Magistrates had not applied their judicial minds and had granted remands without sufficient evidence. The police had relied on Kamran's alleged extra-judicial confession, which is inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. ----Police Misconduct: The court found that the police officers, including Muhammad Saleem (SI), Muhammad Farooq (SI), and Iqbal Hussain (ASI), had acted unlawfully by detaining Kamran without proper justification and by tampering with police records. The court directed the District Police Officer, Lodhran, to register an FIR against the delinquent officers for offenses under Sections 342, 420, 468, and 471 PPC, read with Article 155-C of the Police Order, 2002. ---Further Directions: The court issued detailed directions to ensure compliance with the law in future cases, including proper record-keeping in police registers, the need for judicial officers to apply their minds when granting remand orders, and the requirement for police officers to have evidence before making arrests. ----Outcome: The petition was allowed, and Kamran was discharged from all three FIRs. The court ordered disciplinary and legal action against the police officers involved in the illegal detention and directed compliance with procedural rules in future cases. -----Citations/Precedents: Hayatullah vs. The State (2018 SCMR 2092) Inadmissibility of extra-judicial confessions made before police. -----Shahzada Qaiser Arfat alias Qaiser vs. The State and another (PLD 2021 SC 708) Arrest cannot be made without sufficient grounds or prima facie evidence. ----Khawaja Salman Rafique and another vs. National Accountability Bureau through Chairman and others (PLD 2020 SC 456) Arrests must be justified by sufficient evidence, not as tools of oppression. -----Qari Muhammad Atta Ullah vs. District Police Officer, Sialkot and another (PLD 2022 Lahore 224) Directions on the proper maintenance of police records and procedures for arrest and remand.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: BackgroundThe case involves a dispute between Faisal Zafar and another versus Siraj-ud-Din and four others, including GENOME Pharmaceuticals and the Securities Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP). The core issue revolves around the alleged mismanagement by Respondents No.1 to 3 (Siraj-ud-Din, Hazrat Ullah, and Abu Zar Faizy Rattu) in the affairs of GENOME Pharmaceuticals. The petitioners sought judicial intervention for the purchase of shares at an offered price, setting aside a previous agreement under a consent decree, and reconstitution of the board through fresh elections supervised by the court or SECP. This case was heard in the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench.----Issues:The legal question posed was whether a corporate dispute under Sections 286 and 287 of the Companies Act, 2017 (the ?Act?), alleging mismanagement by members of a company, can be resolved through mediation and compromise before the court makes any determination.-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The court favored mediation and compromise as methods to resolve the corporate dispute, following the doctrine of expeditious resolution as stated in the Act. The mediation was guided by Sections 276 and 277 of the Act, which deal with the mediation process and encourage such alternative dispute resolution methods to avoid prolonged litigation and promote amicable settlements. Ultimately, the case concluded with a compromise agreement between the parties, facilitated by the mediation process. The petition was disposed of based on the settlements reached, which were supported by the regulatory authority, SECP.-----Citations/Precedents:Companies Act, 2017: Sections 6, 276, 277, 286, 287United States Court of Appeal, First Circuit: In re Atlantic Pipe Corp. (304 F.3d 135 (1st Cir. 2002))United States District Court, N.D. Illinois, Eastern Division: In re African-American Slave Descendants? Litigation (307 F. Supp. 2d 977 (N.D. Ill. 2004))Hong Kong Special Administrative Region Court of First Instance: Personal Injuries Action No.707 of 2008Supreme Court of India: M/s. Afcons Infra Ltd. & Anr vs M/s. Cherian Varkey Constn (2010 (8) SCC 24)Gujarat High Court, Ahmedabad: Pitamber B Ruchandani v. Arti Bharatbhai Ruchandani & 5 (O.J.APPEAL NO. 7 of 2014)

Summary: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)- -O.XLI, R. 27 & S.115-Additional evidence-Principle-Misreading and non-reading of evidence-Indolent litigant-Suit filed by petitioner/plaintiff was dismissed by Trial Court and during pendency of appeal Lower Appellate Court declined his application to produce additional evidence-Validity-Parties to suit were to be vigilant while contesting the suit and if a party was careless and lax in conducting the suit or did not take necessary steps for production of evidence then subsequently any request on behalf of such party under the garb of O. XLI, R. 27, C.P.C. for production of additional evidence had to be considered with extreme caution as conduct of such party was always extremely relevant-Petitioner/plaintiff was to blame himself for not becoming his own witness, inspite of availing ample opportunities to adduce evidence-High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Lower Appellate Court as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence nor there was any illegality or infirmity in that order-Revision was dismissed, in circumstances. Mad Ajab and others v. Awal Badshah 1984 SCMR 440; Mst. Fazal Jan v. Roshan Din and 2 others PLD 1990 SC 661; Abdul Hameed and 14 others v. Abdul Qayyum and 16 others 1998 SCMR 671 and Niaz Rasool through Muhammad Bilal v. Mst. Parveen Ikram and others 2013 SCMR 397 ref.

Summary: When there are no allegations of fraud, misrepresentation or using of illegal means on part of the promotee and the defects in promotion proceedings are attributable to the Department then under the principles of "vested rights", "past and closed transaction" & "locus poenitentiae", the order for promotion cannot be withdrawn at belated stage.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Entry wound is bigger than exit, possibility of; Importance and requirement of site plan.