Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Miscellaneous Matter, Seeking direction to direct respondents to release Vouchers of Larkana Development Packages & Roads.

Summary: Civil service-------Transfer and posting---Scope---Petitioner, who was regularized by the authorities on thebasis of judgment passed by Division Bench of the High Court, was posted at district 'M' buthe approached the authorities for his posting at district 'L'---Due to no response, petitionerapproached the High Court and sought directions regarding his pending application---Petitioner again approached the authorities for compliance of directions issued in saidpetition and when no response was received, he filed another constitutional petition---Authorities submitted report and parawise comments and attached certain documentsincluding the impugned order wherein it was concluded that certain important facts were notsubmitted before the Provincial Selection Board at the time of recommendations forregularization of the petitioner and his subsequent clearance for promotion on regular basis---Validity---Matter with regard to the regularization and subsequent promotion was put byauthorities before the Provincial Selection Board where they could have pointed out all thefacts and grounds and objections on the regularization and promotion or even could defer thematter till the decision of petition for leave to appeal pending before the Supreme Court butinstead they proceeded to grant regularization and promotion to the petitioner after approvalfrom the Chief Minister---Authorities had not mentioned the relevant law/rule under whichdecision of Provincial Selection Board could be challenged by the AdministrativeDepartment, hence, the impugned order was sketchy and non-speaking---Constitutionalpetition was allowed, impugned order was set aside and the authorities were directed to giveposting to the petitioner.

Summary: [Prosecution must prove case beyond reasonable doubt, discussion on evidence, not approved for reporting]The appellant was convicted of committing the murders of his sister-in-law, his brother, and his mother. The appellant's counsel contended that the witnesses' testimonies did not inspire confidence and raised doubts about the motive and circumstances of the crime. They argued that it was the first day the family had moved to the house, and there was no reason for the appellant to know about Fareeda's presence. They also questioned the choice of weapon (a razor) and the appellant's actions after Fareeda was already dead. After considering the arguments and examining the record, the Supreme Court found it difficult to believe that the appellant could have carried out the murders with impunity in the presence of numerous witnesses. The use of a razor as a weapon and the inaction of the witnesses further raised doubts. The Court concluded that the prosecution had not presented the whole truth and that there was insufficient evidence to maintain the conviction without the risk of error. Therefore, the Court granted the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, acquitted him of the charges, and ordered his immediate release if not required by any other law.

Summary: "The petitioner contended that he was falsely implicated and was physically unable to perform the role ascribed to him due to his age and ailment. Additionally, the petitioner had disowned his co-accused, Shahid, much before the occurrence, and the co-accused, Mst. Zeenat Bibi, who was assigned a similar role, was granted pre-arrest bail by the trial court. Thus, the petitioner argued that he should be entitled to bail based on consistency.The State, represented by Mr. Muhammad Usman, DPG, opposed the petition, asserting that the petitioner was duly nominated in the crime report with a specific allegation of raising a commanding ""Lalkara,"" and two persons were brutally murdered with a definite motive. The State also distinguished the case of Mst. Zeenat Bibi, and argued that the petitioner was not entitled to bail.After considering the arguments presented by both parties, the Court observed that each criminal case has its own unique facts and circumstances. While the petitioner was nominated in the crime report, the specific accusation against him was raising a ""Lalkara,"" while the co-accused were involved in indiscriminate firing leading to the deaths. The Court emphasized that the issue of whether the ""Lalkara"" was commanding or proverbial and whether the petitioner shared common intention with the co-accused should be determined by the trial court after recording evidence. The Court also noted that the co-accused with similar allegations was granted pre-arrest bail, supporting the petitioner's entitlement to bail on that ground."

Summary: Murder Reference

Summary: Quo Warranto: Second Round: Petitioner is aggrieved of appoinment of Respondent No. 02 as Vice chancellar of FUUAST.

Summary: A group of persons having their joint properties in more than one revenue estate any one of them may apply for partition of his/their joint property of any revenue estate by not seeking the partition in the other, in such an eventuality the principle of partial partition would not be applicable, but when the partition applications of different revenue estates, amongst the same set of owners then the partition of their property should not only be finalized simultaneously but should also be proceeded in a consolidated proceedings for removal of ambiguities, settlement of disputes, in their common interest leading to a logical conclusion. There is no bar or clog in consolidation of partition applications of more than one estate.

Summary: (a) Copyright Ordinance (XXXIV of 1962)-------S. 45---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 37---Petitioner sought direction to the FederalGovernment to constitute Copyright Board as required under S. 45 of the CopyrightOrdinance, 1962 in order to safeguard his right of appeal against the order passed byRegistrar of Copyrights---Validity---Right of appeal, when provided under the law, was asubstantive right and denial of such substantive right was against the dictates of Art. 37(d) ofthe Constitution which mandated that the State would ensure provision of inexpensive andexpeditious justice to the people---Appeal was not merely a formality but a substantive toolof re-examination of a higher pedestal to either rectify and correct any probable error orapplication of law in the orders passed by the lower forum or to endorse the same being rightand thus further enhance its credibility---High Court directed the Federal Government to takeup the matter regarding appointment of the Chairman of the Copyright Board on prioritybasis---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.Presson-Descon International (Private) Limited and others v. Joint Registrar of CompaniesPLD 2020 Lah. 869 = 2020 CLD 1128 ref.Ghulam Qadir and others v. Sh. Abdul Wadood and others PLD 2016 SC 712 and OvexTechnologies (Private) Limited v. PCM PK (Private) Limited and others PLD 2020 Isl. 52rel.(b) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 4--- Right of individuals to be dealt with in accordance with law---Scope---Everycitizen of the country has a right of access to justice and dispensation of justice in a timelyfashion---Every citizen had an inalienable right to enjoy protection of law and to be treated inaccordance with law and no action detrimental to the life, liberty, body reputation or propertyof any person shall be taken except in accordance with law.Watan Party and another v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 2011 SC 997 rel.(c) Constitution of Pakistan-------Art. 5---Loyalty to State and obedience to Constitution and law---Scope---Obedience tothe Constitution and law is inviolable and it is the duty of the State to obey the laws.

Summary: The case involved a dispute between the petitioner and Respondent No. 2, Ms. Zeeshan Zia Raja, who were previously married and jointly established "American Lycetuff (Pvt) Limited" under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. They are equal shareholders of the company, but their marriage ended in 2017 through Khula. Disputes over movable and immovable properties, including intellectual properties of the company, emerged post-divorce. The petitioner alleged that Respondent No. 2 conducted the company's affairs illegally and fraudulently, contrary to the Memorandum and Articles of Association, thereby excluding the petitioner from the company's management. The petitioner claimed that the Respondent No. 2's actions are detrimental to the business and the petitioner's rights. On the other hand, the Committee of Directors (Respondent No. 3) contends that it was constituted with mutual consent through a Director's Agreement. They assert that the committee has effectively managed the company's affairs, and its decisions are being complied with by both parties. The legal dispute primarily revolved around Section 286 of the Companies Act, which outlines the requirements for seeking intervention from the court regarding the conduct of a company's affairs. The court examined whether the company's affairs are being conducted unlawfully, fraudulently, oppressively, or prejudicially to any member or creditor. The court cited several legal precedents from Pakistan, such as Dr. Muhammad Imran Qureshi vs. Muhammad Asif and others (2020 CLD 1060 (Sindh)) and Malik Aziz ul Haq vs. Crystal Line Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. (2016 CLD 970), to emphasize the criteria for invoking Section 286. These cases underscored the importance of demonstrating unfair prejudice or oppression against minority shareholders and mismanagement by majority shareholders. Additionally, the court compared the statutory provisions in the UK and India related to protection against oppression and mismanagement in companies. Ultimately, the court dismissed the petitioner's claims, noting the absence of substantial evidence to prove unlawful conduct by Respondent No. 2 and the Committee of Directors. The court highlighted the petitioner's failure to satisfy the requirements under Section 286 of the Companies Act and concluded that the petition lacks merit.