Summary: (a) Companies Act, 2017 ----Ss. 279 to 282— Scheme of Arrangement—Merger of companies—Approval by Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (SECP) and Competition Commission of Pakistan (CCP)—Scope—Petition filed under Ss. 279 to 282 of the Companies Act, 2017, seeking court sanction for a merger between Fauji Cement Company Limited (FCCL) (Transferee Company) and Askari Cement Limited (ACL) (Transferor Company)—Scheme approved by the Board of Directors and the shareholders of both companies—SECP and CCP reviewed and approved the merger—Court examined compliance with statutory requirements, including shareholder approval, submission of audited financial statements, and No Objection Certificates (NOCs) from creditors—Held, where all statutory formalities have been completed and the merger is not in violation of any law or public policy, the court is not required to interfere with the commercial wisdom of the shareholders—Court sanctioned the Scheme of Merger as reasonable, fair, and beneficial for both companies. (b) Companies Act, 2017 ----S. 133, S. 134 & S. 137— Company meetings—Shareholder approval—Voting through proxy—Scope—Petitioners convened Extraordinary General Meetings (EOGMs) for approval of the merger, as required under the law—Shareholder participation was 70.33% for FCCL and 100% for ACL—Notices duly issued in national newspapers—Shareholders voted in favor of the scheme—Objection regarding proxy voting addressed—Held, proxy voting is a legally recognized mechanism under S. 137 of the Companies Act, 2017, allowing shareholders to appoint representatives to vote on their behalf—Concept of proxy voting discussed in light of Gower’s Principles of Modern Company Law and case law—Court found that statutory requirements for shareholder meetings and voting were duly complied with. (c) Companies Act, 2017 ----S. 282(2)(e)— Supplementary audited financial statements—Requirement—SECP objected that the latest audited accounts must be submitted if the last available financials were older than 180 days from the date of shareholder meetings—Petitioners initially submitted audited financials up to 30-06-2021—Upon SECP's objection, supplementary financial statements were provided in compliance with S. 282(2)(e), Companies Act, 2017—Court relied on DILSONs (Pvt.) Ltd. v. SECP (2021 CLD 1317 Lahore) to hold that supplementary financials satisfied legal requirements—SECP’s objection overruled. (d) Competition Act, 2010 ----Ss. 2(1)(e), 3 & 31— Competition concerns—Presumption of dominance—Scope—Approval from CCP—Petitioners submitted that the proposed merger did not trigger dominance concerns under S. 2(1)(e) read with S. 3 of the Competition Act, 2010—CCP granted permission vide letter dated 30-11-2021 under S. 31(1)(d)(i) of the Act—Court held that CCP approval was duly obtained and no further objections remained regarding competition concerns. (e) Corporate law—Merger and acquisition—Judicial review—Scope— Corporate mergers approved by shareholders and regulatory bodies—Court’s role is limited to ensuring compliance with statutory requirements and that the scheme is not unfair or contrary to public interest—Reliance placed on DILSONs (Pvt.) Ltd. v. SECP (2021 CLD 1317 Lahore), Dewan Salman Fiber v. Dhan Fibers Ltd. (PLD 2001 Lahore 230), and Roomi Foods Pvt. Ltd. v. Joint Registrar of Companies (2020 CLD 900)—Held, courts do not substitute their commercial judgment over that of the shareholders unless a scheme is demonstrably unreasonable or unfair—Since all formalities were completed, Scheme of Merger was sanctioned. Disposition: Petition allowed. Scheme of Merger sanctioned. FCCL to absorb ACL as per the approved Scheme.

Summary: [(1) Legal character (2) The effect of onus probandi (3) The lawsuits are determined on preponderance of evidence (4) Credibility of witness. (5) Importance of consequential relief in the declaratory suits. (6) The courts below had neither ignored evidence nor committed any jurisdictional error]---Appeal Allowed--The case centered around a dispute over land ownership. The Trial Court dismissed the respondent's suit, which was then appealed to a higher court that upheld the dismissal. The respondent filed a Civil Revision before the Lahore High Court, which allowed the revision and set aside the judgments of the lower courts.The petitioner argued that the High Court's judgment was based on misreading and non-reading of evidence, and that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were wrongly set aside. The petitioner claimed that the transaction of land through mutation under a specific section of a land act was valid and that the suit was time-barred.On the other side, the respondent argued that the mutation entry was falsely incorporated, and the Mutation in question was a result of misapplication of law. The respondent contended that the petitioner did not prove the transaction and that the mutation was attested illegally.After examining the evidence, including witness testimonies and documents, the Supreme Court concluded that the respondent failed to prove the case. The Court found that the petitioner had established the transaction, its execution, and the genuineness of the mutation. The Court noted that the respondent's claims were inconsistent and lacked sufficient evidence.The Court discussed legal principles related to burden of proof, the scope of revisional jurisdiction, and the need for consequential relief in cases of declaration. The Court highlighted that mere declaration without seeking necessary consequential relief might not be maintainable.Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the petitioner's appeal, set aside the Lahore High Court's judgment, and restored the judgments of the Trial Court and the Appellate Court.

Summary: (a) Civil service- -Contractual employment-Project post-Regularization in service-Grounds-Long service is no ground for regularization. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Saeed ul Hassan 2021 SCMR 1376 ref. (b) Civil service- -Time bound projects-Contractual employee-Regularization in service-Employees of time bound projects have no automatic right of regularization. Province of Punjab through Secretary Agriculture Department, Lahore v. Muhammad Arif 2020 SCMR 507 ref.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Petitioner proceeded to USA with two gifted properties in her name. During her 40 years stay in USA her father and brother sold her properties with forgery. Her request for FIR has been dismissed by Justice of Peace. Seeks FIR.

Summary: Petitioner an accused under a FIR U/s 7 -ATA impungs order of for feiture of bail bonds and of issuance of their non -bailable warrants of arrest.