Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan --- Arts. 4, 5(2), 199 & 201 --- Companies Act, 2017 --- Ss. 4, 5, 215, 286, 287 & 288 --- Corporate governance --- Intra-family dispute among shareholders --- Allegations of mismanagement, removal of director, and non-holding of statutory meetings --- Resolution through mediation during court-supervised Annual General Meeting (AGM) Petitioner, a 25% shareholder and former director of the respondent company, alleged unlawful removal from the Board, mismanagement of funds, and failure to conduct mandatory meetings by the CEO (his mother) and other respondents. SECP was also arrayed as a respondent due to inaction. The Court, noting the corporate and familial nature of the dispute, adopted a mediation-first approach and referred the parties to resolve differences in an AGM under supervision, in line with the preamble and Ss. 4, 5 and 215 of the Companies Act, 2017. Directions were issued for holding a valid AGM with proper notice and agenda. In the AGM, the Petitioner and his mother resolved their issues, mutually agreed to withdraw litigation, and undertook to maintain status quo in the future. The minutes of the AGM were recorded (Mark-A) and taken on judicial record. The Court reaffirmed that the framework of corporate democracy under the Act requires lawful appointment of directors, approval of audited accounts in AGM, and transparent governance, as laid down in Mian Muhammad Ilyas Mehraj v. SECP (2009 CLD 883). The role of SECP as a corporate regulator was also emphasized per Additional Registrar Companies v. Al-Qaim Textile Mills Ltd. (2021 CLD 931). The decision reiterated that courts are not merely adjudicators but custodians of public trust, especially in intra-family corporate disputes impacting thousands of livelihoods. (b) Mediation --- Judicial endorsement of mediation in corporate disputes --- Family business conflict --- Court’s supervisory facilitation through AGM as a mode of resolving shareholder disputes --- Jurisprudential evolution in Pakistan on mandatory mediation The Court recognized mediation as a fundamental right within the access to justice framework, citing recent Supreme Court rulings including Mughals Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. v. EOBI (PLD 2025 SC 1), and reinforced that timely, interest-based settlements serve not only litigants but institutional governance. Reliance was also placed on Faisal Zafar v. Siraj-ud-Din (2024 CLD 1), Netherlands FMO v. Morgah Valley Ltd. (PLD 2024 Lahore 315), and other precedents endorsing mandatory mediation. The concept of “Mediation through AGM” was declared an effective judicial model for resolving intra-corporate disputes while preserving family goodwill and economic continuity. Disposition: Petitions disposed of in view of successful resolution through court-facilitated mediation and AGM.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Procedure for declaring an accused absconder elaborated. Distinction between absconder and proclaimed offender drawn.

Summary: (a) Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 — Ss. 2(c), 2(j), 3, 23 & 33 — Courier service — Faulty service — Self-collection delivery — Duty of care — Negligent delivery to unauthorized person — Compensation upheld Consignment of a mobile phone booked by respondent with the appellant-courier company for self-collection was negligently delivered to an impersonator (Muhammad Amar), who misrepresented himself as the intended consignee. The appellant admitted the lapse and later recovered the phone. The Court held that in a self-collection delivery, the service provider has a strict contractual and fiduciary duty to verify the recipient’s identity before delivery, particularly where insurance coverage and value are involved. Breach of this duty, even if partial negligence lies with the consumer, renders the service provider liable. Return of the item at a later stage does not absolve liability once damage, distress, and inconvenience have occurred. The Trial Court’s award of Rs.124,000/- as compensation under the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 was upheld. Cited Statutes: Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005, Ss. 2(c), 2(j), 3, 23, 33 (b) Contract — Delivery of goods — Negligence — Admission of fault by service provider — Consequences Appellant-company’s acknowledgment that the mobile phone was delivered to the wrong person, coupled with recovery of the item and retention thereof, constituted an admission of breach of contractual obligation. Such acknowledgment of failure to verify identity at the time of delivery directly established the courier’s liability under contract and consumer law principles. (c) Consumer law — Standard of care — Insured goods — Verification requirement — Reasonable service standards Where goods are insured and intended for delivery via self-collection, the service provider is expected to exercise a heightened standard of care in identity verification. Failure to implement safeguards against impersonation violates reasonable service expectations under consumer protection law and gives rise to a right of compensation, regardless of contributory naivety of the consumer. Disposition: Appeal dismissed; impugned compensation of Rs.124,000/- upheld; no order as to costs.

Summary: Mutation is not an instrument for the purposes of attracting article 91 of the Limitation Act, 1908.

Summary: Juridical/Artificial person operates through delegate(s) and assigns, where permitted by law.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: When it has been mentioned by Medical Officer that injured was well oriented when brought and examined in hospital and injured also gave history to the doctor which is available on the Medicolegal Examination Certificate, then recording statement of said injured witness by Investigating Officer after about one month is fatal for the prosecution.

Summary: Held: Once the oral divorce has been asserted by the wife herself while seeking maintenance and dower and the said fact is admitted by the respondent-husband, the same concludes the divorce and the issuance of the divorce effectiveness certificate stands out as a mere procedural formality to be adhered to.

Summary: The raid and seizure operation by the Inland Revenue Department without complying with the requirements of Section 40 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 is unlawful.