Summary: ICA in WP 3725/2020: Quo Warranto: Against appointment of president National Bank.

Summary: ICA in WP 2097/2020: Quo Warranto: A retired employee of National Bank Challanges appointment of Res No. 05 as president National Bank.

Summary: ICA in WP 3179/2020: Against the all appointment in including the appointment of respondent No. 5 to 22 made by Respondent in vialation of BNA 1974 PSC rule 2013 SBP pradential regulation 2015, NBP SCR 1973, NBP retirement policy Advertisement be declared illega.

Summary: ICA in WP 3179/2020: Against the all appointment in including the appointment of respondent No. 5 to 22 made by Respondent in vialation of BNA 1974 PSC rule 2013 SBP pradential regulation 2015, NBP SCR 1973, NBP retirement policy Advertisement be declared illega.

Summary: ICA in WP 3205/2020: Quo Warranto: Against the respondent No. 05 to 09 as Chairman / director and slection of respondent NO. 10 on independent director be declared illegal. National Bank of Pakistan (NBP)

Summary: The petitioner initiated a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell with permanent injunction against the respondents. The petitioner filed an application seeking to set aside the withdrawal order and restore the suit, alleging a breach of compromise by the respondents. The trial court dismissed the application, and the petitioner's appeal was also rejected. The current revision petition challenges these decisions. The judge noted a procedural irregularity in treating the appeal as a revision petition and converts it into a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution. The judge then delves into the merits of the case, emphasizing the need for a fair trial under Article 10-A of the Constitution. The judge asserts that factual controversies, especially those involving fraud, should be resolved through a proper trial, allowing parties to present evidence and adhere to procedural laws. The doctrine of promissory estoppel is referenced, highlighting its relevance in cases involving out-of-court settlements. Ultimately, the judge finds that technicalities have impeded the petitioner from establishing their case and remands the matter to the trial court. The trial court was directed to decide the application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure after framing issues and recording evidence afresh. The parties are instructed to appear before the trial court on 10.03.2022.

Summary: The petitioner and his wife, Farhat Anwar, who are overseas Pakistanis, faced issues related to blacklisting by the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) upon their return to Pakistan. The petitioner argued that such blacklisting infringes upon their fundamental rights, particularly the right to travel, which is globally recognized. The court delves into the constitutional framework of fundamental rights in Pakistan, emphasizing the distinction between absolute and non-absolute rights, subject to reasonable restrictions. The judgment critically examines the legal basis for blacklisting individuals, noting that the Passports Act and its rules do not explicitly provide for such measures. The Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is considered, but the court concludes that blacklisting, as regulated by the Passport and Visa Manual, goes beyond the legislative policy of the Passports Act and is, therefore, ultra vires. The court underscored the importance of ensuring that any restrictions on fundamental rights, such as the right to travel, must be reasonable and in the public interest. It reviews the procedures for maintaining blacklists, emphasizing the need for adherence to the law and avoidance of arbitrary actions. In the first case, the petitioner's name was erroneously placed on the blacklist, and the court finds that the circumstances did not warrant such action. In the second case, the petitioner's blacklisting was based on being a proclaimed offender, but the court holds that this alone cannot justify restricting the right to travel without due consideration. Ultimately, the court declared the blacklisting of both petitioners as without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

Summary: Bail granted---Offences for electricity theft, registration of FIR is not barred---The petitioner has sought pre-arrest bail in connection with FIR registered under Section 462-I PPC at Police Station Sargodha Road Faisalabad. The prosecution allegeD that the petitioner committed theft of electricity using a bogus meter. The petitioner's counsel argued that, based on Section 462-O PPC, the registration of FIR is barred unless a complaint is made by a duly authorized officer (not below Grade 17) of the Government or the distribution company. The court noted the ambiguity in the system regarding the cognizance of offenses related to theft of electricity. It mentions the introduction of a new Chapter XVII-B in the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, and amendments to the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, making offenses in this chapter cognizable and non-bailable. The court discussed the conditional cognizance under Section 462-O PPC, emphasizing that the court can take cognizance only on a complaint made by a duly authorized officer with reasons recorded in writing. The court concluded that FIR registration is not barred for cognizable offenses under this chapter. The judgment highlighted the importance of the "reasons to be recorded" requirement, considering electricity theft involves technical reports requiring expert opinions. It draws parallels with other laws like the Gas (Theft Control and Recovery) Act, 2016, where cognizance does not bar FIR registration. The court observed discrepancies in the prosecution's story, leading to questions about the petitioner's involvement and potential malafide intentions. The court grants pre-arrest bail, allowing an exploration of the case's merits.

Summary: The main contention revolved around the striking off of the defense of the petitioners for not filing a written statement within the stipulated 30 days, as mandated by Section 6 of the Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act, 2012. The petitioner argued that their written statement, filed on was within the time granted by the court, while respondent Nos. 1 to 3 asserted that it was beyond the statutory period. The court emphasized the mandatory nature of Section 6, highlighting the consequence of defense striking off if not adhered to. Relying on legal interpretations, the court concluded that the provision is mandatory, dismissing the petition due to the petitioner's failure to establish any jurisdictional defect.

Summary: This Regular First Appeal challenged the order and decree dismissing a suit for possession through specific performance and permanent injunction filed by the appellant against the respondent. The dismissal was due to the non-deposit of the remaining sale consideration as stipulated in the agreement to sell between the parties. The appellant had paid earnest money, but the outstanding amount was not deposited despite court directives. The appellant seeks an opportunity to deposit the remaining amount, arguing that it is in the interest of justice. The court examined various judgments, highlighting the mandatory nature of depositing the sale consideration for seeking specific performance. The court cited multiple cases emphasizing that readiness, ability, and willingness to pay the balance amount are crucial prerequisites for specific performance relief. The appellant's repeated failure to comply with court orders for depositing the remaining sale consideration, despite warnings, leads to the dismissal of the suit. The court underscores the discretionary nature of specific performance and the importance of enforcing court orders, ultimately dismissing the appeal for lack of jurisdictional defects or procedural impropriety.