Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary Pending

Summary: The background of the case was that the Petitioners, residents of Bahawalpur, had borrowed loans from Respondent No. 1 (Microfinance Banks) for one year from April 2017 to April 2018. Due to their financial difficulties, they were unable to repay the loans, and they alleged that Respondent No. 2 was using threats and coercive measures, in conjunction with Respondent No. 3, for loan recovery, which they claimed violated the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.The Petitioners argued that the proper legal procedure, as per the Recovery Ordinance, should be followed for loan recovery, and failure to do so would violate constitutional articles.The Respondents contested these claims, arguing that the Petitioners did not fall under the definitions of "Financial Institution" and "Customer" under the Recovery Ordinance. They asserted that the loans should be recovered through a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.The court reviewed the applicable provisions and definitions under the Recovery Ordinance and the Microfinance Ordinance. It found that the Petitioners, as customers of Microfinance Institutions, did not fall under the definitions of the Recovery Ordinance. Furthermore, Section 3 of the Microfinance Ordinance explicitly exempted microfinance institutions from the laws related to banking companies or financial institutions.The court concluded that the Petitions were not maintainable and dismissed them. The judgment clarified that no coercive measures had been taken against the Petitioners at that point, and issuing directions based on mere apprehensions and assumptions was not appropriate.In summary, the Lahore High Court ruled that the recovery of loans obtained from Microfinance Banks by the Petitioners should follow the procedure outlined in the Microfinance Ordinance and not the Recovery Ordinance. Therefore, the Petitions were dismissed.

Summary: Order under section 12 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890 is appealable----The petitioner had married respondent No. 2 on May 6, 2011, and they had a son named Muhammad Danial, born on February 11, 2012. Due to strained relations, the petitioner and respondent No. 2 mutually agreed to divorce on April 23, 2012. Subsequently, respondent No. 2 entered into a second marriage with Muhammad Ikhalq on June 21, 2013.The dispute arose when respondent No. 1 filed an application for his appointment as the guardian of the minor, Muhammad Danial, on September 21, 2015. The application stated that the child had been living with respondent No. 1 since birth, a fact that respondent No. 2 confirmed during her testimony on October 9, 2015. The petitioner submitted a reply to this guardian petition and, on November 14, 2015, filed a guardian petition for the custody of his son under section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, 1890.Respondents No. 1 and 2 filed written replies to the petitioner's petitions. Additionally, respondent No. 2 filed a suit for the recovery of maintenance, dower amount, and dowry articles against the petitioner on May 11, 2016.After reconciliation attempts failed, the trial court consolidated the suit and the petitioner's guardian petition on May 29, 2017. The trial court's order, dated June 12, 2017, dismissed the application under section 12 of the Act, allowing the petitioner to meet his son twice a month on certain conditions within the court premises.The petitioner filed a constitutional petition challenging this order. The respondent's counsel argued that the constitutional petition was not maintainable, as appealable orders could be appealed under the Family Courts Act, 1964. The petitioner's counsel contended that the order was not appealable, and therefore, the constitutional petition was competent.The court ruled that the order was appealable before the District Court under the Family Courts Act, 1964. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed. The court also advised the petitioner to file an appeal or repeat the application under section 12 of the Act, as interim custody orders could be modified based on changing circumstances.

Summary: Background:The Supreme Court of Pakistan, in Suo Motu Case No. 2 of 2018 and Constitution Petition No. 72 of 2011, addressed concerns regarding the maintenance of undisclosed Foreign Currency Accounts by Pakistani citizens and the subsequent evasion of taxes. The Court appointed a Committee of 12 Experts to investigate the accumulation of undeclared foreign assets and recommend legislative and executive measures to address the issue. The Committee submitted its final report, highlighting various factors contributing to foreign exchange outflows from Pakistan and suggesting recommendations to tackle these deficiencies.----Issues:Whether the existing legal and regulatory framework adequately addresses the issue of undeclared foreign assets held by Pakistani citizens.Whether the recommendations of the Committee provide effective solutions to curb the unauthorized outflow of foreign exchange and ensure tax compliance.Whether the voluntary disclosure scheme announced by the Federal Government, along with legislative and regulatory amendments, sufficiently addresses the identified concerns.----Holding/Reasoning:The Committee identified ten factors contributing to substantial foreign exchange outflows, including cash feeding of foreign currency accounts, misuse of export proceeds, and tax evasion through various means.The Committee recommended a voluntary disclosure scheme for foreign assets owned by Pakistani citizens, similar to successful schemes in other jurisdictions, to encourage tax compliance and repatriation of assets.The Federal Government promulgated the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Ordinance, 2018, and subsequently enacted the Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018, providing immunity from taxation and penal action for declarants subject to specified tax rates.Legislative amendments were made to regulate cash feeding of foreign currency accounts and limit immunity for inward remittances, among other measures.The Court acknowledged the government's efforts but emphasized the need for further reforms to address remaining deficiencies in tax laws and regulatory frameworks.The Court directed the Federal Government, Federal Board of Revenue (FBR), and State Bank of Pakistan to address the Committee's concerns and propose necessary reforms.----Citations/Precedents:Protection of Economic Reforms Act, 1992Income Tax Ordinance, 2001Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Ordinance, 2018Foreign Assets (Declaration and Repatriation) Act, 2018

Summary: Summary pending