Two companies, M/s Tanveer Cotton Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and M/s Tanveer Spinning & Weaving Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., filed petitions for leave to appeal against a Lahore High Court judgment ordering their winding up. The judgment, dated June 17, 2021, appointed official liquidators to manage the companies. The companies, represented by former chief executive Mian Azhar Saleem, challenged the judgment. However, the respondent banks argued that since the companies were under liquidation, they couldn’t file petitions through their former chief executive. The court appointed amici curiae for assistance and ultimately decided that the companies, through their board of directors, could appeal the winding-up order.

Masood Ahmad Bhatti and another v. Khan Badshah and another

The petitioners, through Article 185(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, challenged the judgment of the Islamabad High Court dismissing their appeal regarding the sale of “Najeeb Plaza” in Islamabad to Khan Badshah. The petitioners, represented by Masood Ahmad Brighti, sold the plaza to Khan Badshah under an agreement for Rs. 80,000,000, with a partial payment of Rs. 10,000,000 made. Despite extensions and further payments, the petitioners refused to transfer the plaza. Consequently, Khan Badshah filed a suit for specific performance, leading to a decree in his favor by the trial court and subsequent dismissal of the appeal by the High Court. The petitioners contended various issues, including payment source and alleged fraud by Khan Badshah, but the courts found in favor of Khan Badshah, emphasizing his compliance with payment terms. The courts also noted the lack of evidence supporting the petitioners’ claims, leading to the dismissal of their petition and refusal of leave to appeal.

SUMMARY: The case involved a decree for maintenance against a father, questioning whether it could be executed against the grandfather. The court emphasized that the right thing must be done in the right way, emphasizing the need for a fair trial and due process. It ruled that a decree against the father cannot be executed against the grandfather, and the child must initiate a separate maintenance suit if the father’s property is insufficient for execution.