Ten reportable judgments in the 16–18 June 2026 window — one from the Federal Constitutional Court, five from the Supreme Court and four from the Lahore High Court (the Islamabad and Sindh High Courts returned no in-window entries).

Federal Constitutional Court of Pakistan

• Mst. Bibi Amina v. Shamsullah — a compromise decree built on the indeterminate term ‘Ghair Mutadawia’ is void for uncertainty under section 29 of the Contract Act 1872 and cannot extinguish a female heir’s inheritance; mechanical notarial attestation of unsigned pages and a post-satisfaction mutation raised an inference of fraud under Article 114 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Petition converted into appeal and accepted, the High Court judgment set aside and the suit revived, with thirteen country-wide safeguards for female inheritance.

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Sultan v. Mst. Roshi Zeb — a woman who has lawfully obtained khula and observed iddat may contract a marriage of her own choosing without her former husband’s approval, and persistent criminal proceedings to delegitimise that marriage are an abuse of process amounting to abuse against women. Petition dismissed with costs of Rs.500,000.
• Nizamuddin Abbasi v. Province of Sindh — by the non obstante and deeming clauses of section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act 2013, regularisation and consequent seniority are reckoned from the Act’s promulgation on 25 March 2013, harmonised with the 1975 Seniority Rules. Petitions converted into appeals and allowed; the Service Tribunal judgment set aside and the matter remanded.
• M/s Stallions (Pvt) Ltd v. CDA — a suit for contractual dues is barred by the three-year limitation under Articles 65 and 115 of the Limitation Act 1908, which runs from breach and is not extended by later correspondence absent a clear acknowledgment; section 3 obliges the court to dismiss a time-barred suit even if limitation is not pleaded. Appeal dismissed.
• Shahid Hameed v. United Bank Limited — admitted custody of original title deeds with the bank constitutes an equitable mortgage, and a leave-to-defend application that omits the mandatory disclosures of section 10(4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 raises no triable defence. Appeal dismissed.
• Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Syntronics (Pvt) Ltd — industrial generators of 250 KVA and above installed to generate energy for manufacture are not ‘stock in trade’, and SRO 677(I)/2000 is curative and clarificatory and therefore operates retrospectively. Appeal partially allowed.

Lahore High Court

• IGI Insurance Limited v. Zaiba Amir — a plaintiff has an absolute right to withdraw unconditionally under Order XXIII Rule 1(1) CPC, which a tribunal has no jurisdiction to refuse; adjudicating the claim on merits after a concluded and acted-upon settlement is coram non judice. Appeal allowed and the claim deemed withdrawn.
• Sidra Ameen v. Judge Family Court — civil imprisonment in execution under section 55 CPC and Order XXI Rules 37 and 40 is coercive, not punitive; where executions are consolidated, detention already undergone must be credited cumulatively. Petition dismissed.
• Muhammad Arshad v. The State — on concurring with a Case Review Report under section 9(7) of the Punjab Criminal Prosecution Service Act 2006, a Magistrate may discharge the accused under section 249 CrPC or acquit under section 249-A CrPC rather than merely consign the case to the record. Impugned orders set aside; petitioner directed to seek revival before the Magistrate.
• Exterran Services (U.K.) Limited v. Jamshoro Joint Venture Limited — on a harmonious reading of sections 391 and 306 of the Companies Act 2017, a share transfer made after presentation of a winding-up petition but before a winding-up order is not ipso facto void. Injunction application dismissed.