Six reportable judgments in the 27 and 29 June 2026 window — one from the Supreme Court, three from the Lahore High Court and two from the Sindh High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court and Islamabad High Court returned no in-window entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

• Altaf Yousuf v. The State — an acquittal carries a “double presumption of innocence”, and an appellate court reversing it must apply independent mind and identify cogent grounds rather than act in a “slipshod manner”; a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt suffices to extend benefit to the accused. Petition converted into appeal and allowed; the High Court’s reversal set aside and the trial court’s acquittal under section 249-A CrPC restored.

Lahore High Court

• Khizar Hayat v. Additional District Judge, Multan — an oral agreement cannot vary the terms of a written tenancy, and any settlement reached after a court has fixed a vacation date must be recorded in the proceedings; an alleged oral extension operates at most as a month-to-month tenancy, the ejectment/execution itself being notice of termination. Constitutional petition disposed of; eviction confirmed, with a two-month grace period (to 31 August 2026) granted given the 2,000-plus students on the premises.
• Habib Bank Limited v. M/s Taunsa Gypsum — a banker’s lien is only a right of retention and confers no power of appropriation or set-off absent an express, unequivocal term; a bank cannot be both claimant and adjudicator of its own claim (the Summit Bank principle), effective demand notice is a substantive safeguard, and an “either or survivor” joint account does not authorise appropriating the whole balance for one holder’s debt. Appeal dismissed; the Banking Court’s restorative decree of US$353,640.49 plus profit affirmed.
• Syed Abdul Mannan v. The State — under section 11 of the Prevention of Electronic Crimes Act 2016, criminal liability for content in a WhatsApp group rests on an identifiable act of dissemination, not mere membership or administration, and section 11 (unlike sections 20-21) carries no “public” requirement. Post-arrest bail dismissed, the trial to be expedited.

Sindh High Court

• Ms. Asmat Ara v. Ms. Inayat Begum — section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is a shield, not a sword, and cannot extend limitation for specific performance; under the first limb of Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 time runs strictly from the date fixed for performance, irrespective of any later refusal. High Court appeal dismissed; the single judge’s rejection of the plaint under Order 7 Rule 11 CPC affirmed.
• M/s Al-Rahim Trading Company v. Federation of Pakistan — a Customs search under section 162 of the Customs Act 1969 requires a magistrate’s warrant, and the section 163 warrantless exception cannot sustain a continuing multi-day search; where the trader’s documentation establishes lawful procurement the evidential burden shifts to Customs. Constitutional petition allowed; the FIR quashed, the search, seizure and detention declared illegal, and release of the confiscated HSD directed within 10 days.