← Back to News

Law Update

Case Law Updates — 4 July 2026

Three reportable judgments in the 3–4 July 2026 window — one from the Supreme Court and two from the Lahore High Court (the Federal Constitutional Court, Islamabad High Court and Sindh High Court returned no in-window entries).

Supreme Court of Pakistan

  • Trading Corporation of Pakistan v. M/s Abdullah Mezroei Metal Trading Company — forfeiture of a performance guarantee under section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 is permissible without proof of actual loss (subject only to a reasonableness test) and is not diluted by contractual extensions where the bond makes the beneficiary the sole judge; an arbitral award that conflates fault attribution with contractual default is a patent error of law, and a party’s losses on its own upstream supply contract cannot be shifted to the counterparty absent an express assumption of liability. TCP’s appeal allowed and the forfeiture upheld; the company’s cross-appeal dismissed.

Lahore High Court

  • Board of Intermediate & Secondary Education, Rawalpindi v. Governor of Punjab — a right to appointment under Rule 17-A of the Punjab Civil Servants Rules 1974 accrues on the civil servant’s death or medical retirement, so a right that had vested before the rule’s omission survives (the Supreme Court’s ruling in General Post Office v. Muhammad Jalal operating prospectively), and executive clarifications cannot narrow a beneficial rule by inventing sub-categories of incapacitation. Petition dismissed; the Board directed to make the appointment within 30 days.
  • Arzoo Textile Mills Ltd v. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan — a scheme of arrangement under sections 279-283 and 285 of the Companies Act 2017 may be sanctioned over the dissent of a single secured creditor once the statutory majority has approved it, the court’s role being supervisory — testing procedural compliance, fairness and legality — rather than a substitute for the stakeholders’ commercial judgment. Petition allowed; the scheme sanctioned, with a return-to-court safeguard preserved for the dissenting creditor.

Download PDF