Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Mst. Noor Afshan vs Muhammad Ghalib and 3 others2019 CLC 1787 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-19Read full judgment →
- Mst. Neelam Ashfaq vs Muhammad Iqbal and another2019 PLD Sindh 247 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naureen vs Nadir Ali Rajpur and 2 others2019 MLD 1936 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-28Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naseem Zehra and others vs Ghayaz Ahmed and others2019 CLC 1925, 2019 PLJ Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-31Read full judgment →
- Mst. Najma Nighat vs Mst. Hira Qureshi and Others2019 SHC 82 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naghma Imran vs The State and 6 others2020 PLD Sindh 717, 2019 SHC 484 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application was filed directly in the High Court under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against a Magistrate's order dismissing a private complaint under Section 203 of the Code. The office of the High Court raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the revision application without first exhausting the remedy before the District and Sessions Judge. The applicant contended that a revision application lies directly to the High Court from a Magistrate's order. The High Court, interpreting Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, held that while the High Court possesses the power to call for and examine the record of any inferior criminal court, a litigant cannot file a revision application against a Magistrate's order directly before the High Court as a matter of right. The explanation to Section 435 clarifies that Magistrates are inferior to the Sessions Judge. Consequently, the High Court upheld the office objection, dismissed the revision application, and directed the applicant to approach the concerned Sessions Judge.
Questions settled- Whether a revision application against an order of a Magistrate can be filed by a litigant directly before the High Court without first exhausting the remedy before the Sessions Judge?
- What is the legal effect of the Explanation clause to Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the status of Magistrates?
- Does the High Court's power to call for and examine records under Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle a litigant to bypass the Sessions Court in revision proceedings?
- Mst. Mehrunisa through Legal Heir vs Muhammad Aslam Paracha and 22019 YLR 1301 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-03Read full judgment →
- Mst. Marvi and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1133 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal question revolves around whether the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt given the reliance solely on police officials as mashirs, material contradictions in ocular evidence, delay in sending the case property for chemical analysis, and established previous enmity between the accused and the raiding party. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the charge due to serious infirmities, including the failure to associate independent witnesses during a road search, unexplained delays in the custody of the case property, and glaring contradictions in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. The court laid down the principle that the evidence of a complainant who also acts as the investigating officer is a weak piece of evidence requiring independent corroboration, and that a single circumstance creating reasonable doubt entitles the accused to acquittal as a matter of right.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to associate independent witnesses during a roadside search under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997 renders the recovery doubtful?
- Does the testimony of a complainant who also acts as the investigating officer require independent corroboration to sustain a conviction?
- Whether material contradictions between prosecution witnesses regarding the date, time, and vehicle registration number are fatal to the prosecution's case?
- Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
- Mst. Lubna vs Muhammad Sohail and 3 others2019 MLD 173 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Huma Jameel vs Mst. Rabia Tariq Rizvi and 5 others2019 MLD 1101 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application challenges an order passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi Central, which dismissed a criminal revision application filed by the applicant on the sole technical ground of non-supply of copies of the revision memo and its annexures to the respondents. The core legal question revolves around whether a revisional court can dismiss a matter on technical grounds of non-supply of copies without verifying the record or addressing the merits, especially when the record indicates copies were provided. The Sindh High Court held that courts must decide matters on merits, avoid technical knockouts, and ensure substantive justice rather than defeating rights through procedural technicalities. The High Court set aside the impugned order, remanded the revision application back to the Additional Sessions Judge for decision on merits within two months, and established that courts should refrain from ousting parties based on unsubstantiated procedural defaults.
Questions settled- Whether a revisional court can dismiss a criminal revision application on the sole ground of non-supply of copies without verifying the court record?
- Should courts decide legal disputes on merits rather than ousting parties on technical grounds?
- What is the proper scope of interference by a High Court under its inherent jurisdiction against an appellate order passed on a technical default?
- Mst. Hira vs 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and another2019 MLD 804 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the judgment of the Appellate Court which modified the visitation rights of a father regarding his minor children. The petitioner, the mother, sought to set aside the concurrent findings of the lower courts that granted the respondent-father visitation rights and temporary custody. The core legal question was whether the father, despite the dismissal of his guardianship application, could be denied visitation rights with his children, and whether the appellate court's modification of these rights was legally sound. The High Court held that the father’s right to visitation and the children's right to their father's supervision and affection are paramount for their welfare, especially when the father is providing maintenance and is not at fault. The Court affirmed that denying such contact merely to satisfy a parent's ego is detrimental to the minors. The key principle laid down is that the welfare of the minor is the primary consideration in custody and visitation matters, and a father cannot be deprived of visitation rights absent compelling reasons, particularly when he is fulfilling his maintenance obligations.
Questions settled- Can a father be denied visitation rights with his minor children if he is providing maintenance and there is no evidence of his unfitness?
- Does the welfare of the minor principle allow for the restriction of a father's visitation rights rather than a total denial?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 maintainable against concurrent findings of lower courts regarding visitation rights?
- Mst. Haleema vs University of Sindh, through Vice-Chancellor and 22019 PLC (C.S.) 386 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner sought family pension benefits as the widow of a deceased employee of the University of Sindh, who had served on contract/temporary basis from 1997 to 2004 and on a regular confirmed basis from 2004 until his death in 2008. The core legal question was whether temporary or contract service preceding regular appointment can be counted toward fulfilling the mandatory minimum ten-year qualifying service requirement for pension under the relevant university statutes. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a minimum of ten years of regular, qualifying service is a mandatory benchmark for pension entitlement. The court ruled that while temporary or contract service can be counted toward pension calculations if followed by confirmation, it cannot be used to make up the deficiency in the mandatory ten-year qualifying service period itself. The key principle laid down is that 'counting' temporary service for pensionary benefits presupposes that the employee has already independently fulfilled the minimum qualifying regular service period.
Questions settled- Whether temporary or contract service can be used to make good the deficiency in the minimum ten-year qualifying service required for pension?
- Does an employee appointed on contract basis take over charge of a post so as to qualify for pensionary benefits?
- What is the distinction between counting temporary service for pension and qualifying for a pension under the Sindh University Employees Pension Statutes, 1974?
- Mst. Gulshad vs Mansoor Qaim and another2019 MLD 1908 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, which transferred a direct complaint from the file of the Additional Sessions Judge-IV, Khairpur, to the Additional Sessions Judge, Mirwah. The core legal question was whether a judicial order transferring a case must contain reasons for such a decision. The Court held that the impugned order was legally deficient because it failed to assign any reasons for the transfer, thereby violating the statutory requirement to provide a reasoned decision. The Court set aside the transfer order and remanded the matter to the Sessions Judge, Khairpur, with a direction to pass a fresh order after providing an opportunity of hearing to all concerned parties. The key principle laid down is that under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act, any authority or office exercising powers under an enactment is mandated to provide reasons for its orders, particularly when those orders affect the rights of the parties involved, ensuring transparency and judicial accountability.
Questions settled- Is a judicial order transferring a case from one court to another required to contain reasons for the decision?
- Does the failure to provide reasons for a transfer order violate the requirements of Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Mst. Fouzia vs The State2019 YLR 2544 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant, Mst. Fauzia, sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of 2 Kgs of Hashish/Charas under Section 6/9(c) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail despite the nature of the offense being a 'crime against society.' The court held that the mere classification of an offense as a crime against society is insufficient to deny bail; there must be reasonable grounds to believe the accused is linked to the offense. Furthermore, the court noted that the FIR failed to detail the packaging or condition of the recovered narcotics, necessitating further probe. Additionally, the court emphasized the applicant's status as a woman with two dependent children as a significant factor favoring bail, citing the court's role in protecting the welfare of minors. Consequently, the court granted bail, establishing that tentative assessment of material, rather than the nature of the offense alone, determines bail eligibility, while also recognizing the specific protections afforded to women under the law.
Questions settled- Is the classification of an offense as a 'crime against society' sufficient ground to deny bail?
- Does the failure of an FIR to specify the packaging or condition of recovered narcotics constitute grounds for further probe in a bail application?
- To what extent should the status of an accused as a woman with dependent children influence the court's decision on bail?
- Must a court rely solely on the nature of the offense when deciding on bail, or is a tentative assessment of the available material required?
- Mst. Farzana vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Education, Karachi2019 MLD 43 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farhat vs Umair Hanif Ghanchi and others2019 CLC 1311 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Farhat Fareed Sheikh vs Nib Bank Limited and 5 others2020 P C T L R 1110, 2019 CLD 632 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fareeda and another vs Mst. Khalida and 2 others2019 CLC 1243 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra and another vs Government of Sindh through Chief2019 MLD 1594 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bushra Ameen Alvi vs Incharge Judge, Family Judge-VIII, Karachi2019 MLD 659 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bano vs Civil Judge and Judicial Magistrate No. XII, Hyderabad2019 YLR 2178 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anwari vs Abdul Waheed and another2019 MLD 701 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aneela Zehra vs Kaleem Haider & Others2021 CLC 73, 2019 SHC 437 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-07Read full judgment →
- Mst. Almas Ismail and 6 others vs Fayyaz Hussain and 5 others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1653, 2019 CLC 199 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mst. Adeeba Begum through Authorized Attorney vs Travel Corporation2019 YLR 2765 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Abeera Khan vs Adnan Jamil and another2019 CLC 1478 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitution Petition challenged a Family Court order granting interim custody of two minor daughters to their father under Section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The petitioner, the mother, argued that the lower court ignored her right to Hizanat and failed to properly assess the welfare of the minors. The High Court observed that the Family Court’s order was perverse, as it relied on the mother’s lack of male support and financial circumstances to deny her custody, without considering the necessity of evidence. The Court held that in guardianship matters, the paramount consideration is the welfare of the minor, and courts exercise quasi-parental jurisdiction. It further established that financial constraints or the absence of male relatives do not automatically disqualify a mother from custody during the Hizanat period. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that visitation rights are an inherent right of parents, and directed the Family Court to decide the interim custody application afresh after hearing both parties.
Questions settled- Does a mother's lack of financial resources or male support automatically disqualify her from the custody of minors during the Hizanat period?
- Is an order granting interim custody of minors without providing for visitation rights to the other parent legally sustainable?
- What is the paramount consideration for courts when exercising quasi-parental jurisdiction in matters of child custody?
- Can a court determine an application for interim custody under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, without recording evidence when material facts are disputed?
- Mst Afsheen vs Province Of Sindh & Others2019 SHC 80 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-07Read full judgment →
- Ms. Urooj Fatima vs Pakistan Medical and Dental Council and three [03]2020 YLR 859, 2019 SHC 444 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-14Read full judgment →
- Ms. Serwat Azim vs Sindh Bank Limited through President/CEO and 7 others2020 PLJ Karachi 83, 2019 PLC (C.S.) 975 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a suit for declaration, injunction, and recovery filed by the plaintiff, a bank branch manager, seeking to restrain the defendant bank from proceeding further with a charge sheet, suspension order, and inquiry. The core legal question involves whether the High Court should interfere at a pre-emptive stage in domestic departmental inquiries governed by the principle of master and servant, and whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for an injunction. The court held that the plaintiff approached the court prematurely to thwart domestic inquiry proceedings after already submitting a detailed reply and failing to demonstrate any patent illegality or violation of due process. The court established that civil courts are generally reluctant to interfere in master-and-servant relationships and domestic inquiries at an intermediate or interlocutory stage unless there is a clear absence of opportunity or a patent illegality apparent on the face of the record.
Questions settled- Whether a court can interfere in domestic inquiries and departmental proceedings at an interlocutory stage under a master-and-servant relationship?
- Does the issuance of a charge sheet and supplementary charge sheet without a prior separate show-cause notice vitiate departmental inquiry proceedings?
- Whether an employee who has already submitted a detailed reply to a charge sheet can claim denial of due process for lack of certain documents?
- Ms. Sarwar Mai vs The State and 2 others2019 YLR 2696 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Criminal Revision Application challenges an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi East, which imposed a penalty on a surety for the accused's brief absence during trial. The core legal question revolves around whether penalty should be imposed on a surety under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the accused subsequently surrendered voluntarily, faced trial, and was ultimately convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment. The Sindh High Court held that in view of mitigating circumstances, the voluntary surrender of the accused, the final conclusion of the trial resulting in conviction, and the financial hardship of the surety who is a maidservant and sister of the convict, the impugned order imposing a penalty must be set aside. The key principle laid down is that where an accused ultimately surrenders, faces trial to its conclusion, and is convicted, lenient view coupled with mitigating circumstances warrants setting aside surety bond penalties.
Questions settled- Whether penalty can be imposed on a surety when the accused voluntarily surrenders after brief absence?
- Does the subsequent conviction and sentencing of the accused affect the forfeiture of a surety bond?
- Can financial hardship and mitigating circumstances be grounds for setting aside a surety penalty under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Ms. Saba vs The Province of Sindh & others2019 SHC 142, 2020 PLC (C.S.) 113, 2022 PLJ Karachi 77 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court to challenge the cancellation and annulment of a preliminary test conducted for the recruitment of Additional District and Sessions Judges, and to seek a direction for the petitioner to appear in the subsequent written test without taking a retest. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of a preliminary test due to a potential conflict of interest and paper leakage, and the consequent requirement of a retest, violated the petitioner's fundamental rights or constituted an arbitrary administrative action. The court held that the cancellation of the tainted test and the holding of a retest were valid, reasonable, and proportionate measures to ensure transparency and merit, and that mere appearance in an unannounced preliminary test created no vested right. The key principles laid down are that administrative authorities possess the power to cancel examinations tainted by paper leaks to maintain institutional credibility, and that decisions satisfying the tests of Wednesbury unreasonableness and proportionality will not be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does the cancellation of a competitive examination due to a question paper leak infringe upon a candidate's fundamental rights under Article 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Whether a candidate acquires a vested right to proceed to a main examination based on self-calculated marks from an unofficial answer key of a preliminary test that was subsequently cancelled?
- Is a decision by testing authorities to conduct a retest following the discovery of a conflict of interest and paper leakage protected under the principles of proportionality and Wednesbury unreasonableness?
- Does Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan bar a constitutional petition challenging an administrative or executive decision regarding recruitment processes?
- Ms. Faryal Kaleem Shaikh vs Federal Ombudsman and Ors2021 PLC (C.S.) 374, 2019 SHC 370 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenged the transfer of the petitioner, an Assistant Registrar (BPS-17), from Karachi to Peshawar, arguing it violated the government's policy regarding the posting of unmarried female civil servants. The core legal question was whether the transfer order, which relocated the petitioner away from her parents' residence, was arbitrary and contrary to established administrative guidelines. The Court held that while transfer is an incident of service, the government's established policy, as reflected in the Office Memorandum dated 17 December 1999 and the Estacode, mandates that unmarried female government servants should, as far as possible, be posted at the station of their parents' residence. The Court found that the petitioner's transfer violated these specific guidelines, which are applicable to autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies. Consequently, the Court declared the transfer notification illegal and set it aside, emphasizing that administrative authorities must adhere to established policy guidelines concerning the posting of female employees unless compelling public interest necessitates otherwise.
Questions settled- Does the government policy regarding the posting of unmarried female civil servants at the station of their parents' residence create an enforceable expectation?
- Are the transfer guidelines for female government servants contained in the Office Memorandum dated 17 December 1999 applicable to autonomous and semi-autonomous bodies?
- Can a court interfere with a transfer order if it is found to be in violation of established government posting policies?
- Mrs. Zarina Iqbal vs Haji Jaffar and others2019 SHC 220 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-06Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Uzma Moinuddin vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi2019 YLR 380 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-03Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Shabeena Farhat vs M/s. Highway Housing Project and others2019 SHC 328 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-02Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Rukhsana Yahya vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Division2019 PLC (C.S.) 178 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit instituted by the plaintiff, a former Project Director appointed on contract basis in the Finance Division, Government of Pakistan, seeking recovery of unpaid service dues, expenses incurred from personal resources for official work, and damages. The core legal questions involve determining the plaintiff's entitlement to unpaid salary, medical bills, gratuity, vehicle and petrol expenses, leave encashment, miscellaneous office expenses, and damages for breach of contract and mental anguish. The court held that the plaintiff proved her entitlement to unpaid salary balances, medical bills, additional gratuity based on condonation of service length under Civil Service Regulations, and personal expenses incurred due to the defendant's failure to provide proper infrastructure and an official vehicle. The court further held that the plaintiff was entitled to damages for breach of contractual obligations, mental anguish, and humiliation caused by the defendant's conduct. The key principles laid down include that a government employer is liable to reimburse verified personal expenses incurred by an employee due to lack of mandated official facilities, and that damages are awardable for breach of employment contracts resulting in financial harm and mental distress.
Questions settled- Whether a contract employee is entitled to reimbursement of personal expenses incurred due to the employer's failure to provide stipulated official facilities and transport?
- Can deficiency in the qualifying length of service for gratuity be condoned under the Civil Service Regulations?
- Whether damages can be awarded against a government department for breach of employment contract and causing mental anguish and financial harm?
- Is an employee entitled to encashment of earned leave where the employment contract and service rules do not provide for it?
- Mrs. Rubina Junejo vs Commissioner Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad2019 PLC (C.S.) 1503 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Assistant Professor holding a BPS-18 government post, challenged the cancellation of her allotted government accommodation by the Commissioner Hyderabad Division. The core legal question was whether a validly made government accommodation allotment could be arbitrarily cancelled and affected retrospectively by a subsequent change in allotment policy. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned cancellation order was illegal, discriminatory, and void ab-initio, as executive policy changes cannot operate retrospectively to impair vested rights or lawful allotments unless expressly authorized by a retrospective legislative dispensation, and that public authorities must act fairly under Section 24-A of the General Clauses Act 1897. The court set aside the cancellation order, ruling that an allottee cannot be arbitrarily ejected without due process of law or for reasons outside the terms of the original allotment.
Questions settled- Whether a change in government accommodation allotment policy can be applied retrospectively to cancel prior lawful allotments?
- Can a government accommodation allotment be revoked at the whim of an official without following due process of law?
- Does an official exercising public power have a duty to act fairly, reasonably, and justly under administrative law?
- Whether the allotment of government residential accommodation constitutes a mere revocable license or creates enforceable rights?
- Mrs. Rozina Ali through attorney and others vs Karachi Metropolitan2019 CLC 1081 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for injunction filed by a resident against the operation of a college in an adjacent residential property. The core legal questions were whether a residential property can be used for an educational institution without formal conversion, and whether such an institution constitutes a commercial activity. The Court held that running an educational institution on a residential plot without proper conversion is illegal, regardless of the public service nature of education. The Court rejected the argument that such operations are not commercial, affirming they are business-oriented ventures. The Court established that where an act is inherently unlawful, an aggrieved neighbor need not prove specific nuisance through evidence to obtain an injunction. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the existence of other unauthorized schools in the vicinity does not justify further violations, as two wrongs do not make a right. Consequently, the Court granted the injunction restraining the defendants from operating the college, while providing a grace period to vacate to minimize student disruption.
Questions settled- Can a residential property be used for an educational institution without formal conversion under the applicable building regulations?
- Does the operation of an educational institution on a residential plot constitute a commercial activity?
- Is an aggrieved neighbor required to prove specific nuisance through evidence when the act complained of is a clear violation of zoning laws?
- Does the existence of other unauthorized schools in a vicinity justify the operation of a new school in a residential area?
- Mrs. Rehana Jadoon vs Arab Khan2019 MLD 337 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for damages for malicious prosecution arising from the lodging of a false first information report by the defendant against the plaintiff. The core legal questions involve whether the initiation of criminal proceedings that terminated in a police report under the cancelled 'C' class accepted by a judicial magistrate constitutes malicious prosecution despite the accused not being sent for trial, and whether general damages can be awarded when specific pecuniary loss is not quantified. The court held that an accused need not always face a full trial for a malicious prosecution suit to lie, provided the essential elements of malice and want of reasonable and probable cause are established through the circumstances, such as an inordinate delay in filing the FIR and failure to challenge the magistrate's discharge order. The court laid down the principle that the rigors of pre-arrest bail and police investigation resulting from a false accusation inflict actionable humiliation, and while specific damages must be proved, courts may award general damages under a rule of thumb when the malicious initiation of criminal proceedings is proven.
Questions settled- Does a suit for malicious prosecution lie where the criminal proceedings terminated upon the acceptance of a police report under the cancelled class by a judicial magistrate without a full trial?
- Can malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause be inferred from an inordinate delay in lodging an FIR and the failure to challenge a magistrate's discharge order?
- Whether general damages can be awarded under a rule of thumb when a plaintiff fails to specifically quantify the damages claimed in a suit for malicious prosecution?
- Mrs. Gulnar and 9 others vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation2019 CLC 1653 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-20Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Farheen vs The State2019 SHC 556 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-18Read full judgment →
- Mrs. Bilquis Mohsin Butt and 3 others vs Ghulam Rasool Unnar and 42019 CLC 1227 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-13Read full judgment →
- Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar vs Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon2019 SHC 546 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-17Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Ali vs Safdar Hussain Birlas and others2019 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-29Read full judgment →
- Mohsin Ali and others vs Province of Sindh2019 SHC 590 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-24Read full judgment →
- Mohib Ali vs Returning Officer Ward No.4, Khairpur and 17 others2019 YLR 1854 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-28Read full judgment →
- Mohammed Qasim and another vs The State2019 P Cr. L J 1218 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons charged with double murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the accused were entitled to bail despite the prosecution’s reliance on forensic evidence, specifically a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report matching crime scene empties to a weapon recovered from one of the accused, alongside confessions and pointation of the crime scene, particularly after the case was initially classified as "A" Class. The Court held that while confessions made to the police are inadmissible under Articles 38 and 39 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, the FSL report provided sufficient corroborative evidence to prima facie connect the accused to the commission of the non-bailable offence. Consequently, the Court declined the bail application, ruling that the existence of reasonable grounds to believe the accused were involved, combined with the fact that the trial had already commenced, necessitated the denial of relief. The principle established is that forensic matching of crime scene evidence can provide the necessary prima facie connection to deny bail, even where other evidence like police confessions is inadmissible.
Questions settled- Does a Forensic Science Laboratory report matching crime scene empties to a weapon recovered from an accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
- Can a confession made to the police during investigation be used as primary evidence to deny bail?
- Is an accused entitled to bail if the initial police report was submitted as 'A' Class?
- Does the pointation of a crime scene by an accused provide sufficient grounds to connect them to a non-bailable offence for the purpose of bail?
- Mohammed Ali vs The Returning Officer, PS 16 Kambar, Shahdadkot-III2019 MLD 267 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-12Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Usman vs P.O Sindh & others2019 SHC 300 · Sindh High Court · 2019-08-21Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Shahid Murtaza vs Warid Telecom Private Limited & Others2021 MLD 433, 2019 SHC 404 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-04Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Sallah through Attorney and 5 others vs The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman WAPDA and 4 others2019 MLD 2088 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Rahim Brohi vs The State2019 MLD 950 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, imposing a penalty of two lacs on the applicant for failing to produce an accused, Nabi Dad, for whom the applicant had stood surety. The core legal question was whether a surety bond executed for interim pre-arrest bail remains enforceable after the dismissal of the bail application. The court held that upon the dismissal of the pre-arrest bail application, the bail bond executed by the surety dies a natural death and ceases to be alive. Consequently, the court found the forfeiture of the bond and the subsequent imposition of the penalty legally unsustainable, especially given that the accused had subsequently joined the trial and was acquitted. The court set aside the impugned order, establishing the principle that a surety bond for interim bail cannot be forfeited once the underlying bail application has been dismissed, as the bond's validity is contingent upon the subsistence of the interim bail order.
Questions settled- Does a surety bond executed for interim pre-arrest bail remain enforceable after the dismissal of the bail application?
- Can a penalty be imposed on a surety for failure to produce an accused after the interim bail bond has ceased to exist?
- What is the legal status of a bail bond once the underlying application for pre-arrest bail is dismissed?
- Mohammad Naseeruddin vs The State2019 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application in a murder case registered under Sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought confirmation of bail, primarily citing the inordinate delay in the conclusion of his trial and the absence of specific role attribution in the FIR. The core legal question was whether the applicant’s continued incarceration was justified given the trial's stagnation and the lack of evidence linking him to the fatal injury. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that the delay in the trial was not attributable to him. The Court emphasized that an expeditious and fair trial is a fundamental right, and keeping an accused in custody indefinitely without trial progress is contrary to the spirit of the law. Furthermore, the Court observed that the applicant had not misused the concession of bail during his previous period of liberty. Consequently, the Court confirmed the bail, reaffirming that the presumption of innocence prevails and that bail should not be recalled without compelling grounds.
Questions settled- Is an accused entitled to bail when the trial has been delayed for an inordinate period without fault on the part of the accused?
- Should bail be cancelled if the accused has enjoyed the concession of liberty for a significant period without misusing it?
- Does the lack of a specific role attributed to an accused in the FIR provide a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
- Mohammad Moazam Khan vs Mohammad Iqbal & another2019 CLD 1241, 2020 P C T L R 1099, 2019 SHC 168 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-22Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Ishaque vs Province of Sindh and Ors2021 PLC (C.S.) 51, 2019 SHC 382 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking directions for the respondents to regularize his service as a Helper in the Highways Division, Thatta, where he had worked on a temporary work-charged basis for over twenty-three years, along with back benefits. His representation for regularization had previously been rejected by the department as per the prevailing Finance Department policy. The core legal question was whether a work-charged or contingent-paid employee could claim regularization of service under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 or applicable government policy. The High Court held that the petitioner's appointment was on a contingent, part-time, non-pensionable work-charged basis and that the 2013 Act explicitly excludes employees appointed on contingent or daily-wages basis. Having accepted the terms of contingent employment, the petitioner could not demand regularization. However, considering his long service, the court directed that his service continue until superannuation and his pending salary be resolved. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an employee appointed on a work-charged or contingent basis is entitled to regularization under the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013?
- Can a contingent employee who voluntarily accepted temporary terms of service subsequently claim regular status as a matter of right?
- Whether pensionable and regular service benefits can be extended to temporary work-charged employees paid out of contingent funds?
- Mohammad Ibrahim through Duly Constituted Sub-Attorney vs Sindh2019 CLC 817 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Bilal vs The State2019 MLD 1291 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellant under section 302(b) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for murder, alongside a reference for the confirmation of the death sentence. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the failure of the trial court to put all incriminating pieces of evidence, including the recovery of the crime weapon and the Forensic Science Laboratory report, to the accused during the recording of his statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the conviction and warrants acquittal or a remand of the case. The High Court held that every piece of evidence used to form a conviction must be put to the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to afford an opportunity of explanation, and failure to do so renders that evidence unusable for conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgment, answered the confirmation reference in the negative, and remanded the matter back to the trial court to re-record the accused's statement from that stage and decide the case afresh on merits.
Questions settled- Whether incriminating pieces of evidence not put to an accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be used for his conviction?
- What is the legal effect on a trial judgment when material evidence relied upon by the court is omitted from the examination of the accused under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Should an appellate court acquit an accused or remand the case back to the trial court when a defect is found in recording the statement under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Miss Rozina Parveen and 2 others vs Ghulam Nabi through L.Rs, and others2019 CLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-29Read full judgment →
- Mirza Naseem Baig vs K.E.S.C. Employees Cooperative Housing Society2019 YLR 2609 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-01Read full judgment →
- Mirza Kareem Baig vs The State2019 SHC 384 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns pre-arrest bail applications filed by a former Secretary of the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP) in connection with multiple FIRs alleging corruption, forgery, and embezzlement regarding a freight subsidy scheme. The core legal question was whether the applicant, in his administrative capacity, was prima facie liable for the misappropriation of funds despite the absence of evidence linking him to personal monetary gain or the specific approval of fraudulent claims. The Court held that the applicant’s case warranted further inquiry, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail. The ratio established that an administrative role, without evidence of mens rea or personal benefit, does not automatically establish criminal liability at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that while a party should generally approach the trial court first, the High Court may exercise concurrent jurisdiction in compelling circumstances. The judgment reiterates that the basic concept of bail is to protect the liberty of an innocent person, and deep appraisal of evidence is impermissible during the tentative assessment required for bail.
Questions settled- Does an administrative role in a government department, without evidence of personal gain or direct involvement in fraud, constitute sufficient grounds for denying pre-arrest bail?
- Can a High Court entertain a bail application directly without the applicant first approaching the trial court?
- Is a deep appraisal of evidence permissible at the pre-arrest bail stage?
- What is the standard for granting pre-arrest bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd and Ors vs Province of Sindh & Others2020 CLC 232, 2019 SHC 72 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-05Read full judgment →
- Mirchoomal Khatri vs The State2019 SHC 386 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for post-arrest bail by an accused facing charges under Sections 409, 420, 468, 471, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, regarding alleged embezzlement of freight subsidy funds from the Trade Development Authority of Pakistan (TDAP). The core legal question was whether the applicant, a contractual employee, was entitled to bail given the protracted nature of the trial and his willingness to deposit the alleged embezzled amount, similar to relief granted to co-accused in related cases. The court held that, considering the applicant had been incarcerated since 2013 without charges being framed and that the prosecution conceded to the bail upon the deposit of the alleged embezzled funds, the bail should be granted. The court established the principle that in cases of alleged financial embezzlement, where the accused voluntarily offers to deposit the disputed amount, and where the prosecution does not oppose such a course, bail may be granted subject to the deposit of the amount, without prejudice to the final outcome of the trial.
Questions settled- Can post-arrest bail be granted in embezzlement cases where the accused offers to deposit the alleged misappropriated amount?
- Does the prolonged incarceration of an accused without the framing of charges provide sufficient grounds for the grant of bail?
- Is a deposit of alleged embezzled funds made as a condition for bail subject to refund upon the final acquittal of the accused?
- Mir Shakil Ur Rehman vs Messrs Creek Developers (Private) Limited and another2019 PLD Sindh 670 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Criminal Revision Applications challenging an order of the District Judge, Karachi South, taking cognizance of a private defamation complaint filed by a company against an Editor-in-Chief and a journalist. The core legal questions involved whether a company can initiate criminal defamation proceedings, the liability of an Editor-in-Chief for published content, the validity of corporate authorization for filing complaints, and whether procedural irregularities, such as the omission of an oath during inquiry, invalidate proceedings. The Court held that a company is a "person" under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 capable of initiating defamation proceedings regarding harm to its goodwill. It further determined that the Editor-in-Chief is a proper party, and procedural irregularities like the omission of an oath are curable under the Oaths Act 1873. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 should not be invoked to bypass statutory remedies like acquittal applications under Section 249-A or 265-K. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, directing the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a company initiate criminal defamation proceedings for harm to its goodwill?
- Does the omission of an oath during an inquiry invalidate the proceedings under the Oaths Act 1873?
- Can the High Court exercise inherent powers under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings when statutory remedies like Section 249-A or 265-K are available?
- Is an Editor-in-Chief liable for defamatory content published in a newspaper?
- Mir Shakil Ur Rahman and another vs Rai Muhammad Asad Khan and another2019 YLR 157 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application assailed an order passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge, Karachi South, whereby a direct complaint filed under Section 200, Cr.P.C. for criminal defamation was registered and bailable warrants were issued against the applicants. The core legal questions involved whether an Editor-in-Chief can be held criminally liable for defamatory publications in newspapers and whether the trial court erred in issuing process without a detailed inquiry. The Sindh High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that the Editor-in-Chief does not enjoy statutory immunity from prosecution and that at the initial stage of issuing process in a direct complaint, the court is only required to see whether a prima facie case is made out without embarking on a full-fledged trial. The key principle laid down is that an Editor-in-Chief can be held responsible for defamatory content if knowledge and responsibility are established, and accused persons must seek remedies before the trial court rather than invoking inherent or revisional jurisdictions prematurely.
Questions settled- Can an Editor-in-Chief of a newspaper be prosecuted for criminal defamation under Section 499 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- What is the extent of inquiry required by a trial court when taking cognizance of a direct complaint under Section 200 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Whether the High Court can interfere with an order issuing process in its revisional jurisdiction under Section 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without a jurisdictional error?
- Mir Nasrullah Khan and another vs Mst. Khairunnisa and 7 others2019 YLR 121 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Raza vs Trading Corporation of Pak. (Pvt.) Ltd. & others2020 PLC (C.S.) 531, 2019 SHC 408 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for declaration and injunction was filed by the plaintiff, a Manager at the Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd., challenging a Show Cause Notice and an Office Order concerning his educational credentials. The plaintiff contended that his MBA mark sheet from Al-Khair University was genuine, as confirmed by a subsequent university letter, and that the inquiry was initiated out of malafides. Conversely, the defendants argued that the suit was not maintainable under the master and servant rule, and that the university had twice previously confirmed the plaintiff's mark sheet to be fake and bogus. The High Court of Sindh observed that the initial burden of proving academic credentials rests upon the employee. It further noted that the plaintiff had failed to produce a verified degree and had refused to cooperate with a newly proposed inquiry officer. Relying on Supreme Court precedents concerning fake degrees, the Court held that verification is a matter between the employer and employee. Finding no prima facie case, balance of convenience, or irreparable loss, the Court dismissed the injunction applications.
Questions settled- Does the initial burden of proving and satisfying academic credentials for a job assignment rest upon the employee or the employer?
- Can an employee seek an injunction to restrain disciplinary inquiry proceedings when there are conflicting reports regarding the genuineness of their educational degrees?
- Does the doctrine of past and closed transactions protect an employee who allegedly obtained employment using fabricated academic documents?
- Mir Jeeand Badini vs MCC AppraisementPTCL 2021 CL. 500, 2020 PTD 213, 2019 SHC 216 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-05Read full judgment →
- Miandad vs The State2019 YLR 954 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for possession of six kilograms of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given the alleged procedural irregularities in the recovery and handling of the contraband. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, citing significant failures: the police did not associate independent witnesses despite having prior spy information; samples drawn from the seized contraband were not weighed, marked, or sealed individually; and there was an unexplained one-day delay in delivering samples to the chemical examiner, raising concerns about tampering. Furthermore, inconsistencies between the testimonies of the complainant and the mashir regarding the arrest details undermined the prosecution's credibility. The Court reiterated the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind regarding the guilt of the accused, the accused is entitled to the benefit of that doubt as a matter of right, not grace, leading to the appellant's acquittal.
Questions settled- Does an unexplained delay in the delivery of narcotic samples to the chemical examiner create a reasonable doubt regarding the integrity of the evidence?
- Is the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery based on prior information fatal to the prosecution's case?
- What is the legal consequence when samples drawn from seized narcotics are not individually weighed, marked, and sealed at the spot?
- Does a material inconsistency between the testimonies of the complainant and the recovery witness entitle the accused to an acquittal?
- Messrs Zamzama Builders and Developers through Partner vs Cantonment Board Faisal through Executive Officer and 4 others2019 MLD 1238 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Zaidi Enterprises through. Attorney and others vs Civil Aviation2019 MLD 792 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Walia Steel Industries PLC vs Messrs Saga Shipping and Trading2019 PLD Sindh 22 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Judicial Miscellaneous application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 (C.P.C.) arose out of an order dated 06.10.2017 dismissing Suit No. 1300/2017 as not pressed on an application filed under Order XXIII, Rule 3 read with Section 151 C.P.C. The applicant contended that its attorney—an employee of a law firm—connived with the respondents to withdraw the suit without instructions or authority, thereby committing fraud and misrepresentation upon the court. The respondents raised preliminary procedural objections and contended that the attorney and pleader possessed full independent authority to act. The High Court of Sindh allowed the application and set aside the dismissal order, holding that procedural technicalities cannot thwart substantive justice. On the merits, the Court ruled that powers of attorney must be strictly construed where the agent's act is detrimental to the principal's interests. Because the power of attorney contained no express authority to withdraw or compromise, and no actual compromise existed, the order was procured through fraud and misrepresentation under Section 12(2) C.P.C.
Questions settled- Can a dismissal order resulting from an unauthorized withdrawal of a suit by an attorney be set aside under Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. on grounds of fraud and misrepresentation?
- Whether procedural technicalities or misdescription in the heading of an application bar a court from exercising its jurisdiction to grant relief under Section 12(2) C.P.C.?
- Can an attorney compromise or withdraw a suit without express authority in the power of attorney when such act is detrimental to the principal's interests?
- Does an application purporting to compromise a suit under Order XXIII, Rule 3 C.P.C. require an actual settlement agreement on record rather than being treated as a simpliciter withdrawal?
- Messrs Venus Pakistan Private Limited through Authorized representative, Karachi vs Messrs Supreme Fuels GmbH & Co. and another2019 MLD 84 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Mobile and 3 others vs Abdul Rauf Essa and others2019 CLD 1267, 2020 P C T L R 1256, 2019 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Mobile and 3 others vs Abdul Rauf Essa and another2019 CLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-31Read full judgment →
- Messrs Textilers (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Representative and others2020 P C T L R 1056, 2019 CLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
- Messrs Team Nayyer (Private) Limited through Duly Authorized2019 CLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sky Overseas through Authorized Attorney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue Division and 4 others2020 P C T L R 834, PTCL 2020 CL. 492, 2019 PTD 1964 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Resoe International Trading (Private) Limited through Director2019 PLD Sindh 344 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pharmacie Plus through Group Administration Head vs Abdul2019 YLR 966 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-07Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Cos-II, Karachi2019 PTD 2288, 2020 P C T L R 916 · Sindh High Court · 2019-09-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Reinsurance Company Limited through Secretary vs Trustee of Port of Karachi (KPT)2019 CLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pak Brunei Investment Company Limited vs New Allied2019 CLD 301 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Naushero Feroze-1 through Managing Partner vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources, Islamabad and 2 others2019 YLR 2198 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mustaqim Dyeing and Printing Industries (Pvt.) Limited and others vs Province of Sindh and another2020 P C T L R 907, PTCL 2020 CL. 126, 2019 PTD 2251 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Matracon Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. through Authorized Co-ordinator2019 CLC 1732 · Sindh High Court · 2019-02-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and another vs Muhammad2019 CLC 718 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ismail Industries Limited through Authorized Officer vs Mondelez2019 CLD 562 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Global Trade Link and others vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division Ministry of Finance and others2019 PTD 1308 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ghaffar Corporation through Managing Partner and another vs Messrs Petro Commodities (Pvt.) Ltd. through Principal Officer and others2019 [M] C.L.R. 1617, 2019 CLC 122 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Fine Enterprises Traders through Partner_Representative vs Messrs Constellation Co-Operative Housing Society Limited and 37 others2019 CLC 1472, 2019 CLD 185 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Diamond Metals (Aop) through Attoney vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance and 3 othersPTCL 2019 CL. 707, 2019 PTD 1296 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Crescent Star Insurance Ltd. through Authorized Officer and another vs Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan through Chairman and others2019 CLD 134 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Cie Computers through Proprietor and 2 others vs Nib Bank Limited2020 P C T L R 1278, 2019 CLD 760 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bronx International through Proprietor vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division and 3 others2019 PTD 1230 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Avicon Aviation vs Assistant Commissioner, SRB, Karachi2020 P C T L R 911, PTCL 2020 CL. 87, 2019 PTD 2280 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Asio African Co. (Pvt) Ltd. and others vs Federation of Pakistan2019 PTD 1368 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, industrial undertakings engaged in flour manufacturing, challenged condition (v) of SRO No. 717(I)/2014, which restricted the issuance of advance tax exemption certificates under Clause 72B of Part-IV of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, to importers who had imported the same raw material in the previous year. The core legal question was whether this condition created an arbitrary, discriminatory classification and whether subordinate legislation could impose restrictions not envisaged by the parent statute. The Court held that condition (v) was illegal and ultra vires. It reasoned that the condition created an unreasonable classification between similarly placed importers of the same commodity, violating the fundamental rights to equal protection and fair competition under Articles 4, 18, and 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that subordinate legislation cannot impose restrictive covenants that conflict with or exceed the scope of the substantive statutory provisions. Consequently, the impugned condition was declared void, as it lacked a rational basis and undermined the legislative intent of the exemption scheme.
Questions settled- Can subordinate legislation impose restrictive conditions not envisaged by the parent statute?
- Does a condition in an SRO that restricts tax exemptions to previous importers violate the constitutional right to equal protection?
- Is a classification that distinguishes between new and existing importers of the same raw material constitutionally valid?
- Messrs Ashrafi Bread Industries vs Federation of Pakistan and others2019 PTD 1858 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Apple Paper Products (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director Chief Executive2019 PTD 787 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ahmed CNG Station vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary2021 PCTLR 1392, 2019 PTD 463 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a constitutional petition impugning two orders-in-original passed by the Additional Collector of Customs regarding the outright confiscation of imported CNG cylinders and the imposition of penalties, following proceedings initiated under the Customs Act, 1969. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, to bypass an adequate alternate statutory remedy of appeal when the petitioner failed to invoke the appellate forum within the period of limitation. The court held that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked as a routine substitute for a regular appeal where a statute provides an adequate mechanism for redressal, and a party cannot bypass the statutory forum without lawful justification. The key principle laid down is that where a statute creates a right and provides a specific appellate mechanism, an aggrieved party must first exhaust that remedy before invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court, and the High Court will be exceedingly slow to interfere unless exceptional jurisdictional defects or violations of fundamental rights are demonstrated.
Questions settled- Can a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be maintained when an adequate alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Whether the High Court should entertain a direct constitutional petition after the expiry of the period of limitation prescribed for filing a statutory appeal?
- When can a party bypass an exclusive statutory appellate forum and invoke the extra-ordinary constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Messrs Ahmed Brothers vs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited through Managing Director and another2019 MLD 1797 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-21Read full judgment →