Latest 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. Majeedan Versus S.S.P. Ghotki2016 PCrLJN 129 · Sindh High Court · 2015-11-23
  habeas corpuscustody of minorSection 491 Cr.P.C.Guardians and Wards Actinterim custodyillegal removal of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the recovery of a minor child allegedly snatched by the respondent-father. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction to restore temporary custody of the minor to the mother, despite pending guardianship appeal proceedings. The Court held that the application was maintainable, ruling that the High Court possesses the authority under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore temporary custody to a parent who has been illegally deprived of it, regardless of pending guardianship litigation. The Court emphasized that the jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is not mutually exclusive to the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, ordering the restoration of the minor's custody to the mother as an interim measure until the final disposal of the pending guardianship appeal, while granting the respondent liberty to agitate the matter before the appellate court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore temporary custody of a minor while guardianship proceedings are pending?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mutually exclusive with the provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890?
  • Can a parent seek the recovery of a minor child through a habeas corpus petition if the child was forcibly removed from their custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Saeed Shaikh (Sip) Versus Muhammad Bukhsh2016 PCrLJN 127 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-02
  criminal revisionsessions trialstoppage of proceedingsfair trialabeyance of casenon-appearance of witnessesCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged orders of an Additional Sessions Judge that placed a direct complaint in abeyance due to the non-appearance of the complainant and witnesses. The core legal question was whether a Sessions Court possesses the authority to keep a case in abeyance when the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 lacks an explicit provision for such action in Sessions trials, unlike the power granted to Magisterial courts under Section 249. The High Court held that while the Code does not explicitly recognize abeyance for Sessions cases, the court may exercise its discretion to stop proceedings in such circumstances to prevent indefinite hardship to the accused, provided coercive measures to procure attendance have been exhausted. The court established that such an order is legally permissible by borrowing the underlying logic of Section 249, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. However, it clarified that this abeyance must not result in indefinite surety obligations or prejudice the accused’s service matters, as the accused is presumed innocent and should not suffer indefinitely due to the prosecution's failure to produce evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Sessions Court keep a case in abeyance when the complainant and witnesses fail to appear?
  • Does the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provide a mechanism for Sessions Courts to stop proceedings due to the non-appearance of prosecution witnesses?
  • Can the principles of Section 249 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be applied by a Sessions Court to stop proceedings?
  • Does an order keeping a case in abeyance indefinitely prejudice the rights of the accused regarding their service matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home Department Government of Sindh2016 PCrLJN 123 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-22
  registration of FIREx-Officio Justice of Peacesuppression of factsabuse of process of lawPEMRAsearch warrantdismissal in limine
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Mirpur Mathelo, which dismissed the petitioner's application under Section 22A(6)(i) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the registration of an FIR against proposed accused persons for alleged theft. The petitioner claimed that the accused forcibly entered his premises and removed articles. However, the court found that the petitioner had suppressed material facts in his application before the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace. Specifically, the court noted that the alleged 'theft' was actually a lawful search and seizure operation conducted by PEMRA officials pursuant to a court-ordered search warrant, executed in the presence of a court official. The High Court held that the petitioner failed to approach the court with clean hands and that the petition constituted an abuse of the process of law. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in limine, imposing costs of Rs. 50,000 on the petitioner to be paid to the proposed accused, emphasizing that official duties cannot be obstructed by misleading criminal complaints.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of material facts regarding a court-ordered search warrant in an application for FIR registration constitute an abuse of process?
  • Can a petitioner seek the registration of an FIR against officials acting under a valid court-authorized search warrant?
  • Is the imposition of costs justified when a petitioner misleads the Ex-Officio Justice of Peace regarding the nature of the alleged offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Versus State2016 PCrLJN 122 · Sindh High Court · 2015-09-23
  post-arrest bailgas thefttampering with gas pipelinelesser punishment for bailindependent mashirs
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a post-arrest bail application arising from Crime No. 15/2015 registered under Section 462-C/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code at P.S. SSGC Karachi. The applicant was allegedly caught red-handed tampering with a gas pipeline and supplying gas illegally. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail considering the nature of the evidence, lack of independent witnesses, and the alternate punishments provided under the penal provision. The Sindh High Court held that since the recovery mashirs were subordinates of the complainant in a thickly populated area without independent private witnesses joining the recovery, and given that the statute provides alternate punishments, the lesser punishment must be considered for bail. The court admitted the applicant to post-arrest bail. The key principle laid down is that when a statute provides alternative punishments, the lesser punishment is to be considered for the purpose of bail, and the absence of independent corroboration in thickly populated areas warrants further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when recovery mashirs are subordinates of the complainant and no independent private witnesses are associated from a populated area?
  • Does the principle that the lesser punishment is to be considered for bail apply when a penal section provides alternative punishments of imprisonment ranging from 5 to 10 years?
  Read full judgment →
• Heman Versus State2016 PCrLJN 119 · Sindh High Court · 2014-11-13
  criminal appealconviction alterationoutraging modestystripping of clothesessential ingredientscriminal force to womanabduction attempt
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their conviction and sentence of imprisonment for life under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Umerkot. The prosecution case was that the appellants had abducted a nine-year-old girl with the intention to commit rape. Although originally charged under sections 364-A, 511, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, the trial court convicted them under section 354-A. The core legal question was whether the essential ingredients of the offence under section 354-A were established by the evidence. The High Court held that to constitute an offence under section 354-A, the stripping of a woman's clothes and her exposure in public view must both coexist, which ingredients were lacking in this case. Consequently, the High Court set aside the conviction under section 354-A and modified it to section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code, sentencing the appellants to the period already undergone and directing their immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential ingredients required to constitute an offence under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under section 354-A of the Pakistan Penal Code when the victim was not exposed to public view in a stripped condition?
  • Whether an appellate court can modify a conviction from section 354-A to section 354 of the Pakistan Penal Code based on the proved facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaque alias Mustafa Versus State2016 PCrLJN 117 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-17
  criminal appealmurdercircumstantial evidencejuvenile offenderballistic reportmedical evidenceocular testimonyconviction
  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 for the murder of a young boy and sentencing him to life imprisonment, along with compensation under Section 544-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting that the appellant was treated as a juvenile under the Juvenile Justice System Ordinance 2000. The core legal question involved whether the circumstantial and ocular evidence, supported by medical reports, weapon recovery, and ballistic analysis, sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt despite minor discrepancies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution successfully proved its case through consistent eyewitness accounts, corroborating medical evidence, and a positive forensic report connecting the recovered pistol to the crime. The court affirmed the conviction, establishing that minor contradictions do not shatter the intrinsic value of reliable eyewitness and circumstantial evidence in criminal trials.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor contradictions in ocular testimony are sufficient to discard the prosecution case when supported by medical and forensic evidence?
  • Does the recovery of a crime weapon with a positive ballistic report corroborate circumstantial evidence of murder?
  • Whether an unproven enmity or false implication claim by the accused can displace consistent and trustworthy prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Lalani Versus State2016 PCrLJN 114 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-02
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictioncriminal intimidationabuse of processcognizable offenceSection 561-A CrPCSection 249-A CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings in a case registered under Section 506-B, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, before a Judicial Magistrate. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction to quash criminal proceedings when the applicant had not exhausted the remedy under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether the alleged facts constituted a cognizable offence. The Court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of law, as the material on record failed to establish the ingredients of the alleged offence, particularly given the lack of weapon usage and the peaceful continuation of the board meeting in question. Consequently, the Court quashed the FIR and the subsequent trial proceedings. The judgment affirms that while the High Court ordinarily expects parties to exhaust trial court remedies, it retains inherent jurisdiction to intervene in exceptional cases where the continuation of proceedings would be a futile exercise and an abuse of the court's process.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the applicant first exhausting the remedy under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure of a Magistrate to apply a judicial mind to the contents of a challan under Section 173, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute grounds for quashment?
  • Is the continuation of criminal proceedings an abuse of process when the admitted facts on record fail to constitute a cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kounjan Versus SHO Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah2016 PCrLJN 112 · Sindh High Court · 2015-03-19
  registration of FIREx-officio Justice of Peacecognizable offencecustodial deathpolice dutyconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Police Station Lakhi Ghulam Shah to register an FIR against several police officials regarding the alleged custodial death of her brother. The petitioner had previously approached the Ex-officio Justice of Peace, but the application was dismissed on the grounds that the incident narrative appeared implausible and hearsay. The core legal question was whether an Ex-officio Justice of Peace has the authority to conduct an inquiry into the credibility of information regarding a cognizable offence when directing the registration of an FIR under Section 22-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the Ex-officio Justice of Peace lacks the power to assess the credibility of information or hold an inquiry; their role is limited to ensuring the SHO performs the mandatory duty under Section 154 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to register an FIR if a cognizable offence is disclosed. Consequently, the Court set aside the dismissal order and directed the SHO to record the petitioner's statement and register the FIR.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Ex-officio Justice of Peace have the authority to hold an inquiry into the credibility of information when directing the registration of an FIR?
  • Is a Station House Officer legally bound to register an FIR if the information provided discloses the commission of a cognizable offence?
  • Can an Ex-officio Justice of Peace refuse to direct the registration of an FIR based on their assessment of the truthfulness of the allegations?
  Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Versus State2016 PCrLJN 110 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-28
  criminal appealbenefit of doubtocular evidencemedical evidencedelayed FIRmurder convictionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants for murder and related offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question is whether the prosecution successfully proved the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in light of significant contradictions between the ocular testimony and medical evidence, as well as an unexplained delay in lodging the FIR. The Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, noting that the medical officer could not confirm the weapon used or the distance of firing as alleged by the eyewitnesses, and that the initial report to the police by an informant identified the culprits as unknown. Emphasizing that the burden of proof rests entirely on the prosecution and that any reasonable doubt must be resolved in favour of the accused, the Court set aside the conviction. The key principle laid down is that a single material infirmity creating reasonable doubt in the mind of a prudent person is sufficient to render the entire prosecution case doubtful, entitling the accused to an acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the distance of firing and weapon type warrant the acquittal of the accused?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the FIR is lodged with an inordinate, unexplained delay?
  • Is the prosecution required to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt even when the accused does not lead defence evidence?
  • Does a single material infirmity in the prosecution's case entitle the accused to the benefit of the doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Abid alias Aabi Arain Versus State2016 PCrLJN 109 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-03
  post-arrest bailarmed robberyfurther inquiryidentification in FIRrecovery of propertylesser punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abid alias Aabi Arain, who was charged under Section 395 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for an alleged armed robbery. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the lack of recovery of stolen property and the absence of identification details in the First Information Report. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail. The court reasoned that no recovery of the alleged robbed property was made from the applicant, and the First Information Report failed to disclose how the complainant identified the applicant. Furthermore, the court noted that the applicant had been incarcerated for six months and was no longer required for investigation. The key principle laid down is that where the minimum punishment for an offence is relatively low, such as four years, and there are gaps in the prosecution's case regarding identification and recovery, the matter warrants further inquiry, justifying the grant of post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of recovery of stolen property from an accused justify the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Is the failure to disclose the source of identification in the FIR a ground for further inquiry in bail matters?
  • Should the court consider the minimum punishment prescribed for an offence when deciding on a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ahmed Brohi Versus State2016 PCrLJN 106 · Sindh High Court · 2015-02-18
  narcoticspossession of charasbenefit of doubtmaterial contradictionsinvestigating officer as complainantcriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of the appellant for possession of one kilogram of charas, an offence under section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The appellant was originally convicted by the trial court and sentenced to three years rigorous imprisonment. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt, given the material contradictions in the evidence and the fact that the complainant also acted as the investigating officer. The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant, holding that the prosecution's case was riddled with material contradictions regarding the preparation of the mashirnama, the nature of the recovery, and the chain of custody of the narcotic sample. The Court emphasized that when police officials are the sole witnesses, their evidence requires strict scrutiny. Furthermore, the Court reaffirmed the principle that if a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind, the accused is entitled to the benefit of the doubt as a matter of right, not grace.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that the complainant and the investigating officer are the same person violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of the doubt if only a single circumstance creates reasonable doubt in a prudent mind?
  • Does the absence of private witnesses in a narcotics case require stricter judicial scrutiny of police evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hayee Rind Versus State2016 PCrLJN 105 · Sindh High Court · 2015-08-18
  post-arrest bailabductionmurdernon-compliance of directionsspeedy trialdelay in trialprohibitory clauseexamination of witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Hayee, who was booked under Sections 364, 337-J, 109, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the alleged abduction and subsequent murder of two women. Having previously failed to secure bail on the merits, the applicant sought bail primarily on the ground that the High Court's earlier directions to record the statements of material prosecution witnesses within two months had not been complied with by the trial court. The legal question before the High Court was whether the trial court’s failure to comply with time-bound directions for examining witnesses automatically entitles an accused person to grant of post-arrest bail. The High Court refused bail, holding that non-compliance with court directions to examine witnesses within a prescribed time does not confer an automatic right to bail, as bail matters must be determined on merits or established statutory delay grounds. The court directed the complainant to produce the witness and ordered trial conclusion within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial court to comply with High Court directions to examine material witnesses within a specified timeframe automatically entitle an accused to the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted solely on the ground of non-compliance with procedural directions rather than on the merits or established statutory delay?
  • Does the dismissal of a bail application based on non-compliance with trial-expediting directions preclude an accused from moving a fresh bail application on other grounds that may arise with the passage of time?
  Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin alias Nizam Versus State2016 PCrLJN 101 · Sindh High Court · 2015-10-13
  post-arrest bailunlicensed weaponfoisted recoveryfurther inquirypolice enmitycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Nizamuddin alias Nizam, who was charged under Section 23-A of the Sindh Arms Act, 2013, following the alleged recovery of an unlicensed .30-bore pistol. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail given the circumstances of the recovery and the alleged enmity between the applicant's family and the police. The Court granted the bail application, holding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the weapon was unnumbered, making it susceptible to being foisted by police, and noted the existence of prior litigation between the applicant's family and the police. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the applicant was no longer required for investigation, all prosecution witnesses were police officials, and the trial was not imminent. The key principle laid down is that in bail matters, the Court should consider the likely sentence entailed by the specific facts rather than the maximum statutory penalty, and that the delay in trial commencement favors the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of an unnumbered weapon from an accused person constitutes sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a court consider the maximum sentence provided by statute or the likely sentence in the specific facts of the case when deciding a bail application?
  • Does the fact that all prosecution witnesses are police officials mitigate the risk of tampering with evidence in a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Zarwali Versus State2016 PCrLJN 100 · Sindh High Court · 2015-07-25
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsrecovery witnessesprohibitory clausefurther inquiryControl of Narcotic Substances Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by two accused persons charged with the possession of narcotics under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the alleged non-compliance with mandatory search procedures and the nature of the offence. The Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The ratio of the decision rests on the principle that the failure to secure independent witnesses in a populated area, as required by Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constitutes a ground for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, because the alleged quantity of narcotics did not exceed one kilogram, the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Given that the investigation was complete and the final challan had been submitted, the Court deemed it appropriate to grant bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to associate independent witnesses during a recovery in a populated area entitle an accused to bail under the principle of further inquiry?
  • Does an offence under Section 9(b) of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997 fall within the prohibitory clause of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the submission of a final challan a relevant factor in determining the entitlement to post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah alias Zahid alias Farho Chandio Versus State2016 PCrLJN 10 · Sindh High Court · 2014-05-22
  criminal appealpolice encounterreasonable doubtballistic evidenceadverse inferenceattempted murderanti-terrorismappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court which convicted the appellant for attempted murder and illegal weapon possession following an alleged police encounter. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, given significant evidentiary inconsistencies. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution’s case was riddled with reasonable doubt. The Court observed that the police version was implausible because, despite an alleged ten-minute exchange of fire involving hundreds of rounds, no damage occurred to police vehicles, and the number of recovered cartridge empties was disproportionately low compared to the rounds allegedly fired. Furthermore, the failure to seal the recovered weapon or submit it for ballistic analysis, coupled with the withholding of X-ray evidence for injuries, undermined the prosecution's narrative. The Court emphasized that the safe administration of criminal justice requires acquittal when reasonable doubt exists. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, establishing that mere injuries on prosecution witnesses do not validate a narrative that fails the test of logic and reason.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of police to seal recovered weapons and submit them for ballistic analysis warrant an adverse inference against the prosecution?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's narrative of a police encounter is contradicted by physical evidence, such as the absence of damage to police vehicles?
  • Does the presence of injuries on police witnesses automatically prove the prosecution's version of an encounter, or must the testimony still satisfy the test of logic and reason?
  • What is the legal effect of the prosecution failing to account for the discrepancy between the number of rounds allegedly fired and the number of cartridge empties recovered at the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehan Ahmed Baig Versus Mst. Sabeen Naz2020 CLCN 8 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-06Read full judgment →
• Sham Kumar Versus Ulfat Shaheen2020 CLCN 51 · Sindh High Court · 2020-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf Versus Muhammad Amin Lakhani2020 CLCN 47 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi Qureshi Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defence2020 CLCN 45 · Sindh High Court · 2019-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farhana Mansoor Versus Province of Sindh2020 CLCN 43 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-28Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited Versus Emadul Hassan2020 CLCN 42 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-01Read full judgment →
• Saeeda Salahuddin Versus Flight Lt. (Retd.) Farouk Aziz Effendi (Late)2020 CLCN 40 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-24Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited Versus Mohammad Siddiq Bawa Gadit2020 CLCN 38 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-30Read full judgment →
• Interflow Communication (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Aamir Ali2020 CLCN 33 · Sindh High Court · 2020-02-25Read full judgment →
• Shafiq-Ud-Din Versus Mst. Shahida Ghazal2020 CLCN 29 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Muneer Ahmed Siyal Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi2020 CLCN 27 · Sindh High Court · 2019-05-15Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin Versus Abdul Jabbar2020 CLCN 25 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zarina Iqbal Versus Haji Jaffar2020 CLCN 20 · Sindh High Court · 2019-07-06Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Versus Azhar Ali2020 CLCN 2 · Sindh High Court · 2019-03-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooque Aqeel Akber Versus Javed Ahmed2019 CLCN 9 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-16Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed Rana Versus Munair Ahmed Rana2019 CLCN 7 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-12Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Muzammil Versus Khawaja Mukhtiar Ali2019 CLCN 65 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-15Read full judgment →
• ICI Pakistan Ltd. Versus Muhammad Yousaf2019 CLCN 63 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-14Read full judgment →
• Jai Kumar Versus Partab Rai2019 CLCN 60 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Bhagwandas Versus Mashooq Ali Jatoi2019 CLCN 58 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-18Read full judgment →
• Waseem Baig Versus Mst. Nosheen2019 CLCN 56 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohiuddin Warsi Versus Qutibuddin2019 CLCN 54 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Bachal Versus Ixth Additional District Judge, Hyderabad2019 CLCN 51 · Sindh High Court · 2019-04-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Versus Mst. Raveena2019 CLCN 50 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Jalal Mehmood Versus Election Commission of Pakistan2019 CLCN 5 · Sindh High Court · 2018-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zainab Versus Urooj Ahmed2019 CLCN 47 · Sindh High Court · 2018-08-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Farrukh Hasan Versus Shujauddin Ahmed2019 CLCN 45 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-05Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Saleem Versus Mst. Rukhsana2019 CLCN 43 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-22Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafi Messo Versus Mst. Shumaila2019 CLCN 41 · Sindh High Court · 2018-12-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jabl-E-Rehmat Towers Versus Naghamana Wajahat2019 CLCN 39 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Zahir Jafri Versus Chairman Federal Board of Revenue2019 CLCN 37 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hassan Versus Ist Additional District Judge, Sukkur2019 CLCN 34 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-19Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain Versus Muhammad Akbar Khan2019 CLCN 3 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-10Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. Syed Jawaid Ahmed Versus Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority2019 CLCN 29 · Sindh High Court · 2018-09-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Akram Versus Shri Mahant Baboo Lalgir Mahraj2019 CLCN 25 · Sindh High Court · 2019-01-01Read full judgment →
• Sultan Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan2019 CLCN 22 · Sindh High Court · 2017-12-21Read full judgment →
• Kashif Iftikhar Versus Muhammad Imran Ashfaque2019 CLCN 17 · Sindh High Court · 2018-11-08Read full judgment →
• Hubdar Ali Versus Court of Ivth Additional District Judge Dadu2019 CLCN 15 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-18Read full judgment →
• Lucknow Corporative Housing Society Limited Versus Registrar Cooperative Societies2019 CLCN 13 · Sindh High Court · 2018-10-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rani Versus Manthar2018 CLCN 99 · Sindh High Court · 2017-09-12Read full judgment →
• Rajaldas Gianchand Versus Ist Additional District Judge, Karachi, South2018 CLCN 97 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem Versus Mst. Amina alias Amna2018 CLCN 95 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-13Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary to Government of Sindh Revenue Department, Karachi Versus Mian Gul2018 CLCN 93 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Versus Atta Muhammad2018 CLCN 91 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-17Read full judgment →
• Federal Handicraft Versus Civil Aviation Authority2018 CLCN 9 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-08Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. Nasim Ahmed Versus Province of Sindh2018 CLCN 88 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-02Read full judgment →
• Kamran Bhutto Versus Mst. Farsa Manzoor2018 CLCN 84 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-20Read full judgment →
• Independent Media Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority2018 CLCN 82 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Shafique Versus Muhammad Rafique2018 CLCN 77 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-31Read full judgment →
• S. M. Iqbal Versus Mst. Roshan Ara2018 CLCN 75 · Sindh High Court · 2018-03-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Raza Shah Nawaz Khan Versus Nasir Khan2018 CLCN 71 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aamir Ali Khan Versus State2018 CLCN 69 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-17Read full judgment →
• Shakila Iftikhar Versus Muhammad Yahya Qureshi2018 CLCN 65 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-06Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad2018 CLCN 58 · Sindh High Court · 2017-11-08Read full judgment →
• Dr. Indu Versus Additional District and Sessions Judge2018 CLCN 56 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Parveen Azad Versus The Administrator/Chairman, National Medical Centre Hospital2018 CLCN 55 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahid Hussain Shah Versus Syed Sajid Hussain Shah2018 CLCN 53 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Niaz Hussain Shah Versus Mst. Samina Iqbal2018 CLCN 51 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zafar Javed Versus Rashida Patel2018 CLCN 50 · Sindh High Court · 2017-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Aslam Versus Government of Pakistan through Secretary Interior Ministry2018 CLCN 48 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-21Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Naseem-Ul-Haq Versus Mst. Farhat Jameela2018 CLCN 46 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rakshinda Kanwal Versus Muhammad Amil2018 CLCN 44 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-24Read full judgment →
• Shameneh Haider Versus Haider Ali Khan2018 CLCN 43 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-31Read full judgment →
• The City Schools (Private) Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad2018 CLCN 4 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-05Read full judgment →
• Tariq Rafi Versus Topgen Health Care/T.G. Pharma2018 CLCN 39 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-27Read full judgment →
• Siddiqi Masjid Versus Mst. Zainab2018 CLCN 36 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amna Bibi Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary, Law and Justice Department, Karachi2018 CLCN 32 · Sindh High Court · 2016-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam Khatoon Versus Sarang Gahoti2018 CLCN 28 · Sindh High Court · 2017-05-17Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Qadir Versus Laeeq Ahmed2018 CLCN 24 · Sindh High Court · 2017-07-07Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Iqbal Versus Akhtar Wafa2018 CLCN 20 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-12Read full judgment →
• Malik Ameer Khan Versus Civil Judge/Family Judge-XVI, Karachi South2018 CLCN 14 · Sindh High Court · 2016-12-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Farukh Mazhar Versus SGS Headquarters2018 CLCN 132 · Sindh High Court · 2017-04-17
  Master and Servant doctrinewrongful terminationinjunctive reliefprivate employmentspecific performanceCompanies Ordinance 1984contempt of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns civil applications for injunctive relief filed by a former Managing Director against a private company, challenging his termination and the subsequent filing of Form-29 with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether an employee of a private entity can be granted an injunction for reinstatement or against termination, and whether the 'Master and Servant' doctrine precludes such relief. The Court dismissed the applications, holding that injunctive relief cannot be granted to force an employee upon an unwilling private employer. The Court affirmed that employment in private organizations is governed by the 'Master and Servant' principle rather than statutory service rules. Consequently, the Court held that the appropriate remedy for alleged wrongful termination in private employment is a claim for damages or compensation, not reinstatement. Furthermore, the Court determined that compliance with statutory filing requirements, such as Form-29, following the expiry of an officer's term, does not constitute contempt of court. The judgment reinforces that courts will not grant specific performance or injunctions in private employment contracts.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee of a private company be granted an injunction for reinstatement against an unwilling employer?
  • Is the remedy for wrongful termination in a private employment contract limited to damages rather than reinstatement?
  • Does the filing of Form-29 with the Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan by a company after the expiry of a director's term constitute contempt of court?
  • Does the 'Master and Servant' doctrine apply to employees of private corporate entities?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Versus Arz Mohammad2018 CLCN 131 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Iqbal Haider Versus Ist Additional District Judge2018 CLCN 129 · Sindh High Court · 2017-08-04Read full judgment →
• Sui Southern Gas Company Limited Versus Registrar of Trade Unions, Government of Sindh2018 CLCN 126 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-23
  trans-provincial establishmenttrade union registrationlegislative competenceNIRC jurisdictionlabour lawIndustrial Relations Act 2012
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Sui Southern Gas Company Limited, a trans-provincial establishment operating in Sindh and Balochistan, challenged the registration of a trade union by the provincial Registrar of Trade Unions (RTU) of Sindh. The petitioner contended that as a trans-provincial entity, it falls exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Industrial Relations Act, 2012, and the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), rendering provincial registration of its trade unions invalid. The core legal question was whether a trans-provincial establishment is subject to federal or provincial labour legislation regarding trade union registration. Relying on binding precedent from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Court held that the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 is a valid piece of legislation and that establishments operating in more than one province are governed by federal legislation. Consequently, the NIRC possesses exclusive jurisdiction over such entities. The Court affirmed that the principles laid down by the Supreme Court regarding the legislative competence of the Federation over trans-provincial establishments are binding on all authorities, including the provincial Registrar of Trade Unions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Act, 2012 apply to establishments operating in more than one province?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have exclusive jurisdiction over trade unions in trans-provincial establishments?
  • Can a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions register a union for an establishment that operates across multiple provinces?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sajeda Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior2018 CLCN 123 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-23Read full judgment →
• Anthoney Joseph (Late) Versus Miss Rubina2018 CLCN 121 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Qamar Alam Versus Jhamandas2018 CLCN 118 · Sindh High Court · 2017-10-13Read full judgment →
• Zain Khan Versus Taj Roshan2018 CLCN 116 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-16Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed Versus Mst. Zeenat Ismail2018 CLCN 113 · Sindh High Court · 2018-07-27Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmed Versus Province of Sindh through Secretary of Ministry of Health2018 CLCN 110 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-22Read full judgment →
• Syeda Maryam Versus Mrs. Rabia Bibi2018 CLCN 107 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Asghar Hussain Versus Muhammad Owais2018 CLCN 105 · Sindh High Court · 2018-05-09Read full judgment →
• Saddar Market Development Consortium Versus Province of Sindh2018 CLCN 103 · Sindh High Court · 2018-02-08Read full judgment →
• Fayazuddin Versus Liaquat Ali2018 CLCN 101 · Sindh High Court · 2018-04-25Read full judgment →