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.

• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State and 4 others2008 P Cr. L J 439 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-09
  criminal acquittal appealdismissal for non-prosecutionappellate procedureadmission of appealdecision on merits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an order dismissing a criminal acquittal appeal for non-prosecution. The core legal question was whether a criminal appeal, once admitted for hearing, can be dismissed in default due to the non-appearance of the appellant or their counsel without deciding the case on its merits. The Sindh High Court held that once a criminal appeal is admitted for hearing, it requires an intensive perusal and examination of the record by the appellate court to resolve points of law and fact. The Court ruled that under no circumstances can a criminal appeal be dismissed in default for non-prosecution without reference to the merits of the case. The key principle laid down is that the appellate court is duty-bound to decide the appeal on its merits after admission, and the non-appearance of the appellant or counsel does not constitute a valid ground for summary dismissal. Consequently, the impugned order of dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was restored to its original position.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal be dismissed in default for non-prosecution after it has been admitted for hearing?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide a criminal appeal on its merits once it has been admitted for hearing?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs State and 4 othersPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 714 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-09
  criminal acquittal appealdismissal for non-prosecutionappellate jurisdictionadmission of appealdecision on meritsdefault in appearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal acquittal appeal challenges the dismissal of a prior appeal for non-prosecution. The appellant filed a criminal acquittal appeal against respondents in a case registered under the Pakistan Penal Code, which was initially admitted for hearing but later dismissed due to the non-appearance of the appellant's counsel. The core legal question is whether an appellate court can dismiss a criminal appeal for non-prosecution after it has been admitted for hearing, without deciding the case on its merits. The court held that once a criminal appeal is admitted for hearing, it requires an intensive perusal and examination of the record to decide points of law and fact. The court established the principle that a criminal appeal cannot be summarily dismissed for default or non-appearance of the appellant or their counsel; rather, the court must decide the appeal on its merits. Consequently, the impugned order of dismissal was set aside, and the appeal was restored to its original position for a decision on the merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a criminal appeal be dismissed for non-prosecution after it has been admitted for hearing?
  • Is an appellate court required to decide a criminal appeal on its merits even if the appellant or their counsel fails to appear?
  • Does the admission of a criminal appeal mandate an examination of the record by the appellate court?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Province of Sindh through ecretary, Revenue2008 CLC 960 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-31
  adverse possessionkatchi abadiregularizationrejection of plaintdeclaratory suitlegal characterrepresentative suitgovernment land
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, representing a local welfare association, filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction seeking regularization of a settlement (Goth) situated on government-owned land, issuance of ownership rights (Sanads), and restraint against dispossession. The core legal question was whether a suit for declaration and injunction is maintainable by occupants of government land claiming through long possession or adverse possession, and whether such a suit satisfies the requirements of law and procedural rules for representative actions and regularization. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was not maintainable, finding that the plaintiff lacked the requisite legal character under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877, that the plea of adverse possession is no longer available under Pakistani law following the omission of relevant provisions of the Limitation Act 1908, that statutory procedures under the Sindh Katchi Abadi Act 1987 must be followed for regularization, and that the suit failed to comply with Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the court rejected the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for declaration and injunction regarding government land without establishing a valid legal character under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Is the plea of adverse possession available in civil proceedings in Pakistan after the omission of Section 28 and Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a suit filed on behalf of a large community qualify as a maintainable representative action without fulfilling the mandatory procedural requirements of Order I Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a civil court prematurely regularize a settlement on government land without adherence to the statutory framework prescribed under the Sindh Katchi Abadi Act 1987?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Ghousi through Legal Heirss vs Ghulam Ghous and 2 others2008 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad Ghousi through Legal Heirs vs Ghulam Ghous and 22008 PLJ Karachi 47 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs Shahid-Ud-Din Tughalaq2008 PLD Karachi 536 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Akbar alias Allan vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 1165 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-03
  ocular testimonybenefit of doubtadverse presumptioncriminal appealmurder convictionwitness credibilitycapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of the complainant's son. The prosecution's case relied exclusively on ocular testimony, which the Court found to be inconsistent and contradictory regarding the presence of witnesses and the location of the body. Specifically, the complainant's account of the incident conflicted with the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, and a material witness was withheld by the prosecution, leading the Court to draw an adverse presumption under the law. Furthermore, the Court noted significant discrepancies between the ocular evidence and the physical evidence, particularly regarding the location of the deceased's body. The Court also highlighted a fatal flaw in the timeline, as the complainant claimed to be at the police station at the same time the incident allegedly occurred. Concluding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Court held that the appellant was entitled to the benefit of the doubt. The conviction was set aside, establishing the principle that where ocular testimony is doubtful and inconsistent with physical evidence, it cannot sustain a conviction in a capital case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on ocular testimony when such testimony is inconsistent and contradictory?
  • What is the legal consequence of the prosecution's failure to examine a material witness who was allegedly present at the scene of the crime?
  • Does a significant discrepancy between the time of the incident and the time of the First Information Report (FIR) render the prosecution's case doubtful?
  • Is the benefit of the doubt applicable when the prosecution fails to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt in a capital case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghous Ali vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 647 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-30
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryinfirm personabsconsionbail in murder caseprolonged incarceration
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application challenged the trial court's dismissal of the applicant's request for post-arrest bail in a case involving murder and other offences. The applicant, aged 72, was accused of participating in an attack resulting in death, though he was only alleged to have caused a lathi injury to an injured party, not the deceased. The core legal questions were whether the applicant's status as an absconder and the nature of the allegations precluded bail, and whether his advanced age and the existence of conflicting police investigation reports warranted relief. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, reasoning that the case required further inquiry due to conflicting investigation reports, one of which declared the applicant innocent. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the applicant's advanced age qualified him as an 'infirm person' under the law, and that prolonged incarceration without trial amounted to punishment before judgment. The key principles laid down are that absconsion is not an absolute bar to bail, and that infirmity, coupled with the requirement for further inquiry, provides strong grounds for the grant of bail even in serious cases.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of an accused as a fugitive from law absolutely disentitle them from the grant of bail?
  • Does the existence of conflicting police investigation reports, including one declaring the accused innocent, constitute a case of further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  • Does the advanced age of an accused qualify them as an 'infirm person' entitled to the concession of bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghazi Sarfraz vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 673 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-13
  post-arrest bailtest identification paraderobberyinvestigation fairnesscriminal procedureidentification evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the accused, Ghazi Sarfraz, who was charged with robbery and causing injuries to the complainant during a house trespass incident. The core legal question before the Court was whether the identification of the accused by the complainant at his private residence, rather than through a formal test identification parade supervised by a Magistrate, constituted sufficient grounds to deny bail. The Court held that the Investigating Officer's conduct in bypassing the established procedure for a judicial test identification parade was highly objectionable and undermined the fairness of the investigation. Consequently, the Court found that the prosecution failed to establish reasonable grounds for believing the applicant was guilty of the offence. The Court granted bail to the applicant, emphasizing that an identification process conducted outside the presence of a Magistrate militates against the reasonableness of the grounds for detention. The applicant was ordered to be released upon furnishing a surety bond of Rs. 50,000 to the satisfaction of the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification of an accused by a complainant at their private residence, rather than through a formal test identification parade, undermine the fairness of an investigation?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's identification procedure is procedurally flawed and lacks judicial supervision?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghandhara Nissan Ltd., Karachi vs Collector of Customs (Appg), Karachi and another2008 PTD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 2008-07-01Read full judgment →
• General Traders and Ammunition Manufacturers Ltd. through Chief2008 PLD Karachi 228 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• General Traders and Ammunition Manufacturers Ltd. through Chief2008 CLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• First Women Bank Ltd. vs Mrs. Afifa Iftikhar And Others2008 P.C.T.L.R. 594 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-04Read full judgment →
• First Women Bank Ltd. vs Mrs. Afifa Iftikhar and 2 others2008 CLD 552 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ferozuddin Riaz vs Province of Sindh through Secretary/ Member2008 CLC 1358 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-23Read full judgment →
• Feroze Shamsi and 2 others vs Province of Sindh Ministrey of Cooperation, Through Secretary Cooperation and 2 others2008 YLR 2763 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-27Read full judgment →
• Feroz Ahmed Khan vs Fasiullah Sheikh and others2008 CLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-03Read full judgment →
• Fazal-E-Hadi vs National Accountability Bureau, Sindh through Director-General, Sindh and another2008 P Cr. L J 171 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-02
  post-arrest bailcorruptionillegal gratificationplea bargaintainted moneytrap raidprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, an Assistant Director in the National Accountability Bureau (NAB), sought bail in a corruption case involving the demand and receipt of illegal gratification. The prosecution alleged that the applicant, while investigating a Tapedar, demanded money and a vehicle to favor the accused. A trap was laid under the supervision of a Judicial Magistrate, resulting in the recovery of tainted money from the applicant. The applicant subsequently offered a plea bargain and admitted his guilt in writing. The applicant challenged the prosecution's case, citing contradictions in the raid report, delayed recording of statements, and lack of expert verification for telephonic transcripts. The Sindh High Court held that at the bail stage, deeper appreciation of evidence is not required. The Court found that a prima facie case existed, supported by the recovery of tainted money, the independent witness of the Judicial Magistrate, and the applicant's own written admission and plea bargain offer. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail petition, emphasizing the need to curb corruption with an iron hand.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plea bargain offer and written admission of guilt by an accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Does the recovery of tainted money in the presence of a Judicial Magistrate establish a prima facie case for the purpose of bail?
  • Can minor contradictions in a prosecution's reference and raid report be resolved at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Faysal Bank Ltd. Through Attorneys vs Southern Networks Ltd.2008 CLD 1336 · Sindh High Court · 2008-09-16Read full judgment →
• Farooq Ahmed Hashmi vs NAB (Sindh) through Director General and another2008 MLD 1419 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-29Read full judgment →
• Farman Ali vs Tandi Bakht and 3 others2008 MLD 1690 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-03
  Criminal RevisionFraming of chargeRecording of evidenceDismissal of complaintCognizance of offenceAcquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the trial court's dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after cognizance had already been taken and charges framed. The applicant argued that the court erred by dismissing the case without recording prosecution evidence. The State contended that the complaint was frivolous, filed years after the alleged incident, and lacked medical evidence, thus justifying the dismissal. The High Court held that once cognizance is taken and charges are framed, the proper legal course is to record the evidence of the prosecution witnesses before disposing of the matter, particularly regarding applications under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court set aside the dismissal and directed the trial court to record the evidence of the four listed prosecution witnesses within two months, while granting the applicant liberty to move for disposal under Section 265-K if appropriate during the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court dismiss a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after cognizance has been taken and charges have been framed?
  • Is it mandatory for a trial court to record prosecution evidence before disposing of a case under Section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Farkhunda Jawaid vs Iind Additional District Judge and others2008 CLC 362 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-13
  EjectmentPersonal bona fide useLandlord's discretionRent enhancementMala fideSuitability of premisesSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an appellate court's decision which had set aside an ejectment order granted by the Rent Controller on the ground of the landlord's personal bona fide use. The appellate court had reasoned that the landlord failed to produce medical certificates for alleged illnesses or show-cause notices for late coming, and that her existing residence was sufficient. The High Court, however, found that the petitioner had satisfactorily proved her bona fide requirement, noting that the possibility of illness in old age necessitated a premises with nearby medical facilities, and that the demised premises were more suitable due to the proximity to her husband's and son's workplaces, saving them from traffic hazards and being more economical. The Court held that the suitability of available premises is entirely at the landlord's discretion and that a demand for higher rent does not, by itself, negate bona fide requirement. The petition was allowed, granting the landlord vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord's demand for higher rent by itself cast doubt on a personal bona fide requirement if the factum of bona fide requirement is independently found?
  • Is it for the landlord or the Rent Controller/tenant to determine which premises are suitable for the landlady's personal use?
  • Are considerations such as a tenant's long tenancy or investment in business relevant if an ejectment case falls within the four corners of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Is a landlord's statement on oath, consistent with the ejectment application and unrebutted, sufficient to prove bona fide requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad and 3 others vs Govt. of Sindh through Chief Secretary2008 YLR 2160 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-02Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad & 3 Other vs Govt, Of Sindhh Through Chief Secretary & 4K.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 189 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-02Read full judgment →
• Faizan-E-Haram Hajj Service (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs Ministry of Religious Affairs and another2008 YLR 2845 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-28Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad vs The State2008 YLR 2023 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirytentative assessmentbenefit of doubtdacoity
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application is directed on behalf of the applicant Faiz Muhammad facing trial in Crime No. 97 of 2007 registered at Police Station Ubauro under sections 395, 397, and 511 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the delay in lodging the FIR, the nature of the role attributed to him, and the presence of previous enmity between the parties. The Sindh High Court held that since the applicant was assigned a role of causing simple lathi injuries punishable under section 337-A(i) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, no robbery was actually effected despite the presence of weapons, the witnesses were related and interested, and the case required further inquiry, the applicant was entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that at the bail stage, a tentative assessment of the material must be made, and where the offense falls within a lesser punishment bracket and circumstances create a further inquiry into the guilt of the accused, the benefit of doubt is extended by granting post-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused assigned a role carrying a lesser punishment is entitled to post-arrest bail when the case requires further inquiry?
  • Does a delay in recording the FIR and allegations of prior enmity warrant the grant of bail?
  • Whether the rule of tentative assessment applies at the bail stage when evaluating related and interested witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal vs The StateK.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 18 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-17
  fair triallegal aidfundamental rightsdue processright to counselindigent accusedconstitutional interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This application, filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973, sought the review of a judgment dismissing a jail appeal on the grounds that the appellant lacked proper legal representation. The core legal questions were whether an accused person unable to engage counsel is entitled to legal representation at State expense and whether the failure to provide such counsel violates Article 9 of the Constitution. The Court held that while a judgment, once signed and announced, cannot be reviewed under the Code of Criminal Procedure, the right to a fair trial is a fundamental right under Article 9. The Court ruled that the State is constitutionally obligated to provide legal assistance to indigent accused persons to ensure a fair trial. The key principle laid down is that the right to legal representation at State expense for those unable to afford it is an essential ingredient of the due process of law and a fundamental right under the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Can a judgment be reviewed under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once it has been signed and announced?
  • Is the right to legal representation at State expense for an indigent accused a fundamental right under Article 9 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the right to a fair trial include the right to be represented by a counsel?
  • Is the State obligated to provide legal assistance to an accused person who is unable to engage an advocate?
  Read full judgment →
• Faisal Durrani vs Afzal Ahmed 3 others2008 CLC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-21Read full judgment →
• Fair Trade Corporation vs Karachi Building Control Authority and 32008 YLR 2469 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-10Read full judgment →
• Fair Trade Corporation vs Karachi Building Control Authority & 3 OtherK.L.R. 2008 Civil Cases 204 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-10Read full judgment →
• Faiq Ali vs The State2008 MLD 632 · Sindh High Court · 2007-05-10
  post-arrest bailhardship baildelay in trialexpeditious trialcriminal proceduretrial court vacancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Faiq Ali, who has been in custody since July 8, 2003. The core legal question was whether the applicant is entitled to bail on the grounds of hardship due to the inordinate delay in the trial proceedings, specifically the failure to examine witnesses and the prolonged vacancy of the trial court. The applicant contended that the delay was not attributable to him, citing instances where he was not produced by jail authorities. The State argued that the delay resulted from the arrest of an absconding co-accused, the necessity to amend the charge, and the subsequent vacancy of the trial court. The Court held that while the applicant was not responsible for the delay, the gravity of his role as alleged in the F.I.R. precluded immediate bail. The Court declined to grant bail at this stage but issued a mandatory directive to the District and Sessions Judge, Shikarpur, to expedite the trial by recording evidence within four months, granting the applicant liberty to re-apply for bail if the trial remains unconcluded after that period.

  Questions settled

  • Can an accused be granted bail solely on the ground of trial delay when the delay is caused by administrative factors like a vacant court?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial court fails to record evidence within a reasonable period?
  • Does the gravity of the role alleged in the F.I.R. affect the court's discretion to grant bail on the ground of hardship?
  Read full judgment →
• Exide Pakistan Limited through Finance Director and Company Secretary2008 PLD Karachi 583 · Sindh High Court · 2008-08-19Read full judgment →
• Erwin Mullar GMBH & Co. vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks2008 CLD 1003 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-21Read full judgment →
• Eridania (Suisse) Sa vs Rajby International (Pvt.) Ltd.2008 CLD 1343 · Sindh High Court · 2008-09-15Read full judgment →
• Election Commissioner of Sindh vs Syed Qalab Hussain Shah and others2008 YLR 284 · Sindh High Court · 2005-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ejaz Ahmad vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 1665 · Sindh High Court · 2008-07-31
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsabsconding accusedfugitive from lawprima facie casefurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused, Ejaz Ahmed, who sought post-arrest bail in a narcotics case involving the recovery of one kilogram of heroin from a co-accused at Jinnah International Airport, Karachi, in 2003. The prosecution alleged that the applicant financed the purchase and arranged the transportation of the contraband, acting as the main beneficiary. The applicant, who had been absconding for five years, argued that the case against him was based solely on the statement of a co-accused and thus constituted a matter of further inquiry. The State opposed the application, highlighting the applicant's status as a fugitive from justice and the existence of five witness statements implicating him as the principal accused. The Court, while refraining from commenting on the merits to avoid prejudice at trial, found that a prima facie case was established against the applicant. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed. Given the age of the case, the trial Court was directed to record the evidence of material witnesses within three months, after which the applicant may renew his bail plea before the trial Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the status of an accused as an absconder for a significant period influence the court's discretion in granting bail?
  • Can a bail application be dismissed when a prima facie case is established despite the applicant's contention that the case rests on a co-accused's statement?
  • Is it appropriate for a court to direct the trial court to conclude recording material evidence within a specific timeframe when denying bail in an old case?
  Read full judgment →
• Eijaz Alam vs The State2008 MLD 1051 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-16
  post-arrest bailQatal-e-Khatacompromiseforgivenesscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of the applicant, Ejaz Alam, who was booked under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in F.I.R. No. 273 of 2007 at Police Station Pakistan Bazar, Karachi, subsequently investigated under Section 319 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for Qatal-e-Khata. The core legal question pertained to whether the accused was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of an amicable compromise and forgiveness by the complainant. The Sindh High Court held that where the complainant has amicably patched up the matter, forgiven the accused in the name of Almighty Allah, and does not object to the grant of bail, and where the State counsel similarly does not oppose the application, the continued incarceration of the accused would serve no useful purpose and amount to a denial of liberty. The court accordingly granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing the requisite surety and PR bond.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail can be granted when the complainant has amicably patched up the matter and forgiven the accused?
  • Does the lack of opposition from the State counsel influence the adjudication of a bail application?
  • Whether continued incarceration serves any purpose when the parties have resolved the matter extra-judicially?
  Read full judgment →
• Ehsanullah Khan Afridi vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Land2008 C.L.R. 211 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-29Read full judgment →
• Echo West International(Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pakland Cement Ltd.2008 YLR 206 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-17
  recovery suitcompany authorityburden of proofinterpretation of documentsdamagesrunning bill
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 39,796,750 against the defendants arising out of a civil construction contract. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was instituted by a duly authorized person on behalf of the plaintiff company, whether the work was executed in accordance with the contract terms and within time, and whether the plaintiffs successfully proved their entitlement to the claimed amount and damages. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish proper legal authorization by the Board of Directors for filing the suit and failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the validity and quantum of their financial claims, as the admitted running bill document demonstrated that nothing was due and that excess payments had in fact been made. The court laid down the principles that a company suit requires valid proof of delegation of authority, pleadings cannot substitute for evidence, a document must be read as a whole rather than piecemeal, admissions are not conclusive unless they operate as an estoppel, and damages cannot be decreed without cogent item-wise proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed on behalf of a private company is maintainable without a validly proved Board Resolution delegating authority to the person instituting the suit?
  • Can pleadings in a written statement be substituted for evidence to establish a plaintiff's claim?
  • Whether an admission of fact in pleadings is conclusive or if it may be shown to be wrong under the law?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to a decree for damages without producing cogent, item-wise proof of the loss sustained?
  Read full judgment →
• Echo West International (Pvt.)Ltd. s vs Pakland Cement Ltd.s2008 CLD 85 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-17
  recovery suitauthorization to file suitburden of proofconstruction contractrunning billsdamagesadmissions
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil judgment from the Sindh High Court delivered by Mrs. Qaisar Iqbal, J., dismissing a recovery suit filed by the plaintiff company against the defendant for a sum of Rs. 39,796,750 based on a construction contract. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was instituted by a duly authorized person on behalf of the corporate plaintiff, whether the plaintiff successfully proved its entitlement to the claimed amount, and whether the documentary evidence and admissions established any liability on the defendant. The court held that the suit was not maintainable as the person filing it lacked proper legal authorization through a valid and exhibited Board Resolution. Furthermore, the court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the disputed running bills and damages, and that pleadings do not substitute for evidence. The key principles laid down include that a company must properly prove authorization to file a suit through a validly exhibited board resolution, that pleadings cannot be used as evidence without substantive proof, and that a party claiming damages must prove both the factum and quantum of damages by cogent evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit instituted on behalf of a company is maintainable without a validly proved and exhibited Board Resolution authorizing the representative?
  • Can a party rely upon admissions made in the pleadings without formally proving them through evidence?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to a decree for damages without establishing both the factum and quantum of damages through cogent evidence?
  • Can a document relied upon by a party be read in piecemeal rather than as a whole?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Hassan Ali through Attorney vs Mst. Tazeen Zahra and another2008 CLC 1366 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-15Read full judgment →
• Dr. Syed Hassan Ali through Attorney vs Imamia Darul Ufta and Shariat2008 CLC 130 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-09Read full judgment →
• Dr. Riaz Ahmed vs The State2008 P Cr. L J 1347 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-18
  pre-arrest bailcounter-versionfurther inquirymala fidecriminal procedurebail confirmation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for confirmation of interim pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, Dr. Riaz Ahmed, who was charged under Sections 337-F(iv), 353, 332, and 186 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly assaulting a security official at Karachi University. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the existence of conflicting versions of the incident and allegations of mala fide intent by the prosecution. The applicant contended that the FIR was a retaliatory act by Ranger personnel following a dispute. The Court held that the case presented a situation of 'two versions,' which necessitated further inquiry into the guilt of the accused. Emphasizing that the determination of the aggressor and the victim in such conflicting accounts is a function of the trial court following an elaborate evaluation of evidence, the Court confirmed the interim bail. The key principle laid down is that where counter-versions exist, the case warrants further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and bail should be granted if sufficient grounds for such inquiry are established.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of conflicting versions of an incident constitute sufficient grounds for further inquiry under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the determination of the aggressor in a criminal incident a matter to be decided at the bail stage or by the trial court?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when the accused alleges that the FIR was lodged with mala fide intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Rashid Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry2008 PLC (C.S.) 1037 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-15
  judicial reviewadministrative appointmentselection criteriaeligibility requirementsshortlistingmala fidepublic employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the selection process for the post of Project Director for the National Programme for the Control of Prevention of Avian Influenza, alleging that the interview process was mala fide and seeking a declaration that the appointment was null and void. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, who was not shortlisted for an interview, met the mandatory eligibility criteria stipulated in the advertisement, specifically the requirement of ten years of project management experience. Upon reviewing the record, the Court found that the advertisement clearly mandated ten years of experience in project management, which the petitioner failed to demonstrate through any documentary evidence. Conversely, the selected candidate possessed the requisite qualifications, including a Ph.D. and the necessary project management experience. Consequently, the Court held that the selection process was transparent and compliant with the advertised criteria. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing the principle that judicial review of administrative appointments is limited to ensuring compliance with prescribed eligibility criteria and that candidates failing to meet mandatory requirements lack standing to challenge the selection process.

  Questions settled

  • Can a candidate who fails to meet the mandatory eligibility criteria stipulated in a job advertisement challenge the selection process?
  • Does the failure of a selection committee to shortlist a candidate constitute mala fide action if the candidate lacks the required experience?
  • Is a court empowered to interfere with the selection of a candidate who meets all advertised qualifications in favor of a candidate who does not?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nazar Ali vs Qutabuddin2008 C.L.R. 287 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Tanveer Alam and others vs The State2008 YLR 565 · Sindh High Court · 2007-05-30
  accountability appealbogus consumption certificatescustoms duty exemptioncriminal breach of trustraw material consumptionacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  These criminal accountability appeals arise from a reference wherein the appellants, serving as Assistant Drug Controllers, were convicted under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code read with the Schedule to the National Accountability Bureau Ordinance for allegedly preparing bogus consumption certificates for raw materials, thereby causing financial loss to the exchequer. The core legal question was whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the consumption certificates issued by the appellants were fake and that the imported raw materials were not consumed in the manufacture of drugs. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case, as the evidence and official Bin cards demonstrated that the imported raw materials were duly received and entirely consumed in the manufacturing process in accordance with rules. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, establishing that where official records and unshakeable witness testimonies substantiate the actual consumption of imported materials, charges of issuing fraudulent consumption certificates cannot be sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the prosecution can establish a charge of issuing fake consumption certificates when official Bin cards substantiate the actual consumption of imported raw materials?
  • Does the absence of specific stock registers alone prove fraud when factory records and Bin cards verify the proper utilization of imported goods?
  • Whether convictions under section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code can be sustained in the absence of proof of criminal misappropriation or dishonest issuance of certificates?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Mallick Maroof Imam vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Islamabad and 7 others2008 PLC (C.S.) 671 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-11
  constitutional petitionmaster and servantreinstatementservice tribunaltransfer of staffviolation of lawjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a constitutional petition filed by a medical officer seeking reinstatement in service after his services were terminated and alternately repatriated following the transfer of his employing organization, Petroman, from PERAC to the Ministry of Information Technology and Telecommunication. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of the constitutional petition under the master and servant rule, the effect of departmental transfers of assets and staff on employee lien, and the applicability of constitutional writ jurisdiction to state-controlled corporations. The court held that the petition is maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution and that the master-and-servant rule does not bar relief where statutory provisions, principles of natural justice, or public duties are violated. The court laid down the principle that state-controlled corporations remain amenable to constitutional writ jurisdiction, and employees affected by arbitrary inter-departmental transfers and terminations without lawful authority are entitled to reinstatement and back benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of master and servant applies to cases where there is a violation of statutory provisions or principles of natural justice?
  • Are state-controlled corporations amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • What is the effect on an employee's service lien when an institution is transferred along with its staff to a different government division?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Hafiz Babar Khan through Attorney vs Pakistan through Secretary, Works and Rehabilitation Division, Islamabad and 9 others2008 CLC 631 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Fahmida Mirza vs Federation of Pakistan and others2008 YLR 1493 · Sindh High Court · 2007-12-27Read full judgment →
• Dr. Ejaz Ahmad vs The StateK.L.R. 2008 Criminal Cases 360 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-09
  criminal revisionmaintainability of revisionanti-terrorism courtacquittalstatutory appealbar of revisionspecial lawinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed against the judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court acquitting the accused of charges under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code read with the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and containing adverse observations against the complainant and prosecution witnesses. The core legal question was whether a criminal revision application is maintainable against a final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court when an explicit statutory remedy of appeal is provided under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997, and barred by Section 439(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that since Section 25 of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 provides a direct appeal mechanism and Sections 31 and 32 attach finality to such judgments, a revision application or a petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 is not maintainable. The court laid down that special laws providing explicit appeal procedures override general procedural remedies, and revision is barred where an appeal lies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a criminal revision application is maintainable against a final judgment of an Anti-Terrorism Court when an appeal is provided under the statute?
  • Does the special appeal procedure under the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997 override the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding revision?
  • Can a criminal revision application be converted into an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 when statutory bars apply?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Aijaz Ahmed vs The State2008 MLD 1428 · Sindh High Court · 2008-06-02
  superdginamainterim custody of vehiclecriminal revisionpolice encounterreturn of propertyCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application was filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge dismissing an application under Section 516-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the return of a vehicle involved in a criminal case. The core legal question concerned the custody and release on superdginama of a car seized by the police during an investigation where it was allegedly used by a renter in a police encounter. The Sindh High Court held that since the vehicle had already been examined by the Forensic Science Laboratory and was deteriorating at the police station while no challan had been submitted against the applicant owner, the impugned order should be set aside. The Court laid down the principle that a rightful owner not implicated in the main offense is entitled to the interim custody of their vehicle on a superdginama, subject to adequate surety and conditions ensuring the vehicle's condition is maintained and cooperation with the police is sustained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the interim custody of a seized vehicle can be granted to its registered owner on a superdginama during pending investigation?
  • Does keeping a seized vehicle parked indefinitely at a police station justify its release to prevent destruction?
  • Can a vehicle be released on superdginama when no challan has been submitted against its owner?
  Read full judgment →
• Dilshad and 2 others vs Senior Superintend of Police, District Ghotki and 22008 C.L.R. 264 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Digri Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Additional Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise (Adjudication), Hyderabad and another2008 PTD 1673 · Sindh High Court · 2008-06-26Read full judgment →
• Dawood Khan and 8 others vs Ahsan-Ur-Rasheed and 2 othersPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 470 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-26
  quashing of proceedingsSection 561-A CrPCpolice reportjudicial discretionspeaking orderSection 164 statementinvestigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal miscellaneous applications filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging orders passed by a Judicial Magistrate regarding the investigation of a criminal case. The core legal questions were whether a Magistrate can order the recording of a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after the police have submitted a final report, and whether a Magistrate can pass an order on a police report under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without providing reasons or considering the investigation material. The Court held that while a Magistrate has the authority to disagree with a police report, such an order must be judicial, fair, and speaking, reflecting consideration of the material collected during the investigation. The Court quashed the impugned orders, ruling that the Magistrate must first pass a reasoned, judicious order on the final police report before deciding on the necessity of recording statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The principle established is that a Magistrate cannot arbitrarily reject a police report or take cognizance without a speaking order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate order the recording of a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after a final police report has been submitted?
  • Is a Magistrate required to provide reasons when disagreeing with a final police report submitted under Section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does an order by a Magistrate calling parties after a police report constitute taking cognizance without a speaking order?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawood Khan and 4 others vs The State2008 MLD 637 · Sindh High Court · 2006-05-11
  post-arrest bailsmugglingprohibited goodsinnocent carriersdeeper appreciation of evidenceeconomic crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Dawood Khan and others seeking post-arrest bail after being caught red-handed smuggling 5118 bottles of foreign whisky worth Rs.15 million in Pakistan's territorial waters. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on the grounds of being innocent carriers while the principal owner absconded, and whether deeper appreciation of evidence is permissible at the bail stage. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants, having been caught red-handed with a massive quantity of contraband, could not claim entitlement to bail merely on the assertion of being hired carriers, as statements made to police are inadmissible under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, and reasonable grounds existed to connect them with the crime. The court laid down the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence cannot be undertaken at the bail stage, and that bail cannot be granted where reasonable grounds exist showing the accused's complicity in a heinous economic crime like smuggling, notwithstanding the principle that bail is not to be withheld as a punishment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether deeper appreciation of evidence can be undertaken at the bail stage?
  • Can an accused person be granted bail merely on the claim of being an innocent carrier while the owner of the smuggled goods is absconding?
  • Is bail to be withheld as a punishment in criminal cases?
  • Whether a statement made to the Investigating Officer by an accused claiming to be an innocent carrier is admissible in evidence under Article 38 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sikandar Rehmatullah: In re vs Not2008 MLD 1220 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-29Read full judgment →
• Danish Rafique vs Mst. Nafeesa Siddiqui and 10 others2008 YLR 2965 · Sindh High Court · 2007-06-03Read full judgment →
• Conference and Exhibition Management Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Pegasus Consultancy (Pvt.) Ltd. and others2008 CLC 596 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone-a, Karachi vs M/s. Cash &PTCL 2008 CL. 378 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone-a, Karachi vs Messrs Cash2008 PTD 808 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, (Zone-D), Karachi vs Mr. Abdul MateenPTCL 2008 CL. 74 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited2008 P.C.T.L.R. 112 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-08Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messrs Sky Pak International (Pvt.)2008 PTD 1233 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mahmood AliPTCL 2008 CL. 211 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Mahmood Ali I., . (2008 PTD 82 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-28
  adventure in the nature of tradecapital gainbusiness incomerealization of investmentincome tax referencedeceased taxpayerlegal representatives
  Summary & questions settled

  This income tax reference application was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under section 133(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, challenging the order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the profit derived from the sale of a commercial plot by a retired salaried employee constituted an adventure in the nature of trade taxable as business income under section 22 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, or a capital gain. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction was merely a realization of a capital investment and did not amount to an adventure in the nature of trade, as the department failed to prove any trading intention or activity. The court emphasized that the mere change or realization of an investment at a profit does not render it revenue income, and findings based purely on factual appreciation do not raise any referable question of law. Consequently, the reference application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the profit derived from the sale of a commercial plot by a salaried employee constitutes an adventure in the nature of trade or a capital gain?
  • Does the mere realization of a capital investment at an enhanced price render the resulting profit taxable as business income?
  • Can an income tax reference application be entertained where findings of the Tribunal are based on a pure appreciation of facts?
  • What is the liability of legal representatives regarding tax assessed on a deceased taxpayer under the relevant provisions of the tax law?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Lever Brothers LtdPTCL 2008 CL. 196 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (Zone-D) vs Abdul Mateeni.2008 PTD 182 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-19
  income tax rebatesuper tax exemptionregistered firmprofessional firmtax liabilitystatutory interpretationIncome Tax Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  The Income Tax Department filed reference applications challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision, which upheld the tax rebate claimed by partners of professional firms under proviso (f) to Paragraph (A) of Part-I of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether these partners remained eligible for the rebate despite the firm's exemption from super tax under paragraph (2B) of Part-IV of the First Schedule. The Department argued that the exemption rendered the firm outside the scope of paragraph (C) of Part-II, thus disqualifying the partners from the rebate. The Court held that the partners were entitled to the rebate. It established the principle that "exemption" presupposes an underlying liability; thus, an exempt firm remains within the ambit of the charging provisions. The Court ruled that Section 10 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 applies to all persons subject to super tax chargeability, regardless of whether tax is actually paid. Consequently, the Court affirmed the Tribunal’s decision, rejecting interpretations that lead to absurd fiscal consequences.

  Questions settled

  • Are partners of a professional firm entitled to the rebate under proviso (f) to Paragraph (A) of Part-I of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 if the firm is exempt from super tax under paragraph (2B) of Part-IV?
  • Does the exemption from super tax under paragraph (2B) of Part-IV of the First Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 remove a registered firm from the ambit of paragraph (C) of Part-II of the First Schedule?
  • Does Section 10 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 apply only to cases where super tax has been actually paid?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Legal Division vs Civil Aviation AuthorityPTCL 2008 CL. 316 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-02Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Legal Division vs Civil Aviation Authority I., .2008 PTD 647 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-02
  Income Tax ReferenceMercantile basis of accountingAllowable deductionCompensated absencesAscertained liabilityTax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Income Tax Reference application was filed by the Commissioner of Income Tax under Section 133 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, challenging the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to allow a deduction for compensated absences. The core legal question was whether a provision made in the books of account for compensated absences constitutes an allowable expense under the mercantile basis of accounting, even if the amount was not actually paid during the tax year. The Sindh High Court examined the definition of 'paid' under Section 10(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, which allows for deductions based on the method of accounting used. Relying on established jurisprudence, including a Supreme Court precedent regarding gratuity as an ascertained liability, the Court held that expenses incurred under the mercantile system of accounting are deductible even if not physically paid within the accounting period. Consequently, the Court upheld the Tribunal's decision, affirming that such provisions represent valid, ascertained liabilities, and declined to answer the proposed question as the legal position was already settled by the apex Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a provision for compensated absences is an allowable expense under the mercantile basis of accounting if not actually paid?
  • Does the definition of 'paid' under Section 10(2)(v) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, permit deductions for liabilities incurred but not yet settled?
  • Is a provision for gratuity considered an allowable expense even if not actually paid during the tax year?
  Read full judgment →
• Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Limited vs Muhammad Aslam2008 MLD 902 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-18Read full judgment →
• Collector Sales Tax and Central Excise vs Evian Fat and Oil (Pvt.) LtdPTCL 2008 CL. 173 · Sindh High Court · 2003-09-09Read full judgment →
• Collector of Sales Tax vs Cynamid Pakistan Ltd., and othersPTCL 2008 CL. 244 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-17Read full judgment →
• Collector of Sales Tax vs Cynamid Pakistan Ltd. and others2008 PTD 318 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-17Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad vs Messrs Bawany Sugar Mills Badin2008 PTD 356 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-29
  Sales tax appealMaintainability of appealLimitation periodUnauthorized signatoryRatification of appealCollector of Customs
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of an appeal filed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, by the Collector of Customs, Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad. The core legal question was whether an appeal signed by an Office Superintendent (Law) rather than the Collector personally, and subsequently ratified by the Collector after the limitation period had expired, was maintainable in law. The respondent argued that the appeal was filed by an unauthorized person. The Court, relying on the precedent established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries (2006 SCMR 129), held that an appeal under the relevant statutory provisions must be filed by the Collector personally. The Court further affirmed the principle that a defect in the signing of a memo of appeal cannot be cured by subsequent ratification if the limitation period for filing the appeal has already expired. Consequently, the Court ruled that the appeal was not maintainable and dismissed it accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal filed under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, maintainable if signed by an Office Superintendent instead of the Collector?
  • Can a defect in the signing of a memo of appeal be cured by subsequent ratification after the limitation period has expired?
  • Does the Supreme Court precedent in Directorate General Intelligence and Investigation v. Messrs Al-Faiz Industries mandate that only the Collector can file an appeal under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  Read full judgment →
• Collector Of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. Achak Enterprises2008 P.C.T. L.R. 607 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-01Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Karachi vs M/s. Achak Enterprises, KarachiPTCL 2008 CL. 144 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-01Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Karachi vs Messrs Faport International, Sialkot2008 PTD 996 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-11Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs, Appraisement Collectorate, Karachi vs Messrs2008 PTD 558 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-08Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs Sales Tax and Central Excise, Hyderabad vs M/s.PTCL 2008 CL. 354 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-29Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs Karachi vs M/s. Faport International, SialkotPTCL 2008 CL. 388 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-11Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs Appraisment Collector, Karachi vs M/s. New LightPTCL 2008 CL. 297 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi vs Ghulam MuhammadPTCL 2008 CL. 382 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-29Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Preventive), Karachi vs Ghulam Muhammad , .2008 PTD 525 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-29Read full judgment →
• Colgatepalmolive (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another2008 CLD 974 · Sindh High Court · 2007-11-12Read full judgment →
• City. School (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Building Control Authority2008 CLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 2004-01-20Read full judgment →
• City District Government, Karachi vs Messrs Iftikhar and Taha2008 CLC 572 · Sindh High Court · 2006-07-25Read full judgment →
• City District Government, Karachi through District Coordination Officer, through Authorized Officer District (HRM), C.D.G.K. and 3 others vs Faqir Muhammad2008 CLC 645 · Sindh High Court · 2006-05-26
  decree on admissionalternative plot allotmentgovernment banencroachmentProvincial Ombudsmancivil appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent seeking the allotment of an alternative residential plot after the originally allotted plot could not be delivered due to heavy encroachments, relying on an earlier order of the Provincial Ombudsman. The learned Single Judge decreed the suit on the basis of admissions in the written statement. The core legal question was whether the suit could be decreed on admissions under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before framing issues, and whether the admission made was clear and unconditional or qualified by a government-imposed ban on alternative plots. The High Court held that while a suit can indeed be decreed on admissions at any stage without framing issues, any such admission must be clear, unambiguous, and unqualified. Since the appellants' admission regarding the alternative plot was qualified by a government ban on alternate plots and exchanges, the matter required adjudication. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree, remanded the case to the Single Judge for a fresh decision, and established the principle that a conditional or qualified admission cannot sustain a summary decree without resolving the underlying controversy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit can be decreed on admissions under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 before the framing of issues?
  • Does an admission that is subject to a government-imposed ban on alternative plot allotments qualify as a clear and unconditional admission?
  • Whether a court is bound to frame issues when the admissions in the written statement are qualified by legal or factual controversies?
  Read full judgment →
• City Bank vs Commissioner Of Income Tax2008 P.C.T.L.R. 31 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-05Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Muhammad Bashir vs Mirza Wahid Muhammad Baig and another2008 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-13
  quashingcriminal procedurejoining as accusedpolice reportcognizance of offencepolice exoneration
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 arose from concurrent orders of the trial Magistrate and the Sessions Judge refusing to summon the respondent No.1 as an accused in a criminal case despite being implicated by eyewitnesses during investigation and trial evidence. The core legal question was whether a court can join a person as an accused who has been exonerated or omitted by the police in its report. The Sindh High Court held that courts are not bound by the police report or the ipse dixit of investigating officers, and that cognizance is taken of the offence rather than a particular offender. The court ruled that once a prima facie case is established from the material or evidence on record, the court possesses the ultimate power to summon any person involved in the crime, regardless of police exoneration, omission from column No. 2 of the charge-sheet, or delay in filing the application. Consequently, the impugned orders were set aside and the respondent No.1 was ordered to be joined as an accused.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court join a person as an accused who has been exonerated by the police during investigation?
  • Is a court bound by the opinion or ipse dixit of the investigating officer regarding the guilt or innocence of a person?
  • Does the omission of a person's name from the police report or charge-sheet deprive the court of its power to summon him as an accused?
  • Is there any period of limitation prescribed for prosecuting a person involved in the commission of an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Chandi Ram and others vs Chairman, NAB2008 P Cr. L J 1172 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-12
  pre-arrest bailcorruption referenceNational Accountability Bureaumisuse of official positionland allotmentinvestigation delaycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three petitions for pre-arrest bail filed by retired government servants accused in a National Accountability Bureau (NAB) reference regarding corruption and corrupt practices in the allotment of government land in the Revenue Department, Kotri Barrage. The core legal question was whether the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail given the allegations of misusing official positions to facilitate illegal land allotments. The Court held that the petitioners were entitled to pre-arrest bail, observing that the prosecution failed to establish prima facie evidence that the petitioners personally gained monetary benefits or caused financial loss to the government exchequer. Furthermore, the Court noted the inordinate delay in the investigation process and emphasized that bail cannot be withheld as a form of punishment for non-bailable offences. The key principle laid down is that while evaluating bail applications, the court must consider whether there is prima facie evidence of guilt or personal gain, and that the constitutional discretion to grant bail should be exercised when the accused voluntarily surrenders and the prosecution's case lacks immediate substantiation of personal enrichment.

  Questions settled

  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted in a corruption reference under the National Accountability Ordinance 1999?
  • Does the absence of personal monetary gain or loss to the exchequer constitute a ground for granting bail in corruption cases?
  • Is the inordinate delay in investigation a relevant factor for the court when considering a bail application?
  • Can bail be withheld as a form of punishment for non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Ch. Barkat Ali through Attorney vs Messrs Alzamin Leasing Modaraba2008 CLD 1297 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-16Read full judgment →
• Canon Kabushiki Kaisha through Authorized Signatory vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another2008 CLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 2008-05-05Read full judgment →
• Bibi Zainab and others vs Ahsan-Ur-Rasheed and othersPLJ 2008 Cr.C. (Karachi) 806 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-14Read full judgment →
• Bibi Zainab and another vs Ahsan-Ur-Rasheed and 10 others2008 MLD 1689 · Sindh High Court · 2008-01-14Read full judgment →
• Bela Automotives Ltd. vs Habib Bank Ltd.2008 CLD 778 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-25Read full judgment →
• Bela Automotives Limited vs Habib Bank Limited2008 P.C.T.L.R. 1103 · Sindh High Court · 2008-04-25Read full judgment →
• Bashoo Mal vs Naseer Ahmad2008 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Bashoo Mai vs Naseer Ahmad2008 PLJ Karachi 69 · Sindh High Court · 2008-02-20Read full judgment →
• Bashiruddin Qureshi vs Karachi Building Control Authority through Chief Controller of Buildings and 2 others2008 CLC 721 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-31Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State---Complainant2008 PLD Karachi 215 · Sindh High Court · 2008-03-07
  post-arrest bailpre-arrest bailfurther inquirydacoityvicarious liabilityconfession of co-accusedbail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated bail applications, including both pre-arrest and post-arrest petitions, arising from an F.I.R. involving allegations of dacoity and robbery of a trawler carrying plastic grain. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the nature of the evidence, the lack of direct recovery from them, and their implication solely through the statements of co-accused. The Court observed that the applicants were not named in the F.I.R. and that their involvement was based on inadmissible confessions or the pointation of co-accused, with no recovery made from their exclusive possession. Furthermore, the Court noted that the case required further inquiry. Consequently, the Court held that the applicants were entitled to bail. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is implicated solely on the basis of a co-accused's statement or pointation, without independent corroborative evidence or recovery from the accused's exclusive possession, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, justifying the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the implication of an accused solely on the pointation of a co-accused constitute sufficient grounds to deny bail?
  • Is a case where no recovery is made from the exclusive possession of the accused considered a case of further inquiry?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is not named in the F.I.R. and the evidence against them is limited to inadmissible confessions?
  Read full judgment →