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.

• Mohammad Hanif Khan vs Province Of Sindh Secretary Land UtilizationK.L.R. 2007 Civil Cases 73 · Sindh High Court · 2006-05-11Read full judgment →
• Miss Sabira B. Nanjiani, Karachi vs Deputy Commissioner of Income2007 PTD 1810 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-31Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Moin Baig vs Mst. Amtul Rauf and others2007 MLD 1978 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-22
  specific performanceagreement to sellbreach of contractcompensation for breachpower of attorneyco-ownersdiscretionary relief
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell concerning a residential property against the defendants, who included co-owners and purported principals represented by an attorney. Certain defendants contested the suit, asserting they never authorized the sale and did not execute the power of attorney. The core legal questions involved whether an agreement to sell executed by one co-owner/attorney without the consent of other co-owners was specifically enforceable, and whether damages could be awarded for breach of contract. The Sindh High Court held that since certain defendants did not authorize the transaction, specific performance could not be granted against them or as an indivisible contract affecting their shares. Consequently, the court declined specific performance in part and instead ordered the refund of the earnest money with interest, alongside dismissing the suit against the non-consenting defendants. The key principles laid down include that specific performance is a discretionary equitable relief, partial specific performance is restricted by statutory provisions, and damages for breach of contract require proof of actual loss or market price differentiation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell executed by an attorney on behalf of multiple co-owners can be specifically enforced when some co-owners never executed the power of attorney?
  • Is specific performance of a contract a mandatory right or a discretionary relief exercisable by the court on equitable principles?
  • Can damages for breach of contract be awarded in the absence of evidence regarding the market price or actual loss suffered?
  • What are the rules for assessing compensation on account of a breach of contract under section 73 of the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad and others vs Muhammad Panna H and others2007 YLR 960 · Sindh High Court · 2006-06-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Hassan and 2 others vs The State2007 YLR 146 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-24
  extra-territorial police actionjurisdictionright of private defencecommon intentionbenefit of doubtunlicensed weaponsmedical and oral conflict
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Judge Anti-Terrorism Court, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under various provisions including sections 302, 324, 353, 337F(V), 336 read with section 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13(d) of the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of a police party operating outside its territorial limits, the applicability of the right of private defence, the proof of documents under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, and the establishment of common intention. The Sindh High Court held that the police party from Kotdiji acted without lawful authority and jurisdiction in entering another police station's jurisdiction to apprehend a person not wanted by their own station, that medical evidence contradicted the prosecution's version regarding injuries, and that common intention was not proved. Consequently, the court partly allowed the appeal, acquitting the appellants of murder and related charges while maintaining their conviction under the Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police party has the jurisdiction to enter the territorial limits of another police station to arrest an accused not required in any case registered at their own police station?
  • How must a station diary or official entry be legally proved under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 when produced through a witness not connected with its writing or signing?
  • Does the presence of blackening around a firearm wound invalidate the prosecution's claim regarding the distance from which the shot was fired?
  • Can common intention be inferred against multiple accused individuals merely from a generalized allegation of firing during a police encounter?
  Read full judgment →
• Mian Absar Akhtar and others vs Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. and others2007 CLD 1620 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Union Taxes Pakistan Inc. vs Ahmed and others2007 CLC 1835 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Union National Bank through Attorney vs Iqbal Ahmed Malik2007 MLD 1840 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Time N Visions International (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Dubai Islamic Bank2007 PLD Karachi 278 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-30
  agency coupled with interestarbitration agreementcontractual terminationspecific performanceinterim injunctionirrevocable agencyContract Act 1872
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 arose from a dispute regarding the termination of an Advertising Agency Agreement. The plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant bank from terminating the agreement, arguing the agency was "coupled with interest" under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, and thus irrevocable. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff's investment and expectation of future commissions created such an interest. The Court held that an agency is only "coupled with interest" when the agent possesses a pre-existing proprietary interest in the subject matter of the agency that the agency was created to protect. Mere investment, infrastructure development, or the prospect of future earnings does not satisfy this threshold. Consequently, the Court ruled that the agency was revocable, and specific performance via injunction was inappropriate, as monetary damages constitute an adequate remedy for any wrongful termination. The Court dismissed the injunction application, affirming that contractual agency relationships are personal and generally not subject to specific performance, leaving the underlying dispute regarding the timing of termination to be resolved by arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agent's investment in infrastructure and expectation of future commissions create an agency coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a court grant an injunction to specifically enforce a contract of agency that is terminable upon notice?
  • Is an agency agreement terminable by the principal if it does not involve a pre-existing interest in the subject matter of the agency?
  • Does the scope of the Court's power under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 extend to deciding the merits of a dispute regarding the timing of contract termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Time N Visions International (Pvt.) Ltd vs Dubai Islamic Bank2007 CLD 762 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Lines Transport through Managing Partner vs City District2007 CLC 230 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs T. N. International through Proprietor vs Collector of Customs2007 PTD 2484 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Superior Steel, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone-D, Karachi and another2007 PTD 1577 · Sindh High Court
  income tax referencereopening of assessmentchange of opinionself-assessment schemeadvisory jurisdictionlimitation periodadditional questions
  Summary & questions settled

  This Income Tax Reference Application filed under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 seeks the opinion of the Sindh High Court on questions arising from the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's order regarding the reopening of an assessment under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions involve whether the Tribunal was justified in upholding the reopening of assessment based on material indicating undisclosed income, and whether new questions can be introduced after the period of limitation. The Court held that an assessment finalized under the self-assessment scheme without conscious consideration of facts can be validly reopened under section 65 upon discovery of new information showing non-disclosure, and that additional questions cannot be introduced after the expiry of the limitation period for filing a reference application. The key principle laid down is that the High Court in advisory jurisdiction will not entertain changed or time-barred additional questions not originally proposed before the Tribunal within limitation.

  Questions settled

  • Can an income tax assessment finalized under the self-assessment scheme be reopened under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether an applicant can introduce new and additional questions of law in a reference application after the expiry of the period of limitation?
  • Does a mistake in describing the Inspecting Assistant Commissioner who granted approval vitiate assessment proceedings under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether the High Court in its advisory jurisdiction can adjudicate questions not raised before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sign Source through Partner vs Humayun H. Baig Muhammed2007 YLR 2287 · Sindh High Court · 2005-02-16
  temporary injunctionlease versus licenserooftop tenancybillboard advertisingjurisdiction of civil courtrent controller jurisdictioninterlocutory reliefspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit for declaration, specific performance, and permanent injunction involved an interlocutory application for interim relief to restrain the defendant from interfering with the plaintiff's access to the rooftop of a building used for an advertising billboard under a fixed-term agreement. The core legal questions concerned whether the agreement constituted a lease or a license, whether a Rent Controller or a Civil Court held jurisdiction to grant injunctive and declaratory relief, and whether the agreement was binding despite being signed by agents rather than the defendant personally. The Sindh High Court held that the rooftop could independently form the subject matter of a tenancy under the relevant rent legislation, that Civil Courts retain plenary jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive reliefs as Rent Controllers lack such powers, and that a contract can be binding where parties act upon its terms even if signed by authorized agents or managers. The court granted the temporary injunction in favor of the plaintiff, subject to an alternative compensation deposit by the defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rooftop of a building can independently form the subject matter of a tenancy under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does a Rent Controller possess the jurisdiction to grant declaratory and injunctive relief or determine tenancy rights beyond the scope of eviction and rent fixation?
  • Can a contract be considered valid and binding when acted upon by the parties, even if not signed personally by the principal defendant?
  • Whether an interim injunction should be granted to protect a party's possession and access to a commercial billboard site pending a full trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shell Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Bhoja Air (Pvt.) Ltd.2007 MLD 1424 · Sindh High Court · 2006-05-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shams and Brothers vs Government of Pakistan and others2007 CLD 125 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-27
  constitutional petitionpublic procurementhighest bidderjudicial reviewadministrative actiontender conditionspublic exchequernepotism
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the decision of the Pakistan Sports Board to reject the petitioner’s highest bid and award a contract for establishing a marriage lawn on a Built-Operate-Transfer (BOT) basis to a lower bidder. The core legal questions were whether public authorities can impose arbitrary tender conditions lacking a rational nexus to the contract's objective, and whether the High Court can judicially review public procurement processes involving allegations of nepotism and financial loss to the public exchequer. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, declaring the contract award to the second-highest bidder illegal and directing fresh bids. The Court held that while a highest bidder generally has no vested right to contract acceptance, public functionaries must act fairly, transparently, and reasonably. The key principle laid down is that administrative discretion in public tenders is subject to judicial review under Article 199 if exercised with mala fides. Furthermore, any eligibility conditions imposed in public tenders must have a direct, rational nexus to the performance and objective of the contract.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court judicially review the administrative actions of a public body in awarding contracts under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  • Whether eligibility conditions imposed in a public tender must have a direct rational nexus to the objective of the contract?
  • Can a public authority reject the highest bid in a public tender to accommodate a lower bidder without reasonable and transparent justification?
  • Does the execution of a contract in favor of a lower bidder prevent the High Court from setting aside the award if the bidding process was fraudulent?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan2007 PTD 1480 · Sindh High Court · 2004-11-20
  customs dutycivil suit maintainabilityjurisdiction barshow-cause noticecotton thread exportrefund claimmalafides
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil suits filed by a textile mill against the Federation of Pakistan and customs authorities, challenging a show-cause notice issued under the Customs Act, 1969 regarding the export of cotton thread and seeking a declaration that export duties levied were unjust and discriminatory, following previous rounds of litigation up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge show-cause notices, assessments, and actions taken by customs authorities in light of the statutory bar under section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969. The Sindh High Court held that the suits were barred under section 217(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, as the actions taken by the customs authorities were in accordance with the law and not tainted with mala fides, and a party cannot bypass special statutory remedies by invoking the jurisdiction of a civil court. The court laid down the principle that provisions ousting the jurisdiction of courts of general jurisdiction must be strictly construed, but where a special statute provides for the redress of grievances, a party cannot circumvent it to approach a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit is barred under section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969 to challenge a show-cause notice and actions taken by customs authorities?
  • Can a party bypass special statutory remedies provided under the Customs Act, 1969 by invoking the jurisdiction of a Civil Court?
  • Does a claim for refund under the Customs Act, 1969 amount to a mis-declaration under section 32 of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saudi-Pak Commercial Bank Limited vs Messrs Pan Pacific2007 CLD 1348 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saudi Pak Commercial Bank Limited vs Messrs Marvi Agrochem2007 CLD 1374 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-22
  recovery suitfinance facilitymark-upleave to defendstatement of accountmortgaged propertiescost of funds
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a recovery suit filed by the plaintiff bank against the defendants based on two Short Term Finance Agreements. The core legal question concerns the determination of the exact outstanding principal and mark-up amounts due under the finance facilities, and whether a bald assertion for a major deduction based on an ongoing NAB inquiry against a bank employee without identifying specific erroneous debit entries can be entertained in an application for leave to defend. The court held that the plaintiff is entitled to recover the principal amount actually availed less repayments, plus the rebated mark-up agreed upon under the contract, as verified from the detailed statement of accounts. The application for leave to defend was dismissed since the defendants failed to point out any specific incorrect debit entries. The suit was accordingly decreed for the calculated sum along with the cost of funds, directing that recovery be made first through the sale of mortgaged properties and subsequently from the personal assets of the other defendants.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant claim a substantial deduction in a recovery suit through a bald assertion without identifying specific incorrect debit entries in the statement of account?
  • Whether a plaintiff bank can claim mark-up on a finance facility beyond the limits agreed upon under the contract of finance after deducting applicable rebates?
  • What is the proper sequence of execution and recovery when a suit is decreed against both mortgaged properties and the personal assets of defendants?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Saeed Khan Construction Company through Sole Proprietor vs Province of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation & Power Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others2007 MLD 974 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs S. Essa, Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others2007 C.L.R. 1807 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Rohi Ghee Industries (Pvt) Ltd and others vs Collector of Customs and others2007 PTD 878 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-17
  customs dutyouster of jurisdictioncivil suit maintainabilityredemption finestatutory remedyclassification of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arose from two suits filed by the plaintiffs seeking a declaration that their imported cargo, initially declared as RBD palm oil but found upon testing to be a mixture of palm stearin and palm oil, should be classified as such for duty purposes. The plaintiffs had previously paid a redemption fine and extended an undertaking not to claim its refund, but subsequently applied for a refund of customs duties, which was rejected by the customs authorities and the appellate tribunal. The core legal questions were whether the suits were barred under Section 217(2) of the Customs Act 1969, and whether a party who has exhausted statutory remedies under a special law can switch forums to seek re-adjudication of the same factual dispute in a civil court. The Court held that while the civil court's jurisdiction is not completely ousted where an action is mala fide, illegal, or without jurisdiction, the plaintiffs failed to plead or prove such grounds. Furthermore, having opted for the statutory hierarchy and extended an undertaking, they could not switch forums. The suits were dismissed as non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 217 of the Customs Act 1969 operate as an absolute bar to the jurisdiction of civil courts where an action is challenged as mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Can a party who has exhausted the statutory remedies provided under a special customs law switch forums to re-agitate the same factual dispute in a civil court?
  • Does the payment of a redemption fine coupled with an undertaking not to seek its refund preclude an importer from subsequently challenging the assessment of customs duties on which that fine was based?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Riaz Bottlers (Pvt) Ltd Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan2007 PTD 800 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Premier Mercantile Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi2007 PTD 2521 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-03
  Income Tax Reference Applicationstevedoring servicespresumptive tax regimefinal tax liabilityejusdem generiswithholding taxprofessional servicesincome tax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This Income Tax Reference Application was filed by an assessee, a private limited company providing stevedoring services, against an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The primary legal issue was whether contractual receipts from the business of stevedoring fall under Section 153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, thereby qualifying for the presumptive tax regime and final tax liability under Section 153(6), or whether they constitute general 'services' under Section 153(1)(b) subject to normal assessment. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Sindh High Court held that the definition of 'services' in Section 153(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 is restricted to professional services requiring specialized degrees. Because stevedoring does not require such professional qualifications, contractual stevedoring receipts fall under Section 153(1)(c), making tax deducted thereon a final tax discharge under Section 153(6). The Court answered the relevant questions in the negative in favor of the assessee and set aside the Tribunal's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether receipts from the business of stevedoring fall under Section 153(1)(c) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 and qualify as a final tax liability under Section 153(6)?
  • How is the definition of 'services' under Section 153(9) of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to be interpreted under the rule of ejusdem generis?
  • Whether departmental officers are bound under Section 214 of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001 to follow circulars issued by the Central Board of Revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Popular Boards (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Customs, Excise and Sales Tax2007 MLD 157 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-03
  short orderspeaking ordertribunal procedureremandnatural justicetax appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed against the judgment of the Customs, Excise and Sales Tax Appellate Tribunal, which dismissed the appellant's appeal via a short order on April 25, 2002, while the detailed reasons were recorded and dispatched over two years later in August 2004. The core legal question was whether a statutory tribunal can validly dispose of an appeal by a short order, leaving the recording of detailed reasons to a subsequent, unspecified date. The Sindh High Court held that the disposal of cases by short order is the exclusive prerogative of the superior courts. All subordinate courts and tribunals are legally required to record their reasons, sign the judgment, and then announce it. Finding the procedure adopted by the Tribunal to be alien to judicial proceedings and unsustainable in law, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh hearing and disposal by a speaking order within three months.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statutory tribunal authorized to dispose of an appeal by a short order and record its detailed reasons at a subsequent date?
  • Does the exclusive prerogative of disposing of cases by short orders belong solely to the superior courts?
  • What is the legal consequence when a subordinate tribunal fails to record and sign its reasons at the time of announcing its decision?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Popular Boards (Pvt) Ltd vs Customs, Excise, Sales Tax2007 PTD 228 · Sindh High Court · 2006-10-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pioneer Cables vs Messrs S.G. Fibres Ltd.2007 YLR 1981 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-04
  corporation suitpower of attorneyplaint verificationcivil revisionmaintainability of suitprocedural technicalityOrder XXIX rule 1 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a judgment of the appellate court setting aside the trial court's decree in a recovery suit filed by the applicant company, on the ground that the plaint was verified by a person lacking a proper power of attorney. The core legal question is whether a suit filed on behalf of a corporation is not maintainable under Order XXIX, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely because the signing officer or representative does not hold a prior power of attorney or board resolution, where such person is otherwise conversant with the facts. The court held that Order XXIX, rule 1 does not impose a condition precedent that a corporate secretary, director, or principal officer must hold a power of attorney to institute or proceed with a case, provided they are able to depose to the facts, and that procedural technicalities should not impede justice. The civil revision is allowed and the trial court's decree is restored.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit filed on behalf of a corporation is not maintainable under Order XXIX, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaint is signed by an officer who does not hold a prior power of attorney?
  • Does Order XXIX, rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impose a condition precedent that a corporate secretary, director, or principal officer must hold a power of attorney before instituting legal proceedings?
  • Can a suit be dismissed on the technical ground of lack of a board resolution where the representative is fully conversant with the facts and authorized by the company?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Land Cement Limited, Karachi vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad through Chairman, Karachi and another2007 PTD 1524 · Sindh High Court
  sales taxtaxable supplyin-house consumptiontaxable activityconstitutional petitionalternative remedyexempt goodsextended definition of supply
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge sales tax assessments and show-cause notices issued to a manufacturer of cement regarding intermediary products such as limestone, gypsum, and clay consumed in-house during the manufacturing process. The core legal question involves whether the in-house consumption of raw materials or intermediary goods in the manufacture of exempt finished goods constitutes a taxable supply made in furtherance of a taxable activity under the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and whether alternative statutory remedies bar constitutional jurisdiction where such remedies have been rendered illusory. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that by virtue of the extended definition of 'supply' under section 2(33)(a) and 'taxable activity' under section 2(35), putting goods produced or manufactured to business use constitutes a taxable supply, even if consumed internally. The court further held that constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable when appellate authorities have already expressed a definitive view, rendering statutory remedies illusory, but ruled against the petitioners on merits based on binding judicial precedent concerning in-house consumption.

  Questions settled

  • Does the in-house consumption of raw materials or intermediary goods in the manufacturing process constitute a taxable supply under the Sales Tax Act, 1990?
  • Whether constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be invoked when statutory remedies have been rendered illusory by prior expressions of opinion by revenue authorities?
  • Does an activity carried on in the form of a business, trade, or manufacture qualify as a taxable activity even if the goods produced are consumed internally rather than supplied to a third party?
  • Are intermediary products like limestone, gypsum, and clay used in the manufacture of exempt cement liable to sales tax when consumed in-house?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pacific Lloyds Ltd. through duly Constituted Attorney vs Messrs2007 CLD 661 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Oxford University Press vs Commissioner of Income Tax2007 PTD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-19
  tax exemptioneducational institutionincome taxOxford University Pressstatutory interpretationcommercial publicationsSecond Schedule
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated batch of reference applications and appeals from the Sindh High Court addresses the tax-exempt status of the Pakistan branch of the Oxford University Press (OUP) under clause (86) (formerly clause 55) read with section 14(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal controversy concerns whether OUP, as a branch of a foreign university engaged in the commercial printing, publication, and sale of books in Pakistan without operating a formal teaching university or educational institution locally, qualifies as an educational institution established solely for educational purposes and not for profit. The court held that OUP is not entitled to tax exemption under clause (86) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The ratio laid down is that to claim an educational tax exemption under Pakistani law, an institution must be established and actively functioning to impart education within Pakistan itself, and commercial publishing activities unconnected to local educational instruction do not qualify. Furthermore, taxing exemption provisions must be construed strictly against the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a foreign university's branch in Pakistan engaged in commercial printing, publication, and sale of books qualifies for tax exemption under clause (86) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is the requirement of being established solely for educational purposes under clause (86) of the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 fulfilled by an entity that does not impart education directly within Pakistan?
  • How are tax exemption provisions in fiscal statutes to be construed under Pakistani law?
  • Does the remittance of profits abroad or the lack of local educational institution affiliation preclude an entity from claiming the status of an educational institution for tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Out Door Advertising Welfare Association, Karachi and others2007 YLR 549 · Sindh High Court · 2004-03-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ocean View (Pvt.) Ltd. vs City District Government, Karachi2007 YLR 3203 · Sindh High Court · 2007-09-07
  differential amountallotment cancellationright of hearingnatural justiceland regularizationconstitutional petitionSindh High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged public notices demanding payment of a differential land price fixed by a Committee appointed under section 4(2) of the Sindh Government Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000. The petitioner's plot allotment was previously restored by the High Court in 2003, but the respondents demanded a differential amount without affording a hearing or providing computation details. The core legal question was whether an administrative authority can determine a differential financial liability under the governing Ordinance without providing an opportunity of hearing and notice to the affected party. The Sindh High Court held that orders affecting a person or property cannot be passed without an opportunity of hearing, and unless expressly excluded by statute, the right to a hearing must be read into every statute as part of natural justice. The Court treated the computed statement as a notice, granting the petitioner time to file objections and directing the respondents to pass a fresh order after hearing the petitioner.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an allottee is entitled to a right of hearing before the determination of a differential land price under the Sindh Government Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000?
  • Does the failure of a statute to explicitly provide for a notice or hearing dispense with the principles of natural justice in administrative determinations affecting property rights?
  • Can an allotment be treated as completely void ab initio under the Sindh Government Land (Cancellation of Allotments, Conversions and Exchanges) Ordinance, 2000, or is the allottee entitled to acquire ownership rights upon paying the determined loss?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Marhaba Textile Ltd. and 62007 CLD 508 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs N. J. Auto Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. through Director vs Collector of Customs, Appraisement Customs House, Karachi and 5 others2007 PTD 2432 · Sindh High Court · 2007-06-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs MSC Textiles (Private) Limited through Executive Director vs Asian2007 CLD 1465 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-23
  admiralty suitslot chartererlimitation periodcarriage of goods by seaaction in remaction in personamsister ship arrestrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arose from an admiralty suit filed by the plaintiff against various defendants, including a slot charterer and vessel owners, seeking damages for the failure to deliver or re-export three consignments shipped from Pakistan to Bangkok. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925, whether a slot charterer falls within the definition of a charterer under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance 1980, and whether actions in rem and in personam can be joined in the same suit under Pakistani law. The court held that limitation runs from the date of the breach of a fresh agreement or when the goods ought to have been delivered (including during ongoing re-shipment negotiations), that a slot charterer is indeed a charterer liable under admiralty law, and that actions in rem and personam are validly maintainable together in Pakistan. The key principles laid down include the interpretation of 'charterer' to encompass slot charterers and the rules governing limitation and joinder of claims and sister ships in admiralty suits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'charterer' under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Courts Ordinance 1980 include a slot charterer?
  • When does limitation begin to run for a claim under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 when re-shipment negotiations are ongoing?
  • Can actions in rem and in personam be legally joined in the same admiralty suit in Pakistan?
  • Under what circumstances can a sister ship be arrested in an admiralty action?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moro Textile Mills Limited Through Chairman vs Central Board Of Revenue Through Chairman, Islamabad And 2 Others2007 P.C.T.L.R. 1020 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Metro International through Proprietor vs Collector of Customs and 2 others2007 PTD 2478 · Sindh High Court · 2007-06-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Maxim Advertising Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Province of Sindh2007 MLD 2019 · Sindh High Court · 2005-08-06
  interim injunctiontender processTerms of Referenceinvitation to offerirreparable lossbalance of conveniencepublic procurementblacklisting
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal was filed against the Single Judge's order dismissing an application for interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 C.P.C. in a suit challenging the tender process and Terms of Reference (TOR) for a public development scheme. The appellant argued that the bidding process was non-transparent, discriminatory, and misled by provincial government letters regarding suspension of the tender. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's dismissal, holding that an invitation to tender is merely an invitation for an offer and creates no vested legal right in a tenderer. It ruled that requiring information on pending litigation and blacklisting in TORs is a prudent and transparent practice for public functionaries. Furthermore, where alleged losses are purely financial, no irreparable injury exists, and mandatory conditions for an injunction—prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss—were absent. The court also noted that granting the interim relief sought would amount to granting final relief in the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Does an invitation to tender constitute an offer or grant a vested legal right to a bidder under contract law?
  • Can an interim injunction be granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 C.P.C. where the alleged loss can be adequately compensated in monetary terms?
  • Is a public functionary entitled to mandate disclosures regarding pending litigation and prior blacklisting in tender Terms of Reference?
  • Can an interim relief be granted if it effectively amounts to granting the final relief claimed in the main suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Master Textile Mills Ltd. through Duly Authorized Signatory vs Master Fabrics through Managing Partner and 5 others2007 CLD 991 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-16
  temporary injunctionpassing offtrade mark infringementtrade namepublici jurisbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the plaintiffs seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from passing off and infringing the trade mark and trade name "Master" or "Master Textile". The core legal question involves determining whether the defendants' use of the trade name "Master Fabrics" constitutes an infringement or passing off, and whether the plaintiffs have established a prima facie case for the grant of an interlocutory injunction. The court held that no case for an injunction was made out, observing that the word "Master" has become common to the trade, the logos and get-ups of the respective parties are distinct, there is no likelihood of confusion or deception among the public, and the plaintiffs delayed filing the suit. Consequently, the injunction application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the use of the word "Master" in a trade name constitutes passing off when the term has become common to the trade?
  • Does a delay in filing a suit for trade mark infringement disentitle a party to an interlocutory injunction?
  • Whether a prima facie case for injunction is established when the competing logos, color schemes, and get-ups are distinct?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Master Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. through Notified Manager vs Shafquat Mubarak2007 PLC 343 · Sindh High Court
  wrongful dismissalmala fideindustrial disputelabour courtex-parte inquiryback benefitsgrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Sindh Labour Court judgment that declared the dismissal of a workman illegal. The respondent, a permanent employee, was initially issued a termination letter, which he challenged. While the grievance petition was pending, the appellant-Management initiated disciplinary proceedings, alleging unauthorized absence, and dismissed the respondent following an ex-parte inquiry. The Labour Court found the dismissal illegal, citing mala fides and procedural irregularities, including the management's failure to rebut specific allegations of malice and the "hot haste" in conducting the inquiry. The High Court upheld this decision, noting that the management had initiated the disciplinary process while fully aware of the pending litigation. The Court held that the entire disciplinary process was a fraud, rendering the dismissal void. Furthermore, the Court rejected the appellant's request to conduct a fresh inquiry, establishing the principle that where an employer's action is proven to be tainted by malice, the court must strike down the dismissal order entirely rather than allowing the employer a second opportunity to rectify the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initiation of disciplinary proceedings against a workman during the pendency of a grievance petition regarding his earlier termination render the subsequent dismissal void?
  • Can an employer be permitted to hold a fresh inquiry into a workman's misconduct after the court finds the original dismissal order was tainted by malice?
  • Does the failure of a management representative to appear in court to refute specific allegations of mala fides discredit the employer's case?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Marvi International through Partners vs Muhammad Aslam and 22007 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-25
  unregistered firmpartnership actrejection of plaintsubsequent registrationbar of suitmandatory provision
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves a civil suit filed by the partners of an unregistered firm, Marvi International, for the enforcement of a sale agreement concerning a plot of land. Upon an objection raised by the office, the partners subsequently got the firm registered and amended the plaint to substitute the firm as the plaintiff. The defendants filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of the plaint on the ground that the suit was barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act 1932. The core legal question was whether a suit filed by an unregistered firm is barred under Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act 1932, and whether such an initial defect is cured by the subsequent registration of the firm during the pendency of the suit. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 69(2) are mandatory and prohibit the institution of a suit by an unregistered firm, and that subsequent registration during the pendency of the suit cannot cure the inherent defect existing at the time of institution. Consequently, the court allowed the application and rejected the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act 1932 bar a suit instituted by an unregistered partnership firm?
  • Can the subsequent registration of a partnership firm during the pendency of a suit cure the initial defect of non-registration at the time of institution?
  • Are the provisions of Section 69(2) of the Partnership Act 1932 mandatory in character?
  • Can a court entertain a suit filed by an unregistered firm based on subsequent compliance with registration requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Marketing Services Inc., through President vs Messrs Jullundur2007 PLD Karachi 105 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Macter International (Pvt.) Ltd. through Duly Authorized Officer2007 CLD 978 · Sindh High Court · 2006-04-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karim Bidi Works vs City District Government and another2007 CLC 1952 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Unique Express through Managing Partner vs Messrs Kasb2007 CLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kapron Overseas Supplies Co. (Pvt) Limited through Director vs Deputy Director of Customs Valuation & P. C . a . Karachi and 3 others2007 PTD 523 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jeewajee (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Manager vs Federation Of Pakistan(2007 P.C.T.L.R. 1) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Razia vs S.H.O. Darakhshan, Karachi and 2 others2007 C.L.R. 202 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Interquest Information Services vs Commissioner of Income2007 PTD 2549 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt) Ltd Karachi vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-II, Karachi2007 PTD 1720 · Sindh High Court · 2007-05-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Metropole (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Messrs Travel2007 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Galaxy (Private) Limited through Chief Executive and 22007 CLD 1590 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-02
  trademark infringementtemporary injunctionpower of attorneyquestion of factpresumption of authenticityfranchise agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order passed by a learned Single Judge restraining the appellant from using the trade and service mark "DAYS-INN" with "SUN-BURST LOGO" till the final adjudication of the suit. The respondent filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction, claiming to be the registered owner of the trade and service mark and asserting that the appellant was using it without authorization. The appellant contested the competency of the suit, alleging defects in the power of attorney, lack of authority of the executants, and that dealings were conducted with a parent corporation rather than the respondent directly. The court held that the question of whether a person signing a plaint is competent is a mixed question of fact and law which cannot be raised for the first time in appeal without being pleaded in the trial court. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the statutory presumption of authenticity under Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order applies to a notarized power of attorney authenticated by a Pakistan Consulate. The court concluded that the trademark owner has an inherent right to protect its mark against unauthorized use, upheld the injunction, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can the question of competency of the person signing the plaint be raised for the first time in appeal when not pleaded in the trial court?
  • Does a presumption of authenticity attach to a power of attorney notarized by a Pakistan Consulate under Article 95 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Is the owner of a trademark entitled to maintain a suit for infringement against a party using the mark without authorization despite negotiations with an authorized agent?
  • Whether the sufficiency of authorization of an attorney is a question of fact to be established at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Sugar Mills Ltd. Through Law Officer vs Additional Collector, Sales Tax, Customs House, Site Hyderabad And 2 Others(2007 P.C.T.L.R. 413) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Feroze Afaq Ahmad Khan and others vs Nasir Ahmad and others2007 YLR 3282 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs East Yarn Trading Company and 2 others vs United Bank Limited2007 CLD 1555 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-31
  execution proceedingsmortgaged propertyprivate negotiationaudi alteram parteminadequacy of pricesale confirmationfinancial institutions
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court appeal under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 was filed against an order of a Single Judge dismissing two miscellaneous applications under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellants/judgment-debtors challenged the sale of two mortgaged properties by the Corporate Industrial Restructuring Corporation (CIRC) to a third-party purchaser via private negotiation, alleging a lack of notice, violation of natural justice, and sale at an undervalued price. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the execution proceedings were initiated within one year of the decree, dispensing with the requirement of fresh notice. The Court ruled that the physical taking over of possession of the properties by the Nazir constituted sufficient notice of the execution. Furthermore, following established precedent, the Court held that procedural irregularities under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not automatically vitiate a negotiated sale approved by the executing court, and a mere subsequent increase in market value or inadequacy of price is not a valid ground to set aside a confirmed sale.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a fresh notice of execution proceedings is mandatory if the execution application is filed within one year of the decree?
  • Can a confirmed court sale of mortgaged property be set aside solely on the ground of subsequent appreciation of market value or inadequacy of the sale price?
  • Whether procedural irregularities under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically vitiate a sale conducted through private negotiations by an authorized institution?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dewan Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs M. B. Abbasi and others2007 YLR 2672 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-09
  Trademark infringementPassing offInjunction applicationRegistered trademarkIntellectual propertyDistinct nature of business
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, Messrs Dewan Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., filed an application for an injunction to restrain the defendants from infringing upon its registered trademark, "DEWAN," by using the title "Daily DEWAN" for their newspaper. The plaintiff, part of the "DEWAN MUSHTAQ GROUP," asserted that its registration under the Trade Marks Act 1940 and the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 granted it exclusive rights to the name across various classifications, including newspapers. The plaintiff argued that the defendants' use of the mark constituted infringement and passing off, regardless of the nature of the business. In opposition, the defendants contended that their publishing business was distinct from the plaintiff's industrial activities and that they possessed valid government declarations authorizing the publication of "Daily DEWAN." The court was tasked with determining whether the plaintiff's registered trademark rights under the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 were absolute, whether the distinct nature of the defendants' business provided a valid defense against infringement, and whether the defendants' government-authorized declaration could supersede the plaintiff's registered intellectual property rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of a trademark under the Trade Marks Ordinance 2001 grant exclusive rights that preclude others from using the mark in a different business sector?
  • Can a government-issued declaration to publish a newspaper override a registered trademark holder's rights?
  • Does the distinct nature of a business serve as a valid defense against a claim of trademark infringement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Datari International through Proprietor vs Navaid Hussain and 92007 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dada Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Central Board Of Revenue(2007 P.C.T.L.R. 514) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Dada Steel Mills (Pvt) Ltd Karachi vs Central Board of Revenue2007 PTD 369 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cynamid (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Income2007 PTD 1946 · Sindh High Court · 2007-05-16
  income tax referenceassociated undertakingstransfer pricingsection 79advisory jurisdictionquestion of lawraw material import
  Summary & questions settled

  This Income Tax Reference Application challenged an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal, which had refused to refer eight proposed questions of law to the High Court regarding the applicability of Section 79 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core dispute involved the applicant's importation of raw materials from associated non-resident companies at prices higher than market rates, leading the Assessing Officer to make additions to the applicant's income. The applicant contended that these purchases did not generate profit and that the Tribunal misdirected itself by ignoring evidence and failing to address procedural fairness. The High Court held that the proposed questions either did not arise from the Tribunal's order, were based on factual appreciation rather than law, or had been settled by prior judicial precedents. The Court affirmed that the Tribunal correctly applied Section 79, noting that purchases from associated undertakings at inflated prices to deplete local profits fall within the scope of the provision. The Court emphasized that the fixation of selling prices by the Ministry of Health does not preclude the application of Section 79, as such pricing is not based on scientific cost-structure analysis.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can adjudicate on a question of law that was not agitated before the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal?
  • Does the fixation of selling prices by the Ministry of Health preclude the application of Section 79 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 regarding inflated purchase costs?
  • Can the purchase of raw materials from associated undertakings at prices higher than market rates be considered an arrangement to deplete profits under Section 79 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is the registration of a trade mark a valid defense against the application of Section 79 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 concerning the freedom of purchase of raw materials?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Citibank N.A. through Resident Vice-President vs Commissioner of Income Tax2007 PTD 1560 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-05
  reopening of assessmentescaped assessmentdefinite informationchange of opinioncapital gainsincome tax referenceassessment proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  These income tax reference applications under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1972 addressed whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in upholding the reopening of assessment proceedings under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The applicant taxpayer had claimed exemption on profits from the sale of government securities. The successor Assessing Officer later reopened the assessment to tax these gains, which the Tribunal upheld, reversing the Commissioner of Income Tax (Appeals) order. The Sindh High Court examined whether the assessment was validly reopened based on definite information or amounted to a mere change of opinion. The Court held that since the original Assessing Officer had consciously considered the matter and deducted the profit for separate consideration, the non-inclusion was not an inadvertent oversight correctable under section 65 without subsequent definite information or new facts. Consequently, the reference applications were allowed and the proposed questions were answered in the negative, establishing that an assessment finalized after conscious consideration of facts on record cannot be reopened on a mere reappraisal of the same facts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessment can be reopened under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 on a mere change of opinion without any subsequent definite information?
  • Does the failure of an Assessing Officer to add a specific item to total income at the computation stage constitute an inadvertent oversight that justifies reassessment proceedings?
  • Can facts already available on record during the original assessment constitute definite information for the purpose of reopening a finalized assessment?
  • Whether an assessment finalized after consciously considering the facts and material disclosed by the assessee is open to interference under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 in the absence of new facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Building Store, through Proprietor and 3 others vs Muhammad2007 YLR 464 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Building Hardware Stores vs Commissioner of Income Tax2007 PTD 1131 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Brooke Bond Pakistan Limited vs Muhammad Shafiq and another2007 YLR 2174 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Battla Enterprises, Karachi vs Directorate General of Intelligence and Investigation, (Customs & Excise) Karachi2007 PTD 2458 · Sindh High Court · 2007-08-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Gharo Textile Mills (Pvt.)2007 CLD 208 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Amir Papers Mills through Director and others vs Tahir Ali and others2007 PLC 29 · Sindh High Court · 2006-06-03
  back benefitsreinstatementLabour Courtindustrial relationsbeneficial legislationnon-compliance of orderlabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  These appeals are directed against the order of the Labour Court whereby the appellants were penalized for non-compliance with an earlier order directing the reinstatement of respondent workers along with payment of back benefits. The core legal question was whether the appellants could subsequently challenge the award of back benefits and whether the remedy lay elsewhere under the law. The Sindh High Court held that the initial order of the Labour Court having attained finality, the appellants were bound to pay the back benefits and could not reopen the case or drive the workers to separate recovery proceedings. The Court ruled that labour laws are beneficial legislation designed to protect weaker sections of society and must be construed liberally to advance the cause of justice, discouraging dilatory tactics by employers. The appeals were consequently dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer can challenge the award of back benefits at the execution or compliance stage after the original reinstatement order has attained finality?
  • Whether the Labour Court is empowered under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 2002 to punish an employer for non-compliance with its orders?
  • How should beneficial labour legislation be construed by the courts?
  • Whether workers are required to initiate separate recovery proceedings under section 62 when a competent Labour Court has already awarded back benefits?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. Through Executive Director2007 P.C.T.L.R. 1310 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd through Executive Director2007 PTD 2 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-26
  excise dutyagents' commission and discountslimitation periodtrustretroactive applicationshow-cause noticeinsurance companies
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses the recovery of excess excise duty collected by insurance companies on insurance premiums between 1990 and 1995. The core legal questions involved whether the recovery of amounts collected in the name of excise duty but not legally chargeable falls under the limitation period prescribed for short-levied excise duty in the Central Excise Rules, 1944, and whether Section 3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 applies retrospectively to collections made prior to its insertion. The Sindh High Court held that an obligation under Section 3-D to pay over amounts erroneously collected as excise duty is distinct from excise duty proper; consequently, the limitation period under Rule 10 does not apply. Instead, such retained amounts are held in trust for the Federal Government, attracting the principles of Section 10 of the Limitation Act, 1908, meaning no length of time bars their recovery. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the phrase 'has collected' in Section 3-D demonstrates clear legislative intent for the provision to apply to past collections made prior to 30 June 1993. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the recovery of amounts erroneously collected as excise duty falls under the limitation period prescribed in Rule 10 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944?
  • Does Section 3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 apply retrospectively to collections made prior to its insertion on June 30, 1993?
  • What is the legal nature of excess amounts collected in the name of excise duty and retained by an assessee?
  • Is a claim for recovery of amounts collected under Section 3-D of the Central Excise Act, 1944 barred by any length of time under the law of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.G.E. & Sons (Pvt.) Ltd through Chief Executive vs Cantonment2007 MLD 962 · Sindh High Court · 2006-12-21Read full judgment →
• Merry Land Builder and Developers vs Government of SINDHand others2007 YLR 2417 · Sindh High Court · 2005-09-29Read full judgment →
• Mengho vs The State2007 YLR 557 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-22
  lurking house trespassbenefit of doubtappreciation of evidencecriminal appealidentification of accusedmedical evidence discrepancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 459 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for lurking house trespass and causing injuries. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution sufficiently established the ingredients of lurking house trespass, given that the complainant and the accused resided within a common protective hedge, and whether the identification of the accused and the medical evidence were reliable. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential elements of lurking house trespass, as there was no evidence of breaking or scaling walls. Furthermore, the Court identified significant discrepancies between the medical report, which indicated two injuries, and the complainant's testimony, which alleged only one. Additionally, the Court found the identification of the accused at night doubtful due to unproven electricity availability. Consequently, the Court applied the principle of the benefit of the doubt, holding that where the prosecution's case is riddled with uncertainty and contradictions, the accused is entitled to acquittal or a reduced sentence. The appeal was allowed, and the sentence was modified to the period already undergone.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of multiple residential units within a common protective hedge constitute lurking house trespass under Section 459 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there is a material discrepancy between the medical evidence regarding the number of injuries and the complainant's testimony?
  • Is the identification of an accused at night considered reliable when the availability of electricity at the scene of the crime is not established?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Ali vs Province of Sindh and others2007 YLR 987 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-09Read full judgment →
• Meeral alias Meero vs The State2007 YLR 899 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-28
  pre-arrest bailmala fidefurther inquiryF.I.R. delaycriminal procedureevidentiary inconsistency
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case involving charges under sections 324, 353, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following the dismissal of his initial application by the Sessions Judge. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to pre-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically allegations of mala fide prosecution and evidentiary gaps. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, confirming the interim pre-arrest bail. The Court reasoned that the F.I.R. suffered from unexplained delays, lacked specific details regarding the alleged robbery, and contained inconsistencies between the alleged gunfire and the physical evidence recovered. Furthermore, the Court noted the absence of identification proceedings for the applicant and the plausible contention of mala fide, supported by evidence of prior litigation between the applicant's family and police officials. The judgment reinforces the principle that where a case appears to be one of further inquiry due to evidentiary weaknesses and potential mala fide, pre-arrest bail is appropriate.

  Questions settled

  • Is a case considered one of further inquiry when the F.I.R. contains general allegations and lacks specific details of the stolen property?
  • Does the existence of prior litigation between an accused's family and police officials constitute a ground for considering mala fide in a subsequent criminal case?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted when there are significant inconsistencies between the alleged duration of a police encounter and the physical evidence recovered from the scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Meenhal and anothers vs The State2007 MLD 214 · Sindh High Court · 2006-11-08
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryrobberydelay in FIRnon-recoverycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by the applicants, who were accused of committing robbery of a motorcycle at gunpoint. The core legal question before the Court was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given the circumstances of the case, specifically the delay in reporting the incident and the lack of recovery of incriminating evidence. The Court observed that the FIR was lodged with a three-day delay, for which the complainant's explanation regarding private recovery efforts was deemed implausible. Furthermore, despite the applicants being in police custody for several days, no recovery of the stolen motorcycle or any weapon was effected. Holding that these circumstances undermined the prosecution's case and cast doubt on the applicants' guilt, the Court determined that the case fell within the scope of further inquiry. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicants, establishing the principle that the absence of recovery and unexplained delays in reporting an offence are significant factors that warrant the grant of bail under the provisions for further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does a significant delay in lodging an FIR, coupled with a lack of recovery of stolen property, constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution fails to recover any incriminating evidence or stolen items during the period of police custody?
  Read full judgment →
• MCB Bank Limited through Senior Vice-President and General Manager vs Ghulam Mustafa Channa2007 PLC 381 · Sindh High Court · 2007-03-22
  bank employeemisappropriationmisconductdismissal from servicebreach of trustgrievance petitionindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  These two cross-appeals arose from a judgment of the Sindh Labour Court-VII passed in a grievance application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which had ordered the reinstatement of an employee without back benefits following his dismissal for bank misconduct. The core legal questions involved whether the non-examination of the Enquiry Officer before the Labour Court vitiated the inquiry proceedings, and whether temporary misappropriation or subsequent deposit of funds absolves a bank employee of dismissal for breach of trust. The Sindh High Court held that the non-examination of the Enquiry Officer was insignificant where the employee admitted his signatures on the inquiry proceedings and documentary evidence established the charges, and that temporary misappropriation of public funds destroys the trust essential to banking, precluding leniency. The court laid down the principles that banking institutions rely heavily on public trust, making dismissal the appropriate penalty for misappropriation regardless of whether the amount is small or subsequently repaid, and that subsequent restitution does not mitigate the gravity of financial embezzlement.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-examination of an Enquiry Officer before the Labour Court vitiate inquiry proceedings where the employee admits his signatures on the record?
  • Whether subsequent deposit or restitution of misappropriated funds constitutes a mitigating circumstance for a bank employee guilty of financial irregularities?
  • Is a bank justified in dismissing an employee for temporary misappropriation of public money regardless of the quantum of the amount involved?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar alias Mazhar Ali vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 925 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-07
  post-arrest baildoctrine of consistencytriple murdercriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a post-arrest bail application filed under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of Crime No. 77 of 2004 registered at Police Station Dadu for offences under Sections 302, 114, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency with co-accused persons who have already been admitted to bail, given that his name did not transpire in the first information report and no active role of firing was attributed to him in statements recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that since no active role was attributed to the applicant and his case stood at par with a co-accused who was earlier granted bail, the doctrine of consistency applied, entitling him to the concession of bail. The court laid down the principle that an accused person whose case is on a par with co-accused already released on bail, and against whom no active role is attributed in the crime, is entitled to bail under the doctrine of consistency.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused whose name does not appear in the first information report is entitled to post-arrest bail on the ground of consistency when co-accused with similar or lesser roles have been admitted to bail?
  • Does the mere presence of an accused armed with a weapon, without any active role attributed in the commission of the offence, warrant the refusal of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether the doctrine of consistency applies when assessing the bail plea of an accused whose case is at par with previously enlarged co-accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazar alias Mazhar vs The State2007 YLR 844 · Sindh High Court · 2006-02-17
  suspension of sentencecriminal appealbail pending appealcustodial periodsurety bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal filed by the appellant, Mazar alias Mazhar, against his conviction and sentence. The appellant sought the suspension of his sentence pending the final adjudication of the appeal. The core legal question before the Court was whether, given the duration of the sentence and the period already served by the appellant in incarceration, the sentence warranted suspension during the pendency of the appeal. The appellant argued that he had been in custody since June 6, 2005, and had been granted the benefit of Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in a remaining sentence of slightly over three years. The State opposed the application. Upon consideration of the arguments presented, the Court held that the sentence should be suspended. Consequently, the Court ordered the suspension of the sentence until the final decision of the appeal, subject to the appellant furnishing a solvent surety in the sum of Rs. 100,000 and a personal recognizance bond in an equivalent amount to the satisfaction of the Additional Registrar of the Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a sentence be suspended pending the final decision of a criminal appeal?
  • Does the period of incarceration already served justify the suspension of a sentence during appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Maxim Advertising Co. (Pvt.) Limited vs Messrs Z&J Hygenic Products2007 YLR 2252 · Sindh High Court · 2007-05-04Read full judgment →
• Master vs The State2007 YLR 1500 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-28Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed Bughio and anothers vs The State2007 MLD 1434 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-16
  post-arrest bailforgeryrevenue recordcorruptionpublic servantprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  These two bail applications arose out of an F.I.R. concerning allegations of forgery, fraud, and corruption under the Pakistan Penal Code and the Prevention of Corruption Act, involving the unauthorized alteration of revenue records by a public servant. The core legal question was whether the ingredients of forgery were prima facie made out against the accused public servant and beneficiary, and whether they were entitled to post-arrest bail for offences falling within or outside the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The court held that while the official may have acted wrongly or committed criminal misconduct, the mere passing of an erroneous or improper order without fabricating a false document or relying on a non-existent authority did not prima facie constitute forgery under sections 463 and 464 of the Pakistan Penal Code. Consequently, the court confirmed the interim bail granted to the applicants, emphasizing that the penal provisions regarding forgery were not strictly attracted on the facts presented. The key principle laid down is that an erroneous or improper official order by a public servant, absent the creation or use of a false document or fabricated authority, does not constitute forgery.

  Questions settled

  • Does the passing of an erroneous or improper official order by a Mukhtiarkar regarding revenue records constitute forgery under sections 463 and 464 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the absence of a fabricated false document?
  • Whether offences under section 467 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 fall within the prohibitory degree of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be confirmed where the ingredients of the alleged offence of forgery are not prima facie established from the record?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Khan and others vs Province of Sindh and others2007 YLR 28 · Sindh High Court · 2006-03-25
  constitutional petitionpublic commitmentmunicipal resolutionrelocationdiscriminatory treatmentombudsman
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court impugning the inaction of the Provincial Government and the Taluka Council, Hyderabad, regarding the implementation of a municipal resolution. The core legal question concerned whether a public body and the Provincial Government are bound to honour a commitment and resolution made for the relocation and provision of alternate land to dislocated citizens. The court held that commitments made and affirmed through resolutions by public bodies amount to binding obligations, and failure to fulfill them constitutes discriminatory treatment against citizens. The court directed the Government of Sindh to consider the petitioner's case in light of the municipal resolution and accord necessary approval within four months. The key principle laid down is that public functionaries must act responsibly to honour commitments made to citizens to maintain public trust and confidence in representative offices.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a commitment made and affirmed in a municipal council resolution is binding on public functionaries?
  • Does the failure of a public body to honour a relocation commitment amount to discrimination against citizens?
  • Can the Provincial Government withhold approval of a municipal resolution when similar commitments have been honoured for others?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali and others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Local Government and 5 others2007 YLR 2243 · Sindh High Court · 2004-09-30Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ali And Other vs Government Of Sindh Through The Secretary, Local Government, Public Health Engineering, Rural Development And Katchi Abadies Department, And 5 OtherK.L.R. 2007 Civil Cases 162 · Sindh High Court · 2004-09-30Read full judgment →
• Maple Leaf Cement Factory Ltd. Through Company Secretary vs Federation Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 2 Others2007 P.C.T.L.R. 1157 · Sindh High Court · 2006-09-20Read full judgment →
• Manhattan International (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi and others vs Director GeneralPTCL 2007 CL. 274 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mangeh through Legal Heirs vs Hashim through Legal Heirs2007 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 2007-10-17Read full judgment →
• Mangeh (Deceased) Through His L.Rs. vs Hashim (Deceased), Through HisK.L.R. 2007 Revenue Cases 205 · Sindh High Court · 2005-10-17Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad vs Maqbool Ahmed and 2 others2007 YLR 3343 · Sindh High Court · 2003-03-06Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sajjad and others vs Nazim, UC 4 Metroville, Site, Karachi and others2007 YLR 1823 · Sindh High Court · 2006-04-20Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sajjad And Other vs The Nazim, Uc4 Metro Ville, CapsK.L.R. 2007 Civil Cases 79 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Fateh Khan vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd.2007 PLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 2007-02-15
  limitationexclusion of timesame cause of actionwrong forumlabour appealreinstatementwithdrawal of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was preferred against the order of the Labour Court dismissing the appellant's grievance applications on the ground of limitation. The appellant, an employee and union office-bearer, had initially approached the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) seeking a restraining order against potential termination. Subsequently, after being removed from service, he sought to amend his NIRC petition, which was rejected, and he then withdrew the NIRC case to file a grievance application before the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the appellant was entitled to the exclusion of time under Section 14 of the Limitation Act, 1908, for the period he prosecuted his case before the NIRC. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant could not claim the benefit of Section 14 because the proceedings before the NIRC and the Labour Court were not founded on the same cause of action and did not seek the same relief, as the former sought to prevent future termination while the latter sought post-dismissal reinstatement. The Court laid down the principle that to invoke Section 14 of the Limitation Act, the prior and subsequent proceedings must be based on identical causes of action and seek the same relief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the time spent prosecuting a matter before the National Industrial Relations Commission can be excluded under Section 14 of the Limitation Act when filing a subsequent grievance application before the Labour Court?
  • Is a petition seeking to restrain future termination based on the same cause of action as a grievance petition seeking post-dismissal reinstatement for the purposes of Section 14 of the Limitation Act?
  • How is the period of limitation computed when a case is withdrawn with permission to file a fresh one?
  Read full judgment →
• Majid Ali vs The State2007 MLD 1771 · Sindh High Court · 2006-08-04
  fraudulent transferdefective chargeburden of proofcriminal appealPrisons Actforgerypower of attorney
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants for fraud involving the illegal transfer of a plot of land belonging to an allottee who was incarcerated at the time of the alleged transaction. The appellants contended that the trial court's charge was defective, thereby vitiating the trial. The core legal questions concerned whether the charge provided sufficient notice of the accusations and whether the appellants successfully discharged the burden of proving the genuineness of documents executed by a prisoner. The Sindh High Court held that the charge was not defective, as it sufficiently informed the accused of the precise allegations against them. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the conviction, ruling that the appellants failed to discharge the burden of proving the validity of the power of attorney and sale agreement. The Court emphasized that when an accused relies on the genuineness of documents executed by an incarcerated person, the burden of proof lies on the accused to demonstrate compliance with the strict procedural requirements of the Prisons Act, which the appellants failed to do.

  Questions settled

  • Does a charge sheet that sufficiently informs the accused of the precise accusations against them satisfy the requirements of a fair trial?
  • When an accused relies on the genuineness of documents executed by an incarcerated person, does the burden of proof lie on the accused to demonstrate compliance with prison regulations?
  • Does the failure to comply with the procedural requirements of the Prisons Act regarding documents executed by a prisoner render the authenticity of such documents doubtful?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood and another vs Mumtaz Ali and another2007 P Cr. L J 1623 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-06
  quashment of FIRdouble jeopardyprevious acquittalabuse of process of lawfraudanti-corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under sections 468, 420, 471, 477-A and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, on the grounds of previous dismissal of direct complaints and acquittal on the same facts. The core legal question is whether prosecuting the applicants on the same facts after the earlier dismissal of direct complaints and acquittal amounts to double jeopardy and an abuse of the process of the court. The Sindh High Court held that continuing the proceedings is barred under the principle of double jeopardy, as the applicants had already been tried and acquitted on the same facts by a court of competent jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan, a person once acquitted cannot be tried again for the same offence, and proceedings may be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure to prevent an abuse of the process of court where no possibility of conviction exists.

  Questions settled

  • Does the prosecution of an accused on the same facts after a prior acquittal constitute double jeopardy?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure when no possibility of conviction exists?
  • Whether the bar against a second trial applies when the former offence and the currently charged offence share the same ingredients and facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahera Fatima vs Province of Sindh and others2007 YLR 1487 · Sindh High Court · -
  habeas corpuscustody of minorinterim custodySection 491 Cr.P.C.Guardians and Wards ActFamily Court jurisdictionwelfare of minor
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, arose from a custody dispute between a mother and a father following the dissolution of their marriage by Khula. The petitioner sought the custody of her minor son, alleging that the respondent had unlawfully snatched the child from her. The core legal question was whether the High Court could exercise its jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to grant interim custody of a minor pending final adjudication by the competent Guardian Court. The Court held that while the Guardian Court remains the final arbitrator for custody matters, the High Court possesses the authority under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, to pass interim orders to restore custody to the party who lawfully held it before being deprived. Consequently, the Court granted interim custody to the mother, subject to her furnishing a surety bond to prevent the unauthorized removal of the minor from Pakistan. The judgment establishes that such High Court orders are interim measures and do not prejudice the parties' rights to seek final adjudication before the Family Court under the Guardians and Wards Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court grant interim custody of a minor under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, pending final adjudication by a Guardian Court?
  • Does an order passed by the High Court under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, regarding minor custody preclude the parties from seeking a final decision from the Guardian Court?
  • Is the High Court empowered to impose conditions, such as surety bonds, when granting interim custody of a minor to prevent their removal from the country?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali vs The State2007 YLR 2968 · Sindh High Court · 2007-01-19
  post-arrest bailnarcotic substancesborderline casefurther inquirystatutory thresholdcharas recovery
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from the dismissal of the applicant's request for post-arrest bail by the Special Judge (Narcotics), Larkana, in a case involving the recovery of 1010 grams of charas under the Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997. The applicant contended that the recovery quantity, being only 10 grams above the 1000-gram threshold, constituted a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Act, thereby necessitating further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The State did not oppose the application. The Sindh High Court held that because the quantity of contraband marginally exceeded the statutory limit, the matter required further inquiry to determine the applicant's guilt. Consequently, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that where the quantity of narcotics recovered is on the borderline of statutory thresholds, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry, entitling the accused to the concession of bail pending trial, provided the trial has not yet commenced or evidence has not been recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Does a recovery of 1010 grams of charas constitute a borderline case between clauses (b) and (c) of Section 9 of the Control of Narcotic Substances Act 1997?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the quantity of recovered narcotics marginally exceeds the statutory threshold?
  • Does the lack of opposition from the State counsel regarding the grounds for bail influence the court's decision to grant relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali and another vs The State2007 P Cr. L J 1631 · Sindh High Court · 2007-07-02
  post-arrest bailcustodial deathrule of consistencyabscondencefurther inquirySection 162 Cr.P.C. statementreasonable doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns two police officials accused of involvement in the custodial death of a detainee. The applicants were not named in the initial F.I.R. but were implicated through subsequent statements recorded under Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, three days after the incident. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail despite their initial abscondence and the heinous nature of the alleged crime. The Court held that the significant delay in recording the statements, coupled with contradictions between the F.I.R. and these subsequent statements, created reasonable doubt regarding the applicants' participation. Furthermore, the Court applied the rule of consistency, noting that co-accused in identical circumstances had already been granted bail. The key principle laid down is that while abscondence is a relevant factor, it is not an absolute bar to bail, particularly where the prosecution's case against the accused is doubtful and other co-accused similarly situated have been granted relief, thereby necessitating further inquiry into the guilt of the accused under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule of consistency apply when granting bail to co-accused who are similarly situated?
  • Is abscondence an absolute bar to the grant of bail in non-bailable offences?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is implicated only through statements recorded under Section 162, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after a significant delay?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• M.Y. Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Erum Developers And 2 OtherK.L.R. 2007 Civil Cases 336 · Sindh High Court · 2002-11-14Read full judgment →
• M. Yousuf Adil Saleem & Co. and 7 others- vs Hamid Masood2007 CLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-25Read full judgment →
• M. Yousuf Adil Saleem & Co. and 7 others, vs Hamid Masood2007 PTD 1636 · Sindh High Court · 2007-04-25Read full judgment →