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.

• Tahiruddin vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Zubair Shah vs Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Office1999 YLR 34 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Wali Najam vs Muhammad Abdul Hussain and anothers1999 P Cr. L J 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-29
  superdarinamacustody of vehiclepolice seizuresuspicious propertyregistered ownercriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Malir, setting aside a District Magistrate's order that had granted custody of a disputed Suzuki car on superdarinama to the applicant, Syed Wali Najam. The core legal question concerns the legality of the police seizure of the vehicle under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the subsequent report under Section 523, and the proper custody of the vehicle where ownership had been transferred for consideration. The Sindh High Court held that the police were legally competent to seize the vehicle under Section 550 upon suspicion where no ownership documents were produced, and that the District Magistrate acted lawfully in delivering custody to the registered owner after due verification. The Court established that Section 550 authorizes the seizure of property suspected of being stolen or linked to an offense, provided a report is duly forwarded to the Magistrate under Section 523, and that false statements on oath regarding lost documents by a claimant disentitle them to discretionary relief.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police officer competent to seize a vehicle under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the possessor fails to produce ownership documents?
  • Does a Magistrate have the jurisdiction to hand over custody of property under Section 523 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 upon receiving a proper police seizure report?
  • Whether custody of a vehicle should be granted to a person who has transferred ownership for consideration and made false statements regarding vehicle documents?
  • What are the mandatory requirements following the seizure of property under Section 550 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Tawakal Hussain and others vs Mst. Shamim Fatima Rizvi and others1999 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Saleem Jafri vs The State1999 YLR 292 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Rehmat Ali through Legal Heirs and 2 others vs Syed Sadique Ali1999 YLR 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-05
  adverse possessionpermissive possessionpoints for determinationsecond appealsubstantial compliancemesne profits
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court arises from second appeals directed against a consolidated judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge, which had upheld the trial court's dismissal of the appellants' suit for declaration of ownership by adverse possession and decreed the respondent's cross-suit for possession and mesne profits. The core legal questions involved whether the lower appellate court's failure to strictly frame points for determination and discuss evidence in seriatim vitiated its judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the appellants had established title by adverse possession. The High Court held that while there was a technical defect in strict compliance with procedural requirements, substantial compliance was achieved as the appellate court properly considered the material evidence demonstrating permissive possession rather than adverse possession, and the true owner's title was proven by a registered sale deed. The court laid down the principle that a non-compliance with the strict provisions of Order XLI Rule 31 does not vitiate an appellate judgment if there has been substantial compliance, and technical adherence to procedural law should be avoided when the first appellate court has effectively settled the dispute on merits and substantial justice has been done.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a lower appellate court to strictly formulate points for determination vitiate its judgment under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can permissive possession ever ripen into ownership by way of adverse possession against the true owner?
  • When does substantial compliance with procedural rules of judgment-writing suffice in appellate courts?
  • Under what circumstances will a second appellate court decline to remand a matter despite technical defects in the lower appellate judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Rashid Hussain and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1070 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Mustafa Alam Zaidi vs The State1999 YLR 774 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Raza Zaidi and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehmood Ali Shah through Attorney vs Mst. Surriya Sultan through Legal Heirs1999 MLD 1184 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Khurram Rizvi vs The Principal, Baqai Medical College, Karachi1999 CLC 1692 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Hamad Baqar Rizvi vs Nafeesul Hasan Jafri1999 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Fazal Ahmed Naqvi vs Laiquddin1999 YLR 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Farooq Ul Hassan Jilani vs Syed Rafique Ahmed Shah1999 YLR 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Ali Shah vs The Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan and others1999 PLC 223 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Gohar Shah vs Asif Ali Zardari and 3 others1999 MLD 3258 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Ali vs Syed Muhammad Farid1999 YLR 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1999-06-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Rafi Haider Zaidi vs The State1999 YLR 70 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Hameed vs Syed Boo Ali Shah Zaidi1999 MLD 2989 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-08
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantpugreerent appealburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal impugned an order passed by the Rent Controller requiring the appellant-tenant to vacate a rented shop and hand over peaceful possession to the respondent-landlord on the ground of personal bona fide need for his son to run a business. The core legal question was whether the landlord established his requirement for the premises in good faith, given his conduct in previous litigation and demands for enhanced rent and pugree. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove bona fide personal need, as evidence and video recordings demonstrated negotiations for enhanced rent and pugree, revealing a motive to re-let the premises for financial gain rather than genuine personal use. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside, laying down the principle that a landlord seeking eviction on personal need must approach the court with clean hands and establish a bona fide requirement free from extraneous financial motives such as extracting pugree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking ejectment on the ground of personal need must establish his bona fide requirement in good faith?
  • Is evidence in the form of a video recording admissible under Article 164 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  • Whether demands for enhanced rent and pugree by a landlord negate a claim of bona fide personal need for a rented shop?
  Read full judgment →
• Sunshine Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs Messrs E.D. Du Pont De1999 YLR 2162 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-04
  foreign jurisdiction clauseoriginal civil jurisdictionwaiver of objectionforum selection clausecause of actionarbitration agreementforum convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit concerns a challenge to the jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court raised by foreign defendants, who argued that forum selection clauses in their agreements and their non-residence in Pakistan precluded the Court's authority. The primary legal questions were whether the Court possessed jurisdiction despite these clauses and whether the defendants had waived their objection by previously filing and withdrawing an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940. The Court held that it retained jurisdiction. It ruled that the defendants’ withdrawal of their earlier application constituted a waiver of their objection regarding the forum selection clause. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 excludes the applicability of Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court affirmed its authority, noting that the cause of action arose locally and that the doctrine of forum convenience does not apply to claims for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 constitute a waiver of the right to object to the court's jurisdiction based on a forum selection clause?
  • Are Sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
  • Can a defendant challenge the jurisdiction of the High Court solely on the ground that they are foreign residents, where the cause of action arose within the court's territorial jurisdiction?
  • Is the doctrine of forum convenience applicable to a claim for damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultana Bibi and another vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1999 CLC 273 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-13
  electrocutionFatal Accidents Actnegligenceburden of proofelectricity supplydamagescompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the legal heirs of the deceased, Taj Muhammad, seeking monetary compensation from the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) following his death by electrocution caused by a fallen live electric wire. The core legal question was whether the defendant was liable for negligence in maintaining its electrical infrastructure and whether the death resulted from such negligence or an act of God. The court held that the defendant was liable, reasoning that the occurrence of the accident due to a fallen live wire under the defendant's exclusive control raised a presumption of negligence. The court established that once the plaintiff proves the death resulted from electrocution by a fallen wire, the burden of proof shifts to the defendant to demonstrate that all reasonable care and precautionary measures were taken to prevent such an incident. Finding that the defendant failed to rebut this presumption or provide evidence of proper maintenance, the court decreed the suit, awarding compensation based on the deceased's projected lifetime earnings and personal expenses.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to an electricity utility company when a death occurs due to a fallen live wire?
  • Is an electricity supply company liable for damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, if they fail to maintain overhead lines properly?
  • Can a defendant avoid liability for death by electrocution by claiming the accident was an act of God without providing evidence of proper maintenance?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Ibrahim and others1999 YLR 1487 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• State vs Benazir Bhutto and others1999 P Cr. L J 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-25Read full judgment →
• State vs Abdullah Shah and others1999 P Cr. L J 1537 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-05Read full judgment →
• State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh vs Asif Ali Zardari1999 PLD Karachi 144 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-20Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Government of Sindh vs Asif Ali Zardari1999 P Cr. L J 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-30Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Messrs Bibojee1999 MLD 2750 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• State Cement Corporation Of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Customs, ExcisePTCL 1999 CL. 16 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Star Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan and others1999 MLD 3001 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-10Read full judgment →
• Star Textile Mills Limited , vs Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad And Others,1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1394 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Soomar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-03Read full judgment →
• Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Ltd. through Secretary vs Kemia1999 CLC 1076 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-18
  specific performanceagreement to leaseindustrial plot allotmentunilateral price increasereciprocal obligationstime is of the essencelicense vs lease
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a decree for specific performance regarding the allotment of an industrial plot. The appellants, having allotted a plot to the respondents, unilaterally increased the premium rates. The respondents refused payment, citing the appellants' failure to provide promised infrastructure. The appellants subsequently threatened to cancel the allotment. The core legal questions concerned whether the transaction constituted a license or an agreement to lease, whether the contract was specifically enforceable, and whether the appellants could unilaterally increase the premium. The Court held that the transaction amounted to an agreement to lease, as it created an interest in the property, rendering the Easements Act irrelevant. The Court affirmed the decree for specific performance, ruling that the appellants could not unilaterally vary the agreed price or cancel the allotment for non-performance when they had failed to fulfill their own reciprocal obligations, such as providing infrastructure. The judgment establishes that an allotment creating property interests is enforceable, and a party cannot rely on time-essence clauses to cancel a contract if they have failed to perform their own essential obligations.

  Questions settled

  • Does an allotment of land creating an interest in property constitute a license or an agreement to lease?
  • Can a party unilaterally increase the premium price of an allotted plot after the initial agreement?
  • Can a party rely on a time is of the essence clause to cancel a contract if they have failed to perform their own reciprocal obligations?
  • Is an agreement to lease specifically enforceable when the parties have mutual rights and obligations?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security, Karachi vs Modern Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi1999 PLC 210 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-30
  social security contributionindependent contractoremployer liabilityassessment of contributionlabour lawstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns multiple appeals arising from disputes regarding the liability of an establishment to pay social security contributions for employees engaged through independent contractors. The core legal question was whether, under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, an establishment is legally obligated to contribute to the Social Security Fund for workers employed via contractors. The establishment contended that such employees were not their direct responsibility. The Court held, relying on the definition of 'employer' and 'employee' in the Ordinance and established Supreme Court precedent, that the owner of an industry is liable for contributions for all employees working in connection with their business, regardless of whether they were engaged directly or through a contractor. The Court further held that when an employer fails to maintain proper records or submit required returns, the institution is legally empowered to assess contributions based on available evidence, such as ledgers and account books. Consequently, the Court dismissed the establishment's appeals and allowed the appeals filed by the Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, affirming the establishment's liability.

  Questions settled

  • Is an establishment liable to pay social security contributions for employees engaged through independent contractors?
  • Can an establishment be permitted to add new grounds of appeal at the stage of a second appeal if those grounds require fresh evidence?
  • Does the institution have the authority to assess social security contributions based on ledgers and account books when an employer fails to maintain proper records?
  • Is the non-examination of an officer of the institution in support of written comments fatal to the institution's claim for contributions?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The State1999 YLR 695 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs M.T. Eastern Navigater and others1999 CLC 996 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs The State1999 MLD 212 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Shaikh vs The State1999 MLD 1460 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-27Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs The State1999 MLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali and others vs Abdul Hakeem and others1999 P Cr. L J 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-22Read full judgment →
• Shifaatullah Qureshi vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary_Chairman, Railways, Ministry of Railways (Railway Board), Islamabad1999 CLC 364 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-20
  limitationbreach of contractdamagesWafaqi Mohtasibsection 14 Limitation Actexclusion of timecause of actionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, an approved contractor, filed a suit against Pakistan Railways for recovery of dues for work done and damages for breach of contract after his claim was rejected by the defendant on 24-05-1988. Prior to filing the civil suit, the plaintiff sought relief before the Wafaqi Mohtasib, which recommended payment. However, on appeal under Article 32 of the Ombudsman Order 1983, the President of Pakistan set aside the Ombudsman's recommendations on 27-02-1992. The plaintiff subsequently instituted the suit on 12-03-1992, arguing that limitation should run from the date of the President's order or that the period spent before the Ombudsman and President should be excluded. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was governed by Articles 56 and 115 of the Limitation Act 1908, requiring filing within three years from the initial refusal date (24-05-1988). Proceedings before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and the President do not constitute civil proceedings in a court of law; thus, section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908 does not apply to exclude that period. The suit was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does time spent pursuing remedies before the Wafaqi Mohtasib and President under the Ombudsman Order 1983 qualify for exclusion under section 14 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Which provision of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to a suit for recovery for work done and damages for breach of contract?
  • Does a decision by the President reversing recommendations of the Wafaqi Mohtasib provide a fresh starting point of limitation for a civil suit on the original contract claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State1999 MLD 3242 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• Sher Rehman Alias Tariq And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Rehman alias Tariq and anothers/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Mrs. Qudsia Bano1999 MLD 3165 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-20Read full judgment →
• Shell Pakistan Ltd. through Legal Affairs Advisor and 5 others vs Federation of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad through Secretary and others1999 YLR 166 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-20
  central excise dutyimport stage levybase oil versus lubricating oiljurisdiction of civil courtouster of jurisdictionstatutory interpretationtax refund
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of several suits filed by importers of base oil in bulk, challenging the imposition of central excise duty at the import stage pursuant to section 4(5)(a) of the Finance Act, 1994 and Notification SRO No. 571(i) of 1998. The core legal questions involved the applicability of the impugned SRO to base oil imported in bulk ship tanks rather than 'packs', whether lubricating oil and base oil are distinct, and whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under section 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944. The Sindh High Court held that the word 'pack' cannot be equated with a ship's 'tank', and 'base oil' (raw material) is distinct from finished 'lubricating oil'. The court ruled that misinterpreting the law acts in excess of jurisdiction, rendering the statutory ouster bar inapplicable, and thus civil suits remained maintainable. The court concluded that base oil imported in bulk is not subject to excise duty under the impugned SRO, decreed the suits in favor of the plaintiffs, and ordered the refund of duties paid under protest.

  Questions settled

  • Whether base oil imported in bulk via ship tanks falls within the definition of goods imported in 'packs' under SRO No. 571(i) of 1998?
  • Can 'base oil' be equated with 'lubricating oil' for the levy of central excise duty?
  • Does a misinterpretation of law by an executive authority or tribunal render its action without jurisdiction, thereby bypassing the bar under section 40 of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Whether civil courts have jurisdiction to examine the validity of an administrative action when the authority acts in violation of the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharfuddin vs Riazuddin1999 MLD 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shamsal and 3 others vs Iind Senior Civil Judge, Karachi and 2 others1999 MLD 655 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-21Read full judgment →
• Shamim Khan vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority through Secretary1999 YLR 410 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-18
  constitutional petitionallotment cancellationhousing authoritydisputed questions of factpromissory estoppeldiscriminatory actionultra vires
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the cancellation of the allotment of a plot by the Executive Board of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, purportedly under Article 17 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order 1980. The petitioner, a former government employee, had been allotted the plot in 1976 by the erstwhile Defence Officers Cooperative Housing Society for extraordinary service. The core legal question was whether the Executive Board was competent to cancel an allotment made by the defunct society on the ground of the allottee's non-eligibility for membership, and whether existence of factual disputes bars writ jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the mere existence of a factual controversy does not bar the maintainability of a petition under Article 199 unless the dispute is substantial and requires elaborate inquiry. The Court further held that the power to cancel allotments under Article 17(h) of the 1980 Order is an exceptional power limited to allotments made in contravention of bye-laws or resolutions, and the respondent authority could not sit in judgment over the discretionary decisions of the defunct society where the allotment was intra vires its powers. The impugned cancellation was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of a factual controversy completely bar the maintainability of a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the Executive Board of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority has the power under Article 17 of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Order 1980 to cancel a past allotment made by a defunct society on the ground of non-eligibility for membership?
  • Does an allotment of a plot by a housing society constitute a right in immovable property that cannot be arbitrarily revoked?
  • Is the doctrine of promissory estoppel attracted when an authority calls upon an allottee to pay dues and restoration fees after the dissolution of a previous society?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Naqi vs The S.H.O., Ferozabad Police Station, Karachi1999 YLR 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-09Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Shah vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation through Chairman_Managing Director or Secretary and another1999 PLC (C.S.) 67 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-03Read full judgment →
• Shahjee vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-12
  post-arrest bailcar snatchinghudood ordinancestatutory delayproviso to section 497heinous crime
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal matter arises from a bail application filed by the accused, Shahjee, facing trial under Section 17(3) of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979 for car snatching at gunpoint. The core legal question concerns the entitlement of the accused to post-arrest bail, specifically considering the prompt lodging of the F.I.R., on-the-spot apprehension by police along with the snatched vehicle and weapons, and the applicability of statutory delay provisions under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the accused was prima facie connected to the heinous offence of vehicle snatching, which constitutes an act of terrorism, and that the statutory delay ground for bail is controlled by the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The court established that high incidence of car snatching and direct recovery of weapons and property from the accused disentitle him to bail. Consequently, the bail application was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused apprehended red-handed at the spot with the snatched vehicle and weapons is entitled to post-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of an identification parade vitiate the prosecution case when the accused is named in the F.I.R.?
  • Whether the ground of statutory delay for bail is controlled by the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  • Whether vehicle snatching at gunpoint falls under the category of acts of terrorism justifying the refusal of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Limited1999 PLC (C.S.) 247 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-23Read full judgment →
• Shahid Iqbal vs The State1999 MLD 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-07Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hayat and 2 otherss/Accused vs The State1999 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-16
  criminal bailcounter-versionpolice encountercriminal conspiracyrule of consistencymurderbail refusal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three criminal bail applications filed by Shahid Hayat Khan, Wajid Ali Durrani, and Major (Retd.) Masood Sharif Khan in connection with an F.I.R. concerning an incident where Mir Murtaza Bhutto and several companions were killed in a police firing convoy operation. The core legal questions involve whether the applicants are entitled to bail on the grounds of a counter-version/rule of consistency, lack of direct overt acts, absence from the crime scene regarding the conspiracy charge, and medical grounds. The Sindh High Court held that the applicants' case did not qualify for a genuine counter-version due to mala fides and police attempts to cover up the crime, that presence or active participation and circumstantial evidence of a criminal conspiracy prima facie implicated them, and that medical grounds were unsubstantiated. Consequently, the court dismissed all three bail applications, laying down that the rule of consistency regarding cross-cases does not apply to manufactured or mala fide police F.I.Rs, and that criminal conspiracy, being hatched in secrecy, may be inferred from surrounding facts and conduct rather than direct proof.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency for granting bail in counter-version cases applies when multiple F.I.Rs are registered with mala fide intentions by the police?
  • Can bail be granted on the ground of absence from the scene of occurrence where an accused is charged with criminal conspiracy?
  • How is criminal conspiracy established at the bail stage in the absence of direct evidence?
  • What criteria must be satisfied to grant bail on medical grounds in non-bailable offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz vs The State1999 MLD 344 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Ali Chandio vs S.H.O., Police Station, Ghaibidero and others1999 P Cr. L J 1670 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1076 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-25Read full judgment →
• Shafkat Hussain vs Secretary to Government of Sindh, Home1999 MLD 3025 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shafiquddin vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1196 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-05Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-25
  post-arrest bailfiring in the aircommon intentionmurdercriminal conspiracyfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by the applicant Shafi Muhammad seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 302, 34, and 337-H(2) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant, whose only overt act alleged is firing in the air without causing any injury to the deceased or anyone else, is entitled to post-arrest bail pending trial. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant's responsibility could not be equated with the co-accused who actually fired fatal shots at the deceased, and the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is a matter to be determined during trial after recording evidence. Consequently, the court confirmed the bail granted to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that where an accused is only alleged to have fired in the air without causing any firearm injury, and the question of vicarious liability under section 34 requires assessment of evidence, a case for further inquiry is made out under the statutory provisions for bail.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused charged with firing in the air during a murder incident is entitled to post-arrest bail when no injury is attributed to him?
  • Can the applicability of section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be conclusively determined at the bail stage without recording evidence?
  • Does the absence of an overt act causing physical harm to the victim warrant the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs General Manager, Messrs Muslim Commercial1999 PLC (C.S.) 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-23Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad Mangnejo and others vs Haji Khan Mangnejo1999 P Cr. L J 1693 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-27Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ali and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and 6 others1999 MLD 2742 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-04Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ajaz Rasool vs Vice-Chancellor, Karachi University, Karachi and 31999 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-24
  constitutional petitionpremature petitionaggrieved personservice tribunaluniversity chairmanlocus standiwrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a Professor and Chairman of the Department of Microbiology at Karachi University seeking to restrain the university authorities from removing him from his position before the expiry of his three-year term. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the writ petition in light of university employees being deemed civil servants under the Sindh Service Tribunals Act, whether a cause of action had accrued at the stage of a pending committee inquiry, and the legality of the committee constituted by the Syndicate. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was premature because no adverse final order or notice had been issued against the petitioner, and he was not an aggrieved person at the mere stage of a Syndicate meeting and committee investigation. The court also held that a writ petition cannot be maintained against anticipated actions or premature proceedings. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition in limine, establishing the principle that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked against preliminary deliberations or before a final actionable grievance arises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a mere show-cause notice, pending inquiry, or anticipated administrative action?
  • Can an employee invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court when no final adverse order has been passed against them?
  • Whether university employees fall under the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal as civil servants under the relevant provincial legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Seth Badruddin Ramzan vs The State and anothers1999 MLD 2315 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-22Read full judgment →
• Sayed Shahan Aurangzeb vs Principal of Liaquat Medical College and Chairman, Selection Board, L.M.C., Jamshoro and 3 others1999 CLC 509 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-17Read full judgment →
• Sassi Associates (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi1999 YLR 428 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ahmed vs The State1999 MLD 1233 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ahmed and 101 others vs Glamour One Properties (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-19Read full judgment →
• Sardar Muhammad Zulfiqar vs Inspectorgeneral of Police, Sindh, Karachi and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-01Read full judgment →
• Sardar and 3 others vs The State1999 YLR 628 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Khan vs Mst. G}Iulam Fatma1999 YLR 374 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sampat and another vs Sufaid Khan and others1999 CLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Saman Diplomatic Duty Free Bonded Warehouse through Manager1999 PLD Karachi 170 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-08
  customs bonded warehouselicence suspensionshow-cause noticeaudi alteram partemsearch and seizurecustoms actnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order issued by the Assistant Collector of Customs suspending the petitioner's licence to operate a Diplomatic Duty Free Bonded Warehouse. The core legal question was whether the customs authorities could suspend a warehouse licence under section 13(4) of the Customs Act, 1969, without first issuing a show-cause notice and providing an opportunity of being heard under section 13(3), and whether provisions relating to smuggling and search warrants applied to the inspection and suspension of bonded warehouses. The court held that while the authorities possess powers of access and inventory under the warehousing provisions of the Act, a licence cannot be suspended under section 13(4) without initiating proceedings and issuing a show-cause notice under section 13(3), as the principles of natural justice and audi alteram partem must be read into provisions affecting property or business rights. Consequently, the suspension order was struck down, and the respondents were directed to decide the matter in accordance with law after affording a proper hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Can a customs bonded warehouse licence be suspended under section 13(4) of the Customs Act, 1969 without issuing a show-cause notice under section 13(3)?
  • Do the search and seizure provisions relating to smuggling under Chapter XVIII of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to the inspection and inventory of private bonded warehouses?
  • Is a prior notice or opportunity of hearing required to be read into a statutory provision that empowers authorities to suspend a licence affecting business rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Salma Mehmood through her duly constituted Attorney vs M & N Builders1999 YLR 673 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Salim vs Mst. Hawa Bai1999 MLD 3149 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-16Read full judgment →
• Salim Adamjee vs Al-Faysal Investment Bank Ltd. and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-12
  pledged sharestemporary injunctionbanking finance facilitypawnee rightsdefault in paymentreasonable noticerecovery of loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from the dismissal of an application for a temporary injunction filed under Order 39, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in a suit challenging a bank’s recovery actions regarding a finance facility. The appellant sought to restrain the respondent bank from selling pledged shares, alleging the sales were conducted at unfavorable prices and without proper authorization. The core legal question concerned the extent of a pawnee’s right to dispose of pledged securities upon the pawner's default. The Court held that under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872, a pawnee possesses an absolute right to sell pledged goods once default occurs, provided reasonable notice is given. This right is not contingent upon market fluctuations or the potential for future price increases. The notice requirement serves to afford the pawner an opportunity to redeem the property, balancing the interests of both parties. The Court affirmed that while the bank may proceed with the sale, the appellant retains a cause of action for damages if the bank acts imprudently or sells below market rates.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pawnee have an absolute right to sell pledged goods upon the pawner's default under Section 176 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is a pawnee's right to sell pledged securities contingent upon market conditions or the potential for future price increases?
  • What is the legal purpose of the notice requirement for the sale of pledged goods under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does a borrower have a cause of action if a bank sells pledged shares at a price lower than the prevailing market rate?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Masih vs The State1999 YLR 109 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem KHAN/Accused vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 140 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-22
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryprohibitory clauseattempt to commit qatl-e-amdnon-vital injuriestentative assessmentcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application concerns an accused facing trial for offences under sections 324, 147, 148, and 149, read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail given that the injuries sustained by the victim were on non-vital body parts, no motive was assigned, and the accused did not repeat fire despite having the opportunity. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant’s case required further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court reasoned that the absence of repeated fire and the lack of injuries to vital organs prima facie indicated a lack of murderous intent, rendering the applicability of section 324, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, a matter for trial. Furthermore, the Court noted that the offence under section 337-F(vi), Pakistan Penal Code 1860, does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the Court granted bail, establishing that where an offence does not fall under the prohibitory clause, bail is the rule and refusal the exception.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of repeated firing by an accused, despite having the opportunity, prima facie negate the intention to commit murder under section 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is an offence punishable under section 337-F(vi) of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 considered to fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When an offence does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is the grant of bail considered the rule and refusal the exception?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem Hyder vs The State1999 MLD 1255 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-12
  Exit Control Listfreedom of movementfundamental rightsexecutive discretionconstitutional petitionmalafide action
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Saleem Akhtar to challenge the placement of his name on the Exit Control List (ECL) by the Federation of Pakistan, which prevented him from traveling abroad to visit his ailing brother. The core legal question was whether the Federal Government's discretion to place a citizen's name on the ECL could be exercised without any concrete incriminating material or legal justification, and whether it violated fundamental rights. The Sindh High Court held that although the Exit Control Ordinance vests broad powers in the executive, such discretion must be exercised fairly, reasonably, justly, and in accordance with the law and the Constitution. The Court ruled that a bald, unsubstantiated allegation that the petitioner was a front man for a political figure, in the absence of any pending criminal cases, FIRs, or material showing activities prejudicial to national security, renders the placement on the ECL illegal. The key principle laid down is that executive discretion regarding travel restrictions must be supported by tangible material and cannot arbitrarily infringe upon the constitutional rights of citizens to liberty and movement under Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government can place a citizen's name on the Exit Control List without any incriminating material or legal justification?
  • Does placing a person's name on the Exit Control List without sufficient grounds violate Articles 4, 9, and 15 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is executive discretion under the Exit Control Ordinance 1981 subject to judicial review for fairness and reasonableness?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hyder vs The State1999 MLD 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ahmad Ansari vs The Government of Sindh and others1999 CLC 388 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Sajid Sharif Randhawa vs The State1999 MLD 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad vs The State1999 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Saeeduddin Shaikh vs Ministry of Production, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad through Secretary and 3 others1999 PLC (C.S.) 220 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-28Read full judgment →
• Saeed Baloch vs Raeesa Bi1999 MLD 2082 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-06Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Jamila Khanum1999 CLC 852 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Sabir Hussain and 3 others vs The State1999 MLD 2208 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-02
  protective bailpre-arrest bailjudicial proprietyassignment of casesZina Ordinancebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for protective bail by four accused persons involved in a criminal case registered under the Offences of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicants sought protective bail to approach the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, for pre-arrest bail. The State raised a preliminary objection, arguing that because co-accused had previously been granted bail by another Judge of the High Court, the current application must be placed before that same Judge, citing the rule in The State v. Zubair (PLD 1986 SC 173). The Court addressed whether the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the Judge who decided the first application applies to protective bail. The Court held that the rule in Zubair’s case is inapplicable to protective bail applications. It reasoned that protective bail is a tentative, procedural measure intended to enable an accused to surrender before a competent court, and does not involve an adjudication on the merits. Consequently, the Court granted the protective bail, establishing that the practice of granting such relief remains distinct from substantive bail proceedings and does not trigger the requirement of assignment to the same Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same Judge who decided the first application apply to protective bail?
  • Is the grant of protective bail considered a decision on the merits of a case?
  • Can a High Court grant protective bail to enable an accused to approach a court of competent jurisdiction for pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadi Cement Limited through Director vs Muhamma D Rashid Jamal and 16 others1999 YLR 1649 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-06Read full judgment →
• Saad Amanullah Khan vs Ayesha Tahir Shafique and another1999 CLC 1544 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-25Read full judgment →
• S.M. Gharib Nawaz Daccawala vs Sindh Bar Council and another1999 CLC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-10Read full judgment →
• S. Tariq Saud vs Maroof Ali Shah through Attorney1999 YLR 394 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• S. Sagheer Ahmed Rizvi through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Sagheer1999 CLC 1710 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-06Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Saddiq & Company vs Dawate-Hadiya Akbar Ali Hassan1999 CLC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-26
  personal requirementbona fide needlandlord and tenantrent appealmanaging trusteegood faithevictionpugree
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant's eviction from the demised premises on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement by the respondent-trust to establish its trust office. The core legal questions involve whether the respondent established good faith in its personal requirement claim, whether the managing trustee possessed valid authority to institute the eviction proceedings, and whether past litigation or alleged payment of pugree barred the ejectment. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord's requirement was made in good faith with cogent reasons rather than mere whim, that the tenant had previously acknowledged the managing trustee's authority and could not blow hot and cold, and that prior default litigation did not attract res judicata. The court laid down the principle that a landlord's sufficiency of accommodation and personal requirement, when proven honestly, justifies eviction under the rent laws, subject to statutory safeguards and penalties against misuse under the relevant ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement must establish good faith beyond a mere desire or whim?
  • Does a tenant who previously dealt with a managing trustee as an authorized representative of a trust are estopped from subsequently challenging his authority to institute an eviction case?
  • Whether previous litigation between the landlord and tenant on the ground of default operates as res judicata against a subsequent eviction petition filed on the ground of personal requirement?
  • What statutory safeguards and remedies are available to a tenant under the rent law if a landlord obtains possession on the ground of personal requirement but fails to use it for that purpose within the stipulated period?
  Read full judgment →
• Roland Desouze and others vs Karachi Building Control Authority1999 YLR 2130 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Rizwan HUSSAIN/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-03Read full judgment →
• Riyaz Qasim vs Messrs Ama (Pvt.) Ltd.1999 CLC 445 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-23
  ex parte decreeSection 12(2) CPCcondonation of delaylimitationfraud and misrepresentationfinality of proceedingsnegligence
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court appeal arises from the dismissal of an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which sought to set aside an ex parte decree passed against the appellant. The core legal question was whether the appellant had established sufficient grounds of fraud or misrepresentation to warrant setting aside the decree and whether the application was maintainable given the prior dismissal of an application under Order 9, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to substantiate allegations of fraud or misrepresentation and that the application was an attempt to re-litigate matters that had already attained finality. The Court affirmed that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be invoked to remedy a party's own negligence or to circumvent the finality of judicial proceedings. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that sufficient cause for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 requires a specific, day-to-day explanation of the delay, which was absent in this case.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be used to re-litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings?
  • Is a party required to explain the delay of each day when seeking condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the failure to prove fraud or misrepresentation render an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 incompetent?
  • Can a party invoke Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to remedy their own negligence in failing to appear in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Riayaz Qasim vs (M/s.) Am a (Pyt.) Ltd., KarachiK.L.R. 1999 Civil Cases 432 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-04Read full judgment →