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.

• Colgatepalmolive (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 2 others1999 YLR 213 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-08Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) Munawar Hussain vs Muhammad Nasim Paracha1999 CLC 787 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-09Read full judgment →
• Civil Aviation Authority vs Messrs Aer Rianta International Pakistan1999 CLC 1738 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-14Read full judgment →
• City Bank vs Tariq Mohsin Siddiqi and others1999 PLD Karachi 196 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-12
  leave to defendbanking recoverycontract of guaranteesyndicate bankingconsiderationpenalty clausesco-extensive liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for leave to defend a recovery suit filed by a banking syndicate member against guarantors of a principal company. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit by an individual syndicate member, the validity of a guarantee executed for past debts, and the enforceability of penalty clauses. The Court held that individual syndicate members are entitled to initiate recovery proceedings, as the agreement did not restrict such rights. Regarding the guarantee, the Court affirmed that past benefits enjoyed by the principal debtor constitute valid consideration under Section 127 of the Contract Act 1872, rendering the guarantee enforceable. Furthermore, the Court ruled that while a surety’s liability is co-extensive with the principal debtor, a guarantor cannot invoke the principal debtor's procedural defenses. Finally, the Court held that clauses imposing penalties or liquidated damages are unenforceable under Islamic banking principles. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed, though the plaintiff was directed to file a revised statement of account excluding the impermissible penalty charges.

  Questions settled

  • Can an individual member of a banking syndicate initiate recovery proceedings without joining other members?
  • Does a guarantee executed for past debts of a principal debtor constitute valid consideration under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a guarantor invoke procedural defenses or technicalities available to the principal debtor?
  • Are clauses imposing penalty or liquidated damages enforceable in Islamic banking finance agreements?
  Read full judgment →
• Central Board of Revenue through Chairman, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others vs Messrs Saleem Impex through Proprietor Muhammad Saleem Qureshi, Hyderabad1999 YLR 190 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-02
  civil court jurisdictioncustoms act protectiongood faithmala fidespreliminary objectionsmaintainability of suitimport of scrap
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged an order passed by a learned Single Judge in Chamber which overruled preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of a civil suit and directed the office to fix the suit for further proceedings. The plaintiff had filed a suit against the Central Board of Revenue and other authorities seeking declarations and injunctions regarding imported goods declared as aluminium waste and scrap versus old and used auto parts. The defendants raised objections under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969, and section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886. The core legal question was whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit in light of the statutory bars and whether the question of good faith or mala fides required evidence. The Sindh High Court held that the learned Single Judge was justified in holding that the controversies, particularly those regarding good faith and jurisdiction, required evidence for their solution. The appeal was consequently dismissed with directions to the trial court to record evidence on jurisdiction first.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Civil Court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit against customs authorities when statutory protection is claimed under the Customs Act?
  • Does the protection provided under section 217 of the Customs Act, 1969 apply to mala fide acts or actions not taken in good faith?
  • Whether the question of jurisdiction depending on the good faith of public functionaries requires evidence to be recorded by the trial court?
  • Whether a suit is maintainable against the Karachi Port Trust without serving a mandatory notice under section 87 of the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886?
  Read full judgment →
• Budha Suria vs Mst. Rukhsana Kiran1999 YLR 2139 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Bhoran. Khatoon vs The State and 5 others1999 P Cr. L J 1532 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-13Read full judgment →
• Bhambhar and others vs Mst. Nooria and others1999 YLR 2078 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-21Read full judgment →
• Bela Automotive Limited vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 21999 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court
  octroitransit pass facilityrefund of taxAppellate Tribunal Local Councilsillegal taxationgoods in transitmunicipal taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a limited company challenging the action of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (K.M.C.) in withholding a refund of octroi and denying enlistment for transit pass facilities regarding goods imported for a manufacturing plant in Balochistan but brought through Karachi. The core legal question was whether goods not meant for consumption, use, or sale within the octroi limits of K.M.C., but imported for immediate transit and exported elsewhere, could be subjected to the levy of octroi, and whether the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils had jurisdiction to hear appeals against the orders of the Mayor or Administrator K.M.C. The Sindh High Court held that octroi is strictly a tax on the import of goods for consumption, use, or sale within octroi limits, and goods in transit or meant for immediate export cannot be subjected to such levy. The Court further held that the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils possessed valid jurisdiction under the Sindh Councils (Appeal) Rules, 1982 to hear appeals from orders of the Mayor or Administrator. The petition was allowed with costs, and K.M.C. was directed to refund the illegally collected octroi amount with ten percent interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can goods imported for immediate transportation and not meant for consumption, use, or sale within municipal limits be subjected to the levy of octroi?
  • Does the Appellate Tribunal Local Councils have jurisdiction to hear appeals arising from orders passed by the Mayor or Administrator of the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation?
  • Whether an authority is empowered to withhold a transit pass facility and levy octroi simply because of delays in finalizing an enlistment request?
  • Is a municipal corporation justified in retaining octroi paid under protest by an importer seeking to avoid demurrage charges at the port?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and another vs The State and another1999 YLR 2386 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-13Read full judgment →
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International S.A. through Mr.1999 MLD 3260 · Sindh High Court
  winding-upcompanies ordinancebonafide disputeinability to pay debtscompany liquidationbank guaranteecreditor claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a winding-up petition filed by a foreign bank under sections 305, 306, and 321 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 against a private limited company. The core legal question revolves around whether the petitioner's claim is an undisputed debt presently due and payable, and whether the respondent company is unable to pay its debts so as to warrant a winding-up order. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner failed to establish an undisputed, bona fide claim, as crucial original documents and bank guarantees were missing, the liability was genuinely disputed, and the respondent company was financially solvent with substantial bank balances and assets. The court laid down the principle that winding-up proceedings cannot be used as a pressure tactic where a bona fide dispute exists regarding the debt or its quantum, and that a creditor must first prove an undisputed sum is presently due and payable before a company can be deemed unable to pay its debts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether winding-up proceedings can be maintained when a bona fide dispute exists regarding the debt and its quantum?
  • What constitutes an inability to pay debts under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 for the purposes of winding up?
  • Can a creditor seek the winding up of a company based on unverified accounts and missing original guarantees?
  • Is it just and equitable to wind up a solvent company that has substantial bank balances and profitable operations?
  Read full judgment →
• Baluch Khan and 12 others vs Mst. Parveen Begum and 6 others1999 MLD 3338 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Bahram vs Hassan and 3 others1999 MLD 749 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Badar-E-Alam Farooqui vs State Bank of Pakistan1999 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Bacha Rawan vs The State1999 YLR 2444 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Babar Khan Ghori and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Karachi 402 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-24
  Exit Control Listfundamental rightsfreedom of movementvires of statutepublic interestconstitutional petitioncriminal cases
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions challenging the vires of the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981, and the placement of the petitioners' names on the Exit Control List (ECL). The core legal questions involved whether the Ordinance is ultra vires the fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and whether the inclusion of the petitioners' names on the ECL was justified despite their history of traveling abroad and returning while criminal cases were pending. The Sindh High Court held that the Ordinance itself is a valid piece of legislation enacted in the public interest and is not violative of Articles 2A, 4, 9, 15, or 25 of the Constitution. However, on the merits of the case, the court found that the respondents failed to provide sufficient justification or reply as to why the petitioners were previously permitted to travel abroad after the registration of criminal cases against them. Consequently, the court allowed the petitions to the extent of directing the removal of the petitioners' names from the ECL, enabling them to proceed abroad. The key principles laid down are that statutes controlling the exit of individuals in the public interest are constitutional, but administrative placement on the ECL must be supported by consistent and justifiable grounds rather than arbitrary application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is ultra vires the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan?
  • Does Article 270-A of the Constitution bar the judicial review of laws enacted between July 5, 1977, and December 30, 1985, against fundamental rights?
  • Can the placement of a citizen's name on the Exit Control List be challenged on the ground of inconsistent administrative application?
  • Whether the restriction of the right to travel abroad under the Exit from Pakistan (Control) Ordinance, 1981 is justified in the public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Azeem Food Industries Ltd. and 4 others vs Industrial Development1999 CLC 1915 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-19
  damagesindustrial financedelay in disbursementprocessing of loanbreach of contractremote damagesfinancing institution
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court resolves a civil suit filed by Azeem Food Industries Ltd. and others against the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, wherein the plaintiffs claimed Rs. 500 million in damages for alleged delays in the processing of documentation, disbursement of loans, and commissioning of an ice cream manufacturing project at Noori Abad Industrial Estate. The core legal questions pertained to whether the defendant-bank caused actionable delay in processing documentation or disbursing finance, and whether the plaintiffs were entitled to the claimed damages. The court held that a financing institution is entitled to reasonable time to assess requests for finance, restructuring, and creditworthiness, and that the plaintiffs failed to prove any unreasonable delay by the defendant post-sanction, nor did they provide specific quantification or proof of losses. Consequently, the suit for damages was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that claims for damages must be established with clear particulars and quantified details, and a financial institution cannot be held liable for damages merely due to the time consumed in prudent processing of loan and credit applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a financing institution can be held liable for damages on account of time consumed in processing requests for loans and additional finances?
  • Can a claim for damages succeed when the plaintiff fails to provide specific details, quantification, and clear proof of the losses allegedly suffered?
  • Whether the delay in the commissioning of an industrial project can be attributed to a development bank when disbursement occurred without substantial delay after sanction?
  Read full judgment →
• Ayub Masih and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1678 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Attaulhaq vs Mst. Miraturruqayya through Legal Heirs and others1999 MLD 663 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Khan and another vs Lasbella Cement Ltd.1999 CLC 1795 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-30
  company law jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionvoid orderlimitation periodrevision applicationspecial law vs general law
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged the jurisdiction of a Civil Court to entertain a suit concerning company law matters. The core legal question was whether a Civil Court possesses jurisdiction to adjudicate disputes arising under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, in the absence of a specific notification by the Federal Government conferring such power. The High Court held that Section 7 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, is a special law that vests jurisdiction exclusively in the High Court, unless the Federal Government specifically empowers a Civil Court via notification. Consequently, the Civil Court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit, rendering its orders illegal and void. Furthermore, the Court held that limitation does not run against a void order passed without jurisdiction. The High Court allowed the revision application, setting aside the lower court's decision, and affirmed that the jurisdiction of Civil Courts under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is ousted where special provisions of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, apply.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Civil Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate company law matters without a specific notification from the Federal Government under the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Does the limitation period run against an order that is void for lack of jurisdiction?
  • Is an order refusing to reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, appealable or subject to revision?
  • Can a Civil Miscellaneous Appeal be converted into a revision application in a fit case?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and 3 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-20Read full judgment →
• Assistant Commissioner, Latifabad, Hyderabad and 2 otherss vs Messrs1999 PLD Karachi 329 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-03
  civil revisionwritten statementsuit against Governmentnotice to public officermandatory statutory perioddefault judgmentremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts whereby the respondents' suit for declaration and permanent injunction was decreed under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without waiting for the mandatory statutory period for filing a written statement by the Government. The core legal question was whether a trial court can decree a suit against the Government or a public officer in less than the mandatory three-month period when no prior notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was served. The Sindh High Court held that where no prior written notice has been served under section 80(1), the proviso to section 80(2) mandatorily requires the court to allow not less than three months for the Government or public officer to submit a written statement, and this period cannot be curtailed or foreclosed on technical grounds or due to the absence of the Government Pleader. The High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a trial in accordance with law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can decree a suit against the Government or public officer in less than three months when no prior notice under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 has been served?
  • Can the mandatory three-month period for the Government to submit a written statement under section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be curtailed due to the absence of the Government Pleader or failure to appear?
  • Does a court exercise its jurisdiction illegally by pronouncing a judgment under Order VIII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in disregard of the mandatory provisions of section 80 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Aspro Nicholas Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited through Managing Director and others vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another1999 PLC 354 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Aslam and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 1033 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Aslam alias Ashraf vs The State1999 MLD 474 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05Read full judgment →
• Asim vs The State1999 YLR 156 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-22Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zarpari vs The State1999 YLR 2620 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-25Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs Federation of Pakistan and others1999 PLD Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-20
  oath of officeSenator in custodyproduction orderinternal proceedings of Parliamentconstitutional petitionright of representationtrichotomy of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a duly elected Senator interned and facing criminal trials, sought a writ to be administered the oath of office as a member of the Senate after the Chairman Senate refused to summon him under rule 72-A of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Senate, 1988, on the ground that he was not yet a member having not taken the oath. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the petition under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the interpretation of a person elected versus a member under Article 65, and the enforcement of the right of representation of the constituency. The Sindh High Court held that the bar of Article 69 did not apply since summoning a member does not pertain to internal procedure, that a person elected to a House does not become a member until taking the oath under Article 65, but nevertheless, the petitioner and his electorate possess an enforceable right to representation. The Court laid down that where a lawfully elected candidate is interned, the Federal and Provincial Governments must make arrangements for him to take his oath, ensuring that the democratic right to parliamentary representation is not malafidely frustrated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the validity of an order or proceedings regarding the summoning of a member of Parliament by the Chairman Senate is barred from judicial review under Article 69 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does a person elected to a House of Parliament become a full member before taking the oath of office prescribed under Article 65 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether an undertrial prisoner who has been elected to the Senate has an enforceable right to be produced to take the oath of office and represent his constituency?
  • Can the Federal or Provincial Governments lawfully refuse to facilitate the administration of oath to a duly elected parliamentarian who is in custody?
  Read full judgment →
• Asia Petroleum Limited through Khizzar Hamid, Managing Director vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Pak Secretariat, Islamabad and 3 others1999 PTD 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1999-01-11
  statutory agentincome tax assessmentouster of jurisdictionnatural justiceaudi alteram parteminterim injunctionwithholding taxdouble taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction against an order passed by the Income Tax Department declaring the plaintiff-company an 'agent' of a non-resident contractor under Section 78 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for the purpose of recovering tax liabilities. The core legal questions were whether the Civil Court had jurisdiction to entertain the suit despite the ouster clause in Section 162 of the Ordinance, and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction. The Court held that the suit was maintainable because the Department had violated the principles of natural justice by denying the plaintiff a personal hearing, and had acted in excess of jurisdiction by failing to satisfy the statutory conditions of Section 78, specifically the requirement that the agent must hold or control the principal's funds at the time of the order. The Court further held that the Revenue cannot simultaneously tax a principal under Section 50 and an agent under Section 78 for the same income. The key principle laid down is that statutory ouster clauses do not bar judicial review where an authority acts mala fide, in excess of jurisdiction, or violates fundamental principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Civil Court exercise jurisdiction to review an order passed under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, despite the ouster clause in Section 162?
  • Is the Revenue Department permitted to simultaneously tax a non-resident principal under Section 50 and a resident agent under Section 78 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, for the same income?
  • Does the failure to provide a personal hearing before declaring a party a statutory agent under Section 78 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, constitute a violation of the principles of natural justice?
  • Can a person be declared an agent under Section 78 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, if they do not hold or control the funds of the non-resident principal at the time of the order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain Thahim vs The State and 2 others1999 MLD 535 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Asghar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 20 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-03
  murdercriminal appealcontradictory ocular evidencemedical evidence discrepancybenefit of doubtacquittalappreciation of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, convicting the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The prosecution case alleged that the appellants intercepted the deceased and inflicted fatal knife injuries following a verbal altercation, subsequently leading to the victim's death at the hospital. Upon appraisal of the evidence, the High Court noted grave contradictions among the eye-witnesses regarding the time of the incident, the specific roles attributed to the accused, and the circumstances surrounding the transportation of the injured to the hospital, which directly contradicted the medical evidence and hospital records indicating the injured arrived prior to the alleged time of occurrence. Holding that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to unreliable ocular testimony and delayed deliberations, the court allowed the appeals, set aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants. The key principle laid down is that material contradictions between eye-witness testimony and medical evidence, coupled with doubtful presence of witnesses at the scene, vitiate a conviction in capital cases.

  Questions settled

  • Whether material contradictions between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the time of an incident are sufficient to render the presence of eye-witnesses doubtful?
  • Does an unexplained discrepancy regarding who brought the injured to the hospital undermine the credibility of prosecution witnesses?
  • Whether the failure to corroborate a weapon recovery through chemical examination strips it of probative value?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the prosecution fails to establish the guilt of the accused beyond a shadow of reasonable doubt?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 611 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-26
  pre-arrest bailovert actvicarious liabilitymalafide implicationcommon intentioncriminal-murder
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought pre-arrest bail in a criminal case registered under sections 302, 337-A(i), 337-F(i), 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who was armed with a gun but was not attributed any overt act or specific role in the commission of the offence, was entitled to confirmation of pre-arrest bail, particularly considering potential mala fides regarding a matrimonial dispute over his wife. The court held that since no overt act was attributed to the applicant despite being armed, and given that he did not use his weapon, the possibility of false implication due to a motive arising from his marriage could not be ruled out. The court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant, laying down the principle that the absence of any overt act or participation in the crime by an accused, coupled with suspicious circumstances of omnibus implication of family members, warrants the confirmation of pre-arrest bail.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused entitled to pre-arrest bail when no overt act is attributed to him despite being armed?
  • Does the non-participation of an accused in the actual commission of an offence support a plea of mala fide implication for the purpose of bail?
  • Can vicarious liability under common object or intention be conclusively determined at the pre-arrest bail stage without recording evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Arshad Jawaid Khan vs Karachi Telecommunication Region, Government of Pakistan through General Manager1, (South) and others1999 MLD 3185 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-13Read full judgment →
• Armor Shipping Agent vs M.V.Rubin1999 YLR 989 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-16Read full judgment →
• Aqil Mian vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 571 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-15Read full judgment →
• Anwer Salahuddin and 2 others vs Karachi Building Control1999 MLD 3209 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-07Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Hussain1999 CLC 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Amp alias Guddo and 5 others vs The State1999 YLR 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-19Read full judgment →
• Amjid Hussain vs The STATEOpponent1999 MLD 438 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-27Read full judgment →
• Amjad Pervaiz alias Amjad vs The State1999 MLD 982 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Amir Hayat vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1529 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-11
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaychallan submissionunlawful detentionstolen propertyvehicle tampering
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from the arrest of the applicant, Amir Hayat, who is charged with offences under sections 411, 468, 471, and 473 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following the recovery of a stolen vehicle and instruments allegedly used for tampering with vehicle identification. The core legal question presented was whether the applicant was entitled to bail due to the prosecution's failure to submit a challan within the statutory period prescribed by section 173(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court, noting the state's concession regarding the legal position and the maximum punishment of seven years' rigorous imprisonment, held that the delay in filing the challan rendered the continued detention of the applicant unlawful. Consequently, the court granted the bail application, directing the release of the applicant upon furnishing solvent surety. The key principle established is that the failure of the prosecution to file a challan within the mandatory statutory timeframe entitles an accused person to the concession of bail, as continued detention under such circumstances is legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to file a challan within the statutory period under section 173(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 entitle an accused to bail?
  • Is the continued detention of an accused unlawful if the prosecution fails to comply with the mandatory time limits for submitting a challan?
  Read full judgment →
• Amin Badshah vs Nargis Saleem Ahmed1999 YLR 16 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ambar Ahmad Khan vs Pakistan International Airlines1999 YLR 801 · Sindh High Court · 1999-06-08Read full judgment →
• Amanat Ali alias Amir Ali vs The State1999 YLR 2529 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-24Read full judgment →
• Altaf HUSSAIN/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 2199 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Altaf and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 996 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-17Read full judgment →
• Allan Khan vs S.H.O., Police Station Mouladad1999 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Allahyar vs The State1999 YLR 2077 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-05Read full judgment →
• Allahdino and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1704 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Allahdino and another vs The State1999 YLR 1930 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasayo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1033 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-30Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha vs Mst. Mussarrat1999 CLC 1786 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakha Choudhary vs Presiding Officer, VTH Sindh Labour Court, Karachi and 2 others1999 PLC 128 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-24
  intra-court appealLaw Reforms Ordinanceconstitutional petitiontrade union disputedisputed questions of factmaintainabilityLabour Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an intra-court appeal directed against an order of a learned Single Judge dismissing a constitutional petition relating to a trade union dispute. The core legal question concerns the maintainability of an intra-court appeal under section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 where the underlying proceedings arose from a statute providing an appeal mechanism, and whether disputed questions of fact can be resolved in constitutional jurisdiction. The court held that the intra-court appeal is barred under the proviso to section 3(2) of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 because section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 provides a statutory remedy akin to an appeal against the Registrar's action before the Labour Court, and further held that disputed questions of fact regarding a forged resignation cannot be investigated in writ jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that an intra-court appeal against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution is barred if the proceedings originate from a law providing at least one appeal, revision, or review, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to resolve disputed questions of fact requiring evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an intra-court appeal maintainable against an order passed under Article 199 of the Constitution when the original proceedings arose under a law providing an appeal or remedy to a tribunal?
  • Does section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 provide a remedy in the nature of an appeal against the act of the Registrar regarding a change of trade union officers?
  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding a forged resignation be investigated and adjudicated within the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 466 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-03Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo and 2 others vs The State1999 MLD 385 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-01Read full judgment →
• Aljamiaul Arabia Ahasanul Uloom and Jamia Masjid and others vs Syed1999 YLR 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-22
  amenity plotpark conversioninterim injunctionpublic nuisancemunicipal rulesrestrictive covenantsKDA Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit and an application for interim injunction filed by a registered trust managing an educational institution and mosque, seeking to restrain the holding of a weekly Thursday bazar on a nearby plot earmarked as a park in the master lay-out plan. The core legal question was whether civic authorities have the power to permit the commercial use of an amenity plot designated as a park, and whether an interim injunction should be granted against such use despite contentions that it would dispose of the main suit. The Sindh High Court held that the restraint against the conversion of amenity plots under the relevant statute is absolute, and authorities have no discretion to permit their use for any purpose other than that sanctioned. The court ruled that an ongoing illegality cannot be permitted to continue on the ground of convenience, and granted the interim injunction. The key principles laid down are that amenity plots reserved for public recreation cannot be converted or utilized for alternative purposes even temporarily, and public welfare and environmental preservation override individual commercial licenses.

  Questions settled

  • Can civic authorities permit an amenity plot earmarked as a park to be used for commercial activities like a weekly bazar?
  • Does the prohibition against the conversion of amenity plots under Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957 apply absolutely?
  • Can the grant of interim relief be withheld merely on the ground that it would amount to the final disposal of the main suit when the act complained of is illegal?
  • Does the transfer of municipal functions from the Karachi Development Authority to the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation extinguish the restrictive conditions attached to amenity land?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1999 MLD 396 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1688 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 254 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and another vs The State1999 YLR 141 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 258 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-17
  quashment of FIRinherent jurisdictioninvestigationcriminal misappropriationabuse of processpublic servantanticorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves two criminal miscellaneous applications filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of First Information Reports registered against the applicants for offences under Section 409 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the High Court can interfere with the investigation of a cognizable offence in the exercise of its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed both applications, holding that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A is of an extraordinary nature, of limited scope, and cannot be utilized to interrupt, divert, or interfere with the process of investigation undertaken by the police. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will not invoke its inherent powers at the pre-trial or investigation stage to hamper the ordinary course of criminal procedure, as doing so would circumvent the due process of law.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with the process of investigation of a cognizable offence under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked to quash an F.I.R. at the investigation stage?
  • Does the power vested in the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include the authority to interrupt the ordinary course of criminal procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1999 Criminal Cases 283 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs Muhammad Yakoob Almani, Deputy'superintendent of Police, Qasimabad, Hyderabad and 5 others1999 PLD Karachi 134 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-01
  habeas corpusillegal detentionmonetary compensationpolice highhandednessconstitutional rightsfundamental rightscosts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a habeas corpus petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 alleging the illegal and unauthorized detention of the petitioner's son by police officials. The core legal question addressed by the Sindh High Court is whether, in summary proceedings under section 491 Cr.P.C., the High Court possesses the legal competence to award costs and monetary compensation to a detenu for unlawful confinement, alongside ordering their release, and what range of consequential orders are permissible. The Court held that where detention is proven to be unlawful, malicious, or in flagrant violation of liberty without lawful authority, the High Court is fully empowered to award costs and tentative monetary compensation as a deterrent against the misuse of public power, alongside other measures such as directing departmental inquiries or converting proceedings into bail. The key principle laid down is that summary habeas corpus proceedings under section 491 Cr.P.C. do not bar the Court from granting monetary compensation and costs to victims of unconstitutional and unauthorized police detention.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court award monetary compensation and costs in a habeas corpus petition filed under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What range of orders can a High Court pass when dealing with illegal detention under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether summary proceedings under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the award of tentative damages for violation of personal liberty?
  • Is a High Court competent to convert habeas corpus proceedings into a bail application under appropriate circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• AlHaj Saka Usman vs The State1999 MLD 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-24Read full judgment →
• Alcatel Pakistan Limited vs Collector of Customs1999 YLR 710 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-13Read full judgment →
• Akhlaque Muhammad vs The State1999 YLR 1157 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-18Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1999 MLD 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-25Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 267 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-10Read full judgment →
• Ajmer Shah vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 886 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ajaz Anis vs Tariq Isa and 6 others1999 CLC 259 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-07Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali Shah vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Karachi1999 PLC (C.S.) 221 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-04Read full judgment →
• AHMED/Accused vs The State1999 MLD 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs The State1999 YLR 2504 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Jan alias Shinoo vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 506 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-08Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs The State1999 MLD 928 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-22Read full judgment →
• Agrofoster (Pvt.) Ltd. And 2 others vs Judge, Banking Court No.5, Karachi and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 398 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-24
  leave to defendbanking courtrecovery of loansfurnishing securityconstitutional petitionserious and bona fide dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners impugned an order of the Banking Court granting them leave to defend a recovery suit filed by respondent No. 2 subject to furnishing security for the claimed amount. The core legal question was whether the Banking Court, under Section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, has the power to impose a condition of furnishing security when granting leave to defend upon finding a serious and bona fide dispute. The Sindh High Court held that once a serious and bona fide dispute is raised, leave to defend must be granted without attaching any condition of furnishing security, as the statute does not provide for it at that initial stage, unlike subsequent stages under Section 13 where security can be demanded if proceedings are delayed beyond ninety days. The key principle laid down is that courts cannot add conditions to a statutory provision that the Legislature deliberately omitted, and leave to defend under Section 10 of the 1997 Act is a matter of right once the statutory threshold of a serious and bona fide dispute is met.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Banking Court can demand security as a condition for granting leave to defend under Section 10 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • What constitutes a serious and bona fide dispute for the grant of leave to defend under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • At what stage of the proceedings can a Banking Court require a defendant to furnish security under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  Read full judgment →
• Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan through Manager vs Wali1999 CLC 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-05Read full judgment →
• Agha Khuda Bux, Advocate vs The State and 3 others1999 P Cr. L J 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-05Read full judgment →
• Agha Daver Hussain vs Mrs. Zaibun Nisa Order accordingly.1999 MLD 3088 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-03Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed vs Muhammad Shoaib and 2 others1999 PLD Karachi 455 · Sindh High Court · 1999-08-20Read full judgment →
• Advocategeneral, Sindh vs Abdul Sattar1999 MLD 2046 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-24Read full judgment →
• Adidas Salemon vs Abdullah Ismail and others1999 YLR 832 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-22Read full judgment →
• Additional Advocate-General vs Additional Sessions Judgeh, Khairpur and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-08Read full judgment →
• Achar and 6 others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 181 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-05
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitdirect complaintState caserevision applicationquashment of proceedingsmurder trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges the dismissal of an application under section 265-K of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Tando Adam, which sought the quashment of a subsequent State case following the acquittal of the accused in a prior direct complaint arising from the same incident. The core legal question was whether trying the accused in the State case after their acquittal in the direct complaint for the same offense constitutes double jeopardy under section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Sindh High Court held that where the accused have already been tried, examined, and acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the same facts and charges, subjecting them to a second trial for the same offense violates the protection against double jeopardy. The Court laid down the principle that a fresh trial on the same facts and for the same offense is barred under section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 once an acquittal by a competent court remains in force.

  Questions settled

  • Whether trying an accused in a State case after their acquittal in a direct complaint for the same offense constitutes double jeopardy?
  • Does section 403(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar a fresh trial when the accused has already been acquitted by a court of competent jurisdiction on the same facts?
  • Is a subsequent criminal trial liable to be quashed if it violates the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense?
  Read full judgment →
• Abnamro Bank N.V. vs Land Cement Ltd.1999 YLR 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1999-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali and others vs Syed Kaural Shah and others1999 CLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-19Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1999 YLR 668 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abduljillani vs Mst. Jeenat Bi1999 MLD 3331 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul, Jabbar vs Shirin Begum and another1999 YLR 464 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The Settlement Department through Settlement1999 CLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1998-10-21
  evacuee trust propertypermanent transfer deedconstitutional petitionvalidation of transferquasi-judicial authoritypresumption of truthcharitable trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging orders passed by the Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, which declared certain properties as evacuee trust property and consequently cancelled the Permanent Transfer Deeds (P.T.Ds) previously issued to the petitioners. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of official records and trust deeds in determining the status of evacuee property, and whether the petitioners' transfers could be validated under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the Chairman’s findings were based on substantial evidence, including official Gazette notifications and a registered trust deed. The Court affirmed that the Chairman possesses the final authority to determine the status of evacuee trust property. Furthermore, the Court established that transfers of such property cannot be validated under Section 10 of the 1975 Act unless the transfer occurred bona fide and the P.T.D. was issued prior to June 1968. As the petitioners’ transfers occurred after this crucial date, they were invalid. The Court also emphasized that it cannot interfere with concurrent findings of fact by quasi-judicial authorities absent perversity.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact made by the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board?
  • What are the conditions required to validate the transfer of urban evacuee trust property under the Evacuee Trust Property (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975?
  • Does an entry in official records regarding a religious endowment carry a presumption of truth under the relevant land revenue laws?
  • Is the decision of the Chairman of the Evacuee Trust Property Board regarding the status of a property as evacuee trust property final?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Khokhar vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahab vs Naim and anothers1999 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and others vs Sh. Muhammad Zaki and 4 others1999 YLR 865 · Sindh High Court · 1999-03-11
  specific performanceattachment of propertycooperative societiesvoidable transactionagreement to sellcompromise awardsuccessors-in-interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a judgment of a learned Single Judge decreeing the respondents' suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of agricultural land dated 23-2-1963. The appellants, successors-in-interest of the deceased vendor, contested the suit alleging that the document was merely executed to facilitate the formation of a garden housing society and that the property was voidly encumbered by an attachment order issued by the Registrar of Cooperative Societies. The core legal questions involved the true nature of the transaction, the enforceability of a sale agreement during an alleged prior attachment, and the applicability of Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction was indeed a valid agreement for sale and that the attachment order did not render the subsequent agreement void ab initio, as Section 64 C.P.C. only renders alienations voidable to the extent of the attaching creditor's interest, which had already been fully satisfied through a subsequent compromise and conveyance. The court laid down the principle that a sale agreement executed during an attachment is not void ab initio but merely voidable at the instance of the affected attaching creditor, and successors of a vendor cannot exploit their own wrong or a satisfied attachment to resist specific performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agreement to sell immovable property executed while the property is under attachment is void ab initio or merely voidable?
  • Can the legal representatives of a vendor resist a suit for specific performance on the ground of a previous attachment when the attaching creditor's claim has already been satisfied?
  • Does an attachment order take effect without actual compliance with the requirements of attachment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a transaction entered into under the guise of forming a housing society can override a clear written agreement for the sale of land supported by partial consideration and delivery of possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Muhammad Yaqoob and another1999 CLC 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq alias Baboo vs The State and 2 others1999 P Cr. L J 320 · Sindh High Court · 1998-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak Tabba and 2 others vs Jetpur Memon Relief Society1999 CLC 2077 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and another vs The State1999 MLD 370 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf alias Rauf vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1998-11-23
  post-arrest bailZina-bil-JabrHudood Ordinanceevidentiary standardsfurther inquiryprohibitory clausechemical analysis
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by an accused facing charges under Section 10(2) of the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an FIR alleging abduction and Zina. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established sufficient grounds to deny bail, specifically regarding the evidentiary requirements for Zina and the applicability of the prohibitory clause under Section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the prosecution's case lacked sufficient evidence of the act of penetration, noting that the mere recovery of the prosecutrix from the accused's house is insufficient to infer Zina. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the stringent evidentiary standards for Zina, requiring four eyewitnesses or a confession, were not met. Additionally, the Court criticized the lack of scientific rigor in the investigation, particularly the failure to group semen samples. Consequently, the Court granted bail, holding that the case required further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the offence did not fall within the prohibitory clause.

  Questions settled

  • Is the recovery of a woman from the house of an accused sufficient to establish the offence of Zina?
  • Does the absence of four eyewitnesses or a confession preclude the denial of bail in Zina cases?
  • Can bail be granted when the prosecution fails to conduct scientific grouping of semen samples found on the prosecutrix?
  • Does a delayed FIR without a plausible explanation constitute grounds for further inquiry under Section 497(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasool vs The State1999 YLR 353 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs Mst. Momina Khatoon and another1999 YLR 342 · Sindh High Court · 1999-02-27Read full judgment →