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.

• Abdul Rahman and 4 others vs The State1999 MLD 2246 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 2239 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif and anothers vs The State1999 MLD 1300 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Abandoned Properties Organization1999 P.C.T.L.R. 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1999 MLD 3236 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and others vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 186 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jameel Khan vs The State1999 MLD 681 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hassan alias Noor Hassan alias Hanan and anothers vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 1936 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and others vs Haji Muhammad Javed1999 MLD 3031 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-30
  rent controllerlandlord and tenant relationshipejectment applicationstriking off defensejurisdictionsummary proceedingsSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of rent appeals arising from ejectment applications filed by the respondent against the appellants. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, upon the denial of the landlord-tenant relationship by the alleged tenants, could summarily pass an order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the deposit of rent, and subsequently strike off the defense for non-compliance, without first adjudicating the jurisdictional issue of the existence of that relationship. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned orders were nullities. The Court ruled that when the relationship of landlord and tenant is specifically denied, the Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to proceed with ejectment or rent deposit orders until that preliminary issue is resolved. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller cannot decide the existence of such a relationship in a summary or arbitrary manner. Instead, the Rent Controller must afford both parties a full opportunity to lead evidence and determine the issue, preferably alongside the final disposal of the main case, rather than presuming ownership equates to landlordship.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller pass an order for the deposit of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 before determining the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship when that relationship is disputed?
  • Is a Rent Controller competent to strike off a tenant's defense for non-compliance with a rent deposit order without first deciding the jurisdictional issue of the landlord-tenant relationship?
  • Does the mere claim of ownership of a premises automatically establish a landlord-tenant relationship for the purposes of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed alias Hameed vs The State1999 MLD 752 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haleem vs The State1999 YLR 370 · Sindh High Court · 1999-04-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Larkana Municipal Corporation and others1999 CLC 885 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-23Read full judgment →
• Aamir Mehmood vs The State1999 P Cr. L J 614 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-17Read full judgment →
• A. Merdith Janes Co. Ltd. vs Crescent Board Ltd.1999 CLC 437 · Sindh High Court · 1998-09-14
  foreign arbitration awardenforcement of awardarbitration agreementLiverpool Cotton Associationcommercial arbitrationquestion of facttransnational commercial agreements
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The dispute arose from a contract for the sale of cotton between the parties, which was subject to the bye-laws of the Liverpool Cotton Association (L.C.A.). Following the defendants' failure to open a Letter of Credit, the plaintiffs initiated arbitration proceedings. Despite the defendants' participation, they challenged the resulting award, arguing that the arbitrators lacked jurisdiction due to the absence of a signed contract form and contesting the determination of the breach date. The Court held that the parties' membership in the L.C.A. established a valid arbitration agreement, rendering a signed contract unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the determination of the breach date was a question of fact, which could not be re-examined during enforcement proceedings, especially since the defendants failed to pursue the available appellate remedy under L.C.A. rules. The Court emphasized that judicial processes should not be used to delay the implementation of transnational commercial agreements, and consequently, the award was enforced.

  Questions settled

  • Is a signed contract form a mandatory prerequisite for the validity of an arbitration agreement between members of the Liverpool Cotton Association?
  • Can a court re-examine a finding of fact, such as the date of a contract breach, during proceedings for the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award?
  • Does the failure to pursue an available appellate remedy under arbitration rules preclude a party from challenging factual findings in enforcement proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Habib Ahmed vs The Hongkong & Shanghai Banking Company and 51999 CLC 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-15
  banking jurisdictiontransfer of suitspledged sharesloan and financebanking courtmultiplicity of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application raising a legal objection regarding the jurisdiction of the High Court to entertain a civil suit in light of the promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The core legal question is whether a civil suit filed by a borrower against a banking company concerning pledged shares, related declarations, injunctions, and damages falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of a Banking Court under the 1997 Act, requiring its transfer from the High Court. The Sindh High Court held that the dispute fundamentally arises out of default and obligations concerning loan and finance facilities and thus falls within the domain of the Banking Court. The Court laid down that all proceedings pending in any court relating to matters covered under the 1997 Act stand transferred to the Banking Court, and plaintiffs cannot split claims to bypass specialized jurisdiction. Furthermore, transferred cases continue from their existing stage without necessitating summary trial procedures like leave to defend.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit concerning pledged shares and credit facilities is transferable to a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • Do proceedings pending in ordinary civil courts stand transferred to the Banking Court under section 7(6) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • Are defendants in a suit transferred to a Banking Court required to seek leave to defend under section 9(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997?
  • Does the inclusion of third-party defendants for damages alter the character of a banking suit so as to bar its transfer to a Banking Court?
  Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Taufiq Textile Mills (Pvt) Ltd. And 4 Others vs (M/s.) Industrial1999 P.C.T.L.R. 733 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Noon Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation1999 P.C.T.L.R. 695 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) Mohsin Tea Store vs Federation of Pakistan And Others1999 P.C.T.L.R. 692 · Sindh High Court · 1998-12-10Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Lever Brothers Pakistan, Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan And1999 P.C.T.L.R. 676 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-29Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Data Textiles Ltd. vs Karachi Stock Exchange Limited &1999 P.C.T.L.R. 701 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Rachel Joseph vs Aftabuddin Qureshi And OtherK.L.R. 1999 Criming} Cases 94 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ziaullah Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1477 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-16Read full judgment →
• Zareen Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 31 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-31Read full judgment →
• Zamir Hussain vs Badshah and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 883 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-20Read full judgment →
• Zaibtun Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Federation of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1998 CLC 1278 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-23Read full judgment →
• Zahid Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-14Read full judgment →
• Zahid and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18
  post-arrest bailidentification paradeconfessional statementfurther inquirydacoityrobberypolice custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves seven criminal bail applications filed by the applicant, Muhammad Zahid, who was implicated in multiple cases of dacoity, robbery, and firearms offences across various police stations in Karachi. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given the weak and questionable nature of the evidence, including delayed confessional statements and flawed identification parades. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case warranted further inquiry under subsection (2) of section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, noting significant delays in recording confessions, lack of consistent identifications, and the mechanical manner in which charge-sheets were submitted against eight accused persons despite initial FIRs naming fewer perpetrators. Consequently, the court granted bail to the applicant in all seven cases, establishing that prolonged police custody prior to identification tests and vague, uniform confessions render the prosecution's case amenable to further inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether delayed confessional statements recorded after prolonged police custody constitute sufficient ground for granting post-arrest bail?
  • Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to identify the accused during identification parades bring a case within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing similar allegations have already been granted bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Z. Shirazee vs Abdul Qadir1998 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Mas1h and anothers vs Haji Muhammad Shah and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-24Read full judgment →
• Yaseen Khan and 8 others vs Government of Sindh through Chief1998 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-03Read full judgment →
• Yarntex Trading Company and others vs Chief Controller of Buildings1998 PLD Karachi 11 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-18
  interim injunctionland use conversionhigh-rise constructionbuilding control regulationsadministrative orderamenity plotstructural damage
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the owners of Ebrahim Estates against the Chief Controller of Buildings and others, challenging construction on an adjacent plot. The core legal questions were whether the conversion of a plot from a cinema site to a general commercial complex was illegal, and whether a Chief Minister’s administrative summary could override a formal government notification banning high-rise construction beyond four floors. The Court held that "cinema" constitutes a commercial activity; thus, the change of user did not fundamentally alter the scheme's nature. However, regarding the building height, the Court ruled that an administrative order cannot override a formal government notification. Consequently, the Court granted a partial injunction, restraining construction beyond the fourth floor pending the suit's outcome, while permitting construction up to that limit at the defendant's risk. Additionally, the Court appointed a Commissioner to assess alleged structural damage to the plaintiffs' property. The principle established is that administrative orders cannot supersede formal government notifications, and construction must adhere to validly notified height restrictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plot earmarked for a cinema be converted to a general commercial complex without violating the original land use scheme?
  • Does an administrative order or summary by a Chief Minister have the legal authority to override a formal government notification banning high-rise construction?
  • Is a court empowered to appoint a commissioner to assess structural damage to an adjoining property during the pendency of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Yarntex Trading Company And Other vs Chlef Controller of BuildingsK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 450 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad alias Yaroo vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 986 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-19Read full judgment →
• Waseema and another vs Karachi Transport Corporation through Managing Director, Director or Secretary and another1998 CLC 573 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-05Read full judgment →
• Waseem Ahmed Usmani vs Messrs L. & M. International (Private) Ltd.1998 CLC 256 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-13Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Government of Sindh and others1998 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-01
  octroi exemptionlifting the veil of incorporationArticle 165promissory estoppelInter-Provincial Coordination CommitteeWAPDAprovincial taxationstatutory corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) seeking implementation of a unanimous decision taken by the Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee (IPCC) to exempt WAPDA from property tax and octroi on its equipment and material. WAPDA contended that it had performed its reciprocal obligation of charging electricity tariff on street lights and drinking water schemes at domestic rates, but the Government of Sindh failed to grant the promised exemption. WAPDA further argued that its properties vest in the Federal Government and are exempt from provincial taxation under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The High Court of Sindh allowed the petition, holding that WAPDA performs statutory public functions on behalf of the Federal Government, making its property federally owned in substance. Piercing the corporate veil, the Court distinguished commercial state companies from statutory sole providers, holding the Government bound by the IPCC decision under the principle of estoppel and directing it to exercise powers under Section 62 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 to abolish or suspend octroi on WAPDA's equipment and materials.

  Questions settled

  • Does property belonging to a statutory authority performing state functions vest in the Federal Government for the purpose of tax exemption under Article 165 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can the doctrine of lifting the corporate veil be applied to establish that a statutory corporation operates as a department of the Government?
  • Is a Provincial Government bound by estoppel to honor decisions made at the Inter-Provincial Coordination Committee when the opposing party has performed its reciprocal obligations?
  • Does Section 62 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 empower the Provincial Government to direct local councils to suspend or abolish the levy of octroi on a statutory authority?
  Read full judgment →
• WAPDA through Superintending Engineer and another vs Presiding1998 PLC 180 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05
  WAPDA employeescivil servant statusPayment of Wages Actjurisdiction of Authoritywrit jurisdictionrecovery of illegal paymentservice matters
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act and the Labour Court regarding the recovery of travelling and daily allowances by WAPDA employees. The core legal question was whether the Authority possessed jurisdiction to adjudicate service-related claims of WAPDA employees and whether the Labour Court erred in dismissing an appeal as infructuous after the disputed amount was disbursed. The High Court held that WAPDA employees are civil servants whose terms and conditions of service fall exclusively within the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal, thereby rendering the Authority’s proceedings void. Consequently, the Court quashed the orders of both the Authority and the Labour Court. Furthermore, invoking its writ jurisdiction to ensure complete justice, the Court ordered the recovery of the illegally disbursed funds from the recipients or, failing that, from the personal salary or pension of the official responsible for the unauthorized disbursement, establishing that writ jurisdiction is corrective and must prevent ill-gotten gains.

  Questions settled

  • Do WAPDA employees fall under the jurisdiction of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 regarding their terms and conditions of service?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal as infructuous solely because the awarded amount has been disbursed?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to order the recovery of illegally disbursed funds from the personal salary of a public official?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad alias Waloo vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-16Read full judgment →
• Wadero Muhammad Arif and 33 others vs Province of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner Dadu and 5 others1998 PLD Karachi 390 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-20Read full judgment →
• United Bans Limited through Authorised Officers and Attorneys vs Messrs1998 PLD Karachi 354 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-11Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Azmat Textile Mills1998 CLC 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Credence Electronics and others1998 PLD Karachi 325 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Mian Tajammul Hussain1998 CLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-24
  ex parte decreesetting aside decreevakalatnamaprocedural justicecounsel dischargelimitation periodsufficient cause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte judgment and decree passed against the defendant. The core legal question was whether the ex parte decree should be set aside given that the defendant's counsel had filed a statement seeking discharge of his vakalatnama, upon which the court failed to pass an order, leading to the defendant's absence and subsequent ex parte proceedings. The court held that the ex parte decree was passed in haste and resulted in serious injustice, as the court failed to adjudicate upon the counsel's request for discharge, leaving the defendant without proper representation or notice. The court recalled the ex parte decree, emphasizing that procedural rules are designed to advance justice rather than deny relief on technical grounds. The key principle laid down is that a party should not suffer due to a mistake or omission by the court, and that where an advocate seeks discharge, the court must pass a formal order to ensure the client is not left unrepresented without notice.

  Questions settled

  • Does an advocate's appointment remain in force until formally determined by the court?
  • Is an application to set aside an ex parte decree governed by Article 164 or Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the order is void?
  • Can a court set aside an ex parte decree if the proceedings resulted from the court's own failure to pass an order on a counsel's request for discharge?
  • Does the failure of a court to pass an order on a pending application constitute a ground for setting aside an ex parte decree?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Novelty Enterprises Ltd. and others1998 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-12
  banking tribunalletter of creditmark-upislamic bankingliquidated damagesbalance confirmation sliprecovery suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was filed by United Bank Limited against a judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal for Karachi and Sukkur, which decreed the bank's recovery suit based on balance confirmation slips. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant bank was entitled to claim amounts beyond the principal, one-year mark-up, and cushion mark-up, and whether liquidated damages could be awarded without proof of actual loss in non-interest-based Islamic banking. The Sindh High Court held that under the Islamic mode of banking and relevant State Bank of Pakistan circulars, mark-up cannot be charged indefinitely or compounded (no mark-up over mark-up), and the bank is restricted to the principal amount plus one year mark-up and the prescribed cushion period mark-up. Furthermore, the court held that liquidated damages cannot be granted unless actual loss or damage is proven by evidence. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, affirming the Tribunal's decree.

  Questions settled

  • Is a banking company entitled to claim mark-up beyond one year plus the prescribed cushion period under Islamic modes of financing?
  • Can liquidated damages be awarded to a plaintiff bank in a recovery suit without leading evidence to prove actual loss or damage?
  • Whether balance confirmation slips executed by a debtor can form the basis for restricting or determining the recoverable principal and mark-up amounts?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Golden Textile Mills Limited1998 PLD Karachi 330 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-16
  winding up petitioncommercial insolvencybona fide disputeabuse of processrecovery suitCompanies Ordinance 1984corporate litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition, filed under Section 305 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, sought the winding up of the respondent company, Golden Textile Mills Limited, by its creditor, United Bank Limited, on the grounds of commercial insolvency and inability to pay debts. The core legal question was whether a winding-up petition is maintainable when the underlying debt is bona fide disputed and currently the subject of pending litigation. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that winding-up proceedings cannot serve as a substitute for a recovery suit. The Court established that where a debt is genuinely disputed, or where the company remains commercially solvent and operational, a winding-up order is inappropriate. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that utilizing winding-up petitions to coerce payment of disputed claims constitutes an abuse of legal process. The petitioner’s failure to disclose existing litigation and the respondent’s prompt replies to statutory notices indicated a lack of bona fides. Consequently, the Court ruled that the petitioner failed to demonstrate the company’s commercial insolvency or justify the necessity of winding up.

  Questions settled

  • Can a winding-up petition be maintained when the alleged debt is bona fide disputed by the company?
  • Is a winding-up petition a valid substitute for a civil suit for the recovery of a debt?
  • Does the suppression of pending litigation regarding a debt in a winding-up petition constitute an abuse of legal process?
  • What criteria determine whether a company is deemed unable to pay its debts for the purpose of a winding-up order?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Aftab Ahmed1998 MLD 1744 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-02Read full judgment →
• Turner Morrison Garahams Group of Companies, London vs Rice1998 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-10
  arbitration awardmodification of awarderror on the face of the recordbreach of contractsecurity deposit forfeituredamagescommercial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves objections to an arbitration award arising from a dispute over a contract for the purchase and export of Basmati rice between the plaintiffs and the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited. The core legal questions pertained to whether the arbitrator erred in assessing damages, the forfeitability of security deposits, and the extent of the court's jurisdiction to modify an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act. The Sindh High Court held that while courts have limited jurisdiction to review factual findings of an arbitrator, an award may be modified or corrected under section 15 of the Arbitration Act where it contains an obvious error apparent on the face of the record, such as a miscalculation of damages. The court established that a security deposit stipulated for due performance is intended to indemnify against actual losses upon breach rather than serving as an absolute right to unconditional forfeiture, and that obvious mathematical or computational errors in assessing resale losses can be corrected by the court without remitting the entire award.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a court modify or correct an arbitration award?
  • Is the forfeiture of a security deposit held for due performance of a contract an unconditional and absolute right?
  • Can a court review or reappraise the evidence considered by an arbitrator on merits?
  • Whether an obvious error in the calculation of damages by an arbitrator can be corrected directly by the court instead of remitting the award?
  Read full judgment →
• The STATEApplicant vs Dr. Usman Farooqi and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 148 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Muzaffar Hussain Shah1998 MLD 118 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Abdullah Shah and 4 others1998 MLD 216 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Abdullah Shah and 2 others1998 P Cr. L J 2104 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Pir Mazharul Haque and others1998 MLD 1264 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-20
  amenity plot conversionEhtesab Referenceillegal allotmentpublic officeK.D.A. Orderretroactive application of lawright to life
  Summary & questions settled

  This Ehtesab Reference concerns the illegal conversion and allotment of an amenity plot in North Karachi Township for industrial use by the accused, including a former Minister and Karachi Development Authority (KDA) officials. The core legal questions involved whether the conversion was permissible, whether the accused possessed the authority to bypass established procedures, and the applicability of the Ehtesab Act, 1997. The court held that the conversion was fundamentally illegal as it bypassed the mandatory procedure prescribed under Article 52-A of the K.D.A. Order, 1957, which requires public notice and the invitation of objections. The court emphasized that amenity plots are reserved for public interest, and their unauthorized conversion violates the right to life guaranteed under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. Furthermore, the court affirmed the retroactive application of the Ehtesab Act, 1997, regarding the definition of 'holder of public office' and procedural forums. Consequently, the accused were found guilty under Section 3 of the Ehtesab Act, 1997, and sentenced to five years rigorous imprisonment with fines.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of an amenity plot without following the procedure in Article 52-A of the K.D.A. Order 1957 constitute an illegality?
  • Does the Ehtesab Act 1997 apply retroactively to proceedings initiated under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1997?
  • Can a Single Judge of the High Court try an offence under the Ehtesab Act 1997?
  • Does the right to life under Article 9 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 encompass the right to the use of amenity plots?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nooro alias Noor Muhammad and others1998 P Cr. L J 35 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-12
  appeal against acquittalPublic Prosecutorcompetency of appealCode of Criminal Procedure 1898Advocate-Generalstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against acquittal filed by the State against four respondents. The core legal question was whether an appeal against acquittal, presented by an Assistant Advocate-General, is competent under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The respondents challenged the competency of the filing, arguing that the Assistant Advocate-General was not a "Public Prosecutor" as defined by the Code. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent and dismissed it. The ratio of the decision is that the definitions of "Advocate-General" and "Public Prosecutor" under the Code are distinct, and the Code does not designate the Advocate-General as an ex officio Public Prosecutor. Consequently, the legal requirement under Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 mandates that the Provincial Government must direct a "Public Prosecutor" to present an appeal against an order of acquittal. Because the Assistant Advocate-General had not been appointed as a Public Prosecutor nor authorized as such, the appeal was not presented by a competent person, rendering it legally unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Is an Assistant Advocate-General considered a "Public Prosecutor" under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the purpose of filing an appeal against acquittal?
  • Does the office of Advocate-General carry ex officio status as a "Public Prosecutor" under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Must an appeal against acquittal be presented by a person specifically appointed as a "Public Prosecutor" under Section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Nisar Ahmed Khoro and others1998 PLD Karachi 86 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-10
  Ehtesab Referencesecondary evidenceres ipsa loquiturunauthorized constructionadmissibility of documentsburden of proofvoluntary return of gains
  Summary & questions settled

  This Ehtesab Reference concerned allegations of corruption against two former ministers and a Chief Controller of Buildings for allegedly facilitating unauthorized construction by the partners of Prince Avenue. The prosecution relied on photocopies of letters purportedly written by the ministers to the Chief Controller. The court addressed whether these photocopies were admissible as secondary evidence and whether the builders could be convicted despite the acquittal of the public officials. The court held that the photocopies were inadmissible as secondary evidence because the prosecution failed to prove the loss of the originals or satisfy the requirements of Articles 74 and 76 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Consequently, the public officials were acquitted. However, regarding the builders, the court invoked the principle of res ipsa loquitur under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, finding that the scale of unauthorized construction inherently implied illegal conduct. The court affirmed that liabilities could be distinct and independent. It convicted the builders under Section 3 of the Ehtesab Act 1997, while granting them a final opportunity to seek voluntary return of gains under Section 17.

  Questions settled

  • Are photocopies of documents admissible as secondary evidence when the loss of the originals has not been proven?
  • Can the principle of res ipsa loquitur be applied to establish the guilt of builders in cases of unauthorized construction?
  • Does the acquittal of public officials in a corruption case necessitate the acquittal of co-accused builders?
  • What are the procedural requirements for admitting secondary evidence under the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Younus Dalia and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-10
  post-arrest bailehtesab referencedouble jeopardybank fraudcorruption and corrupt practicesabuse of authorityloan default
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was moved on behalf of accused Muhammad Younus Dalia, former President of Habib Bank Limited, who was facing trial for offences of corruption and corrupt practices under sections 3 and 4 of the Ehtesab Ordinance, alongside related banking and corruption offences. The core legal questions involved whether simultaneous prosecution in a Special Court and an Ehtesab Reference violated double jeopardy principles under constitutional and statutory provisions, and whether the applicant made out a case for post-arrest bail considering the magnitude of the financial loss and allegations of abuse of authority. The Sindh High Court held that the constitutional bar against double jeopardy and related statutory provisions (such as Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898) only operate upon a final conviction or acquittal, thereby permitting pending parallel proceedings. The Court further held that the applicant prima facie abused his authority to grant a massive, unsecoured loan facility causing substantial wrongful loss to the bank, and given the exceptional circumstances and risk of absconsion, refused to grant bail. The key principle laid down is that protections against double jeopardy do not bar simultaneous trials or prosecutions prior to a final verdict of conviction or acquittal, and bail in high-value financial corruption cases involving abuse of official banking authority may be denied under exceptional circumstances.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the initiation of an Ehtesab Reference while criminal proceedings are pending in a Special Court violates the constitutional bar against double jeopardy?
  • Does section 26 of the General Clauses Act debar simultaneous prosecutions or merely prohibit duplicate punishments?
  • Whether an accused involved in financial corruption causing massive wrongful loss to a nationalized bank is entitled to post-arrest bail under exceptional circumstances?
  • At what stage do the provisions of Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding double jeopardy become operative?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through Public Prosecutor vs Shoukat Ali1998 P Cr. L J 1503 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-24
  appeal against acquittalmaintainability of appeallimitation periodcertified copylaw officerscriminal law amendment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under section 10(2) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1958 against an order of acquittal passed by a Special Judge. The core legal questions for determination were whether the appeal was maintainable having been filed by an unauthorized person, and whether it was barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the appeal was not maintainable because it was not filed or signed by an Additional Attorney-General, Deputy Attorney-General, or Standing Counsel as required under section 4-A of the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970 and section 492 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court further held that the appeal was time-barred under Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908, as the period after the certified copy was ready could not be excluded due to the appellant's negligence, resulting in an unexplained delay of 59 days. The key principles laid down are that an appeal against acquittal by the Federal Government must be instituted strictly through authorized law officers, and time spent awaiting the collection of a ready certified copy due to the appellant's own dilatoriness cannot be excluded for limitation purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal against acquittal filed by an unauthorized person maintainable in law?
  • Whether the time spent in collecting a certified copy of a judgment that was already ready can be excluded for the purpose of limitation under Article 157 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • What is the prescribed period of limitation for filing an appeal by the Federal Government against an order of acquittal?
  • Who are the competent law officers authorized to file and conduct proceedings on behalf of the Federal Government under the Central Law Officers Ordinance, 1970?
  Read full judgment →
• The State through AdvocateGeneral, Sindh and Public Prosecutor vs Shahbaz Khan1998 P Cr. L J 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-20
  appellate jurisdictionProhibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order 1979acquittal appealFederal Shariat CourtCode of Criminal Procedure 1898statutory interpretationHudood laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against an acquittal order passed by a Judicial Magistrate regarding offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. The core legal question was determining the appropriate appellate forum for such an acquittal. The Sindh High Court held that the appeal is maintainable before the High Court. The Court reasoned that Article 27(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, mandates the application of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to proceedings under the Order, subject to specific exceptions. The second proviso to Article 27(1) exclusively confers appellate jurisdiction upon the Federal Shariat Court only for Hadd offences under Article 8 and cases where the sentence of imprisonment exceeds two years. Consequently, as the present case involved an acquittal not falling within these specific exceptions, the general provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, apply. Therefore, pursuant to Section 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the High Court retains jurisdiction to hear appeals against orders of acquittal not otherwise specifically assigned to the Federal Shariat Court.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal against an order of acquittal for an offence under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, lie to the High Court or the Federal Shariat Court?
  • What is the scope of the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Shariat Court under Article 27(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Are the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, applicable to appeals against acquittal in cases arising under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• The Marriage Hall Association vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 494 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Marriage Hall Association vs The Chairman, Central Board of Revenue Islamabad and 2 others1998 CLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-20
  representative suitOrder I Rule 8 CPClocus standicentral excise dutyregistered associationprocedural lawcivil litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit filed by a registered association challenging the imposition of Central Excise Duty on marriage halls and seeking a refund. The plaintiff association filed an application under Order I, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to maintain the suit in a representative capacity on behalf of its members. The core legal question was whether the association could maintain such a suit without demonstrating specific authorization from its members or compliance with procedural requirements regarding the legal status of those members. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the request was filed at a belated stage and was procedurally defective due to incomplete documentation and lack of evidence regarding the members' authorization. The Court emphasized that Order I, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is a rule of convenience, not a mandatory provision, and requires clear intent and proper authorization from the outset. Furthermore, the Court noted that the plaintiff failed to establish that the suit fell within the scope of the association's by-laws or memorandum of association.

  Questions settled

  • Can a registered association maintain a representative suit under Order I, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without establishing proper authorization from its members?
  • Is Order I, Rule 8, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a mandatory provision for filing suits on behalf of members?
  • Does a registered society have the inherent right to sue on behalf of its members for the enforcement of their individual rights without complying with procedural requirements for representative suits?
  Read full judgment →
• The Cit Group/Capital Equipment Financing Inc. vs M.T. EasternK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 234 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Thatta Cement Company Ltd. vs Assistant Collector, Collection and Enforcement, Custom House, S.I.T.E., Hyderabad and 2 others1998 PTD 3860 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-19Read full judgment →
• Tajuddin Khan vs Habib Bank Ltd. And 3 others1998 CLC 563 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-03
  interim injunctionrejection of plaintequitable mortgagewinding-up proceedingsjurisdictionlimitationstatus quoCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former employee of the defendant bank, filed a suit for declaration, injunction, and money recovery, seeking to restrain the bank from disposing of title documents related to his mortgaged property in Karachi. The defendants, currently undergoing winding-up proceedings, filed an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking rejection of the plaint on grounds of jurisdiction, limitation, and lack of cause of action. The core legal question concerned whether the suit was maintainable and whether the plaintiff was entitled to an interim injunction. The Court held that a plaint cannot be rejected in part under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that Pakistani courts maintain jurisdiction over property situated within their territory. Consequently, the Court dismissed the defendants' application for rejection of the plaint. Regarding the injunction, the Court granted the relief to maintain the status quo of the property documents but imposed a condition that the plaintiff must deposit the outstanding house loan amount with the Court Nazir, failing which the injunction would automatically stand vacated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected in part under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a Pakistani court have jurisdiction over a suit involving immovable property situated in Pakistan even if the defendant is a foreign entity undergoing winding-up?
  • Can an interim injunction be granted subject to the condition of depositing the disputed loan amount with the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shaukat Ali and others vs Abdul Ali1998 MLD 337 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Abbas and 4 otherss vs Government of Sindh through the Secretary, Cooperative Department, New Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 6 others1998 CLC 1848 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Nadeem Arif and 7 others vs Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 597 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Mobinul Islam vs Federal Government and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 400 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-14
  repatriated employeesabsorption policycontinuity of serviceadministrative instructionswaiver and estoppeltermination of serviceprobationary periodvested rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The first matter concerns a petitioner who, after being displaced from East Pakistan in 1971, sought absorption and financial benefits from the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (PIDC) under Federal Government policies for repatriated employees. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to continuity of service and financial benefits for the period of his absence, and whether his acceptance of a fresh appointment letter constituted a waiver of these rights. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the claimed benefits, ruling that administrative instructions regarding the absorption of repatriated employees have binding force analogous to statutory rules. It further held that there can be no waiver or estoppel against such binding instructions. The second matter involves the termination of employees of a Municipal Committee on the grounds of a recruitment ban. The Court held that where employees were recruited through a regular, merit-based procedure without fraud or political influence, their services could not be terminated based on administrative instructions regarding a ban, especially after they had completed their probationary period, as vested rights had accrued.

  Questions settled

  • Can administrative instructions regarding the absorption of repatriated employees be treated as having the binding force of statutory rules?
  • Does the acceptance of a fresh appointment letter by an employee constitute a waiver of their rights to claim continuity of service and benefits under government policy?
  • Can the services of employees recruited through a regular, merit-based procedure be terminated solely on the basis of administrative instructions regarding a recruitment ban?
  • Does the completion of a probationary period by an employee create a vested right that prevents arbitrary termination?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Arifeen vs Syed Alamdar Hussain through Legal Heirs1998 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Mehdi Raza vs Mst. Abeda Sultana1998 MLD 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-21
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencewilful defaultcantonment rent restrictionejectmentrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal was preferred against the order of the Controller of Rents whereby the appellant's defence was struck off for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The respondent had sought the appellant's ejectment from a bungalow on the grounds of default and personal requirement. The Controller of Rents directed the appellant to deposit arrears of rent and subsequent monthly rent by specific dates. The appellant allegedly committed default by depositing the rent late without sufficient cause or explanation before the rent controller. The core legal question was whether the appellant's failure to deposit the monthly rent by the stipulated date constituted a wilful default justifying the striking off of his defence under the relevant rent restriction law. The High Court held that the appellant failed to deposit the monthly rent according to the statutory provisions and, in the absence of a plausible explanation, committed a wilful default. The court affirmed that the Rent Controller had no option but to strike off the defence, and consequently dismissed the appeal in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure to deposit monthly rent by the date fixed in a tentative rent order amounts to a wilful default?
  • Is a Rent Controller competent to condone delay in the deposit of rent under the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963?
  • Whether an order striking off defence for non-compliance with a tentative rent order is legally sustainable when no plausible explanation for delay is offered?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmoodul Hassan And Another vs (M/s.) Baig Industries (Pvt.)1998 P.C.T.L.R. 917 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Hussain Ali Shah vs Shamsuddin1998 MLD 394 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Gul Muhammad Shah vs Choudhry Naseer Ahmad and 4 others1998 MLD 1908 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Afzal Muhammad Farooq vs Secretary, Establishment Division, Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-17
  Constitutional jurisdictionService matterFitness for promotionMala fidesService Tribunals ActPromotion policyCivil servantQuantification of ACRs
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging the promotion of the respondent to the post of Director-General, Pakistan Meteorological Department, and seeking his own regularization. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the petition given the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution and the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The Court held that while Article 212 generally excludes service matters, Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 explicitly bars the Tribunal from adjudicating matters concerning the fitness of a civil servant for promotion. Consequently, the High Court retains jurisdiction to intervene when such fitness determinations are tainted by mala fides or procedural illegality. The Court found the respondent's promotion irregular due to the omission of mandatory training and inconsistent quantification of performance reports. It declared the promotion notification illegal and directed the authorities to reconsider the fitness of both candidates, establishing that the High Court may enforce the right to be considered for promotion when the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to adjudicate a grievance regarding the fitness of a civil servant for promotion?
  • Is an appeal maintainable before the Service Tribunal against an order determining the fitness or otherwise of a person to be promoted to a higher post or grade?
  • Can the High Court intervene in a service matter where the Service Tribunal lacks jurisdiction?
  • Does the right to be considered for promotion constitute a vested right that can be enforced through constitutional jurisdiction when an unqualified person is promoted?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs Syed Kazim Raza Abidi and 3 others1998 CLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-01Read full judgment →
• Suhail Akhtar vs Hyderabad Cantonment Board through Executive1998 MLD 830 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-25Read full judgment →
• State, Though Advocate General Government of Sindh, Karachi vs Asif Ali ZardariK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 247 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Mst. Shakar Khatoon1998 CLC 283 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-05Read full judgment →
• Sohail Muhammad vs Mst. Mizna Roomana and others1998 MLD 182 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-31Read full judgment →
• Sohail Muhammad Shees Farooq vs Mst. Mizna Roomana and another1998 MLD 1972 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-31
  dissolution of marriagerestitution of conjugal rightslimits ordained by Godconstitutional jurisdictionmatrimonial disputesfamily courtfraudulent marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the judgment and decree passed by the Family Court, which decreed the suit for dissolution of marriage filed by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the petitioner's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner argued that the suit for dissolution of marriage was not maintainable as the respondent alleged fraud in obtaining her signature on the Nikahnama, relying on precedent stating a suit for jactitation of marriage should be filed instead. Respondent No. 1 contended that the marriage was contracted under fraudulent and dubious circumstances and that the parties could not live together within the limits prescribed by God. The High Court held that the factum of marriage was not denied and that dissolution of marriage was rightly sought under section 2(ix) of the Dissolution of Muslim Marriages Act, 1939, as the evidence established the parties could not live as husband and wife within the limits ordained by God. The Court emphasized that constitutional jurisdiction in matrimonial matters will not be exercised to disturb concurrent findings of fact based on evidence unless perverse or arbitrary. The petition was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for dissolution of marriage is maintainable when the wife alleges that her consent was obtained through fraud but the factum of marriage is not denied?
  • Can findings of fact recorded by a Family Court in matrimonial matters be disturbed under constitutional jurisdiction when they are based on evidence?
  • Whether the inability of spouses to live together within the limits prescribed by God constitutes a valid ground for the dissolution of a Muslim marriage?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirjuddin Paracha And 12 Other vs Mehboob Elahi And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 229 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-25Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Corn Pak Ltd.1998 PLC 115 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-19
  social security contributionstay of recoveryfurnishing of securityappellate jurisdictionequitable principlesCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged an order of the Social Security Court which stayed the recovery of determined social security contributions from the respondents without requiring the provision of security. The core legal question was whether the Social Security Court, while exercising its incidental power to grant a stay of recovery pending appeal, was obligated to mandate that the respondents furnish security for the payment of the disputed amounts. The High Court held that while the Social Security Court has the inherent power to grant stay orders as a matter incidental to its appellate jurisdiction, it must exercise this discretion in accordance with equitable principles. Specifically, the court determined that the principles embodied in Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the furnishing of security are applicable to such proceedings. Consequently, the court modified the impugned orders, directing the respondents to furnish security to the satisfaction of the Social Security Court. The key principle laid down is that an appellate authority, when staying the execution of an order for the payment of money, should generally require security to protect the interests of the successful party.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Social Security Court have the power to grant a stay of recovery of contributions pending an appeal?
  • Is the Social Security Court required to order the furnishing of security when granting a stay of recovery of money pending appeal?
  • Are the principles of Order XLI Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings before the Social Security Court?
  • Does an appeal lie to the High Court against an interim order passed by the Social Security Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali alias Tota vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1523 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10Read full judgment →
• Shoaib Jalis Ahmed and others vs Civil Aviation Authority through Director-General and 2 others1998 PLC (C.S.) 258 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Shoab vs The State1998 MLD 1669 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Asif Ahmed vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1968 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-06Read full judgment →
• Shaukat and Raza (Pvt.), Ltd. And Others vs Habib Credit and Exchange1998 P.C.T.L.R. 629 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat and Raza (Private) Ltd. and others vs Habib Credit and Exchange Bank Ltd. and others1998 PLD Karachi 36 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another1998 PLC 536 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-28Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Qadri vs The Karachi Building Control Authority and another1998 CLC 1387 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17
  constitutional petitionunauthorized constructionillegal buildingKarachi Building Control Authorityproperty damagebuilding violation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the owner of a building in Karachi aggrieved by the illegal and unapproved construction of a ground plus six storeys structure on an adjoining plot by respondent No. 2, which allegedly caused damage to the petitioner's property, blocked light and air, and posed serious hazards to life and property, while the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) failed to take effective action despite notices. The core legal question was whether an unauthorized and illegal structure raised without an approved building plan, causing nuisance and hazard to neighbours, could be allowed to stand and whether the regulatory authority was bound to take corrective action. The Sindh High Court allowed the petition, holding that the structure was unauthorized and directing the KBCA to issue notices to all concerned parties, examine the legality of the structure through a speaking order, secure the rights of the petitioner and neighbours, remove dangers, and deal with the illegal structure in accordance with law, emphasizing that occupancies created in an illegal building must stand or fall with the building itself.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unauthorized building raised without an approved plan can be permitted to stand when it causes hazards and impairs the rights of neighbouring property owners?
  • What is the legal status of occupancies and rights created by a party in an illegal and unauthorized building?
  • Whether the Karachi Building Control Authority is bound to take action against illegal structures through a speaking order after issuing notices to all concerned parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Shams Mohiuddin Ansari vs Messrs International Builders1998 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-12Read full judgment →
• Shaman and 5 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ali vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-29Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmed Qureshi vs Fiabib Khan1998 CLC 677 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-21Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Ahmed vs The State1998 MLD 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shahid Baloch vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-10
  post-arrest bailheroin recoverynarcotics controlpolice witnessesfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Shahid Baloch sought post-arrest bail in respect of Crime No. 35 of 1996 registered at Railway Police Station under Section 9 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Ordinance (replaced by the Control of Narcotics Substances Act), relating to the alleged recovery of one kilogram of heroin powder. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail on the grounds of competency of the police officer to conduct the search, non-compliance with mandatory provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and failure to associate independent witnesses from the railway platform. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, an exception is provided regarding the application of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that police officials are considered respectable witnesses at the bail stage unless their veracity is tested during trial. The court dismissed the bail application, ruling that the case did not fall within the scope of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, while directing the trial court to examine the complainant within one month.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a police officer is competent to conduct a search and arrest under narcotics laws?
  • Does Section 25 of the Control of Narcotics Substances Act provide an exception to the provisions of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can police officials be regarded as respectable mashirs for recovery at the bail stage without cross-examination?
  • Whether the recovery of one kilogram of heroin warrants the refusal of post-arrest bail under Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs Karachi University through the Vice-Chancellor, University1998 CLC 1449 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-01
  medical educationMBBS examinationfirst professional examinationvires of regulationsfundamental rightsconstitutional petitionreasonable classificationPakistan Medical and Dental Council
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was brought by two medical students challenging the vires of Note (ii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations, framed under section 33(2) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, which provides that a student failing to clear the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances shall cease to be eligible for further medical education. The core legal questions involved were whether the impugned regulation violates Fundamental Rights regarding equality, reasonableness, and discrimination, and whether the restriction exceeds the statutory authority of the Council. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the regulation is intra vires, does not violate constitutional provisions or Fundamental Rights, and serves the vital public purpose of arresting falling educational standards by filtering out candidates lacking the aptitude for medical studies. The Court laid down the principle that the four-chance limitation for the first professional medical examination is a reasonable classification, and relaxation from its rigours requires a genuine, prompt case showing factors entirely beyond the student's control.

  Questions settled

  • Does Note (ii) of Regulation 4(1) of the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Regulations violate any Fundamental Rights enshrined in the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Whether the restriction disqualifying a student from further medical education after failing the First Professional M.B., B.S. Examination in four chances is discriminatory or unreasonable?
  • Does the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council possess the statutory competence under the Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962 to prescribe a maximum number of chances for passing professional medical examinations?
  • Under what circumstances can a student be granted relief or relaxation from the rigours of the rule precluding further medical education upon exhausting permitted attempts?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi Airport, Terminal No.1 Karachi vs Sindhh Employees Social Security Institution through Its Commissioner, Aiwan-E-Mehnatkash, Rashid Minhas Road, Gulshane-Iqbal, Karachi And AnotherK.L.R. 1998 Labour & Service Cases 69 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shah Zareen Khan vs Sada Gul1998 MLD 903 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-10
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementcross-examinationrent appeallandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant was a wilful defaulter when adequate advance rent and credit balances were held by the landlord, and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for his son. The Sindh High Court held that the tenant was not a defaulter since the landlord held a credit balance exceeding the alleged arrears, and further held that the landlord's personal requirement lacked bona fides due to contradictory assertions, omission of material facts regarding alternative premises, and an unrebutted claim that ejectment was sought merely due to the tenant's refusal to accept a rent increase. The court established that a tenant cannot be deemed a defaulter when the landlord holds funds exceeding the arrears, and failure to challenge material assertions in cross-examination constitutes an admission of those facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be held to be a defaulter in payment of rent when the landlord is holding an amount or advance credit in excess of the alleged arrears?
  • Does the failure to challenge a specific material assertion of a witness in cross-examination amount to an admission of that fact?
  • What is the effect of a landlord's failure to disclose the ownership and availability of alternative premises in the same locality when claiming personal bona fide requirement?
  • Whether an ejectment application is maintainable when it is proved to be motivated by the tenant's refusal to agree to an arbitrary enhancement of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Shah Zaman vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 449 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-07Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Government of Sindh vs Abdul Rahim and another1998 PLC (C.S.) 415 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-20Read full judgment →
• Sawan and others vs Abdullah and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 111 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-15
  civil suit maintainabilityjurisdiction of civil courtsirrigation water disputeSindh Irrigation Actrevisional jurisdictionburden of proofadditional evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants, Khatedars of lands fed by a watercourse, filed a civil suit claiming that the respondent's land was illegally brought under the command of their watercourse, impairing their water supply. The trial court decreed the suit in favor of the applicants, but the appellate court allowed the respondent's appeal and dismissed the suit. The applicants challenged the appellate judgment in revision before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the civil suit in view of the Sindh Irrigation Act, the scope of the ouster of civil court jurisdiction regarding mala fide official actions, and the limits of revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure. The High Court held that the mechanism under section 26 of the Sindh Irrigation Act does not provide an exclusive remedy ousting civil court jurisdiction, especially when actions are alleged to be mala fide and fraudulent, but upheld the appellate court's factual findings on merits, ruling that the revisional court cannot reappraise evidence. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 26 of the Sindh Irrigation Act provide an exclusive remedy that impliedly bars the jurisdiction of Civil Courts in water dispute matters?
  • Can the ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Courts be claimed in respect of statutory actions alleged to be mala fide or fraudulent?
  • To what extent can the High Court reappraise evidence while exercising revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether the findings of an Appellate Court based on a detailed analysis of contradictory official records are open to interference in revision?
  Read full judgment →