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.

• Bahar and others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 500 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-01Read full judgment →
• Babar Khan Ghori vs Election Tribunal No.1 for Sindh and 2 others1998 CLC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
• B.S. Magnefic (Private) Limited, Karachi vs Sindhh Labour Court No. 5K.L.R. 1998 Labour & Services Cases 114 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1661 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Asrar Hasan vs Habib Bank Ltd. and 4 others1998 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-23Read full judgment →
• Aslam Bin Ibrahim, Advocate vs Monopoly Control Authority, Government of Pakistan and 2 others1998 PLD Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-01
  corporate mergeramalgamationminority shareholdersmonopoly controlCompanies Ordinancerestrictive trade practicesshareholder rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order sanctioning the merger of Brooke Bond Pakistan Ltd. and Lever Brothers Pakistan Ltd. under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The appellant, a minority shareholder, contended that the merger was unfair, oppressive to minority shareholders, and violated the Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970, by creating a monopoly. The Court examined whether the merger complied with statutory requirements and whether the Monopoly Control Authority's (MCA) prior conditional approval curtailed the Company Bench's jurisdiction. The Court held that the merger satisfied all legal formalities, including requisite majority support, and that the minority was not victimized. It affirmed that while the Monopolies Ordinance provides overriding powers, the MCA’s conditional approval did not preclude the Court from sanctioning the merger. The Court emphasized that judicial power to approve mergers is broad but subject to constraints of fairness, reasonableness, and public interest. Finding no legal transgression, the Court upheld the merger sanction, dismissing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Monopoly Control Authority's conditional approval of a merger curtail the jurisdiction of the Company Bench to sanction such merger under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
  • What are the constraints on the Court's power to approve or disapprove corporate mergers and amalgamations?
  • Can a merger be challenged on the grounds of being unfair to minority shareholders if the requisite majority of shareholders has approved the scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1004 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 43 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-09Read full judgment →
• Asadullah Sehar and 44 others vs Karachi Water and Sewerage Board1998 PLC (C.S.) 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-30Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Khan vs Chairman, Pakistan Telecommunication1998 PLC (C.S.) 588 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-11Read full judgment →
• Arshad vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1705 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-08Read full judgment →
• Arif Khan vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1287 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-02
  benefit of doubtillegal detentionrecovery of weaponburden of proofcriminal appealpolice witnessArms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance 1965, where the appellant was sentenced to four years' rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution established the recovery of the weapon beyond reasonable doubt and whether the burden of proof shifted to the accused under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act 1975. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case due to material contradictions regarding the description of the weapon (described variously as a 'big mauser' and 'T.T. pistol'), the failure to seal the weapon at the spot, the absence of independent witnesses despite the arrest occurring in a populated area, and the failure to produce the daily diary entry to verify the police patrolling. The Court affirmed that the burden of proof only shifts to the accused under the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act 1975 after the prosecution has established the prerequisite conditions, which were not met here. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, extending him the benefit of the doubt.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to seal a recovered weapon at the spot and send it to a ballistic expert create reasonable doubt in a prosecution case?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions in the prosecution's evidence regarding the description of the recovered weapon?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorists Activities Act 1975 before the prosecution has established the prerequisite conditions?
  • Is the evidence of police officials sufficient to sustain a conviction when no independent witnesses are joined in a populated area?
  Read full judgment →
• Ardeshir Cowasjee and others vs Government of Sindh and others1998 MLD 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-06
  public interest litigationlocus standicommercialisationbuilding regulationsroad wideningdemolition ordertown planning
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the commercialisation of a residential plot and the construction of a multi-storeyed commercial building thereon, known as 'Glass Towers' on Abdullah Haroon Road (Clifton Road), Karachi. The petitioners, acting pro bono publico, alleged illegal plot conversion, violation of building regulations, and encroachment upon land reserved for future road widening under Schedule G of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding locus standi and the pendency of a civil suit regarding the subject matter.

  The High Court held that the petitioners possessed locus standi under Article 199 of the Constitution in public interest litigation, as strict personal legal rights are not required when enforcing statutory compliance and public amenities. The court declined to interfere with the plot commercialisation due to prior conversions in the locality and laches. However, the court held that the structure violated the prescribed 150-foot road-widening set-back under Schedule G, Item 30 of the Regulations. It ordered the partial demolition of the structure obstructing the proposed road expansion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether citizens acting pro bono publico have locus standi under Article 199 of the Constitution to challenge illegal building constructions affecting public amenities?
  • Does the pendency of a civil suit between a builder and a building control authority bar a constitutional petition brought by public interest litigants regarding the same property?
  • Can a multi-storeyed building structure be partially demolished if constructed in violation of road-widening set-back requirements prescribed by town planning regulations?
  Read full judgment →
• Ardeshir Cowasjee and 4 others vs Clifton Cantonment Board and others1998 MLD 1818 · Sindh High Court · 1998-07-01
  commercialisation of residential plotpublic interest litigationlachespast and closed transactionbuilding controlzonal planning schemepublic nuisancestatutory interpretationinterlocutory injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a High Court Appeal and a Constitutional Petition concerning the commercialisation and construction of a multi-storeyed building on Plot G-7, Block 9, K.D.A. Scheme No. 5, Clifton, Karachi. The petitioners challenged the plot's conversion from residential to commercial use, alleging non-compliance with Article 40(4) of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957, lack of mandatory public notice, public nuisance, and over-burdening of civic infrastructure. The respondents contended that commercialisation was legally done under valid policy decisions, validated by previous judicial and administrative orders, and that the petition was barred by laches. The High Court held that the word 'may' in Article 40(4) of the K.D.A. Order 1957 is directory rather than mandatory, distinguishing it from Article 52-A. The Court found that official acts carry a presumption of regularity under Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984. Relying on binding precedent, the Court ruled that the commercialisation of Clifton Road was a past and closed transaction and that the petition was heavily barred by laches.

  Questions settled

  • Is the word 'may' in Article 40(4) of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957 directory or mandatory in requiring public notice and hearing prior to land use conversion?
  • Whether an unexcused delay of several years in challenging a commercialisation order after third-party rights have accrued attracts the doctrine of laches?
  • Can a past and closed transaction regarding general commercialisation of a main road area be re-opened by neighbouring residents?
  • Is an earlier judgment of a High Court Bench of equal strength on the same question of law binding upon a subsequent Bench of the same High Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 406 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-02Read full judgment →
• Anwar Habib vs Mrs. Durdana Yousufi1998 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Anthony Gonsalves vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 242 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
• Aneel Kumar vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Health Department, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and 3 others1998 CLC 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-13Read full judgment →
• Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar and others1998 CLC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-12Read full judgment →
• Am in vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1677 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-19Read full judgment →
• Allah Dad Alias Manzoo Sain vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 240 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-30Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1202 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-12Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Dahar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 951 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-18Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1556 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Nawaz alias Babal Khan Jakhrani vs The State and another1998 PLD Karachi 180 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-13
  harassmentadministrative excessrule of lawdue processpublic servant accountabilityconstitutional petitionfundamental rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a former parliamentarian alleging harassment by the Deputy Commissioner of Jacobabad, who purportedly acted at the behest of political rivals. The petitioner claimed his life, liberty, and dignity were threatened by the respondent's actions. The core legal question concerned whether the Deputy Commissioner’s administrative actions—specifically, initiating recovery proceedings for long-outstanding dues based on verbal information and telephone inquiries—were legally authorized and bona fide. The Court held that the Deputy Commissioner exceeded his lawful authority, as no statutory provision empowered him to conduct such proceedings in this manner. The Court emphasized that administrative actions must be in writing, transparent, and grounded in law, rather than based on verbal orders or political influence. It reaffirmed that public servants are bound by the Constitution to treat all citizens equally, regardless of political affiliation. The judgment established that the judiciary serves as a bulwark against administrative tyranny, mandating that public officials must act objectively, adhere to due process, and remain free from the influence of political masters, ensuring the rule of law prevails over the whims of individuals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a public servant initiate administrative recovery proceedings based solely on verbal information and telephone inquiries?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to decline a request to withdraw a petition once the legal process has been set in motion?
  • Are public servants legally obligated to obey the orders of higher authorities if such orders are illegal?
  • Does a Deputy Commissioner possess the authority to act outside of written legal procedures when exercising administrative powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Syed Ali Raza Shah and 11 others vs Pakistan International1998 PLC (C.S.) 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-20Read full judgment →
• Adam Limited vs General & Rubber Trading Co., Karachi1998 MLD 579 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-08
  ejectment applicationsublettingdefault in payment of rentwaiver and acquiescenceSindh Rented Premises Ordinancecorporate conversiontenancy dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by the appellant-landlord against the respondent-tenant. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent, service charges, and unauthorized subletting, following the respondent's conversion from a partnership firm into a private limited company. The core legal question was whether this corporate conversion constituted unauthorized subletting and whether the landlord had established valid grounds for eviction. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the conversion of the tenant-entity, involving the same individuals as directors, did not constitute subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the court found that the landlord had failed to prove default, as rent was duly deposited in court, and had acquiesced to the change in status by failing to object for several years. The judgment reaffirms that a landlord cannot re-litigate issues already decided in previous proceedings and that the principle of waiver applies when a landlord, with knowledge of a tenant's status change, remains silent for an unreasonable period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the conversion of a partnership firm into a private limited company with the same partners as directors constitute unauthorized subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a landlord who remains silent for an unreasonable period after gaining knowledge of a tenant's change in status be deemed to have waived the right to object?
  • Does the deposit of rent in court by a tenant preclude a finding of default in payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ada Muhammad vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Local1998 CLC 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1998-06-03Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Chauhan and others vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 264 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-24Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustlandlord and tenantSindh Tenancy Actabuse of process of lawHari disputeingredients of section 405 PPCtheft
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a criminal miscellaneous application seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before a Judicial Magistrate under Section 406/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from an F.I.R. concerning a dispute over agricultural produce between a landlord and his tenant (Hari). The core legal questions relate to whether a landlord-tenant produce dispute constitutes criminal breach of trust or theft, and whether such matters fall within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tenancy Tribunal under the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950. The Sindh High Court held that the ingredients of criminal breach of trust under Section 405 were absent due to a lack of entrustment, and that the dispute regarding Zamindari shares was exclusively triable by a Tenancy Tribunal, making criminal proceedings an abuse of process. The court established the principle that disputes between a landlord and a Hari over agricultural produce do not constitute criminal offences like criminal breach of trust or theft, and continuing criminal prosecution in such civil/tenancy matters constitutes an abuse of the process of the court where conviction is impossible.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute between a landlord and a tenant over agricultural produce constitute the offence of criminal breach of trust under Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does a trial court have jurisdiction to entertain criminal proceedings regarding a Zamindari share dispute between a landlord and a Hari in light of the Sindh Tenancy Act 1950?
  • Can persons in occupation and cultivating land be charged with theft for removing produce from that land?
  • When may the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground that there is no possibility of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Dadabhoy and another vs The Honorary Secretary, Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Socieity, Karachi and another1998 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-12
  oral giftMuslim Personal Lawmutation of propertyregistration of documentscooperative housing societyconstitutional petitiontransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society (PECHS) to mutate property in the names of the petitioners, who claimed ownership via an oral gift from their late father. The core legal question was whether an oral gift of immovable property under Muslim Personal Law requires registration under the Registration Act, 1908, to be valid for mutation purposes, and whether a housing society can reject such a gift solely due to lack of registration. The Court held that under Muslim Personal Law, a person may dispose of property by oral gift without the formality of registration. The Court affirmed that Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, exempts Muslim gifts from the registration requirements of Chapter VII. Consequently, the Court ruled the society's refusal to mutate the property was illegal. The key principle laid down is that valid oral gifts under Muslim Personal Law, satisfying the requirements of declaration, acceptance, and delivery of possession, are legally binding and enforceable, and authorities cannot mandate registration for such transactions.

  Questions settled

  • Does an oral gift of immovable property under Muslim Personal Law require registration under the Registration Act, 1908?
  • Does Section 129 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, exempt Muslim gifts from the registration requirements of Chapter VII?
  • Can a cooperative housing society refuse to mutate property based solely on the lack of registration of a gift deed?
  • Is a donor required to have property mutated in their own name before they can validly gift it to another?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam Thahim vs Returning Officer and Additional District and Sessions Judge, Shahdadpur, District Sanghar And OtherK.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 466 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and anothers vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 2004 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Government of Sindh and others1998 PLC (C.S.) 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak Billoo and another vs The State1998 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1998-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaque and 4 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1360 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayoom and 11 others vs Government of Sindh through Chief1998 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mujeeb vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-20
  illegal weapon possessionbenefit of doubtrecovery witnessballistic expert reportmandatory procedural requirementscriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence imposed by the Special Court No. 1 (S.T.A.), Hyderabad, for the illegal possession of a weapon. The appellant was convicted for possessing a TT pistol without a license. The core legal questions were whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of a ballistic expert report confirming the weapon's working condition and nature, and whether the failure to associate private witnesses during the recovery violated mandatory procedural requirements. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained due to the lack of evidence regarding the weapon's functionality and the failure to comply with statutory requirements for independent witnesses. The Court emphasized that the absence of private witnesses in a populated area, without evidence of efforts to procure them, violates mandatory procedural safeguards. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, granting the appellant the benefit of the doubt, noting that the appellant had already served the full sentence, but the conviction remained a stigma that required judicial correction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a ballistic expert report regarding the functionality of a recovered weapon invalidate a conviction for illegal possession?
  • Is the failure to associate private witnesses during a recovery in a populated area a violation of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can an appellate court set aside a conviction when the appellant has already served the full sentence but seeks to remove the stigma of conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Sarfaraz Kenneth1998 MLD 2009 · Sindh High Court · 1998-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Asadullah1998 CLC 974 · Sindh High Court · 1997-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil vs Zulfiqar Ali and anothers1998 P Cr. L J 697 · Sindh High Court · 1997-12-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 1423 · Sindh High Court · 1998-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Ali and 5 others vs Land Acquisition Officer, Badin1998 PLD Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mir Muhammad and 3 others1998 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Mir Muhammad And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 250 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqui And 3 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 255 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Baqi and 3 others vs The State1998 P Cr. L J 87 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04
  quashment of proceedingssection 561-A Cr.P.C.cognizance of offencewritten complaintsection 188 PPCsection 195 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of proceedings in respect of an F.I.R. under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The core legal question is whether a Magistrate can take cognizance of an offence under section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on a police report or F.I.R. without a written complaint by the public servant concerned, notwithstanding the amendment making the offence cognizable. The court held that despite the offence under section 188 being made cognizable by the police, the absence of a corresponding amendment in section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 means a court cannot take cognizance except upon a written complaint by the public servant concerned or their superior. Consequently, the proceedings were declared invalid and quashed. The key principle laid down is that the statutory bar under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prevails, requiring a written complaint for cognizance under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court take cognizance of an offence under section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 on a police report without a written complaint?
  • Does the making of an offence under section 188, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 cognizable dispense with the requirement of a written complaint under section 195(1)(a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are proceedings initiated on a police report for violation of an order under section 144 liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abbass Shroff and another vs Miss Farzana and 4 others1998 PTD 2884 · Sindh High Court · 1998-04-02Read full judgment →
• A.B. of Pakistan Ltd. vs Mehran Oil Mills Ltd.1998 PLD Karachi 360 · Sindh High Court · 1998-03-04Read full judgment →
• A & B Beverages Shama Labour Union, Karachi vs Sindh Labour Court1998 PLC 490 · Sindh High Court
  industrial relationsselection gradegrievance petitionrecurring cause of actiondiscriminatory treatmentlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed by the Punjab Road Transport Corporation against the decision of the Labour Court No. 1, Lahore, dated 16-7-1997, which accepted the respondents' grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the respondents, working as Assistants in the Stores Wing, were entitled to the selection grade in BPS-15 pursuant to Notification FD-PC-II/1-87 dated 27-7-1987, and whether their grievance petition was barred by limitation. The Sindh High Court held that since assistants in different sections performed the same duties and the corporation adopted the notification, denying the selection grade to the respondents amounted to discriminatory treatment. The Court further held that unpaid dues during service constitute a cause of recurring nature, making the petition well within time. The appeal was consequently dismissed, affirming the judgment of the Labour Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the denial of a selection grade to employees performing duties identical to those in other wings receiving the grade constitutes discriminatory treatment?
  • Does the non-payment of legitimate dues during service constitute a cause of recurring nature for the purpose of limitation?
  • Whether a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is barred by limitation when based on a recurring cause of action?
  Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Muhammad Arifeen vs (Syed) Alamdar Hussain through Legal1998 P.C.T.L.R. 625 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-29Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Jupiter Textile Mills, Ltd. vs The Director Hyderabad, Directorate,K.L.R. 1998 Civil Cases 30 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Zainab Bibi vs The StateK.L.R. 1998 Criminal Cases 257 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-16Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Ali vs Union Council, Sial And Other1997 MLD 2914 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ziaur Rehman vs Qamaruddin1997 MLD 2735 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-24Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ghafoor vs Mrs. Rehana Rafique1997 MLD 2719 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Islam And 5 Others vs Additional Deputy Commissioner1, Hyderabad And 5 Other1997 MLD 565 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
• Yusuf A. Haroon And Another vs Mahmood A. Haroon And 5 Other1997 MLD 2246 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Ali vs Mst. Zubaida Begum and others1997 PLD Karachi 198 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17Read full judgment →
• Younus Warind And Another vs Nazir Ahmed Siddiqui1997 MLD 549 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• Waseem alias Asgher vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-22Read full judgment →
• Wan Abdullah And Another vs Government of Sindh And 3 Other1997 MLD 2581 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Walidad Alias Dadoo Maachi vs The State1997 MLD 1697 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-11Read full judgment →
• United Sugar Mills Limited vs National Development Finance1997 MLD 3122 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-29Read full judgment →
• United Distributors (Pvt.) Limited vs Mirza Trading Agency1997 MLD 2797 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-25Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs S. Ferozuddin Bajwa And 4 Other1997 MLD 801 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-19Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Essajee Ebrahimjee & Company And 3 Other1997 MLD 3127 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-07Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Azmat Textile Mills Limited And 8 Other1997 MLD 1033 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-24Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Hotel Metropole (Private) Limited And Another1997 MLD 3110 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-20Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ghaffar Azim Khan1997 PLD Karachi 134 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-13Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited Through Zonal Head And Another vs Sindh Labour1997 PLC 446 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-12
  labour lawcasual workerwrongful terminationemployer definitionstanding ordersreinstatementagency authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of several employees of the petitioner bank. The core legal question was whether the bank could disown the employment of workers as 'casual' on the grounds that the branch managers who hired them exceeded their authority, and whether the termination of these workers without written orders was lawful. The Court held that the bank's managers, being responsible for the supervision and control of the establishment, qualified as 'employers' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. Consequently, the bank was bound by the managers' actions. The Court further held that the classification of workers is determined by the nature of the job, not the payment frequency, and that the term 'casual worker' is not recognized under the Ordinance. Because the bank failed to issue appointment letters or written termination notices as required by the Ordinance, the termination was illegal. The Court affirmed that general law principles regarding agency cannot displace the specific protections afforded to workers under special labour legislation.

  Questions settled

  • Does a branch manager of a bank qualify as an 'employer' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Can an employer terminate a worker without a written order specifying reasons under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Is the classification of a worker as 'permanent' or 'casual' determined by the nature of the job or the frequency of wage payment?
  • Can a principal disown the employment of workers by an agent on the grounds that the agent exceeded their authority in the context of special labour laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Unilever PLC., a British Company of Port Sunlight Wirral Merseyside, England vs R.B.Oil Industries (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi1997 MLD 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-11Read full judgment →
• Udhamdas vs Dr. Muhammad Sharif1997 MLD 686 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-04Read full judgment →
• U.B.L. Employees' Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions And Others1997 PLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-26Read full judgment →
• The Technicians vs Messrs Rahat Builders1997 MLD 3049 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-12Read full judgment →
• The State vs Syed Abdullah Shah and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 519 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-22Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Hashim Sher1997 P Cr. L J 1181 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• The State through Advocate-General, Government of Sindh vs Asif Ali1997 P Cr. L J 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-12Read full judgment →
• The C.I.T. Group/Capital Equipment Financing Inc. vs M.T. Eastern1997 PLD Karachi 530 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-19Read full judgment →
• Taslimul Islam vs Additional Commissioner And 9 Other1997 MLD 40 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq Siddique vs Mrs. Shereen Hassan1997 MLD 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
• Tapal Tea (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Lever Brother (Pakistan) Limited1997 MLD 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-07Read full judgment →
• Taj Bahadur Alias Taji And Another vs The State1997 MLD 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-14
  murdercommon intentionFirst Information Reportcontradictory testimonyabscondenceappraisal of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from a judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi (East), convicting Taj Bahadur and Abdul Rehman under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while acquitting a co-accused. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimonies affected by material contradictions due to the bifurcation of trials, the evidentiary value of a promptly lodged First Information Report, and the application of section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, in cases of alleged instigation. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal of Taj Bahadur, setting aside his conviction and sentence due to improvements and contradictions by eyewitnesses, but dismissed the appeal of Abdul Rehman, maintaining his conviction and sentence for murder based on unshaken independent eyewitness testimony, his presence at the scene with a blood-stained weapon, and his abscondence. The court held that a promptly lodged detailed First Information Report can serve as a substantial piece of evidence akin to a dying declaration when corroborated by independent testimony, and that mere instigation does not attract joint liability under section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, unless the offense was committed under the active influence and control of the instigator.

  Questions settled

  • Can a promptly lodged First Information Report containing full details of the crime serve as a substantial piece of evidence corroborating the prosecution's case?
  • Does mere instigation by a co-accused amount to an act done in furtherance of common intention under section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of control over the principal offender?
  • How does the bifurcation of trials and delayed recording of evidence impact the credibility of eyewitness testimonies in criminal trials?
  • Is an accused's unconvincing statement made on oath under section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, after prolonged delay, sufficient to displace strong independent eyewitness evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1138 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Zamiruddin vs Government of Sindh through Secretary Education, Karachi and 2 others1997 PLD Karachi 285 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Naeem Abbas vs Mst. Shabana Anjum1997 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Hanif vs Mst. Taj Begum1997 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal vs Messrs Bangladesh Shipping1997 MLD 3116 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Lal Hussain Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Habib Mehmood vs Mrs. Bilqees Fatima1997 MLD 390 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Bahadur Hussain vs The State1997 MLD 2593 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Amjed Ali vs Mst. Shah Jehan and others1997 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Afzal Hussain vs Karachi Transport Corporation through Chairman, Secretary or Managing Director, Karachi and another1997 PLD Karachi 253 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-04
  Fatal Accidents Actcivil litigationpleadingsnegligencequantum of damagestraffic accidentvicarious liabilitycompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for recovery of damages was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the father of a deceased victim of a traffic accident involving a Karachi Transport Corporation bus. The core legal questions concerned the liability of the defendants for the accident and the appropriate quantum of compensation. The Court held the defendants jointly and severally liable, finding the accident resulted from the driver's negligence. Crucially, the Court ruled that the defendants could not argue contributory negligence or introduce evidence regarding facts not specifically pleaded in their written statement. Affirming the principle that a party cannot travel beyond its pleadings, the Court held that allegations of fact in a plaint not specifically denied in the written statement are deemed admitted. Consequently, the Court awarded compensation based on the deceased's earning potential, the parents' life expectancy, and inflationary adjustments. The judgment reinforces the strict adherence to pleadings in civil litigation and clarifies the evidentiary burden in fatal accident claims where the defense fails to raise specific rebuttals.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant introduce evidence or arguments regarding facts not specifically pleaded in their written statement?
  • Are allegations of fact in a plaint deemed admitted if not specifically denied in the written statement?
  • What is the standard for determining compensation in a fatal accident claim involving a young deceased?
  • Does the driver of a heavy vehicle bear a greater responsibility for road safety compared to a light vehicle driver?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs The State1997 MLD 2648 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-20Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs Mst. Dur Bibi1997 MLD 2254 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-09Read full judgment →
• Sub Divisional Education Officer vs Vidya Parcharik Mandal1997 MLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sphinx Shipping Agency, P.E.C.H.S., Karachi vs m. v. Justice and 3 others1997 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-26Read full judgment →
• Sohail Usman vs Messrs Rainbow Fabrics (Pvt.) Ltd. And Another1997 MLD 2758 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-17Read full judgment →
• Sohail Hammadi vs Mst. Halima Hamid and 2 others1997 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →