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.

• Sirajuddin Paracha and 12 otherss vs Mehboob Elahi and 3 others1997 PLD Karachi 276 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-25
  rejection of plaintpre-emptioncorporate authorizationjoinder of partiesprocedural defectjuristic personsuit competency
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the rejection of a plaint in a suit for pre-emption filed by a private limited company and several co-plaintiffs. The core legal questions were whether the joinder of non-entitled co-plaintiffs invalidated the suit and whether the suit was competently instituted by the company without a specific board resolution authorizing the litigation. The Court held that while the joinder of a stranger as a co-plaintiff is a procedural defect curable under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the suit was fundamentally incompetent due to the lack of proper authorization. The Court determined that a general resolution from 1980 did not authorize the filing of a specific pre-emption suit in 1994. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court affirmed that a suit filed on behalf of a company by an official without express authorization from the Board of Directors is a nullity. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, emphasizing that incompetent suits must be dismissed at the earliest opportunity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the joinder of a person without a right of pre-emption as a co-plaintiff necessitate the dismissal of the entire suit?
  • Is a general resolution authorizing a director to manage company affairs sufficient to authorize the filing of a specific lawsuit on behalf of a company?
  • Can a suit filed on behalf of a company by an official without express authorization from the Board of Directors be considered a validly instituted proceeding?
  • Does Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 authorize the institution of a suit, or merely the signing and verification of pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sindh Workers' Welfare Board Employees' Union vs Vth Sindh Labour1997 PLC 515 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sindh Workers' Welfare Board Employees Union vs Vth Sindh Labour1997 PLC 515 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security Institution vs Messrs Bukhari Marbles1997 MLD 1004 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
• Siddique alias Gaila vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 790 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-18Read full judgment →
• Shree Guru Nanik Shepu Mandli vs Sardar Hira Singh1997 MLD 2811 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-06Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali And Others vs P.O. Sindh1997 MLD 2590 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-03Read full judgment →
• Shekil vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 172 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-12
  statutory delaybailSuppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975Code of Criminal Procedure 1898burden of proofspecial courtsnon-bailable offences
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought bail for offences under the Arms Ordinance, tried by a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether Section 5-A(8) of the Act completely ousted the applicability of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, thereby barring the invocation of its provisos, specifically regarding statutory delay. The Court, resolving a difference of opinion between two judges, held that Section 5-A(8) does not completely oust the applicability of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. It was determined that the provisos to Section 497(1), including the third proviso concerning delay, remain available to an accused during the trial stage. The Court clarified that Section 8 of the Act, concerning the burden of proof, pertains to the trial and does not override the bail principles of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. Consequently, finding that the delay was not attributable to the applicant, the Court granted bail, affirming that statutory limitations on bail do not preclude relief based on procedural delay.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, completely oust the applicability of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in bail matters?
  • Are the provisos to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, available to an accused seeking bail in a trial before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does the presumption of guilt under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, apply at the bail stage to bar the grant of bail?
  • Is the quantum of sentence relevant when considering the grant or refusal of bail for scheduled offences under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Javed vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1997 PLC (C.S.) 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-30
  Service TribunalAbatement of suitOuster of jurisdictionTerms and conditions of serviceCivil servantKESCConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil suit filed by an employee of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC) challenging the abolition of his post as Deputy Managing Director. The core legal question was whether the enactment of the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act 1997 rendered the plaintiff a 'civil servant,' thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and causing the pending suit to abate. The Court held that KESC is an organization controlled by the Federal Government, and the amendment brought the plaintiff within the definition of a civil servant. Consequently, the High Court’s jurisdiction was barred by Article 212, as the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over terms and conditions of service. The Court affirmed that where a statute extends to a new class of persons, the date of commencement of the original statute is synchronized with the extension date, causing pending proceedings to abate by operation of law. The ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 is absolute, covering all matters relating to terms and conditions of service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Service Tribunals (Amendment) Act 1997 render employees of corporations controlled by the Federal Government 'civil servants' for the purpose of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  • Does Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 create an absolute ouster of High Court jurisdiction regarding the terms and conditions of service of civil servants?
  • When a statute is extended to a new class of persons, does the date of commencement of the original statute synchronize with the date of extension for the purpose of abatement of pending proceedings?
  • Can a High Court grant an injunction in a service matter if the subject matter falls within the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharifuddin vs Karachi Building Control Authority1997 MLD 2792 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Shanti vs Karachi Transport Corporation Through Managing Director1997 MLD 2556 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-17Read full judgment →
• Shamsur Rehman vs Muhammad Rafiq and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shamsul Hassan vs Karachi Building Control Authority And 3 Other1997 MLD 848 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-31Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Muhammad Siddiq vs Mst. Shahnaz Farzana And 2 Other1997 MLD 1026 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs The State and others1997 P Cr. L J 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30
  habeas corpusillegal detentionpolice misconductdepartmental actionliberty of citizenpolice accountability
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a habeas corpus petition concerning the illegal detention of a citizen by a Station House Officer (S.H.O.). The core legal question addressed was whether the police officer's denial of the arrest and detention was credible in light of the detenu's specific allegations and the surrounding circumstances. The Court found the S.H.O.'s version of events to be untruthful and rejected his claims of ignorance regarding the detenu's status and whereabouts. Holding that the police officer's conduct in detaining an individual without proper record-keeping and subsequently filing false statements was highly objectionable and unbecoming of a public servant, the Court directed the relevant authorities to initiate departmental action against the officer. The Court emphasized the principle that police functionaries are servants of the law, not of individuals, and are not bound to obey illegal orders. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that police officers must act in accordance with the law, as injustice poses a threat to the entire justice system. As the detenu had been released, the petition was dismissed as withdrawn.

  Questions settled

  • Are police functionaries bound to obey illegal orders of their superiors?
  • Does the filing of false statements by a police officer regarding a detention warrant departmental disciplinary action?
  • Is a habeas corpus petition rendered infructuous if the detenu is released during the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hayat Khan and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 901 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02
  pre-arrest bailanticipatory bailconcurrent jurisdictionmala fidescriminal procedurepolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This application for pre-arrest bail arose from an F.I.R. concerning the death of eight individuals, including Mir Murtaza Bhutto, during a police operation. The applicants, police officers present at the scene, sought pre-arrest bail, contending that their involvement was minimal, that they were not named in the interim challan, and that the prosecution was motivated by political vendetta. The core legal question was whether the applicants satisfied the stringent criteria for pre-arrest bail, particularly the requirement of demonstrating mala fides or ulterior motive on the part of the police. The Court held that while it possessed concurrent jurisdiction to hear the bail application directly, the applicants failed to establish the essential conditions for pre-arrest relief. The Court emphasized that pre-arrest bail is an exceptional remedy, not a rule, requiring proof of imminent arrest, irreparable humiliation, and specific mala fides. Finding no reliable evidence of ulterior motive and noting the gravity of the incident, the Court rejected the application and recalled the interim bail, affirming that bare allegations of mala fides are insufficient to warrant such relief.

  Questions settled

  • What are the essential conditions that must be satisfied for the grant of pre-arrest bail under Section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it permissible for an accused to bypass the Sessions Court and approach the High Court directly in matters of concurrent jurisdiction regarding pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in an interim challan automatically entitle them to pre-arrest bail?
  • Is a bare allegation of mala fides sufficient to justify the grant of pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Durrani vs The State1997 MLD 1901 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi Airport vs Sindh Employees' Social1997 PLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi Airport vs Sindh Employees Social1997 PLC 618 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-29Read full judgment →
• Shah Bashir Alam And 2 Others vs Messrs Arokey Chemical Industries1997 MLD 2308 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Textile Mills Limited vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1997 MLD 2705 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-26Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad And Others vs Mst. Rasheeda Bibi Through Attorney1997 MLD 385 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-05Read full judgment →
• Shabrati vs Shaukat Ali Khan1997 MLD 2884 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Senator Sultan Ali Lakhani vs Mir Shakil Ur Rahman and 4 others1997 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-16
  defamationinterlocutory injunctionfreedom of speechfreedom of the presslibeljustificationfair commentprior restraint
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a Senator, filed suits for damages and permanent injunction against the editors, publishers, and reporters of two newspapers alleging defamation arising from identical published articles concerning various scandalous activities. The plaintiff sought interlocutory injunctions to restrain the defendants from publishing further defamatory articles or material. The defendants contested the suits by pleading justification, qualified privilege, and fair comment. The Sindh High Court examined whether an interim injunction could be granted in defamation matters where defences of justification and fair comment are raised. The Court held that interlocutory injunctions in defamation proceedings are extraordinary remedies that will not be granted unless the plaintiff establishes a very clear, prima facie case that the publication is undoubtedly false and libellous, and that the defendants' pleaded defences are bound to fail. Emphasizing the paramount importance of protecting the constitutional freedom of speech and of the press, the Court ruled that courts must exercise extreme caution to avoid imposing prior restraint or judicial censorship. As the defendants raised arguable defences of justification, privilege, and fair comment, and there was no immediate threat of repeated actionable wrong, the applications for interim injunction were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted to restrain the publication of an alleged libel when the defendant pleads justification, privilege, or fair comment?
  • Does the failure of a newspaper or journalist to disclose sources of information amount to proof of defamation or warrant an interim injunction?
  • Can a court issue a wide and unspecific prior restraint order against the publication of future potential defamatory material without violating freedom of speech and of the press?
  • What constitutes the 'clearest of cases' required for a court to exercise its discretion in granting an interim injunction in defamation suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Sayed Zamiruddin vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Education1997 PLC (C.S.) 702 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sayed Hassan Mehtab Jaferi vs Muhammad Qamar Shah Khan1997 MLD 842 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-05Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Khan vs The State1997 MLD 3125 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-09Read full judgment →
• Santoo Mal Alias Santosh Kumar vs Gordhan Das1997 MLD 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-17Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah and others vs Pakistan Telecommunication and others1997 PLC 756 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah And Other vs Pakistan Telecommunication And Others1997 PLC 756 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30Read full judgment →
• Samit Ali Khan vs Dr. MRs, Zainab Irshad and 6 others1997 PLD Karachi 450 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-14
  amenity plotmartial law ordercooperative societiesarbitrationmala fidesconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute over an amenity plot in Karachi initially allotted to respondent No. 1, subsequently cancelled under Martial Law Order No. 34 of 1977, and eventually transferred through intermediate parties to the petitioner. The core legal question concerned the validity of the cancellation under the Martial Law Order, the maintainability of arbitration proceedings under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and whether the petitioner could approbate and reprobate regarding the forum of dispute resolution. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the cancellation of an amenity plot under Martial Law Order No. 34 required both unauthorized conversion and a lack of construction to subsist concurrently, and that the existence of mala fides or lack of jurisdiction could render saved actions open to scrutiny. Furthermore, having successfully urged the withdrawal of a civil suit on the ground that the plaintiff had invoked arbitration under the Cooperative Societies Act, the petitioner was estopped from challenging those very arbitration proceedings at an interim stage. The Court emphasized that amenity plots must serve their designated public purposes rather than being tied up in prolonged private litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an automatic cancellation of an amenity plot under Martial Law Order No. 34 requires the concurrent existence of unauthorized conversion and absence of construction?
  • Can an act otherwise saved under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be subjected to judicial scrutiny if mala fides or lack of jurisdiction are established?
  • Whether a party who successfully pleads the bar of jurisdiction in a civil suit due to the invocation of arbitration under section 54 of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 can subsequently challenge those arbitration proceedings?
  • Whether writ jurisdiction should be exercised against the mere initiation or pendency of arbitration proceedings under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925 before they reach their logical conclusion?
  Read full judgment →
• Samir Oosman and 2 otherss vs Rex Talkies (Pvt.) Ltd and another1997 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-22
  interim injunctioncontempt of courtoriginal civil jurisdictionHigh Court rule-making powerstatutory interpretationCivil Law (Reform) Actdisobedience of court order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order 39, Rule 2(3) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Contempt of Court Act 1976, seeking action against the defendants for violating an interim injunction order dated 7-5-1995. The plaintiffs alleged that the defendants resumed construction on an adjacent plot in defiance of the court's order. The defendants argued that the interim injunction had expired by operation of law under the newly inserted Rules 2-A and 2-B of Order 39, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, introduced by the Civil Law (Reform) Act 1994, which limit the duration of interim orders. The Court held that Rules 2-A and 2-B of Order 39 do not apply to the High Court, as the High Court possesses independent rule-making powers under Section 129 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and operates under the Sindh Chief Court (O.S.) Rules. Consequently, the Court ruled that the interim order remained effective. The Court emphasized that parties must obey court orders regardless of legal disputes and ordered the attachment of the project property, issuing a show-cause notice to the director for disobedience.

  Questions settled

  • Do the provisions of Order 39, Rules 2-A and 2-B of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the High Court?
  • Does the High Court have the power to regulate its own procedure in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction notwithstanding the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a party unilaterally decide to ignore an interim injunction on the basis that it has expired by operation of law?
  • Does the use of the term 'meanwhile' in an interim order imply that the order remains operative until expressly recalled or until the matter is decided?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs The State1997 MLD 2529 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-04Read full judgment →
• Sakhi Rehmat Ullah vs The State1997 MLD 3114 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
• Saindad vs Province of Sindh Through Deputy Commissioner, Dadu And 5 Other1997 MLD 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-28Read full judgment →
• Saindad And Others vs Government of Sindh And Other1997 MLD 819 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-08Read full judgment →
• Sahab Dino Alias Shah Dad vs The State1997 MLD 2749 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-27Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed vs Syed Rais PERVAIZOpponent1997 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-19
  rent appealdefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementrate of rentmode of payment of rentjoint ownersejectment application
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved the determination of the correct rate of rent, whether the tenant had committed default, and whether a landlord can seek eviction for the personal requirement of joint-owner siblings who are not strictly categorized under the definition of 'family' in the Rent Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant's version of the rate of rent at Rs.800 per month was correct in the absence of documentary evidence from the landlord, but upheld the finding of default as the tenant failed to prove payment for the disputed period or valid tender under section 10 of the Ordinance. Furthermore, the Court ruled that co-owner siblings, even if not falling within the statutory definition of family, are entitled to seek eviction for their personal requirement as co-owners. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the onus to prove an increase in rent and the rate of rent lies upon the landlord?
  • Can a tenant who alleges non-issuance of rent receipts by the landlord be absolved from proving payment of rent or valid tender under section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Whether co-owner siblings who are not explicitly included in the definition of 'family' under section 2(g) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 can maintain an ejectment application for their personal requirement?
  • Does sending a money order for rent in advance when no rent is due constitute a valid tender of rent under the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Saadat Khan vs The State1997 MLD 249 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Royce Dean Wellman vs The State1997 P.C.T.L.R. 245 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-17Read full judgment →
• Royce Dean Wellman vs The State Through Collector Of Customs1997 MLD 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-30Read full judgment →
• Rizwan Masood vs Haji Muhammad Rafiq And Another1997 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-01Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin And Another vs The State1997 MLD 2532 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin alias Muna and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-24Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Sher Muhammad And 7 Other1997 MLD 2905 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-14Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali And 2 Other vs Muhammad Nazir1997 MLD 1017 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-19Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi And 2 Other vs Shafi1997 PLC (C.S.) 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30
  civil revisiondate of birth correctionservice recordcivil court jurisdictioninterim injunctionArticle 212terms and conditions of servicelimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arose from a dispute regarding the correction of the respondent's date of birth in his service records, which he alleged was incorrectly recorded as 1936 instead of 1938. The respondent filed a civil suit, and the lower courts granted an interim injunction maintaining the status quo. The petitioners challenged this, arguing the suit was time-barred and barred by Article 212 of the Constitution, contending that service matters fall exclusively under the jurisdiction of the Federal Service Tribunal. The High Court dismissed the revision, affirming the lower courts' findings. The Court held that a dispute regarding the determination or correction of a date of birth in service records does not strictly constitute a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service and is, therefore, cognizable by a Civil Court. Furthermore, the Court determined the suit was not time-barred, applying the six-year limitation period under Article 120 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The Court concluded that the lower courts exercised their jurisdiction lawfully and without material irregularity in granting the interim injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding the correction of a date of birth in a government servant's service record?
  • Is a dispute concerning the determination of a date of birth in service records considered a matter pertaining to the terms and conditions of service under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • What is the limitation period for filing a suit for the correction of a date of birth in service records?
  Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income Tax Karachi And 2 Others vs Sham1997 MLD 2801 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-30Read full judgment →
• Rauf Baig vs Jamaluddin Alias Jameeluddin And Other1997 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-08Read full judgment →
• Rasool Bux vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-16Read full judgment →
• Rashid Akhtar Qureshi vs Major Shabbir And 2 Other1997 MLD 3105 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Rana Riaz Ahmad vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-19Read full judgment →
• Raja Muhammad Niaz and 3 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-04Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Majeed vs The State and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-18
  Superdiginamainherent jurisdictioninterim custody of vehiclesubrogationsecond revisionappraisement of evidencemiscarriage of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging concurrent orders passed by the A.C.M.-I and the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi-East, regarding the interim custody (Superdiginama) of a recovered stolen vehicle. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction to interfere with concurrent findings of subordinate courts regarding the entitlement to possession of a vehicle claimed by both the applicant and an insurance company (respondent No. 2) via subrogation. The Court held that the application was meritless, noting that the lower courts had properly appraised the evidence, including forensic reports, to determine the vehicle's identity. The Court affirmed that inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. are not intended to substitute the High Court's appraisement of evidence for that of lower courts, nor to circumvent the bar on second revisions. The key principle laid down is that the High Court will only interfere under Section 561-A when there is a gross miscarriage of justice or abuse of court process, not for mere irregularity or to re-evaluate evidence already settled by lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to entertain a second revision against an order passed by a Sessions Judge in revision?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with the concurrent findings of lower courts regarding the interim custody of a vehicle?
  • Does the exercise of inherent powers under Section 561-A, Cr.P.C. permit the High Court to substitute its own appraisement of evidence for that of the lower courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Rais Dil Murad Khan vs Ali Nawaz And Other1997 MLD 1309 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-15
  revisional jurisdictionland revenuecancellation of grantbar of jurisdictionmala fidedeclaration of titleprivate property
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two civil revision applications under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a consolidated appellate judgment setting aside the trial court's decree. The case originated from a dispute over land granted to the applicant by a Deputy Collector for commercial use, which was challenged by a private party claiming ancestral private ownership. The Commissioner and Board of Revenue set aside the grant, holding the land to be private property and finding that the Deputy Collector lacked authority under the Sindh Land Revenue Code 1879 to dispose of State land. The applicant filed a civil suit for declaration and injunction, while the private owner sued for possession. The High Court upheld the first appellate court's dismissal of the applicant's suit and decreeing of the owner's suit. The High Court held that although statutory bars to civil court jurisdiction do not apply to void or mala fide administrative orders, the applicant failed to plead or prove mala fides. The administrative orders revoking the void grant were lawful.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Deputy Collector have inherent statutory power under the Sindh Land Revenue Code 1879 to grant or dispose of State land without authorization as a Collector?
  • Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging revenue orders when statutory provisions bar civil court jurisdiction?
  • What level of pleading and proof is required to sustain an allegation of mala fides to bypass a statutory bar of civil court jurisdiction?
  • Is a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act maintainable by a person whose land grant was void ab initio and legally revoked?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahat Hussain Siddiqi And Other vs Board of Secondary Education1997 PLC (C.S.) 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-14Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan Muhammad vs The State And 2 Other1997 MLD 1646 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-18Read full judgment →
• Qazi-Ur-Rehman vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1612 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-29Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Ali and anothers vs Muhammad Ayub Fazlani and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 999 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-14Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Nasir vs The State1997 MLD 2452 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-20Read full judgment →
• Qalandro Alias Nazro vs The State1997 MLD 1632 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-13
  unrepresented accusedduty of courtcross-examinationburden of proofarms ordinanceprocedural illegalitystation diaryspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction under section 13(d) of the Arms Ordinance recorded by the Special Court, Dadu. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence. The Court held that where an accused is unrepresented by counsel, the trial judge has a positive duty to actively cross-examine prosecution witnesses and assist in discovering the truth, as scanty or absent cross-examination by an unrepresented layman cannot be construed as an admission of prosecution facts. Furthermore, the trial was vitiated by severe procedural irregularities, including the failure to produce the police station daily diary entry regarding the departure of the police party, the failure to frame a proper charge after transfer of the case, and non-compliance with mandatory certification provisions under section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Additionally, the trial court misconstrued the burden of proof; under section 8 of the Special Courts Act 1975, the statutory presumption and shifting of the burden of proof do not arise until the prosecution first establishes a prima facie case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction was thus unsustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a trial judge to cross-examine witnesses on behalf of an unrepresented accused violates the principles of a fair trial and the provisions of section 340 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a scanty or absent cross-examination by an unrepresented accused permit the court to presume that unrebutted prosecution testimonies are correct statements of fact?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory certification requirement under section 364(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • At what stage does the burden of proof shift to the accused under section 8 of the Special Courts Act 1975?
  • What is the effect of the non-production of the police station daily diary entry showing the departure of the police party on the reliability of the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority, Karachi vs Alghurair Group of Companies and 3 otherss1997 PLD Karachi 636 · Sindh High Court
  Arbitration Act 1940stay of suitarbitration clauseperformance bondbank guaranteefrustration of contractinterim injunctioncondition precedent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal before the Sindh High Court arose from a Single Judge's consolidated order rejecting the appellant Port Qasim Authority's application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to stay the suit and refer the matter to arbitration, while granting an interim injunction restraining the encashment of a performance bond. The respondents had sued for cancellation of an agreement to build/operate container berths and cancellation of the performance bond on grounds of frustration and non-fulfilment of condition precedent. The High Court held that the broadly worded arbitration clause covering disputes 'arising out of or in connection with the agreement' extended to questions regarding the enforceability, effectiveness, or frustration of the agreement. Frustration does not extinguish the contract or defeat the arbitration clause. However, regarding the performance bond, the Court affirmed the injunction, distinguishing conditional performance guarantees from unconditional mobilisation guarantees, holding that a performance bond enforceable upon breach cannot be encashed without prima facie proof of breach. The appeal was thus partly allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration clause covering disputes 'arising out of or in connection with' an agreement is broad enough to confer jurisdiction on arbitrators to determine issues regarding the enforceability or non-fulfilment of conditions precedent of the agreement?
  • Whether the frustration or impossibility of performance of a contract extinguishes the operation of its arbitration clause?
  • Whether a performance bond requiring breach of contract before encashment can be encashed unconditionally without prima facie evidence of breach?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Siddik Muhammad Shah vs Dr. Syed Shah Nawaz Shah And 2 Other1997 MLD 943 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-29Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Ali Shaikh and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1988 · Sindh High Court · 1997-07-23
  post-arrest bailEhtesab Ordinancewrongful lossjurisdiction of High Courtdocumentary evidenceadministrative decisioncorruption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by an Administrator of a Municipal Committee and a former Minister of Local Government, accused of causing wrongful loss to the government by awarding a contract at a lower bid than the official rate, under sections 420 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to grant bail while a reference regarding the matter was pending before the Ehtesab Commission. The Court held that it possessed jurisdiction because the Ehtesab Commission had not yet taken formal cognizance of the matter. On the merits, the Court granted bail, observing that the prosecution's evidence was entirely documentary, precluding any risk of tampering. Furthermore, the Court noted that the beneficiary of the contract had already been granted bail and that the applicants’ actions appeared to be administrative decisions made within the scope of their duties, thus warranting further inquiry. The principle established is that pending a formal reference to the Ehtesab Bench, the High Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate bail matters.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court retain jurisdiction to grant bail when a reference has been made to the Ehtesab Commission but cognizance has not yet been taken?
  • Does a reference made to the Chief Ehtesab Commissioner under the Ehtesab Ordinance 1996 constitute the taking of cognizance by the Ehtesab Bench?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail when the prosecution's case rests entirely on documentary evidence already in the possession of the state?
  • Does the fact that a co-accused beneficiary has been granted bail entitle other accused persons to bail in the same case?
  Read full judgment →
• Patasho vs The State1997 MLD 1689 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Through Secretary, Works Division, Islamabad And 2 Others vs Raja Mansabdar Khan1997 MLD 545 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Swedish Institute of Technology Garment Production Unit1997 MLD 2034 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan SIEMEN's Union Through General Secretary, Karachi vs Registrar1997 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Siemen's Union through General Secretary, Karachi vs Registrar1997 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and others vs Ghulam Rasool and others1997 PLD Karachi 113 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Kuwait Investment Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ferro Alloys1997 MLD 2244 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-14Read full judgment →
• Pak Libya Holding Company (Private), Limited vs Messrs Ferro Alloys1997 MLD 759 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-24Read full judgment →
• Owais Akhtar vs Karachi Building Control Authority Through Chief1997 MLD 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
• Omary Juma Sali vs The State1997 MLD 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• N/A vs Not1997 PLD Karachi 230 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-09Read full judgment →
• Nuruddin vs Kaimuddin and others1997 PLD Karachi 386 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-27Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin and 11 others vs Abdul Waheed1997 PLD Karachi 6 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23
  burden of proofdismissal in limineland trespasscivil appealstandard of proofbalance of probabilitiesLaw Reforms Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's dismissal of a suit for declaration, injunction, and damages concerning an alleged land trespass. The core legal questions were whether the appellants had discharged the burden of proof regarding the alleged encroachment and whether the appeal could be dismissed in limine. The Court held that the appellants failed to establish their case, as the burden of proof rests on the party alleging a fact, and they failed to meet the standard of proof on the balance of probabilities. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that an appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, is distinct from a first regular appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and may be dismissed in limine. Key principles laid down include the fundamental rule that he who alleges must prove, the requirement that parties cannot take stances at variance with their pleadings, and the clarification that Division Benches possess the authority to dismiss such appeals in limine without admitting them for regular hearing.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof in a civil suit for trespass rest upon the plaintiff to prove the encroachment on a balance of probabilities?
  • Can a High Court Appeal filed under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, be dismissed in limine?
  • Is a party permitted to take a legal stance at trial that is at variance with their original pleadings?
  • Does the failure to specifically request the disposal of an interlocutory application before the final hearing of a suit imply that the application was abandoned?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Jehan Shah vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority1997 MLD 2261 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-16
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionmaintainabilityhousing authoritypublic powersstate functions
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner approached the Sindh High Court through a constitutional petition challenging the cancellation of an allotment of extra land measuring 58 square yards adjacent to her plot by the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority. The core legal question determined by the court was whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan is maintainable against the respondent housing authority. The court held that the petition is not maintainable because the respondent does not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a province, or a local authority, nor does it exercise sovereign or public powers, receive substantial government funding, or remain under substantial government control, as per the tests laid down by the Supreme Court. The key principle laid down is that for an entity to be amenable to writ jurisdiction under Article 199, it must satisfy the tests of performing State functions involving sovereign or public powers with substantial government control and funding.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is maintainable against the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority?
  • Does the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation, a province, or a local authority?
  • What are the primary tests to determine if an organization or person is amenable to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed vs Nisar Ahmed and 3 others1997 P Cr. L J 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed alias Niaz Hussain vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-13Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd. vs The Collector of Customs And Other1997 MLD 2770 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28
  constitutional petitionalternative remedyterritorial jurisdictioncustoms dutybonded warehouseinsurance policyrecovery of arrears
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner Insurance Company filed a constitutional petition in the Sindh High Court challenging a demand notice issued by the customs authorities for the recovery of customs duty and taxes following a fire at a bonded warehouse in Lahore where insured goods were stored. The respondents raised preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of the petition due to the availability of adequate alternative remedies of appeal and revision under the Customs Act, 1969, and the lack of territorial jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court since all relevant events and execution of the insurance policy occurred in Lahore. The court held that the petition was premature as the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory remedies of appeal and revision, and further ruled that the court lacked territorial jurisdiction as the cause of action accrued entirely outside its territorial limits. Consequently, the constitutional petition was dismissed without entering into the merits of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition can be maintained when adequate alternative statutory remedies of appeal and revision are available under the Customs Act?
  • Does the mere service of a demand notice at Karachi confer territorial jurisdiction on the Sindh High Court when the cause of action and execution of the insurance contract took place in Lahore?
  • Whether a dispute arising out of a private contract of insurance can bypass the rule of exhausting alternative departmental remedies in tax matters?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Jatoi and others1997 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-19Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Shaikh vs Muhammad Ismail1997 PLD Karachi 479 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-14Read full judgment →
• Nayab Kazmi vs Cantonment Board And Other1997 MLD 2794 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Naya Daur Motor (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Banking Council through Chairman, Habib Bank Plaza, Karachi and 7 others1997 PLD Karachi 208 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-14
  rejection of plaintjurisdiction of civil courtouster of jurisdictionpledge of sharesspecial courtcivil nature disputecause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arose from a suit filed by the plaintiff for a declaration, permanent injunction, and recovery of possession of shares of a foreign company pledged with the plaintiff as security for advances. Defendant No.1 sought the rejection of the plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, contending that no cause of action was disclosed and that the suit was barred under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, due to exclusive jurisdiction vesting in the Special Court where criminal proceedings were pending regarding the shares. The core legal question was whether the jurisdiction of a civil court of plenary jurisdiction to determine civil rights and title to property is ousted by implication under the Special Courts Ordinance when a criminal court has passed interim orders concerning the custody of the same property. The High Court dismissed the application for rejection of the plaint, holding that the Special Court, exercising criminal jurisdiction, cannot effectively decide intricate questions of civil ownership, title, and pledge. The court laid down that the ouster of jurisdiction of superior civil courts cannot be accepted lightly and requires clear, definite, and positive statutory provisions, and that the mere pendency of proceedings or interim custody orders before a special criminal tribunal does not bar a civil suit to determine proprietary rights and title.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of a civil court to determine title and ownership of property is ousted by implication under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a special court exercising criminal jurisdiction effectively determine intricate questions of ownership, title, and pledge of shares?
  • Does the pendency of proceedings or an interim custody order regarding property before a Special Court bar a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction?
  • What are the fundamental principles and tests for deciding whether the jurisdiction of a civil court is excluded in favor of a statutory tribunal?
  Read full judgment →
• Naveed Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and 3 others vs Central Cotton Mills1997 PLD Karachi 432 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-31
  Annual General Meetinginvalid general meetingnotice of meetingclear notice periodelection of directorsOfficial AssigneeCompanies Ordinance 1984voting rights
  Summary & questions settled

  High Court Appeals were filed challenging an order of a learned Single Judge that declared the Annual General Meeting (AGM) held on 29-6-1993 and its adjourned meeting held on 30-8-1993 invalid, while directing a fresh AGM to be convened under the supervision of the Official Assignee. The dispute arose between two family factions over the management and shareholdings of a listed company. The primary legal questions concerned the mandatory nature and consequences of non-compliance with the statutory 21 days' clear notice requirement under Section 158(3) and the despatch of audited accounts under Section 233(4) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, the scope of Section 161(8), and the legal status of a Chairman presiding over an AGM after the expiry of the Board's tenure. The High Court upheld the invalidation of the meetings due to non-service of personal notices and failure to circulate audited accounts, ordering a fresh AGM presided over by the Official Assignee. The Court held that statutory 21 days' notice requires a clear period excluding the date of despatch and meeting date; non-compliance invalidates proceedings where substantial prejudice ensues; and retiring directors continuing under Section 177 retain their Chairman until a new Board is inducted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the requirement of giving 21 days' notice before an Annual General Meeting under Section 158(3) and Section 233(4) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 mandates a clear period excluding both the date of despatch and the date of the meeting?
  • Does the failure to personally serve notices and audited accounts on shareholders render the proceedings of an Annual General Meeting invalid notwithstanding publication in newspapers?
  • Under Section 161(8) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, must the members prevented from effectively using their rights be restricted to the applicants holding ten per cent voting power, or can it include members generally?
  • Does a Chairman of the Board of Directors continue in office along with retiring directors who continue to perform their functions under Section 177 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 beyond their prescribed term?
  Read full judgment →
• National Insurance Corporation, Karachi vs Pakistan National1997 P.C.T.L.R. 309 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank Of Pakistan vs Allied Paper Industries Ltd. And OtherPTCL 1997 CL. 139 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-14Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Officers Association vs Presiding Officer, S.L. Court No. v And Others1997 PLC 434 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Officers Association vs Presiding Officer, S.L. Court N0. v and others1997 PLC 434 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-25Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Employees Front Sindh vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh And Others1997 PLC 432 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-28Read full judgment →
• Naseem Begum vs Mrs. Raeesa Khatoon And 2 Other1997 MLD 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-17Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Hamid vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 494 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-11
  post-arrest bailillegal detentionconstitutional guaranteesright to libertyremandspecial court jurisdictionpolice report
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a direct application for bail filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the release of the applicant, who was arrested under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, for alleged possession of an unlicensed pistol. The core legal questions involved the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail in cases triable by a Special Court, the applicability of provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 regarding arrest and remand in relation to constitutional guarantees, and the consequences of a delay in submitting the police report under section 173 of the Code. The High Court held that its jurisdiction to grant bail is not ousted by the 1975 Act, and that the statutory and constitutional safeguards concerning personal liberty and remand under Articles 9 and 10 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and sections 61, 62, and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 remain applicable until the Special Court takes formal cognizance of the matter. The court laid down the principle that violation of mandatory detention procedures renders continued detention illegal, warranting the grant of bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 oust the jurisdiction of the High Court to grant bail?
  • Are the provisions of sections 61, 62, and 167 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 applicable to arrests made under special legislation?
  • What is the effect on detention when statutory remand and production timelines under the law and the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 are violated?
  • When does a Special Court take cognizance of a case to the exclusion of ordinary provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
• Nabi Shah vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 943 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• M/s. Waseem Construction Co. vs Province of Sindh Through The1997 MLD 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Kaikobad Pestanjee Kakalia, Through The Partners vs M/s. Almas1997 P.C.T.L.R. 265 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mussratullah Siddiqui vs Province of Sindh Through Senior Member, Board Of Revenue, Revenue Department, Hyderabad, Sindh And 4 Other1997 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Thatta Sugar Mills And Another1997 MLD 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-11Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmed Panhwar Through His Legal Heirs And Others vs Dr. Mrs.1997 MLD 829 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-15Read full judgment →