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.

• Messrs U.D.L. Industries Ltd. vs Hongguang Electron Tube Plant and others1997 PLD Karachi 553 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-27
  Letters of CreditInterim InjunctionFraud ExceptionInternational TradeBank GuaranteeSale of GoodsIrrevocable Credit
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns a request for an interim injunction to restrain the encashment of irrevocable Letters of Credit (L/Cs) issued for the purchase of allegedly defective television sets. The core legal question is whether courts can interfere with the independent, unconditional obligation of banks to honor L/Cs when the underlying transaction is tainted by fraud. The Court held that while L/Cs are generally sacrosanct to preserve international trade confidence, they are not immune to judicial intervention in exceptional cases involving clear fraud or injustice. Finding a prima facie case of fraud and noting the defendant's lack of local assets, the Court granted the injunction but balanced the equities by permitting encashment only upon the defendant furnishing a bank guarantee to secure the plaintiff's potential claims. The key principle established is that although courts are generally reluctant to disrupt banking instruments, they possess the inherent power to grant interlocutory relief to prevent the defeat of justice where a strong case of fraud is demonstrated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court restrain the encashment of an irrevocable Letter of Credit based on allegations of fraud in the underlying contract?
  • Does the 'fraud exception' allow for judicial intervention in the independent obligation of a bank to honor a Letter of Credit?
  • Under what circumstances can a court grant an interlocutory order to prevent the defeat of justice in commercial transactions involving foreign entities?
  • Is a Letter of Credit considered a negotiable instrument under the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sindh Textile Industries Ltd. vs Messrs Rafique & Co.1997 MLD 2391 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Progressive Associates Ltd. vs Messrs National Shipping1997 MLD 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Platinum Insurance Company Through Chief Executive vs Messrs1997 MLD 2394 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-21
  summary suitleave to defendbank guaranteeOrder XXXVII CPCterritorial jurisdictionpromissory notedishonoured cheque
  Summary & questions settled

  This order arises out of an application for leave to defend filed by the defendants in a summary suit for recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff company initiated the suit based on dishonoured cheques, performance guarantees, counter-guarantees, and promissory notes. The defendants sought unconditional leave to defend, arguing lack of territorial jurisdiction, improper court summons, issuance of a blank cheque at Islamabad, uncancelled revenue stamps on the promissory notes, and failure to produce underlying notices from a third party. The High Court observed that part of the cause of action arose at Karachi where the post-dated cheque was issued and delivered. The Court held that minor procedural defects in issuing court summons or technical objections regarding uncancelled stamps on promissory notes do not entitle a defendant to unconditional leave at this stage. Consequently, the High Court held that the defendants failed to raise a triable defence warranting unconditional leave, granting leave to defend subject to furnishing a bank guarantee for the suit amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does the execution and delivery of a cheque at a place confer territorial jurisdiction on the court situated in that area?
  • Can a defect in the form of summons issued by the court office disentitle a plaintiff from maintaining a summary suit under Order XXXVII CPC?
  • Whether technical objections regarding uncancelled revenue stamps on a promissory note entitle a defendant to unconditional leave to defend a summary suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Phoenix Security Services (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Sindh1997 PLC 540 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Petrobulk Carriers And Another vs Abdul Waheed And Another1997 MLD 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Noori Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. and others vs The Federation of Pakistan and others1997 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-29
  constitutional petitioninterim orderpublic revenuesassessment and collectionstay orderjurisdictionstatutory interpretationcustoms duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court, delivered by Chief Justice Mamoon Kazi, deals with several constitutional petitions challenging the legality of actions taken by tax and revenue authorities, specifically concerning the interpretation and effect of clauses (4), (4-A), and (4-B) of Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved the lifespan of interim orders passed in matters relating to the assessment or collection of public revenues, whether such interim orders can extend beyond the mandatory six-month period, and the interrelationship between clauses (4-A) and (4-B). The court held that clause (4-A) operates independently to curtail the life of an interim order to six months in cases concerning public revenues or State property, regardless of court delays or the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit, and that clause (4-B) is directory rather than mandatory regarding the timeline for disposal. The key legal principles laid down are that constitutional provisions curtailing interim orders in fiscal matters must be strictly construed according to legislative intent to prevent abuse of court processes, and that courts cannot extend expired interim stay orders beyond the statutory six-month limit.

  Questions settled

  • Does an interim order passed by a High Court in matters relating to the assessment or collection of public revenues automatically expire after six months pursuant to Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a High Court extend the duration of an interim stay order beyond the statutory six-month period prescribed under Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the provisions of Article 199(4-B) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 requiring the disposal of a constitutional petition within six months mandatory or directory?
  • Does the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit empower a court to override the express statutory limitation imposed on interim orders by Article 199(4-A) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nisar Art Press (Pvt.) Ltd. Through Its Managing Director vs Chief1997 MLD 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mehboob Enterprises . vs Karachi Development Authority And Another1997 MLD 3085 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-12
  interim injunctionperformance bondbank guaranteeencashmentcontractor defaultcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiff contractor seeking to restrain the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.) from encashment of a performance bond/bank guarantee issued by Allied Bank Limited. The core legal question concerns whether the defendant authority can encash a performance bond without establishing default and resulting damages by the contractor, particularly where full possession of the contracted site was not handed over. The Sindh High Court held that the performance bond in question was not an unconditional bank guarantee, and its terms explicitly required the creditor to establish default and show that it suffered loss or damages prior to encashment. The Court granted an interim restraint against encashment for three months, directing the plaintiff to expedite remaining construction and the defendant to resolve pending claims. The key principle laid down is that unlike unconditional bank guarantees, a conditional performance bond places the initial burden on the creditor to prima facie establish default and actual loss or damages before encashment is permissible.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an owner can encash a performance bond without prima facie establishing default on the part of the contractor?
  • Does a performance bond requiring proof of loss and damages constitute an unconditional bank guarantee?
  • Is a creditor required to show the quantum of cost and damages suffered before invoking a conditional performance bond?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mall Square Residents Association, Karachi through President1997 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1996-06-26
  Constitutional petitionLocus standiBuilding plan approvalCantonment BoardAudi alteram partemContractual obligationsNatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a residents' association challenging the approval of a revised building plan by the Cantonment Board, which permitted increased commercial density in a residential project. The petitioners contended that these alterations violated a prior agreement and the original project brochure, and that the approval was granted without affording them an opportunity of being heard. The core legal question was whether constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked to enforce private contractual obligations or to challenge administrative building approvals based on alleged breaches of such agreements. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, as the dispute primarily concerned the enforcement of private contractual obligations, which cannot be adjudicated through a constitutional petition. Furthermore, the Court ruled that regulatory authorities are not legally obligated to serve notice upon residents before approving building plan revisions unless a specific statutory provision mandates it. The Court emphasized that as long as the authority acts within its statutory powers under the Cantonments Act, 1924, and no violation of law or bye-laws is demonstrated, the administrative approval remains valid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained to enforce private contractual obligations between builders and residents?
  • Is a Cantonment Board legally required to serve notice on residents before approving revisions to a building plan?
  • Does a breach of a brochure or private agreement regarding building specifications provide grounds for challenging a regulatory authority's approval in a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kaikobad Pestanjee Kakalia Through Partners vs Messrs Almas1997 MLD 149 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs K.G. Traders and anothers vs Deputy Collector of Customs and 4 others1997 PLD Karachi 541 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-14
  clearing agentlicence suspensioncustoms actbar of jurisdictionmala fideprinciples of natural justiceinterim injunctionbonded warehouse
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, who were licensed clearing agents under the Customs Act and Customs House Agent Licensing Rules, 1971, challenged a circular that suspended their licences following an investigation into the clandestine removal of palm oil from a bonded warehouse. They filed interim injunction applications in civil suits to suspend the operation of the circular. The core legal questions involved the scope of the ouster of civil court jurisdiction under Section 217 of the Customs Act, and whether the immediate suspension of licences under Rule 21 of the Licensing Rules was validly invoked without a show-cause notice or objective urgency. The Sindh High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction is not barred in cases where the impugned action is mala fide, without jurisdiction, or coram non judice. The Court further held that power under Rule 21 requires objective necessity and urgency, which was absent given the unexplained delay, and that summary suspension without following mandatory procedural requirements violates principles of natural justice. Consequently, the interim injunction was granted in favour of the plaintiffs.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 217 of the Customs Act bar the jurisdiction of civil courts to entertain suits against orders passed mala fide or without jurisdiction?
  • Can a licensing authority suspend a clearing agent's licence under Rule 21 of the Customs Agents (Licensing) Rules, 1971, without establishing objective urgency?
  • Is a show-cause notice a mandatory prerequisite before taking punitive action against a licensee under Rule 19 of the Customs Agents (Licensing) Rules, 1971?
  • Whether proceedings for the evasion of duty under the Customs Act can be conflated with proceedings for the suspension or revocation of clearing agent licences?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jupiter Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Director, Hyderabad1997 PLC 473 · Sindh High Court
  social security contributionwages definitionbonus as wagescovered employeenotional extensionestablishment definitionSind Employees Social Security Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order of the Sind Employees Social Security Court, which upheld a demand for social security contributions against the appellant. The core legal questions concerned whether bonus payments constitute wages for contribution purposes, whether an employee initially covered under the social security scheme ceases to be covered if their wages subsequently exceed the statutory ceiling due to increments, and whether a Head Office located outside the notified area constitutes part of the establishment. The Court held that bonus payments, being integral to the pay packet, constitute wages. Regarding coverage, the Court ruled that an employee initially covered remains covered even if their wages exceed the ceiling due to normal increments, as the legislation aims to protect workers. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Head Office acts as a notional extension of the factory, rendering its employees subject to contribution. The Court affirmed that while the institution is entitled to contributions, it must specify the individual employees covered rather than issuing general demands. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Do bonus payments made to employees constitute wages for the purpose of calculating social security contributions?
  • Does an employee initially covered under the social security scheme cease to be covered if their wages exceed the statutory ceiling due to normal increments?
  • Can a Head Office located outside a notified area be considered a notional extension of a factory for the purpose of social security coverage?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ibrahim Agencies vs Messrs Panorama Enterprises Ltd.1997 MLD 3035 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hakimsons Chemical Industries (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi Through General Manager vs Registrar of Trade Unions (West), Government of Sindh, Karachi And Another1997 PLC 746 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-16
  trade union registrationcollective bargaining agentdaily wage workerstemporary workersright to form unionindustrial relationsemployer hearingstanding orders
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an employer challenging the registration of a second trade union and a subsequent letter issued by the Registrar of Trade Unions directing the submission of a list of workers for a referendum under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether daily-wage or temporary workers could legally form a trade union, whether the employer had a right to be heard prior to the registration of a second trade union, and whether the absence of formal written appointment or termination letters rendered the workers outsiders. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the right to form a union under Article 17 of the Constitution applies to all workers without distinction of permanent, temporary, or daily-wage status, and that the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968 requires formal written termination which the employer failed to issue. The Court laid down that employers have no statutory right to a hearing during the registration of the first or second trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and that temporary or daily-wage workers are fully competent to form and join trade unions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether daily-wage or temporary workers are legally competent to form and join a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does an employer have a statutory right to be heard by the Registrar of Trade Unions prior to the registration of a second trade union in an establishment?
  • Can a payment sheet be treated as a valid order of termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the right to form a union under Article 17 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 permit reading in unexpressed legislative restrictions regarding employer participation in trade union registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Friend Education Publisher (Fep) (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Fep1997 PLD Karachi 456 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fauji Sugar Mills, Khoski, District Badin Through Personnel1997 PLC 451 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-11
  temporary employeegrievance petitionStanding Orders Ordinanceindustrial disputeconstitutional jurisdictionconcurrent findingstermination of employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assailed concurrent decisions of the Sindh Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal which allowed a grievance petition filed under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether a temporary employee whose establishment is governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, has the legal right to approach the Labour Court under Standing Order 12(3) without needing to establish an industrial dispute under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Sindh High Court held that Standing Order 12(3) of the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, expressly confers the right on any workman—including a temporary workman—whose services are terminated to seek redress through Section 25-A, and such a worker need not fall within the broader definition of a worker under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Furthermore, the High Court held that concurrent findings of fact by tribunals cannot be interfered with in constitutional jurisdiction unless they are based on no evidence, misreading of evidence, or ignorance of material evidence. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a temporary employee whose establishment is governed by the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 can invoke Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 for termination of service?
  • Does a workman whose services are terminated in breach of Standing Order 12(3) need to satisfy the definition of a worker under Section 2(xxviii) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere with concurrent findings of fact recorded by labour tribunals in constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does the requirement of raising an industrial dispute apply to a worker seeking redress for termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Concord Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs ALY's Travels (Pvt.) Ltd.1997 MLD 2809 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bexshim Corporation vs Privatization Commission, Experts1997 PLD Karachi 36 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23
  oral orderjudicial sanctityunsigned judgmentinterim injunctionjudicial pronouncementfinality of orders
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter concerns the legal validity of an oral order pronounced in open court by a judge who subsequently passed away without signing the order or recording detailed reasons. The core legal question was whether an oral order pronounced in open court, which was neither signed nor supported by written reasons prior to the judge's demise, possesses legal sanctity and binds the parties. The court held that the oral order possesses legal sanctity and is binding. Despite the absence of a signature or written reasons, the court found that the order was effectively pronounced in open court, acknowledged by the parties, and acted upon for an extended period without challenge. The key principle laid down is that while a judge may alter a decision before it is finalized and signed, an oral order pronounced in open court creates a binding judicial act, particularly where the parties have acquiesced to the order's finality for a significant duration, thereby precluding the reopening of the matter.

  Questions settled

  • Does an oral order pronounced in open court possess legal sanctity if the judge dies before signing it?
  • Can a party challenge an oral order after acquiescing to its effect for an extended period?
  • Is a judge competent to alter their findings before the final order is signed and sealed?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bankers Equity Ltd and 5 others vs Messrs Balochistan Coaters1997 PLD Karachi 416 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-10
  winding upcompany liquidationcommercial insolvencyinability to pay debtsnon-commencement of productionTerm Finance Certificatesjust and equitable winding up
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a company petition brought by a syndicate of Development Finance Institutions under sections 305 and 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the winding up of the respondent-company on the grounds that it failed to commence commercial production within the stipulated extended time, was unable to pay its debts despite repeated demands, and that the project had remained closed. The core legal questions revolved around whether the respondent-company was commercially insolvent and unable to pay its debts, and whether non-commencement of commercial production justified a winding-up order. The Sindh High Court held that the respondent-company was indeed commercially insolvent, unable to meet its current demands, and had failed to commence operations or repay its substantial loans. The court established that commercial insolvency is determined by a company's ability to meet current demands from running capital rather than whether its static assets exceed liabilities on paper, and that a prolonged closure and failure to commence production warrant winding up on just and equitable grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a company can be ordered to be wound up for failing to commence commercial production within the stipulated time?
  • How is commercial insolvency determined when assessing a company's inability to pay its debts under company law?
  • Does the fact that a company's total assets exceed its liabilities preclude a court from ordering its winding up due to commercial insolvency?
  • Whether failure to repay loan installments and service statutory notices under the Companies Ordinance justifies the appointment of an official liquidator?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arrow Trading Company vs Hyosung Corporation And 2 Other1997 MLD 55 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arif Builders and Developers vs Government of Pakistan and 41997 PLD Karachi 627 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-04
  public auctiondisposal of state propertyarbitrary executive actionequality of opportunitystate largesseinterim injunctioncivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from an interim order passed in a suit concerning the sale of a surplus Pakistan Railways plot on I.I. Chundrigar Road, Karachi. The Pakistan Railways invited public bids for the plot, and the applicant submitted the highest bid, though accompanied by a cheque instead of a bank draft. Finding the bids inadequate, the authorities scrapped the auction and subsequently negotiated with and accepted the offer of the lowest bidder (the fifth respondent), prompting the applicant to file a suit alleging collusion, arbitrariness, and violation of the principle of equality. The trial court granted a status quo order, which was set aside in a civil miscellaneous appeal, leading to the present revision. The Sindh High Court held that while the Government has the discretion to reject bids and dispose of property, it cannot act arbitrarily, discriminatorily, or like a private individual in distributing state largesse. The Court ruled that if authorities opt for disposal through negotiations after scrapping an auction, they must treat all bidders fairly and afford them an equal opportunity to participate. The revision was allowed and the impugned appellate order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Government has the unfettered power to deal with state property and select recipients of state largesse arbitrarily?
  • Does a highest bidder at a public auction acquire a vested right to have the bid accepted?
  • Whether authorities, upon scrapping an auction for inadequacy of bids and opting for private negotiations, are legally bound to afford equal opportunity to all original bidders?
  • Can a civil court consider and enforce the principle of equality against arbitrary state actions in a pending civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al Shams (Pvt.) Limited. vs Haji Muhammad Afzal And 3 Other1997 MLD 573 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ainy Builders and Company Hyderabad And 2 Others vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hyderabad Through Administrator_Mayoropponent1997 MLD 732 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Gul vs Station House Officer, Police Station Saddar, Karachi1997 P Cr. L J 1739 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-19Read full judgment →
• Mehran Motor Car Company Ltd. and others vs Daewoo Hong Kong1997 PLD Karachi 423 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Meer Hassan And 2 Others vs The State1997 MLD 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-03Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ibnehassan Siddiqui and 2 others vs The State and anothers1997 P Cr. L J 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processinherent jurisdictioncivil disputeprivate complaintcriminal litigationMagistrate's duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate. The dispute arose from a civil conflict between the parties regarding the management of agricultural lands and the custody of a minor child, which the respondent attempted to convert into criminal litigation by filing a private complaint alleging offences under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings initiated to exert pressure in a civil dispute, characterized by a vague complaint lacking essential particulars of time and place, constituted an abuse of the process of law. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as the allegations were essentially civil in nature and the complaint failed to meet the requirements for framing a charge. The Court quashed the proceedings, reaffirming the principle that criminal courts should not be utilized to settle civil disputes or to harass parties, and that magistrates must exercise judicial scrutiny before issuing process in private complaints to ensure that a genuine criminal offence is disclosed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court quash criminal proceedings under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the dispute is essentially civil in nature?
  • Is a Magistrate required to scrutinize a private complaint for the existence of a criminal offence before issuing process under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to provide specific particulars of time and place in a complaint invalidate the subsequent criminal proceedings?
  • Under what circumstances can a Magistrate acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazdoor Union Karachi Water and Sewerage Board, Karachi Through General Secretary vs Registrar of Trade Unions (Central Division), Karachi And 9 Others1997 PLC 311 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-16Read full judgment →
• Mataro And Another vs The State1997 MLD 260 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Master Shahzad vs The State1997 MLD 2605 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-27Read full judgment →
• Masood Rawat and another vs Mrs. Farhat Iqbal and anothers1997 PLD Karachi 318 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-07Read full judgment →
• Masood Mustafa vs The State1997 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Manzoor vs The State1997 MLD 3090 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Manoo And 2 Others vs Province of Sindh And 6 Other1997 MLD 2549 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• Malir Educational Society (Registered), Karachi vs The Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh, Hyderabad And 2 Other1997 MLD 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-26Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Sadiq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 794 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-01Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed And 2 Others vs Nazar Ali And 9 Other1997 MLD 2465 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-04Read full judgment →
• M.B. ABBASI/Accused vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Gen. (Rtd.) Sabeeh Qamar-Uz-Zaman vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-27Read full judgment →
• Laiq and another vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-16Read full judgment →
• Kishore Kumar vs Abdul Sattar1997 MLD 2103 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-11Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux alias Khudo and 2 others vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-09Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Javed Iqbal And Others vs Mst. Nadira Begum And Other1997 MLD 2440 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-14Read full judgment →
• Khastoor Chand vs The State1997 MLD 2497 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-08Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Niazi vs M/s. Habib Bank Ltd., Assistant Vicepresident1997 MLD 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-15
  mandatory injunctionconstitutional petitionhire purchase agreementbank recoveryimpounding of vehicleinterim reliefbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, seeking a mandatory injunction for the release of a commercial vehicle impounded by a bank's recovery officer due to alleged default in loan repayments. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, having defaulted on hire-purchase payments, was entitled to the immediate release of the vehicle via an interim mandatory injunction. The Court held that while the bank had a contractual right under the Hire Purchase Agreement to seize the vehicle upon default, the court must balance the bank's financial interests against the petitioner's potential for irreparable loss. The Court refused to grant the injunction as a matter of course, noting that the petitioner failed to establish a strong prima facie case of regular payment. However, to prevent the deterioration of the asset and mitigate losses for both parties, the Court ordered the conditional release of the vehicle, requiring the petitioner to pay arrears and provide security for the remaining outstanding balance, emphasizing that banks should prioritize financial recovery over vindictive asset seizure.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can a court grant a mandatory injunction at the initial stage of a constitutional petition?
  • Does a bank have the right to seize a vehicle under a hire-purchase agreement in the event of default?
  • Is a token of payment sufficient proof of regular installment payments in a banking transaction?
  • Should a bank's power to impound a vehicle be exercised for the purpose of securing financial interest or as a punitive measure?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalifo Haji Muhammad Hanif Through L. Rs. vs Khalifo Haji Ghulam1997 MLD 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06
  specific performanceoral contractoral agreement of salepart performancediscretionary reliefsale of immovable propertydocumentary evidencecivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's suit for specific performance of an oral contract of sale concerning a 0.50 share in a rice mill. The core legal questions involved whether an oral contract for the sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced based on contemporaneous documentary acknowledgements, and whether the plaintiff proved the contract and part-performance by making substantial payments. The court held that oral contracts of sale are valid and enforceable when supported by clear, unambiguous corroborative documentary evidence such as signed receipts and chits, and that the plaintiff successfully proved the agreement and payment of a substantial portion of the sale consideration. The court established the principle that the absence of a written contract does not bar a suit for specific performance if the terms and execution are proved with reasonable certainty through reliable oral and documentary evidence, and that the discretionary relief of specific performance should not be withheld unless the plaintiff's conduct justifies it.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an oral contract for the sale of immovable property can be specifically enforced under the law?
  • Does the absence of a formal written agreement bar a suit for specific performance when supported by contemporaneous receipts and chits?
  • On what judicial principles must a court exercise its discretion under Section 22 of the Specific Relief Act when granting or refusing specific performance?
  • Whether payments proven through receipts and acknowledged by the defendant constitute valid part-performance of a contract of sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Yousuf Malik vs The State1997 MLD 1728 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Murtaza vs The State1997 MLD 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-26Read full judgment →
• Khalid Mahmood vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Government of Sindh Through Deputy1997 MLD 2745 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Kh. Noorul Qadir Darabu vs Ejaz Ahmed and others1997 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-17
  constitutional petitioninterim rent ordermaintainabilityrelationship of landlord and tenantCantonments Rent Restriction Actinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an interim order passed by the Controller of Rent, directing the petitioner-tenant to deposit arrears and future rent. The core legal question revolves around the maintainability of a constitutional petition against an interim rent order where the statute bars appeals from interim orders, and whether the Rent Controller is bound to determine the relationship of landlord and tenant prior to passing a rent deposit order. The Sindh High Court held that invoking constitutional jurisdiction to challenge interlocutory orders of a Rent Controller, particularly where the statute expressly bars appeals against interim orders to prevent piecemeal litigation, is not maintainable and defeats the legislative intent of expeditious disposal. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interim rent order passed by a Rent Controller?
  • Does Section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act bar appeals against interim orders?
  • Should a Rent Controller determine the relationship of landlord and tenant before passing a rent deposit order?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Port Trust Labour Union Through General Secretary vs Member, National Industrial Relations Commission, Karachi Bench And 2 Others1997 PLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-24Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Muhammad Yousuf Siddiqui1997 MLD 2791 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Kamran alias Ghulam Rasool alias Kaloo vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 484 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-15
  post-arrest bailsuppression of terrorist activitiesrecovery and searchsection 103 crpcburden of proofpolice witnessunreported judgment supreme courtconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court on a bail application by the accused, Kamran alias Ghulam Rasool alias Kaloo, facing trial under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The core legal questions involve the evidentiary value of recoveries witnessed solely by police officials under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, the interpretation of the prohibitory bail clause under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975, the effect of trial delays, and the application of the shift in the burden of proof under section 8 of the same Act. The court held that while section 103 Cr.P.C. strictly applies to places, the rule of prudence has been extended to personal searches, and sole police attestation without cogent explanation does not provide blanket cover, making such cases appropriate for further inquiry. The court further held that discretion regarding bail remains even under section 5-A(8) when reasonable grounds are lacking, day-to-day trial mandates must be observed, and binding precedents of the Supreme Court regarding quantum of punishment and unreported judgments must be followed under Article 189 of the Constitution. The applicant was admitted to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to personal searches as a rule of prudence?
  • Whether the absence of independent recovery witnesses and reliance solely on police officials vitiates the proceedings or warrants further inquiry for bail?
  • Does judicial discretion to grant bail exist under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 when reasonable grounds do not exist?
  • Does an unreported decision of the Supreme Court on a question of law constitute 'law declared' and remain binding on all courts under Article 189 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Kaleem Ahmad vs The State1997 MLD 3103 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-24Read full judgment →
• K.M.C. Peoples Workers' Union Through General Secretary vs Registrar1997 PLC 315 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-24Read full judgment →
• Jumma vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-05Read full judgment →
• Joimal Alias Jairam vs The State1997 MLD 2470 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-01Read full judgment →
• John Paul vs Irshad Ali and others1997 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-14
  civil revisioncompromise decreefraud and misrepresentationpower of attorneyspecific performancepecuniary jurisdictioncollusive proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged the dismissal of an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the trial court, which had refused to set aside a compromise decree. The core legal question concerned whether a compromise decree obtained swiftly through a forged power of attorney and a collusive suit, in the absence of the real property owner, was vitiated by fraud and misrepresentation. The Sindh High Court held that the compromise decree was indeed obtained through fraud, collusion, and misrepresentation based on a forged and unregistered power of attorney, and that fraud vitiates the most solemn proceedings. The Court laid down the principle that a decree obtained through wilful misrepresentation or based on a void agreement can validly be challenged under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and that a vendee under an agreement of sale cannot bypass a suit for specific performance by framing it as a mere declaration of title to manipulate pecuniary jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a compromise decree obtained through a forged power of attorney and collusion be set aside under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a vendee under an agreement to sell acquire a right or legal character entitling them to file a suit for declaration instead of a suit for specific performance?
  • Whether fraud vitiates judicial proceedings and renders a decree based on a void agreement a nullity?
  • Can a general power of attorney containing a power to sell immovable property be acted upon without registration under Section 17 of the Registration Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Janib Chandio vs The State1997 MLD 1691 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-25
  post-arrest bailfurther inquiryconflicting versionsjudicial confessionbenefit of doubtpolice investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a bail application filed by Janib son of Buxial Chandio in Crime No. 1 of 1996 registered at Police Station Drigh under sections 302 and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question concerns whether the applicant is entitled to post-arrest bail given conflicting prosecution versions, shifting roles attributed in the FIR versus subsequent statements under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and a disputed judicial confession lacking independent corroboration. The Sindh High Court held that where the prosecution presents differing versions of the incident and a judicial confession stands uncorroborated, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, warranting the grant of bail. The key principle laid down is that any benefit of doubt arising from discrepancies in the prosecution's case must be resolved in favor of the accused at the bail stage, and faults in police investigation cannot be exploited to the prejudice of the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether post-arrest bail should be granted when the prosecution presents conflicting versions regarding the role and weapon attributed to the accused?
  • Can a judicial confession that lacks independent corroboration serve as a sole basis to deny bail to an accused?
  • Does any defect or dishonesty in the police investigation enure to the benefit of the accused at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad vs Abdul Majeed1997 PLD Karachi 619 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-30Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmed Khan vs The Director & Airport Manager, Karachi1997 MLD 2027 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-15Read full judgment →
• Jam Madad Ali vs The Province of Sindh Law Department And 4 Other1997 MLD 1960 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-03Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan vs Messrs Aamir Sultan & Company1997 MLD 3278 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary of Industries and Production, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and anothers vs Saquib Rice Mills, Larkana through Managing Partner Muhammad Yaqoob1997 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-11Read full judgment →
• Irshad Begum vs Habib Credit & Exchange Bank Ltd And Another1997 MLD 438 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-18Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Excise and Taxation1997 PLC (C.S.) 1168 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Irshad Ali vs Province of Sindh Through Secretary, Excise And Taxation1997 PLC (C.S.) 1168 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-28Read full judgment →
• Irfan Alam---Appl icant vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1619 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
• Iqrar Muhammad Siddiqi vs Mst. Shahid Zareen1997 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-10
  appointment of receiverinterim injunctionprima facie casedanger of wastebenamicivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves applications filed by the plaintiff for the appointment of a receiver and for an interim injunction in a suit claiming ownership of a factory and property held in the name of the defendant, who was formerly his wife. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a strong prima facie case of ownership and imminent danger of waste to justify the harsh remedy of appointing a receiver. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or that the property was in imminent danger of waste, noting that the property stood in the defendant's name and was in her possession. The court laid down the principle that the appointment of a receiver in civil proceedings is a harsh remedy requiring a strong prima facie case and proof that the property is in imminent danger of waste or malversation, and that the purpose of a receiver is not merely to dispossess a party in possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the appointment of a receiver can be ordered without establishing a strong prima facie case and imminent danger of waste?
  • Is the appointment of a receiver an appropriate remedy merely to dispossess a party who is already in possession of the disputed property?
  • Can joint bank accounts operated during a party's absence serve as sufficient proof of exclusive ownership of properties acquired in the name of a spouse?
  • What safeguards should be imposed when restoring possession of a running business to a defendant during the pendency of a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed-Applicant vs The Presiding Officer, Sindh Labour Court1997 P Cr. L J 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-31Read full judgment →
• Investment Corporation of Pakistan and others vs Messrs Charagh1997 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-21
  winding upstatutory noticecommercial insolvencyinability to pay debtCompanies Ordinancecorporate solvency
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, seeking the winding up of the respondent company on the grounds of its inability to pay a debt of approximately Rs. 31.7 million, following the alleged failure to respond to a statutory notice. The respondent company contested the petition, arguing that the debt repayment was contingent upon a public share issue that was prevented by external factors, including actions by the State Bank of Pakistan and the Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan. The respondent further asserted its financial solvency by providing evidence of substantial tax and utility payments. The Court held that the petition for winding up should be dismissed. It determined that the respondent demonstrated a plausible defense regarding the inability to pay, distinguishing between a genuine inability to pay and a mere refusal to pay. Furthermore, the Court established that the statutory notice requirement under the Ordinance is directory rather than mandatory, and that the company remained commercially solvent, with assets exceeding liabilities, thus making a winding-up order neither just nor convenient.

  Questions settled

  • Is the statutory notice requirement under the Companies Ordinance 1984 mandatory or directory for winding-up petitions?
  • Does a company's inability to pay a debt due to external circumstances necessarily constitute commercial insolvency justifying a winding-up order?
  • What is the legal distinction between a company's inability to pay a debt and a refusal to pay a debt in the context of winding-up proceedings?
  • Can a winding-up petition be maintained if the respondent company demonstrates that its assets exceed its liabilities?
  Read full judgment →
• In Re: Alliance Motors (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Not1997 MLD 1966 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04
  winding-up petitionCompanies Ordinance 1984inability to pay debtsOfficial Liquidatorcorporate insolvencyjust and equitable winding upsuspension of business
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for winding up was filed by a director against Alliance Motors (Pvt.) Limited under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, citing the company's failure to hold two consecutive annual general meetings, suspension of business for over a year, and inability to pay debts. The core legal question was whether the circumstances warranted a winding-up order under the 'just and equitable' clause and statutory grounds. The Court observed that while it possesses discretion to allow a company time to revive, such discretion is contingent upon a reasonable prospect of resuming profitable operations. Finding that the company had ceased business, was insolvent, and lacked any viable plan for resurrection, the Court determined that prolonging the proceedings would only exacerbate losses for creditors and investors. Consequently, the Court ordered the company to be wound up and appointed an Official Liquidator to recover assets and settle liabilities. The judgment establishes that the Court’s duty to favor corporate revival is limited to cases where a genuine, realistic prospect of business recovery exists, rather than merely delaying the inevitable liquidation of an insolvent entity.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suspension of business for a whole year automatically entitle a petitioner to a winding-up order?
  • What is the Court's primary consideration when exercising its discretion to wind up a company that has suspended its business?
  • Is a company's inability to pay its debts a sufficient ground for a winding-up order by the Court?
  • Under what circumstances will a Court refuse to order the winding up of a company that has suspended its business?
  Read full judgment →
• Imam Ali Through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Chand Bibi Through Legal Heirs And Another1997 MLD 2454 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Iftikhar Ahmed Dar and another vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 2026 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-17Read full judgment →
• Idrees vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
• Iddris And Others vs The State1997 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and anothers vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 762 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16
  post-arrest bailcounter-casesfree fightfurther inquiryrule of consistencyaggressorpremeditation
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose from a criminal case involving counter-versions of an incident resulting in death and injuries to both parties. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the existence of counter-cases, the absence of one applicant's name in the F.I.R., and the lack of specific roles assigned to the other. The Court held that in instances of counter-cases where both parties sustain injuries and the incident appears to have occurred without premeditation, it is difficult to determine the initial aggressor at the bail stage. Consequently, the Court granted bail to the applicants to ensure both parties are on equal footing, emphasizing that the liberty of the individual is paramount and that the case required further inquiry. The key principle laid down is that in counter-cases where the aggressor cannot be safely determined and the fight appears spontaneous, bail should generally be granted to maintain parity between the parties, provided the observations remain tentative and do not prejudice the final trial.

  Questions settled

  • Should bail be granted in counter-cases where it is difficult to determine which party was the initial aggressor?
  • Does the absence of an accused's name in the F.I.R. constitute grounds for further inquiry regarding their guilt at the bail stage?
  • Is the rule of consistency applicable when co-accused with similar roles have already been granted bail?
  • Can a court grant bail in a murder case if the incident appears to have occurred without premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Municipal Corporation Through Mayor, Hyderabad vs Muhammad Yousif & Co. Through Managing Partner.Opponent1997 MLD 750 · Sindh High Court · 1996-09-05Read full judgment →
• Hussain Industries Limited vs Textile Quota Management Directorate, Government of Pakistan, Karachi And 2 Other1997 MLD 737 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-21Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux alias Husno vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 942 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-17Read full judgment →
• Hubdar Chandio vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1597 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-11Read full judgment →
• Holomal vs Ghulam Ali1997 PLD Karachi 509 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah vs Shahan And Another1997 MLD 2515 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-25Read full judgment →
• Hayat And 4 Others vs The State1997 MLD 2620 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Haq Nawaz vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1824 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-26Read full judgment →
• Hameed Wali Alias Zarwali vs The State1997 MLD 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
• Hameed vs The State1997 MLD 1885 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-24Read full judgment →
• Hajjan Shah vs The State1997 MLD 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-19Read full judgment →
• Haji M. Ilyas And 2 Others vs Mir Habib Jan1997 MLD 551 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan vs The State1997 MLD 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1997-08-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Kassam Through Legal Heirs vs Syed Rahim Shah1997 MLD 3240 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-13Read full judgment →
• Haji Javed Ahmad and another vs The State1997 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-10
  statutory delaypost-arrest bailundertrial prisonerprosecution delayright to bailSection 497 Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns bail applications filed by the applicants, who were in continuous detention for over two and a half years, on the ground of statutory delay in the conclusion of their trial. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, given the protracted nature of the proceedings. The Court held that the delay in the trial was not solely attributable to the applicants. While some adjournments were sought by the defense, the trial remained immature for a significant period because the prosecution failed to produce the case property until September 1996, and the Court itself was vacant for a period. The Court affirmed that the right to bail under the third proviso is a statutory right, not merely discretionary, and can only be denied if the delay is occasioned by the accused's own acts or omissions. Finding the prosecution and the Court equally responsible for the delay, the Court granted bail, emphasizing that the law intends to prevent indefinite incarceration of undertrial prisoners.

  Questions settled

  • Is the right to bail under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, a mandatory statutory right or a discretionary power of the Court?
  • Can bail be denied under the third proviso to Section 497(1), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, if the delay in trial is attributable to the prosecution or the Court rather than the accused?
  • Does the seeking of adjournments by the defense counsel automatically disqualify an accused from claiming the benefit of statutory delay for bail?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the trial remains immature due to the prosecution's failure to produce case property?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Dost Muhammad vs Rao Muhammad Khalid And Another1997 MLD 3232 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Alimuddin vs Shamsher Muhammad1997 MLD 2822 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-04Read full judgment →
• Haji alias Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1997 P Cr. L J 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-02Read full judgment →
• Haider Abbas vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary, Establishment, Islamabad And 2 Others1997 PLC (C.S.) 114 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-29Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rehman vs The State1997 MLD 2536 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Habib Sugar Mills Ltd., Nawabshah Through The Notified Manager Under1997 PLC 309 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-05Read full judgment →