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.

• Salim Sozer and another vs Abdul Jabbar Qureshi and 2 others1996 CLC 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-14Read full judgment →
• Sajjan And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 43 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-22Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain Zaidi vs Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary1996 PLC (C.S.) 185 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-07Read full judgment →
• Saima Enterprises vs Deputy Collector of Customs (Exports), Custom1996 MLD 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-26Read full judgment →
• Saffar and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 364 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-17Read full judgment →
• Safdar Butcher vs Khawaja Per Vezuddin Butt1996 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Zehri vs Nabi Bux Zehri and anothers1996 CLC 497 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-26Read full judgment →
• Saeed Farooq vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 136 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Farooq vs The State and 2 others1996 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Farooq vs The State And 2 Other1996 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-30Read full judgment →
• Saeed Akhtar Malik vs MRS. Rabia AkhtarK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 502 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-13Read full judgment →
• Sadan and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1401 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-06Read full judgment →
• Saadia Ahmed vs The State and 3 others1996 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• Saadia Ahmed vs The State And 3 Other1996 MLD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-25Read full judgment →
• S.M. Rashid vs National Investment Trust Ltd. through Managing Director1996 PLC (C.S.) 706 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-20Read full judgment →
• S.M. Munir and 3 others vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1996 CLC 370 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-31Read full judgment →
• S.G. Rauf & Co., Karachi and 2 others vs United Bank Ltd. and 2 others1996 MLD 558 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-17Read full judgment →
• Roze Muhammad Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1059 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-18Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin vs Gul Khan Ahmed Qureshi1996 CLC 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-20
  rent defaultlandlord-tenant disputeadditional evidenceappellate courtrent depositSindh Rented Premises Ordinancevacant possession
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a Rent Controller's order directing the appellant-tenant to vacate the premises due to default in rent payment. The respondent-landlord, claiming ownership via a lease-deed, initiated the proceedings after the appellant allegedly stopped paying rent directly. The appellant contended that rent was being deposited in court due to a title dispute between the respondent and the previous landlady. The core legal question was whether the appellant committed default in rent payment and whether additional evidence regarding rent deposits could be admitted at the appellate stage. The High Court held that the appellant's unilateral decision to deposit rent in court, despite previously acknowledging the respondent as the landlord, constituted willful defiance and harassment rather than a bona fide dispute. Furthermore, the court refused to admit additional evidence, noting that parties cannot use appellate proceedings to fill lacunae left during the trial. The principle laid down is that a tenant cannot unilaterally shift to court deposits to harass a landlord after acknowledging their status, and appellate courts will not permit additional evidence to remedy failures to produce proof at the trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant unilaterally deposit rent in court to avoid payment to a landlord after acknowledging their status?
  • Under what circumstances can an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to produce evidence of rent payment before the Rent Controller constitute a lacuna that cannot be filled by additional evidence on appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-18Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed vs Dr. Amtul Hameed Koser and 8 others1996 CLC 678 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-29
  joinder of partiesnecessary partyproper partychampertous agreementdevolution of interestpublic policycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from the dismissal of an application by the appellant to be joined as a party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant sought joinder based on a pre-suit agreement where the plaintiffs agreed to transfer 30% of their share in a deceased's estate to the appellant in exchange for financing the litigation. The core legal question was whether the appellant qualified as a necessary or proper party for joinder, or if the agreement constituted a valid devolution of interest under Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the appellant was neither a necessary nor a proper party, as no effective decree could be passed in his absence, nor was his presence required for complete adjudication. Furthermore, the Court determined that the agreement, being champertous and contingent upon future success, did not constitute a present devolution of interest. The Court affirmed that while Order 1, Rule 10 is not exhaustive, the appellant failed to demonstrate a tangible, vested interest justifying joinder.

  Questions settled

  • Is a person claiming an interest based on a champertous financing agreement a necessary or proper party to a suit under Order 1, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does Order 22, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permit the joinder of a party whose interest is contingent upon the future success of the litigation?
  • Can a court permit the joinder of a party based on a pre-suit agreement that has not resulted in the actual devolution of interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Reo Pharma (Pakistan) Limited vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1996 MLD 813 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-16Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs Sukkur Municipal Corporation and others1996 PLD Karachi 400 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-04Read full judgment →
• Rehman Ali vs The State1996 MLD 758 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-18Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Corporate Region, Karachi1996 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-07Read full judgment →
• Regional Commissioner of Income Tax And Other vs Mr. ShafiK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 525 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Razzak Baba vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-11Read full judgment →
• Raujee vs Abdul Razzak KhatriK.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 484 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-07Read full judgment →
• Ranjho and others vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 313 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ramzan Alias Ramoon vs The State1996 MLD 95 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad Jilani vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 263 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Qurban Khan and anothers vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Qurban Alias Dabboo And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 275 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs Abdul Hayee and 2 others1996 P Cr. L J 1004 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-29Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali Khan vs Mst. Sufia Khan1996 MLD 1516 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-08Read full judgment →
• Qazi Muhammad Amin through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Ismail through Legal Heirs1996 PLD Karachi 335 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-25Read full judgment →
• Qarshi Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs Government of Sindh and others1996 CLC 705 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-31Read full judgment →
• Punhal vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-15Read full judgment →
• Prudential Investment Bank Limited vs National Motors Limited and others1996 MLD 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-04Read full judgment →
• Prudential Investment Bank Limited vs Mestrs National Motors Limited1996 MLD 1937 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-04Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary, Public Works Department, Government of Sindh, Karachi and 6 others vs M_s. Royal Contractors1996 CLC 1205 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15
  unregistered partnership firmbar of suitsubsequent registrationmandatory provisionjurisdictionbuilding construction contractdamages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the III Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, in a suit filed by a partnership firm against the provincial government for declaration, injunction, and recovery of damages relating to breached building construction contracts. The core legal question is whether an unregistered partnership firm can institute a suit to enforce contract rights, and whether subsequent registration during the pendency of the suit or appeal cures the initial defect. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 69 of the Partnership Act are mandatory, requiring a firm to be registered at the time of instituting the suit as a condition precedent to its maintainability, and that subsequent registration cannot validate an ab initio defective and barred suit. The court laid down the principle that the bar under Section 69 goes to the root of jurisdiction, cannot be waived by consent or inaction of parties, and renders any suit by an unregistered firm incompetent and liable to dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit instituted by an unregistered partnership firm to enforce a right arising from a contract is maintainable under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932?
  • Does the subsequent registration of a partnership firm during the pendency of a suit cure the initial defect of non-registration at the time of institution?
  • Can the objection regarding the non-registration of a partnership firm under Section 69 be raised for the first time during appeal?
  • Is the requirement of firm registration under Section 69 mandatory in character or can it be waived by the defendant?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh through Secretary, Communication and Works1996 PLD Karachi 506 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-02Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Shahana Urooj Kazmi vs Vicechancellor, Karachi University, Campus, Karachi University, Karachi and 3 others1996 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-07Read full judgment →
• Printing Corporation of Pakistan Press vs Jamil Ahmed and 24 others1996 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Pooran Mal vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and 6 others1996 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-28Read full judgment →
• Philip Morris Products Inc. United States of America vs Deputy1996 PLD Karachi 122 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-03Read full judgment →
• Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. vs The Excise and Taxation Officer, and others1996 CLC 977 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
• Pervez Iqbal and 2 others vs Provincial Transport Authority, Sindh1996 CLC 182 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-19
  contract carriagestage carriagemotor vehicles ordinancetransport authorityhalting pointspermit conditionsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by stage carriage permit holders challenging an order passed by the Provincial Transport Authority permitting contract carriages to halt at specified urban locations for picking up and setting down individual passengers. The core legal question was whether contract carriages could be granted halting points to operate in a manner akin to stage carriages under the governing regulatory framework. The Sindh High Court held that contract carriages and stage carriages are distinct statutory categories, and contract carriages cannot be permitted to pick up individual passengers or operate along fixed routes with designated stops like stage carriages. The Court ruled that the Provincial Transport Authority acted in excess of its statutory authority by issuing an order that converted the use of contract carriages into stage carriages in violation of the law, thereby adversely affecting bona fide stage carriage operators. The petition was accordingly allowed, and the impugned order was struck down.

  Questions settled

  • Whether contract carriages can be granted halting points to pick up and set down individual passengers in the manner of stage carriages?
  • What are the distinct statutory differences between a contract carriage and a stage carriage under the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does the availability of an alternate remedy bar the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where an order is patently illegal and without lawful authority?
  • Can the Provincial Transport Authority authorize contract carriage permit holders to operate outside the terms and conditions prescribed for contract carriages?
  Read full judgment →
• Pathan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-04Read full judgment →
• Parveen Begum and anothers vs Shah Jehan and another1996 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-21
  agreement to sellspecific performancedeclaratory suitpermanent injunctionproprietary interestpart performanceSpecific Relief Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for declaration and permanent injunction based on an agreement to sell a plot, seeking to enforce the sale at a specific price and restrain the defendants from interfering with their possession. The core legal question was whether an agreement to sell creates a valid title or interest in property sufficient to support a suit for declaration of ownership and permanent injunction under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. The Court dismissed the suit, holding that an agreement to sell does not confer ownership or title upon the purchaser. The Court established that an agreement to sell merely creates a right to seek specific performance, not a proprietary interest. Furthermore, under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, a suit for declaration is not maintainable where the plaintiff seeks to establish ownership based solely on an executory contract. Additionally, the Court held that while Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, allows a purchaser to use possession as a shield for defense, it cannot be used as a sword to assert title or claim permanent injunction against the rightful owner.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell create a valid title or interest in immovable property?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for declaration of ownership based solely on an agreement to sell?
  • Is a suit for permanent injunction maintainable by a purchaser who has not acquired legal title to the property?
  • Can the doctrine of part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 be used as a sword to assert title?
  Read full judgment →
• Papoo alias Abdul Karim vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 997 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-25Read full judgment →
• Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. and 4 others vs Faysal Islamic Bank1996 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. And 4 Others vs Faysal Islamic Bank1996 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Products, Etc. vs M/s. Indus Steel Pipes Ltd.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 283 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Products vs M/s. Indus Steel Pipes Limited1996 CLC 118 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30
  earnest moneyforfeiture of depositcontract formationrevocation of offerbreach of contracttenderspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns a claim for the refund of Rs. 500,000 deposited as earnest money for a tender to purchase steel pipes. The plaintiff sought a declaration and injunction after the defendant forfeited the deposit, alleging a breach of contract. The core legal questions were whether a concluded contract existed between the parties and whether the defendant was legally entitled to forfeit the earnest money. The Court held that no binding contract was formed because the defendant failed to communicate an absolute and unqualified acceptance of the plaintiff's offer before the plaintiff revoked it. Relying on established principles of contract law, the Court emphasized that a proposal must be accepted unconditionally and communicated to the offeror to create a binding obligation. Furthermore, the Court held that even in cases of breach, a party cannot forfeit earnest money without proving actual loss sustained. As the defendant provided no evidence of loss, the forfeiture was deemed unlawful. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff for the return of the earnest money.

  Questions settled

  • Does a binding contract exist if an offer is revoked before the communication of an absolute and unqualified acceptance?
  • Can a party forfeit earnest money in the absence of proof of actual loss sustained due to an alleged breach of contract?
  • Is a conditional acceptance of a tender sufficient to create a concluded and binding contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Post Offices vs Muhammad Akram1996 PLC 487 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Syed Ali Raza Rizvi1996 CLC 627 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06
  civil revisionex parte decreedamagesmental torture and agonyservice of summonsOrder IX Rule 11 CPClimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision arises from a suit filed by the respondent-plaintiff for the recovery of ticket refund and damages on account of mental torture, agony, and loss of business caused by the petitioner airline's negligence in inadvertently removing unutilised flight coupons. The petitioner failed to file a written statement despite service and appearance by counsel, leading the trial court to pass an ex parte decree following the submission of an affidavit in ex parte proof. The appellate court dismissed the petitioner's appeal on grounds of limitation and merits, prompting this revision. The Sindh High Court affirmed the lower court's decisions, holding that ex parte proceedings under Order IX Rule 11 CPC were valid where process was properly served on multiple defendants. The Court held that mental agony and shock can be proved by sworn assertions of the aggrieved party without needing accompanying physical injury, which merely affects quantum, not basic entitlement to damages. The revision application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is physical injury required to substantiate a claim for damages arising from mental shock and agony?
  • Can an ex parte decree be passed under Order IX Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a defendant who fails to appear after service while other co-defendants are being served?
  • Does the mere absence of a formal Vakalatnama invalidate court proceedings where the record explicitly reflects representation by counsel on scheduled dates?
  • Can discretionary relief for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 be granted on a demonstrably false plea regarding service of process?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited vs Oregan Industries (Pvt) Ltd Karachi1996 CLC 799 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Herald Limited vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Chairman, Panel-02, Companies-III, Karachi and another1996 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-20
  income taxreopening assessmentchange of opiniondefinite informationfull disclosureconstitutional petitionescaped assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh challenged a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 reopening the petitioner's tax assessment for the year 1984-85. The petitioner, a public limited company, had declared losses incurred under a management and profit-sharing agreement with another publisher. The tax department initially accepted these returns, but later issued a notice seeking to reopen the assessment on the ground that the underlying agreement violated Section 34-A of the Ordinance, claiming this constituted 'definite information'. The court examined whether an assessment consciously completed after full disclosure of material facts could be reopened under Section 65 absent any new evidence. The High Court held that where an assessee fully discloses all relevant facts without concealment, an assessing officer's subsequent re-interpretation of statutory provisions constitutes a mere change of opinion on the same material. Reopening an assessment under Section 65 requires fresh material or new factual information, not a change of legal view.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finalized tax assessment be reopened under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 based on a mere change of opinion on existing legal provisions?
  • What constitutes 'definite information' or valid grounds to initiate proceedings for an escaped assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  • Is an assessing officer permitted to reopen a past assessment without the discovery of fresh factual material when all relevant facts were disclosed in the original return?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Herald Limited vs Inspecting Assistant Commissioner and Chairman, Panel-02, Companies-III, Karachi And Another,1996 P.C.T.L.R. 909 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Diary Products (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Labour Appellate1996 PLC 62 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority vs Commander (Retd.)1996 MLD 1499 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers' Housing Authority vs Commander (R) M. A.1996 MLD 1499 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-27Read full judgment →
• Orient Match Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Banking Tribunal Karachi And Another1996 P.C.T.L.R. 1220 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Orient Match Company (Pvt) Ltd vs Banking Tribunal for Karachi and Sukkur and others1996 CLC 1718 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-08Read full judgment →
• Omair Ahmed Siddiqui vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-31Read full judgment →
• Oakistan Atomic Energy Commissioner Karachi vs DR. M.S. Khalid.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 506 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-12Read full judgment →
• Nuzhat Fatima vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 559 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-21Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Oil Mills vs Razzaq & Co.1996 MLD 1501 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-24Read full judgment →
• Noorus Sabah Begum alias Rahat and others vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1550 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-12Read full judgment →
• Noorani Enterprises vs Messrs Beg Enterprises Through (Recd.) Lt.Col.1996 MLD 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Noorani Enterprises vs Beg Enterprises through (Retd.) Lt.Col. Anwar Jan1996 MLD 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Gogi vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 790 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-04
  private defenseself-defensesuppression of factscriminal appealmurder convictionappreciation of evidencetwo versions of incident
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question was whether the appellant acted in the legitimate exercise of the right of private defense, given that he and his father sustained serious injuries during the same incident, a fact suppressed by the prosecution in the First Information Report. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the conviction, holding that the prosecution's version was unreliable due to the suppression of material facts. The Court established that when two conflicting versions of an incident exist, the version favorable to the defense must be preferred if it aligns with the evidence and common sense. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that the right of private defense, as defined under Sections 96 and 100 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, justifies the use of force, including causing death, when there is a reasonable apprehension of death or grievous hurt, and that such actions, taken in a state of panic, cannot be measured on a 'golden scale'.

  Questions settled

  • Does the suppression of injuries sustained by the accused in the FIR cast doubt on the prosecution's version of the incident?
  • When two conflicting versions of an incident are presented, which version should the court prefer?
  • Can a person who acts in a state of panic while exercising the right of private defense be held to the same standard of conduct as one acting in calm circumstances?
  • Does the right of private defense extend to causing death when there is a reasonable apprehension of grievous hurt?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali vs Saleem1996 MLD 71 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-15Read full judgment →
• Noman Ahmed vs Mrs. Ghazala Iqbal1996 MLD 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-10
  default in payment of rentpersonal bona fide needfixed-term tenancypremature ejectment applicationstatutory tenantburden of proofrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance was directed against the Rent Controller's order allowing the landlady's ejectment application on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed a default in rent payment and whether an ejectment application on the ground of personal bona fide need is competent before the expiry of the fixed-term lease agreement. The Sindh High Court held that the tenant was indeed a habitual defaulter in paying rent and failed to prove payment or utilize statutory modes such as postal money orders or depositing rent with the Controller. However, the Court also held that an ejectment application on the ground of personal need is premature and not maintainable during the subsistence of a fixed-term tenancy agreement where the landlord has contracted away such a right. The key principles laid down are that a tenant must strictly follow the statutory modes of paying rent when receipts are withheld, and a landlord cannot invoke personal requirement to evict a tenant prior to the expiration of a valid subsisting lease contract.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be held to be a defaulter in the payment of rent when the tenant fails to adopt statutory modes of payment such as postal money orders or depositing rent with the Controller upon refusal of receipts?
  • Is an ejectment application filed on the ground of personal bona fide need competent before the expiration of the fixed-term tenancy agreement between the parties?
  • Does the expiry of the lease period during the pendency of litigation cure the prematurity of an ejectment application filed on the ground of personal requirement?
  • Whether an advance security deposit lying with the landlord can be unilaterally adjusted by the tenant towards monthly rent against the express terms of a tenancy agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed and anothers vs Sharafullah1996 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed and anothers vs Mst. Uroos Fatima and anothers1996 MLD 1913 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-19Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed And Another vs Mst. Uroos Fatima And Another1996 MLD 1913 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-19Read full judgment →
• Nazrul Islam vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 377 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-20Read full judgment →
• Nazir And Jerra vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 374 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-23Read full judgment →
• National Wood Industries Limited vs Barretto Shipping through Hegge1996 MLD 1493 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• National Wood Industries Limited vs Barretto Shipping Through Hegge1996 MLD 1493 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-06Read full judgment →
• National Fibres Ltd. vs Karachi Development Authority through Director1996 MLD 76 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-21Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others1996 PLC 433 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-07Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1996 PLC (C.S.) 433 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-22
  labour lawstatutory rulesjurisdiction of labour courtback benefitsservice rulesnationalized banksreinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the reinstatement of a Senior Head Cashier of the National Bank of Pakistan with 50% back benefits. The core legal questions were whether the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules constitute statutory rules, and whether the Labour Court retains jurisdiction to adjudicate service disputes of bank employees given the existence of these rules. The Court held that the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, are statutory, whereas the 1980 rules, lacking government approval, are merely departmental instructions. Consequently, while the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, does not apply to employees governed by these statutory rules, the employees are not deprived of their remedies. The Court affirmed that Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, allows workmen to seek redress before the Labour Court, as the phrase 'under any law' in that section encompasses statutory service rules. The petition was dismissed, maintaining the concurrent findings of the lower courts.

  Questions settled

  • Are the National Bank of Pakistan (Staff) Service Rules, 1973, considered statutory rules?
  • Does the Labour Court have jurisdiction to hear a grievance petition under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, where an employee is governed by statutory service rules?
  • Can service rules framed by the Central Board of Governors without government approval be treated as statutory rules?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Muhammad Ali1996 CLC 956 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-05Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs General Tractor and Machinery Co Ltd1996 CLC 79 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19
  recovery suitlimitationacknowledgment of liabilityguaranteeauthentication by contentspromissory noteadmissions in pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by the National Bank of Pakistan for the recovery of credit facilities granted to defendant No. 1, with defendant No. 2 acting as guarantor. The defendants contended that the suit was barred by limitation, asserting that their business dealings closed in 1964 and the suit was filed in 1975. The plaintiff relied on several written acknowledgments and part payments, including a letter dated 10th August 1972, to extend the limitation period. The defendants disputed the proof and effect of this letter. The High Court of Sindh held that under Order VIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Article 103 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, facts admitted in pleadings need not be proved. Furthermore, the court ruled that the genuineness of a document can be established by internal evidence and the doctrine of authentication by contents. The court also determined that the limitation period for a guarantee begins from the date of demand, and in the absence of a prior demand, the filing of the suit serves as such demand. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a defendant is deemed to have admitted the contents of a document if they fail to specifically deny them in their written statement?
  • Can the genuineness and authorship of a disputed document be proved by internal evidence and the doctrine of authentication by contents?
  • Does an offer to settle a debt in a specific manner negate the effect of a clear acknowledgment of subsisting liability under the Limitation Act?
  • When does the period of limitation begin to run against a guarantor under a contract of guarantee where payment is due on demand?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Najmi vs Pakistan Defence Officer's Housing Authority and 21996 CLC 1262 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Naseer Muhammad vs The State1996 P Cr. L J 860 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-06
  surety bond forfeiturebail bondcriminal revisionpenal liability of suretyproduction of accusedprocedural requirements
  Summary & questions settled

  In this criminal revision petition, the applicant impugned an order passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Larkana, whereby his surety bond of Rs. 50,000 was forfeited and he was directed to pay the entire amount for failing to produce the accused. The core legal question was whether a trial court can legally forfeit a surety bond and penalize a surety without holding a proper inquiry to ascertain if the accused's non-appearance was due to circumstances beyond the surety's control, such as the accused's confinement in another prison, and without fulfilling the mandatory procedural requirements of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court failed to conduct the requisite inquiry and did not provide a real and fair opportunity as mandated by law. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter back to the trial court for a proper inquiry. The key principle laid down is that before ordering the forfeiture of a surety bond, the court must record grounds of forfeiture, conduct an inquiry into whether the surety was reasonably capable of producing the accused, and strictly follow the procedural safeguards and show-cause requirements under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can order the forfeiture of a surety bond without conducting an inquiry to ascertain if the accused's non-appearance was beyond the control of the surety?
  • What are the essential procedural requirements regulating the forfeiture of a bond under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the confinement of the principal accused in a prison render it impossible for the surety to produce him, thereby absolving the surety of liability?
  • What constitutes a real, fair, and reasonable opportunity under subsection (1) of Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Naheed Parveen and anothers vs Khalid Aziz and another1996 CLC 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1995-12-11Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Nadir Hussain Jiskani vs The StateK.L.R. 1996 Criminal Cases 353 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-24Read full judgment →
• Nadeem vs The State1996 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-30
  post-arrest bailrule of consistencyabsconsionfurther inquirycriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This case comes before the Court as a reference to a third Judge following a difference of opinion between two learned Judges of a Division Bench on a bail application. The core legal questions involve the applicability of the rule of consistency, the effect of absconsion on bail, and whether the case falls under further inquiry. The third Judge held that the rule of consistency was not applicable because the co-accused granted bail by the trial court had a different role and were not named in the F.I.R., whereas the applicant was named. However, the Court agreed to grant bail on the ground that the applicant's participation required further inquiry, noting that witnesses learned of the applicant's name only after arrests were made on the day of the incident and identification needs trial testing. The Court laid down the principle that absconsion alone, without the accused being declared a proclaimed offender, cannot be a ground to withhold bail if the accused is otherwise entitled to it, and that bail should not be refused merely due to absconsion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused granted bail are not named in the F.I.R. while the applicant is named?
  • Can bail be withheld solely on the ground of absconsion when the accused has not been declared a proclaimed offender?
  • Does a case where the identity and participation of the accused are learned after arrests and require trial testing fall under further inquiry for the purpose of bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed Alvi vs Omar Haleem1996 MLD 791 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-02Read full judgment →
• N.M. Saroor vs Mst. Bilquees Fouzia1996 CLC 805 · Sindh High Court · 1995-11-02Read full judgment →
• M/s. Tobacco International Ltd. vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate1996 PLC 39 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Textile Winding Machinery Company (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs M/s.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 280 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• M/s. Textile Winding Machinery Company (Private) Limited vs M/s.K.L.R. 1996 Civil Cases 412 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →