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.

• Sardaro Alias Sardar Khan vs The State1995 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-27Read full judgment →
• Samiullah Khan Marwat vs The State1995 MLD 1443 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-19Read full judgment →
• Salfi Textile Mills Ltd. and anothers vs Federation of Pakistan and 21995 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-17
  Corporate Law Authorityinvestigation of company affairsCompanies Ordinance 1984show-cause noticeappointment of inspectorsick industrial unitdividend declarationstatutory authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a show-cause notice and a subsequent order issued by the Corporate Law Authority appointing an inspector to investigate the company's affairs under Section 265 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The petitioners argued that the company’s financial performance had improved and that the decision to modernize rather than distribute dividends was a valid business judgment. The Court examined whether the Authority was justified in its intervention given the company’s history of accumulated losses, negative equity, and failure to declare dividends for sixteen years. The Court held that the Authority acted within its statutory mandate, as the company’s financial position clearly met the criteria for investigation under Section 265. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that the appointment order was invalid for lacking detailed reasoning, noting that the Authority had considered the relevant material. It also affirmed that, under Section 11 of the Ordinance, changes in the Authority’s composition did not invalidate the proceedings. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, upholding the Authority's power to investigate when sound business principles are not followed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Corporate Law Authority appoint an inspector to investigate a company's affairs if it has failed to declare dividends for an extended period?
  • Does a change in the composition of the Corporate Law Authority invalidate proceedings or orders passed by it?
  • Is an order appointing an inspector under the Companies Ordinance 1984 invalid if it does not explicitly detail the rejection of the company's reply to a show-cause notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Sajjan And 2 Others vs The State1995 MLD 379 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-23Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 497 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-20Read full judgment →
• Saira and anothers vs Zonal Municipal Corporation1995 MLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
• Saira And Another vs Zonal Municipal Corporation1995 MLD 113 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-10Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin vs Zainuddin and another1995 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28
  legal representativeslimitation periodabatement of appealdeceased appellantcross-examinationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from civil proceedings before the Sindh High Court, involving applications for cross-examination of a deponent and for bringing the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record. The core legal questions concerned whether a deponent should be called for cross-examination regarding a dispute over the gender of admitted legal heirs, and whether an application for joining the legal representatives of a deceased appellant filed beyond the ninety-day limitation period is barred, as well as the procedural effect of such delay. The Court held that since the status of the persons as legal heirs was not disputed, cross-examination was unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court held that the application for bringing legal representatives on record, having been filed after the expiration of the ninety-idat limitation period prescribed by the Limitation Act, was time-barred; however, pursuant to Order XXII Rule 3(2) and Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, the appeal does not abate, but rather continues in the name of the deceased appellant, and the defaulting legal representatives are debarred from participating in the proceedings. The key principle laid down is that failure to apply for bringing legal representatives on record within the statutory limitation period results in the continuation of the suit or appeal in the name of the deceased party without abatement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a deponent must be called for cross-examination when the identity of the persons as legal heirs is not disputed?
  • What is the limitation period for filing an application to bring the legal representatives of a deceased appellant on record under the Limitation Act?
  • Does an appeal stand abated if an application to bring legal representatives on record is not filed within the prescribed period of limitation?
  • What are the procedural consequences under the Code of Civil Procedure when legal representatives fail to apply for substitution within the time allowed by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Said Farooqi vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 212 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs Ghulam Mustafa And Another1995 MLD 595 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Saeed And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Shariat Cases 230 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-23Read full judgment →
• Saeed Ahmed Khan vs The Inspecting. Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax (Survey), Hyderabad Range And Another1995 MLD 155 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Hussain And 3 Others vs Jamal And Another1995 MLD 1159 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
• Saadat Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 316 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Saeed through Legal Heirs vs M/s. Glamour Properties1995 CLC 315 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-20
  ex parte ordersubstituted serviceejectment applicationservice of summonsrent controllerprocedural irregularitydue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Rent Controller's ex parte ejectment order and the subsequent dismissal of an application to set aside that order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in passing an ex parte order when the statutory requirements for service of summons were not strictly followed. The High Court set aside the ex parte ejectment order and the order refusing to set it aside, remanding the case for a fresh decision on merits. The court held that substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 requires the court to be satisfied that the defendant is avoiding service. Furthermore, strict compliance with procedural requirements—such as sending notices by Registered Post A.D. as mandated by Order 5, Rule 10-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and ensuring bailiff endorsements are witnessed as per Order 5, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908—is mandatory. Failure to adhere to these procedural safeguards renders ex parte proceedings legally unsustainable, as the Rent Controller must verify compliance with all ordered modes of service before proceeding.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to verify compliance with all ordered modes of service before passing an ex parte order?
  • Does the failure to send notice by Registered Post A.D. as required by Order 5, Rule 10-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 invalidate subsequent ex parte proceedings?
  • Can a bailiff's endorsement of service be considered valid if it is not witnessed as required by Order 5, Rule 17, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Must a court be satisfied that a defendant is intentionally avoiding service before ordering substituted service under Order 5, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Roshan vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1388 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Rizwan Masood vs Haji Muhammad Rafiq and anothers1997 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-01Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 502 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-21Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State1997 MLD 1877 · Sindh High Court · 1995-09-21Read full judgment →
• Raza Muhammad Bhatti vs Government of Sindh through Additional1995 PLC (C.S.) 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-13Read full judgment →
• Rana Qamar Zaman vs Mitsui O.S.K. Lines and 5 others1995 PLD Karachi 352 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-17Read full judgment →
• Rana Javed vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1330 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-29Read full judgment →
• Rajab and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 366 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Raja Abdul Majeed vs The State And AnotherK. L. R. 1997 Criminal Cases 492 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-18Read full judgment →
• Rais Naban Khan Lund vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-13Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmed vs K.M.C. And Another1995 MLD 345 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmad Jilani vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 785 · Sindh High Court · 1995-10-01
  anticipatory bailprinciple of consistencyanti-corruptionallotment of landjudicial discretionco-accused parity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a criminal case registered at the Anti-Corruption Establishment Police Station regarding the alleged unlawful allotment of an additional piece of land to a private developer by officials of the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.). The applicant, a K.D.A. official, sought anticipatory bail directly from the High Court after the Special Judge granted bail to the main beneficiaries (developers) but dismissed the bail applications of the K.D.A. officials on the same set of evidence. The core legal question addressed is whether the applicant is entitled to pre-arrest bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused similarly situated have been granted relief, and whether the High Court may entertain an anticipatory bail application directly under exceptional circumstances. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail on the principle of consistency, noting that the trial court's disparate treatment of co-accused on the same evidence was unjustified. The High Court confirmed the interim pre-arrest bail previously granted to the applicant, emphasizing that criminal justice must be administered equally without discrimination or arbitrary use of judicial discretion.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accused person is entitled to bail on the principle of consistency when co-accused facing the same set of evidence have been granted relief?
  • Can the High Court exercise its concurrent jurisdiction under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant anticipatory bail directly without the applicant first approaching the trial court under special circumstances?
  • Does the difference in official status among co-accused justify a differential treatment in the grant or refusal of bail?
  • Whether arbitrary exercise of judicial discretion by a trial court in refusing bail on identical evidence warrants interference by the superior judiciary?
  Read full judgment →
• Raees Khan alias Bishoo vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-12Read full judgment →
• Qurban alias Dabboo and 2 others vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
• Qalandro Alias Nazro vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 107 · Sindh High Court · 1996-07-13Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bakhsh vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 531 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Prof. Muhammad Sharif vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and Economic Affairs (Finance Division) through Secretary and another1995 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-23Read full judgment →
• Prince Glass Works Limited, Karachi vs The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 88 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Presicion Rubber Products Workers Union vs Bashir Rehmani And OtherK.L.R 1997 Labour & Service Cases 174 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Premier Tobacco Industries Limited vs Deputy Registrar of Trade1995 MLD 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Port Services (Private) Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Communications, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-19
  constitutional petitionadministrative discretionjudicial reviewtender processnatural justicepublic contractPort Qasim Authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the Port Qasim Authority's decision to negotiate an implementation agreement for a container terminal with the third respondent, alleging unfair exclusion and violation of natural justice. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority exercised its statutory discretion arbitrarily or unfairly in the tender process, thereby warranting judicial intervention under Article 199 of the Constitution. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the selection process was transparent, based on independent expert evaluation by NESPAK, and devoid of illegality. The court affirmed that while government bodies must act fairly and are subject to judicial review regarding administrative discretion, courts cannot substitute their own discretion for that of the authority if the decision-making process is reasonable and not arbitrary. The principle established is that where a statutory authority acts in good faith, relies on expert assessment, and follows a fair procedure, the court will not interfere with the merits of the administrative decision, as the authority is mandated to exercise its discretion, not to exercise it in any specific manner.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with the exercise of statutory discretion by a public authority in awarding a contract if the process was transparent and not arbitrary?
  • Does the failure to provide a personal hearing at every stage of a tender evaluation process violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Is a government authority required to follow an advisory letter from the federal government regarding tender procedures if the authority has independent statutory discretion?
  Read full judgment →
• Phassco Hardware Co. vs The Government of Pakistan and 3 othersPTCL 1995 CL. 65 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-31Read full judgment →
• Perwaiz vs The State1995 MLD 544 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-30Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Anwar Sajjad vs Ali Muhammad Rashid Fazal Trust, Karachi1995 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
• Paul Newman vs Miss Asma Khan1995 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Paul Newman vs (Miss.) Asma KhanK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 429 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-16Read full judgment →
• Pannu vs National Logistic Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan Through, Commander And 2 Other1995 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Pannu vs National Logistic Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through Commander and 2 others1995 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi vs Nisar Ahmad Memon And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 264 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation, Karachi through Deputy General1995 PLC 57 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-31
  territorial jurisdictiongrievance petitioncause of actionlabour lawrejection of plaintreturn of plaintservice termination
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenges the orders of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court, which dismissed the petitioner's application seeking the rejection of a grievance petition filed by an employee. The core legal question was whether the Labour Court at Hyderabad possessed the requisite territorial jurisdiction to entertain a grievance petition concerning the termination of an employee who worked at the Limestone Project in Makli, District Thatta. The petitioner had sought rejection of the petition under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arguing a lack of territorial jurisdiction. The High Court held that a petition cannot be rejected solely for want of territorial jurisdiction; rather, it should be returned for presentation before the competent court under Order 7, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that since the cause of action, in whole or in part, accrued where the employee was serving at the time of termination, the Labour Court at Hyderabad maintained jurisdiction under Section 20(c) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can a grievance petition be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely for lack of territorial jurisdiction?
  • What is the appropriate procedure when a court lacks territorial jurisdiction to hear a petition?
  • Does a Labour Court have jurisdiction over a service termination dispute if the cause of action accrued within its territorial limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd vs Muhammad Ashique and another1995 CLC 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-15
  rejection of plaintres judicatainterim injunctioncivil revisioncommercialization of residential plots
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from an order passed by the trial court which dismissed the applicant's application for rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and granted an interim injunction to the respondents in a suit concerning commercialized residential plots, lease terms, and utility disconnections. The core legal question addressed by the Sindh High Court was whether the suit was barred by the principle of res judicata in light of a prior judgment passed in a constitutional petition, and whether other grounds such as non-compliance with Order I, Rule 8, C.P.C. warranted the rejection of the plaint. The High Court held that the prior constitutional petition did not operate as res judicata because the specific points arising in the subsequent suit were neither heard nor finally decided upon evidence in that petition, and further held that violations of lease conditions or procedural rules like Order I, Rule 8 do not justify rejecting a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11. The court established the principle that when deciding a rejection application, the averments in the plaint must be assumed to be true, and prior constitutional judgments not addressing the specific issues do not bar ordinary civil suits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a prior judgment in a constitutional petition operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent civil suit when the specific points in the suit were not heard and finally decided on evidence?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the grounds of non-compliance with Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the conversion of residential plots into commercial plots or the non-fulfillment of lease conditions furnish valid grounds for the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the standard judicial approach regarding the averments in a plaint when considering an application for its rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, Karachi vs Haji Sultan Ahmad And 3 Other1995 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited, Karachi vs Haji Sultan Ahm.Ad and 3 others1995 MLD 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Printing Ink Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs M/s Elite Publishers (Pvt)K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 25 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Post Offices vs Nadeem Ahmed Khan1995 PLC 205 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs (M/s.) Khalid BrotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 188 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan1995 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court
  arbitration agreementreference to arbitrationdispute resolutionnaval contractcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a petition under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by a construction contractor against the Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan, seeking the filing of an arbitration agreement and the referral of disputes arising from a naval berths refurbishment contract to arbitration. The core legal questions centered on the proper interpretation of Clause 67 of the contract, specifically whether communicating dissatisfaction with the Engineer's decision exclusively to the Engineer was mandatory and whether filing a Section 20 application within ninety days satisfied the requirements of the arbitration clause. The Sindh High Court held that an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is maintainable if filed within the stipulated ninety-day period following the Engineer's decision, even if notice was not sent directly to the Engineer or the defendant beforehand, provided a real dispute exists. The court laid down the principle that when parties do not contest the existence of an arbitration agreement, courts should readily refer disputes to the domestic tribunal rather than entangling the matter in procedural technicalities, thereby upholding the legislative intent of the Arbitration Act to ensure speedy dispute resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 is maintainable without giving prior notice to the defendant?
  • Does the failure to communicate dissatisfaction directly to the Engineer within ninety days render the Engineer's decision final and bar a Section 20 application?
  • What should be the approach of the court when there is no controversy over the existence of an arbitration agreement between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 518 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30
  medical bailpost-arrest bailjudicial discretionOffences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancehardened criminalCode of Criminal Procedurebail on sickness grounds
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a bail application filed by the accused, Nooruddin, facing charges under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, on the ground of sickness. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 due to his medical condition. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that the applicant’s medical condition was not life-threatening and that he was receiving adequate care. The Court established that the discretion to grant bail on medical grounds is not automatic; it requires a judicial assessment of the nature of the offense, the severity of the punishment, the accused's conduct, and the availability of medical facilities. The Court emphasized that bail on medical grounds is only appropriate when an illness is serious, dangerous to life, or when necessary treatment facilities are unavailable in jail. Furthermore, the Court noted that an accused’s obstruction of trial proceedings and bad faith in seeking medical treatment weigh against the exercise of judicial discretion in their favor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere existence of an illness entitle an accused to bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a court exercise its discretion to grant bail on medical grounds if the accused has intentionally obstructed the trial process?
  • How does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 affect the court's discretion to grant bail to hardened or dangerous criminals?
  • What factors must a court consider when determining whether to grant bail on the ground of sickness?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Province of Sindh and others1995 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-30
  fishing rightspublic auctionlease vs licenseexecutive extensionMuqami Mirbaharsconstitutional petitionfisheries management
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the extension of a fishing rights contract granted by the provincial government, arguing it bypassed the mandatory requirement of open public auction. The core legal questions concerned the validity of executive extensions of fishing leases and the procedural requirements for granting such rights under the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980. The Court held that fishing rights must be granted through open public auction, advertised in widely circulated newspapers, and restricted to local 'Muqami Mirbahars'. The Court ruled that executive extensions of such contracts are impermissible and cannot be sustained. It clarified that while the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980 and Sindh Fisheries Rules, 1983 govern these leases, fishing rights in reserved or protected forests are regulated by the Forest Act, 1927. The Court emphasized that a lease involves exclusive possession, whereas a license is a revocable permission. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, ordered a fresh auction for the disputed waters, and mandated that future auctions occur annually in May and June as prescribed by the rules.

  Questions settled

  • Are executive extensions of fishing rights contracts permissible under the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980?
  • Does a citizen have locus standi to challenge the grant of fishing rights that were not awarded through the prescribed public auction process?
  • What is the legal distinction between a lease and a license under the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980?
  • Are fishing rights in reserved or protected forests governed by the Sindh Fisheries Ordinance, 1980 or the Forest Act, 1927?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad And OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 347 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad and 3 others1995 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Noor Muhammad And 3 Other1995 MLD 283 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali vs Saleem1995 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-19Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed and Another vs (Mst.) Uroos Fatima and AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 92 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 902 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-24Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain through Legal Heirs and anothers vs Ali Akbar1995 CLC 452 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantadmissibility of affidavitrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal against the order of the First Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, South Karachi, which dismissed the appellants' ejectment application filed against the respondent on the grounds of bona fide personal requirement and impairing the utility of the rented premises through additions and alterations. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord established a bona fide personal requirement for the shop and whether procedural irregularities in swearing affidavits rendered the evidence inadmissible. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants failed to prove their bona fide personal requirement, noting that they had re-let other shops during the pendency of the application and suppressed material facts, and that the affidavit of one appellant was inadmissible due to a failure to verify it properly. The court affirmed the Rent Controller's order and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal need must come with clean hands and prove genuine necessity without contradicting pleadings or re-letting other available properties during proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an affidavit in evidence lacking proper verification and thumb-impression can be considered when the deponent is subjected to cross-examination?
  • Does the re-letting of other premises by a landlord during the pendency of eviction proceedings negate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  • Whether a landlord can introduce a new plea of oral partition during evidence that was not pleaded in the original ejectment application?
  Read full judgment →
• Naya Daur Motor (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Banking Council, through Itschairman And 7 Others1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1997-01-14Read full judgment →
• National Refinery Limited vs M/s. Apparels (Pvt.) Limited and 2 others1995 CLC 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-22Read full judgment →
• National Cement Employees' Cooperative Housing Society Limited, KARACHIanothers vs Government of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 2 others1995 CLC 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Presiding Officer, Special1995 PLD Karachi 320 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-07Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Chairman, Sindh Labour1995 PLC 500 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-22Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs The Presiding Officer, Special CourtK.L.R. 1995 Shariat Cases 103 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Banking Tribunal No.1 for Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 153 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Karachi vs General Tractor & MachineryK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 354 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Naseem vs The State1997 MLD 275 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-20Read full judgment →
• Naraindas vs Muhammad Ali ChandK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 193 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Nan FUNGDecreeHolder vs H. Pir Muhammad Shamsdin1995 PLD Karachi 421 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26
  execution of decreeattachment of propertyobjection to attachmentoral giftlimitation periodfrivolous objectionscostsCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the dismissal of objectors' applications under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, arising from execution proceedings initiated by the decree-holder to recover a decretal amount through the attachment and sale of immovable property. The core legal questions involved whether the objections were barred by time under the proviso to Order 21, Rule 58(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether a valid oral gift and subsequent memorandum of gift of the attached property had been established by the objectors. The Sindh High Court held that the objections were filed beyond the statutory limitation period and were unnecessarily delayed, and further found that the alleged oral gift and memorandum were fictitious, unproven, and actuated by mala fides to obstruct execution. The court laid down the principle that the proviso barring delayed objections is mandatory and cannot be bypassed once it applies, and that substantial costs must be imposed to discourage frivolous and vexatious proceedings aimed at delaying execution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether objections to the attachment of property in execution proceedings are barred if filed beyond one year from the date of first attachment?
  • Does the commencement of an investigation into a claim or objection under Order 21, Rule 58 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render the limitation proviso irrelevant?
  • Whether an oral gift of immovable property is validly established when contradicted by the donor's subsequent contemporaneous conduct and written declarations?
  • Can objections filed without bona fides and solely to delay execution proceedings be dismissed with substantial costs?
  Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 626 · Sindh High Court · 1997-06-18Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Ahmed and Other vs Pakistan International Airlines Corp. and OtherK.L.R. 1997 Labour & Services 79 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s.) Bankers' Equity Limited, And 5 Others vs (M/s.) Baluchistan1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1115 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. United Commercial Corporation (Pvt.), Ltd., Karachi vs M/s. Sindh1995 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• M/s. Textile Winding Machinery Company (Pvt.)1995 CLC 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-28Read full judgment →
• Nazir Alias Jerra vs The State1995 MLD 1436 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-08Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation through its Directors vs1995 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Through Its Directors vs1995 MLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Nadia Ghee Mill (Pvt.) Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan and1995 PTD 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. Matiari Sugar Mills Limited vs Federation of Pakistan through1995 CLC 1686 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-24Read full judgment →
• M/s. M.A. Khan & Co. vs (M/s.) Pakistan Railway Employees, Co-K.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases l2 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• M/s. Khyber Traders. vs Central Board of Revenu, Islamabad throughPTCL 1995 CL. 129 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Dadabhoy Investments (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi through Abdullah1995 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-10
  privatizationhighest bidderdiscretionary powersarbitrary actionconstitutional petitionmanaged establishmentsexecutive authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court seeking to restrain the Privatization Commission from re-auctioning the shares, assets, and management of Javedan Cement Limited, and to finalize the transfer of the same in favor of the petitioner, who was the highest bidder and had complied with the condition to raise its bid to ninety percent of the reference price. The core legal question was whether the executive authority could arbitrarily and without assigning reasons reject the petitioner's bid after inviting and securing its revision in accordance with departmental directives, and whether constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked against such arbitrary executive action. The Court held that while the Government possessed discretionary powers to accept or reject bids, such discretion must be exercised justly, fairly, reasonably, and in accordance with principles of equity, rather than arbitrarily or at the whims of the authority. The Court ruled that the rejection of the petitioner's bid without a sound and just basis was unlawful, and consequently allowed the petition, directing the respondents not to re-auction the unit or negotiate with any other person.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an executive authority can reject the highest bid in a privatization process without assigning valid, just, and reasonable grounds?
  • Does a constitutional petition lie to challenge the arbitrary and unreasonable rejection of a bid by a public authority, or is it barred as a matter involving the enforcement of contractual obligations?
  • How must discretionary powers conferred upon public functionaries be exercised when affecting private rights and public interests?
  • Whether inviting and securing a revised bid from the highest bidder creates a legitimate expectation or obligation on the part of the government to finalize the transaction upon compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s. Azhar Asia Shipping Agency and anothers vs Ghaffar1995 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09Read full judgment →
• M/s. Allied Bank Ltd. vs (M/s.) Rahmat Sons LtdK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 115 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-01Read full judgment →
• M/s. ALanothersRUKIYA Traders vs Central Board of Revenue,1995 CLC 1456 · Sindh High Court
  customs confiscationimport scrapserviceable auto partsshow-cause noticedemurrage chargesseizure of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging the confiscation of a consignment of imported iron and steel scrap/broken auto parts by the Customs Authorities, who had classified parts of the consignment as serviceable auto parts. The core legal questions involved whether the confiscated goods constituted scrap or serviceable items, whether the mandatory requirement of issuing a show-cause notice under the Customs Act was fulfilled, and liability for demurrage charges. The Court held that the confiscation order, consisting merely of a single word without a show-cause notice or expert examination regarding serviceability, was illegal and in violation of mandatory statutory provisions. The Court set aside the confiscation order, remanded the matter to the Customs Authorities for fresh decision with the assistance of experts, and ruled that the petitioner would not be liable for demurrage charges from the date of confiscation. The key principles laid down are that the serviceability of broken auto parts must be determined through expert opinion rather than arbitrary assessment, and failure to issue a mandatory show-cause notice within the statutory period invalidates the seizure.

  Questions settled

  • Whether broken and damaged auto parts imported as scrap can be confiscated as serviceable parts without expert examination?
  • Does the failure to issue a show-cause notice under section 180 within two months of seizure under section 168 of the Customs Act entitle the owner to the return of the goods?
  • Is an importer liable for demurrage charges during the period when goods are wrongfully confiscated by the Customs Authorities?
  Read full judgment →
• M/s Habib Bank Limited, Karachi vs Mst. Zohra Begum and 8 others1995 CLC 319 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-24Read full judgment →
• Muzammilullah Khan vs Pakistan Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1995 CLC 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21
  specific performanceinterim injunctionauction contractmovable propertyirreparable lossprima facie casebalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiff against the defendant, Pakistan Steel Mills, following the cancellation of an auction contract for heavy machinery. The plaintiff, having failed to pay the balance of the bid amount within the stipulated timeframe, alleged that a public holiday prevented timely payment and that a subsequent tender of payment was improperly rejected. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case for specific performance and whether the balance of convenience warranted an injunction. The Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case for specific performance, as the subject matter involved movable goods for which pecuniary compensation was an adequate remedy, failing the criteria set under the Specific Relief Act, 1877. Furthermore, the Court determined that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate irreparable loss, noting that damages could be easily ascertained. The key principle laid down is that specific performance is generally unavailable for contracts involving movable goods where damages provide adequate relief, and bare assertions of irreparable loss without supporting evidence are insufficient to justify injunctive relief.

  Questions settled

  • Can specific performance be enforced for a contract involving movable goods where pecuniary compensation is an adequate remedy?
  • Is a bare assertion of irreparable loss sufficient to grant an interim injunction?
  • Does the court grant a permanent injunction to prevent the breach of an obligation if the conditions for specific performance are not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1350(2) · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad- vs Syed Abul Hasan Rizvi1995 MLD 422 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Syed Abul Hasan Rizvi1995 MLD 422 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13
  post-arrest bailcounter-versionssuppression of terrorist activitiesprohibitory clausefurther inquiryaffidavits of witnessespolice encounter
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application arises from bail matters relating to competing first information reports and counter-versions regarding a custodial killing. The core legal question concerned whether bail principles applicable under the prohibitory clause of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply equally to bail applications before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975. The Sindh High Court held that the principles governing the grant or refusal of bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply mutatis mutandis to cases under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975, given the identical phraseology of the prohibitory clauses. The Court laid down the principle that the existence of exculpatory affidavits from material prosecution witnesses, the presence of counter-versions, and the remote likelihood of conviction render a case one of further inquiry under section 497(2), justifying the release of the accused on bail.

  Questions settled

  • Are the principles for granting or refusing bail under section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to cases under section 5-A(8) of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities Act, 1975?
  • Does the presence of exculpatory affidavits sworn by material prosecution witnesses constitute grounds for further inquiry warranting bail?
  • How should a court handle competing first information reports and counter-versions involving police functionaries when considering a bail application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Ali Mangi vs National Bank of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 119 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-03
  constitutional petitionpromotionforged directivelocus poenitentiaemaster and servantillegal orderrecovery of salary
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, challenging an order whereby the petitioner's promotion to the post of Assistant Vice-President in the National Bank of Pakistan was cancelled. The core legal question was whether an order of promotion issued on the basis of a forged directive from political authorities could be rescinded by the competent authority without a show-cause notice, and whether the principle of locus poenitentiae barred such cancellation. The Sindh High Court held that the initial promotion was made in violation of statutory rules and relied upon a forged document, thereby lacking lawful authority ab initio. The Court ruled that the principle of locus poenitentiae does not protect or perpetuate illegal orders, and an authority is competent to rescind an order passed without the sanction of law. However, the Court protected the monetary benefits already received by the petitioner, holding that the bank could not recover the salary and allowances drawn during the period he remained on the post under a bona fide belief.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of promotion passed on the basis of a forged directive can be rescinded by the competent authority?
  • Does the principle of locus poenitentiae apply to an illegal order passed without the sanction of law?
  • Whether an employee is liable to refund the salary and benefits received under a promotion order that is subsequently found to be forged and illegal?
  Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmed Alias Mukhoo vs The State1995 MLD 371 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman Sundhu vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 80 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaki and anothers vs Muhammad Taqi1995 PLD Karachi 416 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-26
  quashment of proceedingsinherent powerscause of actionpreliminary issuescivil proceduresuit maintainability
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous application was filed under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the quashment of civil proceedings pending before a Senior Civil Judge. The applicants contended that the subsequent suit was barred by Order 2, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, due to a prior suit filed by the respondents. The High Court examined whether the cause of action in the subsequent suit was identical to the earlier one. The Court held that the subsequent suit, which arose from the registration of sale documents, involved a distinct cause of action not present during the institution of the earlier suit. Consequently, the bar under Order 2, Rule 2 did not apply. Regarding the trial court’s refusal to treat limitation and maintainability as preliminary issues under Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court ruled that such discretion rests with the trial court when it deems evidence necessary for adjudication. The Court emphasized that inherent powers under Section 151 are to be exercised sparingly and only when no other adequate remedy exists, finding no grounds for interference.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a prior suit for permanent injunction bar a subsequent suit for declaration and cancellation of documents if the cause of action is different?
  • Is a trial court required to decide issues of limitation and maintainability as preliminary issues under Order 14, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, even when it deems evidence necessary?
  • Under what conditions can the High Court exercise its inherent powers under Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to quash civil proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zakaria And 4 Other vs Muhammad Yakoob And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 681 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf Memon vs Karachi Stock Exchange (Gurantee)K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 282 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-27Read full judgment →