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.

• Mst. Parveen Iqbal vs The State1997 MLD 1905 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noorjehan and anothers vs Mst. Qaiseri Begum and 5 others1995 MLD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Noor Jehan And Another vs Mst. Qaiseri Begum And 5 Other1995 MLD 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasim Akhtar vs Sh. Gulzar Ahmed and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 474 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27
  habeas corpusminor custodyHizanatnatural guardianillegal detentionguardians and wards
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the custody of a minor female child, aged 5 years, by her mother against the father. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in the exercise of its habeas corpus jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, can restore the custody of a minor of tender age to the mother when such custody was forcibly or illegally removed by the father, despite the father being the natural guardian under the Guardians and Wards Act 1890. The court held that while the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 provides the ordinary remedy for guardianship disputes, the High Court possesses an efficacious, speedy jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore custody disturbed improperly. The court ruled that under Muslim law (Hizanat), a female minor should remain with her mother up to the age of puberty, and accordingly awarded temporary custody of the minor to the mother, leaving the final determination of welfare and guardianship open to the competent Guardian Court.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to restore the custody of a minor removed without legal recourse?
  • Does a father have the right to retain the custody of a minor child forcibly without obtaining proper orders from a court of competent jurisdiction?
  • What is the extent of the mother's right of Hizanat under Muslim law regarding the custody of a female minor?
  • Can questions of minor welfare and better suitability between parents be decided in habeas corpus proceedings under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehrunnisa vs Muhammad Rafiullah1995 CLC 202 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16
  fair rentRent ControllerSindh Rented Premises Ordinancefixation of rentremandtenancystatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Rent Appeals (F.R.As) filed against an order of the Rent Controller, Karachi Central, which fixed the fair rent for a property at Rs. 2,000 per month. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller, in determining fair rent under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is legally obligated to consider all four factors specified therein, or if reliance on a single factor suffices. The High Court, relying on a Supreme Court precedent, held that the Rent Controller’s order was unsustainable because it failed to properly evaluate the statutory criteria. The Court emphasized that while a landlord's failure to provide evidence on all four elements does not necessarily result in the rejection of an application, the Rent Controller must nonetheless consider the factors specified in the Ordinance to ensure the determination is not arbitrary. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision, with directions to dispose of the matter within four months.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to consider all four factors listed in Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, when determining fair rent?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to provide evidence on all four factors of Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, necessarily lead to the rejection of a rent application?
  • Can a Rent Controller fix fair rent based solely on the prevalent rent of similar premises without considering other statutory factors?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom vs Abdul Rasheed1995 CLC 230 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Chaudhry vs Mst. Rehmat Bi and 5 others1995 MLD 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Chaudhry vs Mst. Rehmat Bi And 5 Other1995 MLD 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khurshid Begum vs Dr. S.C. Kou1995 CLC 569 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kaniz Fatima And 8 Others vs Mst. Zubaida Khatoon1995 MLD 870 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hook Bi and 5 others vs Krishna Kumar and 3 others1995 CLC 191 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Yasmeen vs Muhammad Rafique1995 PLD Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Firdous vs Shaikh Muhammad Rafi1995 MLD 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bushra vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1368 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilquis Ismail vs Naeemuddin and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Azizan Bibi and anothers vs District Judge, Badin and 2 others1995 CLC 614 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-31
  guardianshipinterim custodyterritorial jurisdictionalternative remedyconstitutional petitionfamily appealminor
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court against an interim order passed by the District Judge, Badin under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act regarding the custody of a minor. The primary legal questions involved were whether the District Court had territorial jurisdiction given the minor's residence, whether an interim order under section 12 could be passed without first determining the question of jurisdiction, and whether a constitutional petition was maintainable when an alternative remedy by way of appeal under section 14 of the W.P. Family Courts Act was available. The High Court held that the constitutional petition was not maintainable due to the availability of an alternative remedy of appeal, but opted to convert the petition into a family appeal. The Court ruled that the District Judge erred by failing to determine the preliminary issue of jurisdiction and the question of interim custody before passing the impugned order. The case was accordingly remanded to the District Judge for a fresh decision in accordance with the law, specifically considering section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act and relevant case-law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Court is bound to determine the question of territorial jurisdiction before passing an interim order under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an order passed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act when an alternative remedy of appeal is available under section 14 of the W.P. Family Courts Act?
  • How is the place where the minor ordinarily resides to be determined under section 9(1) of the Guardians and Wards Act in cases involving the alleged removal of the minor?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aziz Fatima Through A.G. And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 333 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-27Read full judgment →
• Mst. Afroz Qureshi and another vs Muhammad Ikram Siddiqui1995 CLC 735 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-08
  malicious prosecutiondamagesacquittalreasonable and probable causeburden of proofrevision applicationcivil suits
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two revision applications arising from the concurrent dismissal of civil suits for damages for malicious prosecution filed by the applicants against the respondent. The applicants had been prosecuted under section 341 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an FIR lodged by the respondent, and were later acquitted under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal questions centered on whether the applicants proved the essential elements of malicious prosecution, specifically malice and the absence of reasonable and probable cause. The Sindh High Court held that mere acquittal or an order under section 249-A, Cr.P.C. does not automatically establish malice or the lack of reasonable and probable cause, nor does it entitle a plaintiff to damages without affirmative proof of improper and indirect motives. The court laid down the principle that the plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution carries a heavy burden to independently prove all essential ingredients, including malice and absence of probable cause, and that prior acquittal alone—especially where based on technicalities or lack of evidence of the investigating officer—is insufficient to sustain a claim for damages.

  Questions settled

  • Does an order of acquittal under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically establish that a criminal prosecution was malicious and without reasonable and probable cause?
  • What are the essential elements a plaintiff must prove to succeed in a suit for damages for malicious prosecution?
  • Is the existence of a prior acquittal sufficient to shift the burden of proof regarding malice to the defendant in a civil suit for damages?
  • Can the initiation of a criminal case regarding a bailable offence and subsequent acquittal form the sole basis for claiming general and special damages for malicious prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst, Khatoon vs Sabir Ahmed and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 593 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-05Read full judgment →
• Ms. Afroz Ihsan Haq vs Federal Government of Pakistan1995 PLD Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-10Read full judgment →
• MRS.Z.Shirazee vs Abdul QadirK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 127 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Zuhra Begum vs M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd.1995 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-12Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Syeda Habiba Rizvi vs Muhammad Yameenullah Parvez Malik1995 CLC 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Syed Nusrat Jaffery And Others vs Sham Ahmad1995 MLD 452 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Syed Nusrat Jaffery and others vs Shafi Ahmad1995 MLD 452 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shaista Younus Khan and 3 others vs Mrs. Asia Khatoon and 31995 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-31
  insurance policynomineeassignmentestate administrationinheritancetrusteemarried women's property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit for the administration, partition, possession, and accounts of the estate of a deceased person, specifically concerning the legal status of insurance policy proceeds collected by the widow as a nominee. The core legal question is whether a nominee of a life insurance policy is exclusively entitled to the insurance proceeds or merely receives them as a trustee for all legal heirs under the law of succession, and whether such nomination attracts the protective trust provisions of section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874. The Court held, following the Supreme Court precedent in Mst. Amtul Habib v. Mst. Musarrat Parveen, that a mere nomination under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 only confers a right to receive or collect the money on behalf of all legal heirs as a trustee, unlike an assignment under section 38 which transfers absolute title. The key principle laid down is that nomination does not operate as a gift or a will, does not override the law of succession, and requires the nominee to hold the proceeds for the benefit of all legal heirs unless a valid statutory assignment is established.

  Questions settled

  • Does a nominee of a life insurance policy become the exclusive owner of the policy proceeds upon the death of the assured?
  • What is the legal distinction between the nomination of an insurance policy under section 39 of the Insurance Act, 1938 and the assignment of a policy under section 38?
  • Does section 6 of the Married Women's Property Act, 1874 apply automatically to a wife who is merely designated as a nominee in a life insurance policy?
  • Are the benefits arising out of insurance policies part of the estate of a deceased person liable to be shared among legal heirs according to the law of inheritance?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Khursheed Agha vs Mst. Hajra Bi through Legal Heirs and others1995 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Khursheed Agha vs Mst. Hajra Bi Through Legal Heirs And Other1995 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Hajra Begum and 2 others vs Aga Khan University Hospital, Karachi1995 PLD Karachi 603 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Ghazala Shamim vs Mrs. Shahnaz AhmedK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 69 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Batool Bai vs Muhammad Arshad Ali Khan1995 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-19Read full judgment →
• Montessori Home vs Muhammad Shekoh Salim1995 CLC 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-23
  evictionpersonal bona fide needdefault in payment of rentdeposit of rent in courtlandlord and tenantburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a tenant's appeal against an order of eviction from a residential bungalow situated in Karachi, passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord established a genuine personal requirement for the premises and whether the tenant committed a default in the payment of rent. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove a bona fide personal requirement, noting the failure of the primary claimant to enter the witness box, contradictions regarding ownership transfers, and the availability of alternative accommodation. The Court further held that no default occurred since the landlords failed to provide their proper addresses in eviction notices, leaving the tenant justified in depositing the rent in court. The appeal was accepted, the eviction order was set aside, and the rent application was dismissed, reinforcing the principle that a landlord's claim of personal need must be supported by genuine, uncontradicted evidence and good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether failure of the landlord to enter the witness box to depose about personal need renders the claim unproved?
  • Is a tenant justified in depositing rent in court when landlords fail to disclose their correct addresses in notices?
  • Does ownership of alternative flats by the landlords affect their claim of personal bona fide need for the demised premises?
  • What is the legal effect of material contradictions and suppression of facts by a landlord in a rent eviction case?
  Read full judgment →
• Montessori Home Through Its Director, Begum Farida Fazal vs Muhammad1995 MLD 431 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohib-E-Ali vs Shahid Hafeez1995 MLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mohib E Ali vs Shahid Hafeez1995 MLD 352 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Siddique vs PK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 12 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Sabir Baig vs Muiiammei) SaeedK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 399 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mirza Jameel Ashraf vs Mst. Anis Begum1995 MLD 827 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mirza Anwar Baig vs Abdul RabK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 339 · Sindh High Court · 1995-08-06Read full judgment →
• Mir Murtaza Bhutto vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-16
  post-arrest bailabsconsionprinciple of consistencysuppression of terrorist activitiessufficiency of evidencespeedy trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal bail application filed by Mir Murtaza Bhutto before the Sindh High Court, seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 121-A and 122 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities. The core legal questions involved whether the prosecution's weak material, when coupled with an allegation of prolonged absconsion, was sufficient to deny bail, and whether the principle of consistency applied given that co-accused had already been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that since the prosecution conceded that its primary pieces of evidence—including a broadcast transcript, co-accused confessions, and statements under section 164—were insufficient to sustain a conviction, the mere allegation of absconsion, especially when the applicant had surrendered and the trial had been protracted without progress, did not warrant the denial of bail. Furthermore, applying the principle of consistency with co-accused who were released on similar evidence, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether prolonged absconsion alone is sufficient to deny bail when the remaining prosecution evidence is prima facie insufficient to sustain a conviction?
  • Does the principle of consistency warrant granting bail to an accused whose co-accused, facing similar allegations and evidence, have already been enlarged on bail?
  • Can an unsigned transcript of a media interview monitored by a third party be considered legal evidence in a criminal trial for the purpose of withholding bail?
  • Does protracted delay in trial proceedings without the fault of the accused constitute a ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad vs The State and 4 others1995 P Cr. L J 2085 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-13
  habeas corpusDarul Amansui jurispubertyabductioncustody of womanSection 164 Cr.P.C.freedom of movement
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a habeas corpus petition concerning the detention of a woman, Mst. Sakina, in Darul Aman. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate, before whom the detenue was produced for a statement under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, possessed the authority to remand her to Darul Aman against her will, despite her claim of being major, pubert, and married. The Court found that the Magistrate’s actions were improper, as the detenue was not an accused and had consistently expressed her desire to reside with her husband. The Court held that the detention was illegal and ordered her immediate release. The key principle laid down is that a woman who is pubert and sui juris, and who has contracted a valid marriage of her own free will, cannot be forcibly detained in Darul Aman by a Magistrate, regardless of pending criminal allegations of abduction filed by her family. The Court emphasized that such an adult individual has the fundamental right to liberty and to choose her place of residence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate remand a woman to Darul Aman against her will when she is not an accused in the criminal case?
  • Does a woman who is pubert and sui juris have the right to choose her own residence despite allegations of abduction by her family?
  • Is a Magistrate authorized to detain a witness in Darul Aman while proceedings under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Azhar Jabbar vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 507 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
• Mir Azam Khan vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
• Millac Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindhh Industrial Trading Estates Ltd, KarachiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 263 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Zaffar Fatima Rizvi vs Syed Saleem RazaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 86 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Steel Corporation [Private] Limited vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry Offinance, Central Secretariat, Islamabad And Three OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 411 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Steel Corporation vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1995 CLC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Universal Business Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Kokusai1995 MLD 384 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Universal Business Equipment (Pvt) Ltd vs Kokusai Commerce1995 MLD 384 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Shafco International vs Chairman, Pakistan1995 MLD 146 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Poibani Dolls vs Commissioner of Income Tax1995 PTD 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read 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 Kaikobad Pestanjee Kakalia through Partners vs Messrs Almas1997 MLD 149 · Sindh High Court · 1996-10-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Sultan Ahmed And Another1995 MLD 799 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Ashraf &1995 MLD 390 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ash Raf & Sons1995 MLD 390 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Gec Avery (Pvt.) Limited vs Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1995 PTD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-09
  presumptive tax regimeunexplained investmentsincome tax assessmentcontractors and importerswrit petitioncircular interpretationtax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the applicability of section 80-C(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 and the interpretation given to it via Circular No. 12 of 1991 issued by the Central Board of Revenue. The core legal question was whether the Assessing Officer could invoke section 80-C(5) to assess unexplained investments under section 13 without first identifying and isolating the specific source of income to which section 80-C applies. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of section 80-C(5) cannot be applied mechanically to every case simply because an assessee's income is generally governed by section 80-C; the Assessing Officer is statutorily bound to first identify and determine the nature and source of the unexplained sum or investment before invoking subsection (5). The petitions were accordingly allowed and the matters remanded for fresh determination in light of these parameters.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Assessing Officer invoke section 80-C(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 without first identifying the source of income?
  • Whether writ petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 are maintainable when the Central Board of Revenue has already issued a binding circular on the matter?
  • What is the object behind the incorporation of subsection (5) into section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the application of section 80-C(5) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 automatically apply to every case where an assessee's income is subject to section 80-C?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Beecham Pak vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01
  sales promotion expensesbusiness expenditureDrugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) RulesIncome Tax Actexceeding prescribed limitpenal consequences
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from the assessment year 1978-79, wherein the applicant claimed sales promotion expenses, a portion of which was disallowed by the assessing officer for exceeding the five per cent limit prescribed under Rule 33 of the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the disallowance, distinguishing the case from the Supreme Court judgment in CIT v. Alpha Insurance Company. Upon reference, the High Court held that the regulatory penalty or consequence of violating the Drugs Rules—namely the potential cancellation or suspension of a licence—cannot be extended to the Income Tax Act to disallow genuine business expenses incurred in excess of the administrative limit unless expressly provided by tax law. The Court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal was justified in disallowing excess expenditure on advertising and sales promotion beyond the limit permitted under Rule 33 of the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976 under section 10(2)(xvi) of the Repealed Income Tax Act, 1922?
  • Can the penalty or consequence of violating the Drugs (Licensing, Registration and Advertising) Rules, 1976 be extended to disallow business deductions under the Income Tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bamboat & Co. vs Messrs G.B. Construction Co.1995 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bamboat & Co vs G.B. Construction Co1995 MLD 816 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baber Construction Company Through Proprietor Muhammad1995 MLD 273 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azmat Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Authority under Payment of Wages Act, Central Division, Karachi and 2 others1995 PLC 264 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19
  writ jurisdictionpayment of wagesalternative remedyterritorial jurisdictionex parte orderconstitutional petitionlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an ex parte order passed by the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, alleging lack of jurisdiction and improper service of notice. The core legal questions were whether the High Court should exercise writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 when an alternative appellate remedy exists, and whether the Authority possessed territorial jurisdiction over the petitioner's factory. The Court dismissed the petition in limine, holding that the petitioner failed to demonstrate that the statutory appeal provided under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, was not an efficacious or adequate remedy. The Court further held that it would not engage in factual inquiries regarding the service of notice or the authority of the manager in writ proceedings. The principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for statutory appeals, and the requirement to deposit funds to file an appeal does not render the appellate remedy inefficacious. Furthermore, territorial jurisdiction is determined by the location where the cause of action arose, specifically where the employees performed their duties.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when an adequate statutory appellate remedy exists under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936?
  • Does the requirement to deposit an amount to file an appeal under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 render the appellate remedy inefficacious?
  • Can the High Court conduct factual inquiries regarding the service of notice or the authority of a manager in writ proceedings?
  • Does the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 have jurisdiction over a factory located within its territorial division, regardless of the location of the employer's head office?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arrow Trading Company vs Hyosung Corporation and 21997 MLD 55 · Sindh High Court · 1996-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company Limited and others vs Income Tax1995 PTD 761 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-07Read full judgment →
• Mehran Sugar Mills Limited vs Sindh Sugar Corporation Limited1995 CLC 707 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-20
  temporary injunctionprima facie casebalance of convenienceirreparable lossperishable goodsMemorandum of Understandingspecific performance
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter arises from an application filed by the plaintiff-Company seeking interim injunctions to restrain the defendants from operating Thatta Sugar Mill and from selling, disposing of, or removing stocks of sugar, molasses, and alcohol from the mill premises. The core legal question involves whether the plaintiff made out a case for the grant of a temporary injunction, satisfying the triple requirements of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. The Sindh High Court held that no final agreement or concluded contract of sale had materialized between the parties as the Memorandum of Understanding did not constitute a valid binding sale agreement, and the plaintiff failed to establish a strong prima facie case or balance of convenience. Furthermore, the court held that since the plaintiff claimed monetary damages in the main suit, any alleged loss could be compensated in money, negating irreparable injury, and that restraining the operation of the mill or sale of perishable goods would cause severe administrative chaos, revenue loss to the national exchequer, and hardship to workers and sugarcane growers. The application was dismissed and the interim injunction recalled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding without a final concluded agreement creates a valid legal right for the grant of a temporary injunction?
  • Does the claiming of monetary damages in a suit disentitle a plaintiff from seeking interlocutory injunctive relief?
  • Whether a temporary injunction can be refused when its issuance would cause administrative chaos and financial loss to the national exchequer and workers?
  • Are stocks of sugar, molasses, and alcohol considered perishable goods justifying the denial of an injunction against their sale?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Akhtar alias Baboo vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Maulana Ataul Mohsin and 4 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1276 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-23Read full judgment →
• Mataro and another vs The State1997 MLD 260 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-07Read full judgment →
• Masood Mustafa vs The State1997 MLD 1882 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-30Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Ahmad vs Fareed Ahmad1995 MLD 425 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain And 4 Others vs The State1995 MLD 365 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-19Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1394 · Sindh High Court
  kidnapping for ransomidentification paradedock identificationbenefit of the doubtpolice investigationburden of proofcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 365-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for kidnapping for ransom and sentencing them to life imprisonment. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the identification evidence of the abductee and prosecution witnesses, particularly in the absence of a credible identification parade and where the witnesses were short-sighted or previously shown the accused by the police. The Sindh High Court held that dock identification, without a valid prior identification parade conducted under judicial supervision, holds little legal value, especially when tainted by police interference and contradictions in witness testimony. The court established that the prosecution must first establish a prima facie link between the accused and the crime before any statutory shift of the burden of proof under special legislation can apply, and where material doubts exist regarding identification and recovery, the benefit of the doubt must be given to the accused. Consequently, the convictions were set aside and the appellants were acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the identification of an accused in court for the first time without a valid identification parade is sufficient for conviction?
  • Does the failure to hold a proper identification parade under judicial supervision create a fatal doubt in the prosecution's case regarding the identity of the accused?
  • Under what circumstances does the burden of proof shift to the accused under section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
  • Can the testimony of an abductee suffering from severe short-sightedness and who lost his spectacles during the incident be safely relied upon for identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor vs Tassaddaque Ahmed Khan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 47 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07Read full judgment →
• Mansoor vs Tassaddaque Ahmed Khan and 27 others1995 PLD Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-07
  specific performancejoinder of partiesagreement of salenecessary partytransfer of propertycivil appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the order of a learned Single Judge rejecting the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to be joined as a defendant in a pending suit for specific performance filed by respondent No. 1 based on an agreement of sale. The appellant claimed an interest in the disputed land through a subsequent agreement of sale and alleged actual physical possession. The core legal question was whether a third party holding a subsequent agreement of sale and claiming physical possession is a necessary and proper party to be joined as a defendant in a part-decreed specific performance suit. The Sindh High Court held that since the suit was only partially decreed via compromise against some defendants and remained pending against others, and given the disputed questions of fact regarding physical possession and part-performance protection under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, the appellant's presence was necessary for a complete and effectual adjudication. The court laid down that a party asserting a competing agreement of sale and actual possession over property subject to a specific performance suit must be joined as a defendant to protect their rights regarding the undecreed portion of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a third party holding a subsequent agreement of sale can be joined as a defendant under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. in a pending specific performance suit?
  • Does the partial decree of a suit through compromise bar the addition of a necessary party to the remaining undecreed portion of the suit?
  • Can a person claiming actual physical possession based on an agreement of sale invoke the protection of section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Is a person whose presence is required for the complete and effectual adjudication of a dispute a necessary party to a civil suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mangan vs The State1995 MLD 575 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ayub Awan vs Mrs. Shamim Dadi And Another1995 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-21Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Mazhar Mahmood Khan vs K}Iushal Khan Jadoon1995 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Mazhar Mahmood Khan vs Khushal Khan Jadoon1995 MLD 316 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-03Read full judgment →
• Majeedur Rehman vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mai Nooran vs National Logistic Cell, Ministry of Defence, Government of Pakistan through its Commander and 2 others1995 CLC 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-06
  fatal accidenttort of negligencepecuniary lossdamagesvicarious liabilitydependency claimrash and negligent driving
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated suits arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident involving a truck owned by the National Logistic Cell and a Suzuki van, resulting in the deaths of three individuals. The plaintiffs, legal heirs of the deceased, sought damages for pecuniary loss caused by the rash and negligent driving of the truck driver. The core legal questions involved determining the liability of the defendants for negligence and calculating the appropriate quantum of damages for the dependents. The Court held that the evidence established the truck driver's negligence, rejecting the defense that the road was closed or that the Suzuki driver was at fault. Consequently, the Court decreed the suits against the truck owner and driver, jointly and severally, while dismissing the claim against the insurance company due to a lack of evidence regarding the insurance policy. The judgment establishes that in fatal accident claims, damages are to be assessed based on the deceased's proven income, expected working life, and the dependency of the legal heirs, with specific provisions for the investment of minors' shares.

  Questions settled

  • Is the owner of a vehicle vicariously liable for the rash and negligent acts of its employee-driver?
  • How should pecuniary loss be calculated in fatal accident claims involving multiple dependents?
  • Can a court award damages for loss of pecuniary benefit if the insurance company fails to produce an insurance policy?
  • What is the appropriate procedure for the investment of damages awarded to minor legal heirs in fatal accident cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed alias Sheeda vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1286 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-22Read full judgment →
• Mahammad Umar Gori vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 625 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-03Read full judgment →
• Malik Shahzad vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• M.B. Abbasi vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 475 · Sindh High Court · 1997-02-06Read full judgment →
• M. Musarat vs Air Comdr. Shafiq Hyder and 3 others1995 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-06Read full judgment →
• M. Fahim vs Mrs. Shamim Tahira and another1995 CLC 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07
  rented premisesstriking off defenserent deposit orderevictiondefault in payment of rentRent Controllernon-compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller, Karachi East, which struck off the appellant's defense and directed his eviction from the premises due to non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller acted correctly in ordering eviction following the tenant's failure to deposit arrears and future rent as directed. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was justified. The court observed that the appellant failed to comply with the specific directions to deposit arrears and failed to pay future rent by the stipulated date. Crucially, the appellant offered no plausible explanation for this non-compliance. The court distinguished this case from precedents where technical defaults were excused, noting that here the default was substantive and deliberate. The key principle laid down is that where a tenant fails to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent without providing a valid justification, such non-compliance constitutes a deliberate default, rendering the striking off of the defense and the subsequent order of eviction legally sustainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to comply with a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent warrant the striking off of a tenant's defense?
  • Can a Rent Controller issue a single order directing both the payment of arrears and future monthly rent?
  • Is a tenant's failure to deposit future rent by the specified date considered a default justifying eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1283 · Sindh High Court · -
  bail before arrestabscondenceanti-corruptionfurther inquirypre-arrest bailTaqavi loans
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for pre-arrest bail filed by the applicant, a former Finance Minister of Sindh, who was implicated in a case registered by the Anti-Corruption Establishment regarding the alleged illegal advancement of agricultural Taqavi loans to relatives and other persons without fulfilling legal formalities. The core legal questions involved whether the applicant's alleged unexplained abscondence disentitled him to pre-arrest bail, and whether the material on record made out a case for further inquiry. The Sindh High Court held that the applicant's failure to appear was sufficiently explained by circumstances and pending proceedings, and that the prosecution lacked direct evidence connecting the applicant to the commission of the alleged crime since the mere grant of a loan did not prima facie constitute an offense. The court established the principle that where abscondence is explained by surrounding circumstances, it does not act as an absolute bar to bail, and pre-arrest bail may be confirmed when the case against an accused requires further inquiry due to the absence of direct evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether unexplained abscondence absolutely disentitles an accused person to the concession of pre-arrest bail?
  • Does the mere allocation or grant of a government loan prima facie constitute a criminal offense under anti-corruption laws?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be confirmed when there is no direct evidence connecting the accused to the commission of the alleged crime?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali Jatoi vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1331 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-16Read full judgment →
• Lal Shahbaz Nagar Association vs Messrs Democrat Construction1995 CLC 474 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-02
  speaking orderjudicial discretionremandconstruction disputeappellate reviewcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal was directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the Sindh High Court regarding a suit for declaration and permanent injunction involving a construction dispute. The appellant challenged an order that had adjourned the hearing of pending applications based on the respondents' assurance to complete construction work, with a conditional directive for the sale of property if the work remained incomplete. Upon review, the Division Bench observed that the impugned order was not a speaking order, as it failed to address critical conditions and considerations requiring judicial attention. The Court noted that the order lacked the necessary reasoning to justify the adjournment and the conditional directions issued. Consequently, the appellate court accepted the appeal, set aside the impugned order, and remanded the matter to the original side of the High Court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law after providing all parties an opportunity to be heard. The principle affirmed is that judicial orders must be speaking orders, containing sufficient reasoning to demonstrate that the court has applied its mind to the relevant legal and factual considerations.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial order that fails to address key considerations and lacks reasoning sustainable in law?
  • Can an appellate court remand a matter for a fresh decision when the original order is found to be a non-speaking order?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Muhammad Abdul Sattar & Co. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1995 PTD 752 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-21
  income tax referencerejection of accountstrading liabilityquestion of lawAppellate TribunalIncome Tax Ordinance 1979assessment of income
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 136(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, challenged the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal's decision to uphold additions made by the Income Tax Officer (ITO) to the assessee's income regarding Phutti purchases, ginning and pressing expenses, and trading liabilities. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in sustaining these additions despite the assessee's verifiable accounts. The Court held that the ITO’s rejection of accounts and subsequent additions were based on conjecture, suspicion, and irrelevant material rather than tangible evidence. It was established that an ITO’s opinion must be based on solid material, and findings of fact by the Tribunal are reviewable as questions of law if they lack evidentiary support or ignore crucial facts. Regarding Section 10(2-A) of the Income Tax Act, 1922, the Court held that a trading liability can only be treated as profit if it was previously allowed as a deduction, which was not proven here. Consequently, the Court answered all referred questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Income Tax Officer reject accounts and make additions based on mere conjecture, suspicion, or lack of tangible material?
  • Is a finding of fact by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reviewable as a question of law if it is based on no evidence or ignores relevant material?
  • What are the necessary conditions for treating a trading liability as profit under Section 10(2-A) of the Income Tax Act 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Krishan Lal vs Imdad1995 P Cr. L J 300 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-22Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam and 3 others vs United Bank Limited and 7 others1995 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26
  banking tribunalconstitutional petitionmaintainabilitydeposit of decretal amountvires of statutearticle 270-arecovery of finance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal in a recovery suit, as well as the constitutional vires of sections 6 and 9 of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions involved whether the procedure and appeal deposit conditions under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 are unconstitutional or harsh, and whether a constitutional petition is maintainable when an adequate statutory remedy of appeal exists. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable as a constitutional petition cannot be used as a substitute for an appeal or revision when an adequate statutory remedy is available, particularly where the legislature has validly imposed a condition of depositing the decretal amount for filing an appeal. Furthermore, the court held that the provisions of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 are protected and validated by Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, and that the Banking Tribunal is lawfully established. The key principles laid down are that writ jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass statutory preconditions for appeals, and that laws protected under Article 270-A cannot be challenged regarding their vires.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against a decree of the Banking Tribunal when an appeal is provided under section 9 of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984?
  • Whether the condition of depositing the decretal amount as a prerequisite for filing an appeal under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 is unconstitutional?
  • Are the provisions of the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 from being challenged?
  • Does the establishment of the Banking Tribunal violate Article 175 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Alam and 3 Other vs United Bank Limited and 7 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 302 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-26Read full judgment →
• Khudoo Alias Khuda Bux vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 260 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-18Read full judgment →
• Khawar and others vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 105 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-11
  dacoity preparationunlawful assemblyburden of proofmandatory examination of accusedcriminal appealrecovery of weaponsvitiated trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises out of a judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under Section 399 and Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for making preparation and assembling for the purpose of committing dacoity, along with connected arms offenses. The core legal question is whether the mere assembly of armed persons at a place, without independent evidence establishing that such an assembly was formed for the specific purpose of committing dacoity or making preparations therefor, can sustain a conviction under Sections 399 and 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and whether the failure to record mandatory statements under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiates the trial. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the essential ingredients of dacoity preparation or unlawful assembly for dacoity, and further ruled that omitting to record the accused persons' examination under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitutes a material irregularity that vitiates the trial. The court laid down the principle that mere assembly of five or more armed persons does not give rise to a legal presumption of an assembly to commit dacoity unless direct evidence substantiates the underlying intent, and that statements under Section 340(2), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot substitute for mandatory examinations under Section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere assembly of five or more armed persons give rise to a legal presumption that they assembled to commit dacoity under Section 399 or Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can statements recorded on oath under Section 340(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be equated with or replace the mandatory statement of the accused under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the failure to record an accused person's statement under Section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 vitiate the trial?
  • Where initial burden of proof is shifted onto the accused under special legislation, what must the prosecution establish first regarding incriminating circumstances?
  Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Mansoor Ahmad and anothers vs Panorama Enterprises Ltd.1995 CLC 998 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-25Read full judgment →
• Khalid Yousuf Malik vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 359 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-25Read full judgment →
• Kauser Traders and others vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1995 CLC 990 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
• Karim Development Corporation and anothers vs Razi Construction1995 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Karamat U. Kazi vs District and Sessions Judge, Karachi and another1995 CLC 1168 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →