Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Karachi Transport Corporation through Principal Officer_ Secretary vs Mst. Qaisar Jehan and another1995 CLC 196 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges a trial court judgment and decree awarding compensation to the heirs of a deceased victim of a fatal traffic accident involving a bus owned by the appellant. The core legal questions concern the determination of the deceased's monthly income, the assessment of his life expectancy for calculating damages, and the legality of awarding interest from the date of the suit rather than the date of the decree. The Court held that the accident was caused by the driver's negligence, rejecting the appellant's claim that the deceased was solely responsible. Regarding compensation, the Court reassessed the monthly contribution to the family, adjusting the figure based on evidence of the deceased's salary and personal expenses, and reduced the total compensation amount accordingly. The Court further held that interest on the decretal amount should be calculated from the date of the decree, not the date of the suit. The key principle laid down is that while assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, the Court must arrive at a fair figure based on material factors, and interest on compensation should be awarded from the date of quantification.
Questions settled- Is the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applicable when there is direct evidence regarding the cause of an accident?
- From what date should interest on a compensation award be calculated in a fatal accident suit?
- Can an appellate court in an appeal from an original decree consider both questions of fact and law?
- What is the standard for assessing compensation in cases under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another vs Raheel Ghyas and 3 others1995 MLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Karachi Metropolitan Corporation And Another vs Raheel Ghyas And 3 Other1995 MLD 141 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-29Read full judgment →
- Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs Safiullah Siddiqui1995 CLC 634 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
- Karachi Bus Owners Association and another vs Inspectorgeneral of Police and 2 others1995 P Cr. L J 608 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-21Read full judgment →
- Kanwar Khalid Younus and another vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a bail application moved on behalf of the applicants involved in Crime No. 29 of 1994 registered at Police Station Malir City under sections 435, 427, and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question concerns whether the applicants are entitled to post-arrest bail where one applicant was allegedly apprehended on the spot setting public property on fire during a political funeral, and whether the rule of consistency applies when co-accused have been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the offence carrying a maximum sentence of seven years does not ipso facto entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right in non-bailable cases, and that the rule of consistency does not apply to benefit an accused who is clearly not entitled to bail based on direct spot-arrest involvement. The court laid down the principle that the mere fact a co-accused was improperly granted bail does not justify extending bail to another person otherwise not entitled to it, and directed the trial court to expedite proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a maximum sentence of less than ten years ipso facto entitle an accused to bail as a matter of right in a non-bailable case?
- Does the rule of consistency justify granting bail to an accused person when a co-accused was improperly granted bail?
- Is an accused apprehended on the spot for torching public property entitled to post-arrest bail?
- KALEEM/Accused vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Kabal Shah vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 2058 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The instant criminal revision application challenged an order passed by the Sessions Judge, Karachi South, directing the bifurcation of the trial of respondent No. 2 from his co-accused on the ground that he was a child, based on a Police Surgeon's certificate. The primary legal questions concerned the territorial applicability and enforceability of the Sindh Children Act, 1955 in Karachi, the jurisdictional competence of a Sessions Court exercising powers as a Juvenile Court under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 and the Sindh Children Act, 1955, the determination of age through X-ray tests versus school certificates and marriage, and alleged repugnancy or conflict between federal and provincial enactments under Article 143 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973. The Sindh High Court held that notifications issued under section 2 of the Sindh Children Act, 1955 validly brought the statute into force in Karachi Division, rendering previous contrary case-law per incuriam. The Court further held that the Sessions Court holds exclusive trial jurisdiction over offences under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code while simultaneously functioning as a Juvenile Court under section 8 of the Sindh Children Act, 1955. Resolving ambiguities regarding the accused's age in favour of the accused based on X-ray medical evidence and beneficial statutory construction, the Court dismissed the revision application and upheld the bifurcation of the trial.
Questions settled- Whether the Sindh Children Act, 1955 had been validly brought into force in the Karachi Division by virtue of government notifications?
- Does a Court of Session possess the jurisdiction to act as a Juvenile Court for the trial of a child charged with an offence exclusively triable by the Court of Session?
- How is a doubt regarding the age of an accused claiming to be a child under the Sindh Children Act, 1955 to be resolved?
- Whether X-ray medical test reports are to be preferred over school leaving certificates for the determination of an accused person's age?
- K. Maracair and 3 others vs Abdul Ghafoor and 2 others1995 PLD Karachi 256 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-12Read full judgment →
- Jehangir Services (Private) Limited and anothers vs Mst. Bibi Rukhsana1995 PLD Karachi 329 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Senior Civil Judge, Tando Muhammad Khan, awarding Rs. 5,00,000 as compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, to the appellees for the death of their breadwinner caused by the negligent driving of a trailer. The core legal questions involved whether the appellants were liable for the fatal accident under the principle of negligence, the applicability of the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, and the correct method for assessing pecuniary compensation. The Sindh High Court held that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applied since the vehicle was solely under the control of the appellants and the trailer's wheels parting from axles and causing death implied negligence. The Court modified the compensation amount, determining it by drawing guidance analogously from the Islamic law concept of Diyat under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, and apportioned the shares according to Islamic Shariat law while safeguarding the minors' portions. The key principles laid down include the applicability of res ipsa loquitur in fatal accident cases where direct eyewitness evidence is scarce, and the utilization of Islamic jurisprudence principles for assessing fair compensation.
Questions settled- Whether the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur applies in fatal accident cases where direct evidence of negligence is lacking?
- Can the principles of Diyat under Islamic law be used as a guiding foundation for assessing compensation in fatal accident cases?
- Whether the traditional multiplier method of assessing compensation is mandatory or if courts can apply natural justice and equitable principles?
- What is the extent of the burden of proof required from legal heirs in fatal accident cases involving moving vehicles under the sole control of the defendants?
- Jawaid Shaikh vs Mst. Miratur Ruqquya through Legal Heirs1995 PLD Karachi 231 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-29Read full judgment →
- Januario Munes vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tirbunal, Karachi and 21995 PLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-23Read full judgment →
- Jan Muhammad And 5 Others vs The State1995 MLD 1803 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-20Read full judgment →
- Jamshed Aslam Khan vs Mrs. Azra Jawed and 2 others1995 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for infringement of trademark, passing off, accounts of profits, and damages. The core legal questions involve whether the plaintiff has made out a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction restraining the defendants from using the disputed trademark, whether the proceedings of the suit should be stayed pending a rectification application before the court, and whether the interim ex parte order should be vacated. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff, being the registered proprietor of the trademark, established a strong prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss, thereby confirming the interim injunction and dismissing the defendants' applications for vacating the injunction and staying the suit proceedings. The key principle laid down is that as long as a trademark remains registered in a party's name, that party is entitled to protect its goodwill and business reputation against infringement, and a subsequent application for rectification of the trademark register by the defendant does not automatically warrant a stay of the infringement suit.
Questions settled- Can a plaintiff seek a temporary injunction for trademark infringement while the defendant has filed an application for rectification of the trademark register?
- Whether the balance of convenience in a trademark infringement suit lies in favour of the registered proprietor of the trademark?
- Should a civil suit for trademark infringement be stayed pending the decision of a judicial miscellaneous application filed under section 46 of the Trade Marks Act?
- Is a registered proprietor entitled to protect their business reputation and goodwill against imitation as long as the trademark registration stands in their name?
- Jamaluddin And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1779 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-25Read full judgment →
- Islamuddin vs P.O. Sindh and others1995 MLD 372 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Islamuddin vs P.O. Sindh And Other1995 MLD 372 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-04Read full judgment →
- Islamuddin through Legal Heirs vs Anjumanefalah Bahbood1995 CLC 611 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Irfanullah vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-07Read full judgment →
- Iqbal And 2 Others vs Mushtaq Ahmed1995 MLD 836 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
- Investment Corporation of Pakistan And Others vs (M/s.) Charagh1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1151 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Interhom (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Steel Mills CorporationK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 51 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs (M/s.) Vinder Textile Mills1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1156 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 others1995 PLC (C.S.) 262 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-20Read full judgment →
- In re: Reference of Sessions Judge, Sukkur vs Not1995 PLD Karachi 436 · Sindh High Court · 1995-03-30Read full judgment →
- Ikenna vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
- Iftikharuddin vs Jamshed Ka. Marker and 11 others1995 PLD Karachi 608 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiff, who sought to restrain the defendants from constructing a building on a plot of land, asserting a right of pre-emption over the property. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff, as a partial owner with an expired lease, possessed the requisite status to claim pre-emption, whether the right of pre-emption applies against non-Muslim vendors in the absence of specific provincial legislation, and whether the plaintiff qualified as a Shafi-i-Jar (neighbour) or Shafi-i-Khalit (participator in appendages). The court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case, noting that the right of pre-emption is a weak right requiring strict compliance. The court found the plaintiff's status as a full owner doubtful due to the expired lease and the absence of co-owner participation. Furthermore, the presence of a public lane between the properties disqualified the plaintiff as an immediate neighbour. The court affirmed that while pre-emption principles apply in Sindh via justice, equity, and good conscience, the plaintiff failed to meet the necessary qualifications for injunctive relief.
Questions settled- Is the right of pre-emption applicable against non-Muslim vendors in the Province of Sindh?
- Does a lessee whose lease has expired possess the status of a full owner required to exercise the right of pre-emption?
- Can a plaintiff claim the right of pre-emption as a neighbour (Shafi-i-Jar) if a public lane separates the properties?
- Is the right of pre-emption considered a weak right requiring strict compliance with legal requirements?
- Iftikharuddin vs Jamshed K.A. Marker And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Revenue Cases 123 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-06Read full judgment →
- Idrees vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 495 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
- Iddris and others vs The State1997 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-05Read full judgment →
- I)R. Shafique Ahmed vs Surraya SultanaK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 269 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Hussain Khan and Sons vs Ibrahimji Sulemanjee Mithaiwala and another1995 CLC 446 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-05Read full judgment →
- Husein Industries Limited vs Textile Quota Management Directorate1997 P.C.T.L.R. 586 · Sindh High Court · 1997-10-08Read full judgment →
- Hazaro Alias Muhammad Ramzan vs The State1995 MLD 368 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-28Read full judgment →
- Hassanally and others vs Noor Muhammad through his Legal Heirs and another1995 MLD 1458 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-14Read full judgment →
- Hassan Ally And Others vs Noor Muhammad Through His Legal Heirs And Another1995 MLD 1458 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-14Read full judgment →
- Hasan Abbas alias Barre vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 322 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-28Read full judgment →
- Hamid Noor Khan vs Muhammad Noor Khan through Legal Heirs and 91995 CLC 176 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Hameed Wali alias Zarwali vs The State1997 MLD 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-20Read full judgment →
- Ham Id Nqo R Khan vs Muhammad N')or Khan through Legal1995 PLD Karachi 254 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-02Read full judgment →
- Haleem Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 362 · Sindh High Court · 1996-04-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Sikandar Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1314 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-19Read full judgment →
- Haji Sattar vs Zaki Ahmad and others1995 MLD 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Sattar vs Zaki Ahmad And Other1995 MLD 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Rehmatullah vs Mst. Munawar Jehan1995 CLC 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Rent Appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant regarding a shop in Karachi. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized use of premises, and impairment of utility. While the Rent Controller initially ordered ejectment based on default, the High Court, upon remand from the Supreme Court, re-examined the merits. The core legal question was whether the landlord successfully established the alleged default in rent payment. The Court found that the tenant provided consistent evidence of regular rent payments, including an acknowledgement receipt and proof of a money order sent after the landlord refused payment. Crucially, the landlord failed to appear in the witness box to controvert the tenant's testimony, relying instead on her husband. The Court held that the landlord's failure to testify regarding facts within her personal knowledge was fatal to her case. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment order, establishing the principle that a party's non-appearance as a witness to rebut material facts within their personal knowledge strongly discredits their case.
Questions settled- Does the failure of a landlord to appear as a witness to controvert a tenant's testimony regarding rent payment constitute a failure to prove default?
- Is a party's non-appearance as a witness to testify on facts within their personal knowledge a ground to discredit their case?
- Can a landlord succeed in an eviction application for default if the tenant's evidence of payment remains uncontroverted during cross-examination?
- Haji Niaz vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-14Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ismail Mills Ltd. vs Yulius Fuchik and 3 others1995 PLD Karachi 44 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-20Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Sadiqa Parveen1995 MLD 414 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
- Haji Mir Hassan Ali vs Muhammad Naseeruddin1995 CLC 1655 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-03Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Rasool vs Badarul Islam1995 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1325 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
- Haji and another vs The State1995 MLD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Haji And Another vs The State Opponent1995 MLD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-02Read full judgment →
- Haji Alias Muhammad Rafiq vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 459 · Sindh High Court · 1997-04-21Read full judgment →
- Haider Jaffer vs The State and anothers1995 P Cr. L J 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-20Read full judgment →
- Habibullah Oureshi vs Farooque And 3 Other1995 MLD 92 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Gulson Air-Cargo Services (Pvt.) Ltd vs Compagnie International Air1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad vs Mst. Munawar Sultana and 14 others1995 CLC 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-10Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Group Limited, And 2 Other vs Evron (Private) Limited, And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Sarwar and 2 others vs The State1997 MLD 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool Khan and anothers vs Collector of Customs and another1995 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool and another vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1327 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the two appellants under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, whereby they were sentenced to imprisonment for life. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 could be compounded following a compromise between the appellants and the legal heirs of the deceased. The Court examined the compromise application, affidavits of the legal heirs, heirship certificates, and the formal application filed under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Holding that all legal formalities had been duly completed and that the legal heirs had waived their right of Qisas and Diyat, the Court allowed the compromise application with the permission of the Court. The ratio decidendi is that an offence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased under Section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, resulting in the acquittal of the accused upon valid verification.
Questions settled- Whether an offence under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 is compoundable at the instance of the legal heirs of the deceased?
- Can a compromise in a murder case be accepted on the basis of affidavits and verified statements of all legal heirs waiving Qisas and Diyat?
- What is the legal effect of an accepted compromise under section 345 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the conviction and sentence of an accused?
- Ghulam Nabi Shah and others vs Pakistan International Airlines1995 PLC (C.S.) 988 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-01Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1995 MLD 1799 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1799 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-19Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 2 others vs The State1997 MLD 286 · Sindh High Court · 1996-01-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam J1lani And 10 Other vs Abdul Kadir And 17 OtherK.L.R 1997 Civil Cases 44 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 2082 · Sindh High Court · 1995-07-12Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1278 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-11Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Haider and 2 others vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 534 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-07Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali Shah and anothers vs Abbas Ali and 5 others1995 CLC 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Second Appeal arises from a suit for specific performance of an alleged agreement to sell agricultural land. The respondents claimed an agreement existed, while the appellants contended it was forged and that the land had been sold to a bona fide purchaser via a registered deed. The trial court dismissed the suit, finding the agreement unproven and the claim time-barred. The appellate court reversed this, ruling the agreement valid and the purchaser had notice due to the respondents' possession. Upon review, the High Court held that the appellate court misread the evidence, noting that the testimony regarding the agreement's execution was irreconcilably contradictory. Furthermore, the Court applied Explanation I to Section 3 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, ruling that the respondents had constructive notice of the registered sale deed from the date of its registration. Consequently, the suit was time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court restored the trial court's dismissal, emphasizing that limitation commences from the date of constructive notice, not the date of actual disclosure.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a sale deed constitute constructive notice to third parties under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance commence if no date is fixed in the agreement?
- Can an appellate court reverse a trial court's finding of fact based on misread or contradictory evidence?
- Ghulam Abbas vs (M/s.) Apex International And Another1997 P.C.T.L.R. 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1997-03-24Read full judgment →
- General Manager, Pakistan Railways and 3 others vs Muhammad Hafeez1995 PLC 203 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-04Read full judgment →
- Forward Traders vs M.F.M.Y. Industries Limited1995 PLD Karachi 510 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-21Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain Shah and anothers vs Tfie State1995 MLD 1816 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain Shah And Another vs The State1995 MLD 1816 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-13Read full judgment →
- Feroz Ahmed vs Kaley Khan Through Legal Heirs1995 MLD 825 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-21Read full judgment →
- Fep International (Pvt.) Limited vs (M/s.) Friend Publisher Limited1907 P.C.T.L.R. 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-26Read full judgment →
- Federal Investigation Agency vs Muhammad Younus Habib and 5 others1995 PLD Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-28Read full judgment →
- Fazulur Rehman Alias Wazir vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
- Fazlur Rehman Alias Wazir vs The State1995 MLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-04Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs Mst. Husna Bano1995 MLD 170 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the annulment of a decree of Khula granted in favor of the private respondent, the petitioner's wife. The court addressed the maintainability of the petition and the request for substituted service under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that constitutional remedies cannot be invoked against a decree for dissolution of marriage unless there is manifest illegality, and that substituted service through publication is a remedy of last resort that cannot be granted casually without fulfilling strict procedural prerequisites to prevent abuse of process. Furthermore, the court emphasized that Khula is a substantive right of a Muslim female and such a decree cannot be interfered with lightly. Consequently, the application for substituted service and the main constitutional petition were dismissed, establishing that constitutional jurisdiction must be exercised to aid justice rather than perpetuate litigation against a spouse.
Questions settled- When can substituted service through publication be granted under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable against a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula?
- Is Khula a right of a female professing Islam that warrants protection against light interference by courts?
- Fareed Ahmed and 6 others vs Z.P. Sultan & Co1995 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Fareed Ahmed And 6 Others vs Messrs Z.P. Sultan & Co:1995 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-13Read full judgment →
- Faiz And Sons vs Hakimsons (Impex) Private LimitedK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 611 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-13Read full judgment →
- Faisal Asad vs Secretary, Health, Government of Sindh and 9 others1995 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
- Faisal Asad vs Secretary, Health, Government of Sindh And 9 Other1995 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-31Read full judgment →
- Evershine Paints (Eastern) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax , 29, 1241995 PTD 614 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference concerns whether Explanation 8 to Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, introduced by the Finance Act 1976, applies retrospectively to loans advanced prior to the assessment year 1976-77. The Appellate Tribunal had previously held that the provision applied retrospectively. The Court examined whether the language of the Explanation, which imposes a new tax liability on companies for interest not charged on loans, evinced a clear legislative intent for retrospective operation. The Court held that while an explanation in a statute generally clarifies existing law, it may also create new rights or obligations. Because Explanation 8 imposed a new tax burden, it could not be construed as retrospective absent clear language to that effect. The Court rejected the argument that the phrase 'has made any loan' necessitated retrospective application. Consequently, the Court ruled that Explanation 8 applies only to loans advanced during the assessment year 1976-77 or thereafter, and not to loans advanced before that period, adhering to the principle that fiscal statutes should be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer where ambiguity exists.
Questions settled- Does Explanation 8 to Section 4(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, apply retrospectively to loans advanced before the assessment year 1976-77?
- Can a statutory explanation that imposes a new tax liability be applied retrospectively without explicit legislative intent?
- Should fiscal statutes be interpreted in favor of the taxpayer when two interpretations are possible?
- Does the use of the phrase 'has made any loan' in a statute necessarily indicate an intent for retrospective application?
- Evershine Paints (Eastern) Ltd Iqbal Naeem Pasha , vs CommissionerK.L.R. 1995 Tax & Custom Cases 5 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dr. Surayya Matin And Others vs Mst. Akhtarunnisa1995 MLD 456 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These are cross first rent appeals arising from an order of the Rent Controller regarding an ejectment application filed by a landlady against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, concerning two commercial shops. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed default in rent payment, impaired the value and utility of the premises, and whether the premises were required in good faith for the personal use of the landlady's husband and children. The Sindh High Court held that although the tenant made delayed payments, the landlady's acceptance of such payments without protest amounted to condonation, rendering the tenant not liable to ejectment on the ground of default. However, the Court upheld the finding that the tenant impaired the value and utility of the premises by unauthorized structural alterations, including the removal of a supporting wall under the mezzanine floor and replacement of iron shutters. Furthermore, the Court reversed the Rent Controller's findings on personal need, holding that the requirement of the landlady's retired husband and unemployed sons was bona fide. The key legal principles laid down clarify that acceptance of delayed rent without objection constitutes condonation preventing ejectment for past delays, and that structural alterations impairing a property's utility justify eviction.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of delayed rent payments by a landlord without protest amount to condonation preventing ejectment on the ground of default?
- Whether the removal of a supporting wall and replacement of iron shutters constitutes impairing the value and utility of rented premises?
- Is the affidavit of children necessary when a landlord seeks eviction for the personal use and occupation of their children?
- Can a tenant avoid ejectment for structural alterations by claiming oral consent for a different modification?
- Dr. Shakeel Ahmad vs Federation of Pakistan and others1995 PLC (C.S.) 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order forcing a government servant to proceed on earned leave without his formal request, allegedly due to mala fides and departmental victimisation. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding the maintainability of the petition in view of the ouster of jurisdiction under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order of forced leave constituted a final order challengeable before the Service Tribunal. The Court reiterated that while orders tainted by mala fides or lack of jurisdiction can theoretically be scrutinized under constitutional jurisdiction, such intervention is an extraordinary exception subject to strict constitutional constraints, and pleas of mala fides must be genuine and substantiated with detailed facts. Furthermore, the Court noted that the petitioner had subsequently accepted the regularisation of a portion of the disputed leave period in exchange for a beneficial posting, thereby waiving his right to challenge it in the constitutional petition. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an order forcing a civil servant to proceed on leave constitutes a final order for the purpose of invoking the jurisdiction of a Service Tribunal?
- Does the bar under Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 exclude the constitutional jurisdiction of High Courts in service matters tainted by mala fides?
- Can a civil servant challenge an administrative order in a constitutional petition after having voluntarily accepted the regularisation of the disputed period under that order?
- Dr. Muharram Ali Sanjranai vs Space and Upper Atmosphere Research1995 PLC (C.S.) 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-26Read full judgment →
- DR. Muhammad Shoaib Suddle vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 309 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-02Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Rafiq vs Muhammad Yousuf and another1995 PLD Karachi 382 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-18Read full judgment →
- Dr. Khalid Mansoor vs Dr. Azhar Baqai1995 MLD 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-13Read full judgment →
- Dr. Dodo Mehri vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. (Mrs.) Shamim Dadi vs Masood Shaikh and 3 others1995 CLC 206 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-15Read full judgment →
- Dost Ali vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-26Read full judgment →
- Dilshad Ahmed Khan vs Ali Muhammad and 11 others1995 CLC 1207 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
- Dildar vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1993 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-18Read full judgment →