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.

• Abdul Rehman And 7 Other vs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. And AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 628 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs The Collector of Customs and another1995 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-11
  rejection of plaintrevisional jurisdictionmaintainability of appealoriginal jurisdictioncivil procedureper incuriam
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the maintainability of First Appeals filed against orders of the District Judge rejecting plaints in civil suits. The plaintiffs had initially sued for recovery of money against the Collector of Customs, alleging illegal duty assessments under the Customs Act, 1969. While the trial court refused to reject the plaints, the District Judge, exercising revisional jurisdiction, subsequently rejected them. The appellants argued that because the rejection occurred at the revisional level, it constituted a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, thereby granting a right of appeal under Section 96. The Court held that First Appeals under Section 96 are only maintainable against decrees passed by a court exercising original jurisdiction, not revisional jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court ruled that the First Appeals were incompetent. The Court further clarified that while previous decisions suggested otherwise, they failed to account for the specific jurisdictional constraints of Section 96, and thus, the appeals were dismissed for lack of maintainability.

  Questions settled

  • Is a First Appeal maintainable against an order rejecting a plaint passed by a District Court in the exercise of its revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the definition of a decree under Section 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically confer a right of appeal under Section 96 regardless of the court's jurisdiction?
  • Can a decision be considered per incuriam if it fails to consider the jurisdictional constraints imposed by Section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razak Adamjee and anothers vs Directorgeneral, Karachi1995 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razak Adamjee And Another vs Directorgeneral, Karachi1995 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Velmi- vs Habiburrehman and 4 others1995 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Velmi vs Habiburrehman And 4 Other1995 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khan and anothers vs Muhammad Shoukat Hussain and other1995 CLC 1708 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State1995 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-18
  kidnapping for ransomburden of proofpolice investigationidentification paradecriminal appealtainted evidencesuppression of terrorist activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arose from the conviction of the appellants for kidnapping for ransom under Section 365-A/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had established the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, given significant discrepancies in the police investigation. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case, as the investigation was marred by dishonesty and manipulation. Specifically, the arrest memo was discredited, the identification parade was found to be fabricated, and the recovery of ransom money and weapons was not established. The Court emphasized that under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, the burden of proof only shifts to the accused after the prosecution successfully establishes the prerequisite conditions of possession or suspicious circumstances. Since the prosecution failed to meet this threshold and the evidence was tainted, the convictions were set aside. The judgment affirms that courts cannot maintain convictions based on faulty, dishonest investigations lacking independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proof shift to the accused under Section 8 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975 before the prosecution establishes the prerequisite conditions of possession or suspicious circumstances?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the police investigation is proven to be dishonest, faulty, and manipulated?
  • Is an identification parade valid if the accused were in police custody and not properly presented for identification?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rasheed vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 202 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim Shoro and 3 others vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1307 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rafiq Alias Qassu vs The StateK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 135 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir Paracha vs The State and another1995 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1995-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Manna N vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs (Mst.) Maryam BaiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 608 · Sindh High Court · 1996-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Qureshi vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R. 1997 Labour Services 124 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Khan anothers vs Noor Muhammad Mehkari1995 CLC 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Karim vs (M/s.) Orient Pakistan Ltd. & AnotherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 75 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and 4 others vs Messrs H. Ghulam Muhammad & Brothers1995 P Cr. L J 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-19
  acquittalcriminal revisionappeal against acquittalinherent powers of High Courtmaintainability of revisionremand order
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal revision application filed against an order of the Sessions Judge, Karachi (West), which had set aside an acquittal order passed by a Magistrate and remanded the case for retrial. The applicants, who were initially acquitted of charges under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, challenged the Sessions Judge's order on the grounds of legal incompetence. The core legal question was whether a revision petition against an acquittal order is maintainable when the statutory remedy of appeal under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, was available but not pursued. The High Court held that where a specific remedy of appeal against acquittal is provided under the law but remains unutilized, a revision petition is not competent. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Sessions Judge erred in entertaining the revision. The ratio established is that a party cannot bypass the statutory appellate procedure by filing a revision petition against an acquittal, and such an order passed in revision is liable to be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Is a revision petition against an acquittal order maintainable when the remedy of appeal under Section 417(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was available but not exercised?
  • Can a Sessions Judge set aside an order of acquittal and remand the case for retrial through a revision petition?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash an order passed by a Sessions Judge that is not in accordance with law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Alias Kitto vs The State1995 MLD 762 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Muhammad Sabir and others1995 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hanna N Pasha vs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and another1995 PLD Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs The State1995 P Cr. L J 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim vs Atiya Sultana1995 PLD Karachi 370 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-20
  ejectment applicationrent defaultsecurity deposit adjustmentstatutory tenancycause of actionrent controllerpresumption of payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant's ejectment from rented premises due to alleged rent default. The core legal questions were whether the tenant had committed default and whether the landlord possessed a valid cause of action at the time the ejectment application was filed. The Court held that the ejectment application was premature, as the statutory period for default had not elapsed when the application was filed. Furthermore, the Court established that a security deposit held by a landlord can be legally adjusted against alleged arrears of rent, particularly where the tenancy has transitioned into a statutory tenancy following the expiry of any initial agreement. Additionally, the Court observed that the acceptance of rent for a subsequent month creates a rebuttable presumption that rent for the preceding month was satisfied. Finding that no default was proven and that the landlord lacked a cause of action at the time of filing, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against arrears of rent?
  • Does the acceptance of rent for a subsequent month create a presumption that rent for the previous month was paid?
  • Can an ejectment application be maintained if the landlord lacks a cause of action at the time of filing?
  • What is the effect of the expiry of a tenancy agreement on the nature of the tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Hafiz Jalaluddin1995 CLC 348 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-07
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantdefault in rentnotice requirementevacuee propertytransfer of property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant, Abdul Ghani, in favour of the respondent, Hafiz Jalaluddin, regarding a tenement in Karachi. The core legal questions were whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, whether the respondent was required to issue a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the appellant was a defaulter in rent payment. The Court held that the relationship of landlord and tenant was established, and the appellant, having full knowledge of the transfer of the property to the respondent through previous litigation, could not claim ignorance or lack of notice. The Court affirmed the Rent Controller's finding that the appellant was a wilful defaulter for failing to pay rent for a significant period. The key principle laid down is that where a tenant is fully aware of the transfer of ownership of the premises through prior legal proceedings, the requirement of a formal notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is dispensed with, and failure to pay rent constitutes valid grounds for ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice under Section 18 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, required when the tenant has actual knowledge of the property transfer through previous litigation?
  • Does the repeal of evacuee laws render the notice requirement under Section 13 of the Displaced Persons Act, 1958, inapplicable?
  • Can a tenant who denies the landlord's title and fails to pay rent be declared a wilful defaulter?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Abrar Hussain1995 MLD 642 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Khan vs Secretary Home Department, Govt of Sindhh, Karachi And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 46 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashraf and 11 OtherK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 221 · Sindh High Court · 1996-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs Ghulam Umar and others1995 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs Ghulam Umar And Other1995 MLD 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1995-06-01Read full judgment →
• A. Rasul vs Vicechancellor and others1995 MLD 1978 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• A. Rasul vs Vicechancellor And Other1995 MLD 1978 · Sindh High Court · 1995-04-19Read full judgment →
• (Syed) Muhammad Aleem-Uddin vs The Secretary General Ministry of Defence Government of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Labour & Service Cases 92 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Syed) Bashiruddin Alias Rasheed And Other vs Karachi DevelopmentK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 359 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-23Read full judgment →
• (Sh.) Liaqat Hussain vs The StateK.L.R. 1997 Criminal Cases 167 · Sindh High Court · 1996-08-18Read full judgment →
• (S.) Muhammad Saeed Deceased By Legal Heirs Sultan Ahmad AndotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 433 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-16Read full judgment →
• (M/s:) Universal Business Equipment (Pvt.) Ltd vs (M/s.) KokusaiK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 257 · Sindh High Court · 1997-09-01Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Standard Hotels (Pvt) Ltd Karachi vs M/s Rio Centre And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 113 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Metropolitan Steel Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Federation ofK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 621 · Sindh High Court · 1997-05-20Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Ciba-Geigy (Pak) Limited vs Muhammad Safdar Proprietor, M/s.K.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 238 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Abdul Shakoor vs Abdul RazzaqueK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 461 · Sindh High Court · 1994-09-18Read full judgment →
• (M/s) United Commercial Corporation (Pvt) Ltd. vs (M/s) SindhhK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 297 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Waheeda Khanum vs Ghulam HussainK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 197 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Sharif an, Etc vs Nazimuddin And AnotherK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 8 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Saba and Another vs (Mrs.) Patricia and 2 OtherK.L.R. 1997,Civil Cases 319 · Sindh High Court · 1995-05-30Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Nasima Begum vs Ali DostK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases 73 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-03Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Nasim Akhter vs Shaikh Gulzar Ahmed And OtherK.L.R. 1995 Criminal Cases 597 · Sindh High Court · 1994-10-27Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Kulsoom vs Abdul RasheedK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 527 · Sindh High Court · 1994-11-13Read full judgment →
• (Mst.) Ghazala Yasmeen vs Muahmmad RafiqueK.L.R 1995 Civil Cases 304 · Sindh High Court · 1995-01-24Read full judgment →
• (Mrs.) Mehrtaj Yasmeen Arbab vs Pakistan Defence Officers HousingK.L.R. 1997 Civil Cases100 · Sindh High Court · 1996-05-23Read full judgment →
• (Messrs.) Karim Development Corporation And Other vs (Messrs.) RaziK.L.R. 1995 Civil Cases 477 · Sindh High Court · 1994-12-22Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs Abid Hussain Qureshi1994 MLD 2251 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-11
  first rent appealpower of attorneystrict constructioneviction applicationdefault in rentcompetency of attorney as witnessremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This first rent appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller allowing an eviction application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question for consideration was whether the general power of attorney granted by the respondent to his attorney included the authority to give evidence and file an affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the principal before the Rent Controller. The court held, upon strict construction of the power of attorney, that the instrument did not confer any express or implied power on the attorney to give evidence or file an affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the respondent. Consequently, with the consent of the parties, the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a fresh decision on merits after affording opportunities to both parties to adduce proper evidence. The key principle laid down is that powers of attorney must be construed strictly, conferring only such authority as is expressly stated or necessarily implied, and general words therein do not extend to acts not specifically authorized, such as deposing as a witness for the principal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a general power of attorney includes the power to give evidence or file an affidavit-in-evidence on behalf of the principal?
  • How should a power of attorney be construed under the law?
  • Can an attorney depose on behalf of a principal without express authorization in the power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahid Ali Khan vs Darul Uloom Naeemia Trust1994 MLD 871 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-24Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad Khan vs (Syed) Arshad HussainK.L.R 1994 Civil Cases 405 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-20Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Miratur Ruouyya and others1994 MLD 450 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-01Read full judgment →
• Z.A. Qureshi vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority1994 MLD 338 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Wasil Khan and another vs The State1994 MLD 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-04Read full judgment →
• Wahid Hassan, Advocate vs Muhammad Aleem1994 MLD 2418 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Begum Fazal Ahmad and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 248 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Begum Fazal Ahmad And 3 Other1994 PLD Karachi 248 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-24Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited, Karachi vs Messrs Union Agencies Limited, Lahore1994 PLD Karachi 303 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-17Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs MirzaK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 134 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The General Manager, Pack. Railways,H.Q. Office, Lahore And Other vs Muhammad Hafeez And Others1994 PLC 153 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-15Read full judgment →
• The Fecto Cement Limited vs The Collector of Customs Appraisement1994 MLD 1136 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-13
  sales tax exemptionvested rightsimport of goodsbonded warehousecustoms dutyconstitutional petitionalternative remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the petitioners challenging a demand notice issued by the customs authorities for the payment of sales tax amounting to Rs. 33,46,147 in respect of imported dump trucks. The core legal question was whether the petitioners acquired a vested right to sales tax exemption under Notification S.R.O. 530(1)/86 upon opening a letter of credit and importing the goods, notwithstanding the subsequent supersession of the notification by S.R.O. 500(1)/88 prior to the release of the goods from the bonded warehouse, and whether section 31-A of the Customs Act could nullify such exemption regarding sales tax. The court held that the petitioners had indeed acquired a vested right under the earlier notification upon acting upon it, and that section 31-A of the Customs Act could not be invoked to nullify the ratio of the Supreme Court's ruling in Al-Samreze Enterprises in respect of sales tax demands. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed that an aggrieved party can directly approach superior courts under writ jurisdiction in fiscal disputes without exhausting alternative remedies. The petition was accordingly allowed and the demand notice declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an importer acquires a vested right to tax exemption under a notification upon opening a letter of credit and importing goods, despite the subsequent supersession of the notification?
  • Can the provisions of section 31-A of the Customs Act be pressed into service for nullifying the effect of the judgment in Al-Samreze Enterprises to protect a demand in respect of sales tax?
  • Does an aggrieved party in fiscal disputes have the right to directly approach the superior courts in their writ jurisdictions without first exhausting remedies provided under the Customs Act?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone a, Karachi vs Messrs1994 PTD 498 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Zone 'A', Karachi vs Abdul Ghaffar1994 PTD 838 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-28Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-III, Karachi vs Messrs1994 PTD 501 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-30Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Companies-I, Karachi vs Messrs Thai1994 PTD 503 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-21Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Messrs1994 PTD 500 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
• Tasawar Khalil And Another vs Matinur Rahman KhanK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 144 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-21Read full judgment →
• Talib Hussain vs Yakta Engineering Co. and another1994 MLD 510 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaim Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 49 · Sindh High Court · 1994-08-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghaffar Hussain and 3 others vs The Commander (Commanding1994 MLD 2010 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Azhar Naqvi vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Azhar Naqvi vs The Government of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 3 Other1994 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Akhtar Ali vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Hyderabad1994 PTD 675 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-19
  adventure in the nature of traderevenue receiptcompromise decreedeemed interestbusiness loanpenalty for concealmentincome tax reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose out of orders passed by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal regarding tax assessments and penalties for the assessment year 1981-82. The core legal questions involved whether a decretal amount received through a compromise decree in a suit concerning agricultural land purchase and sale constituted a revenue receipt; whether an interest-free or low-interest loan advanced to a firm attracted deemed interest under section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979; and whether the imposition of penalty for concealment of income under section 111 of the Ordinance was justified. The High Court held that the purchase and resale of land constituted an adventure in the nature of trade, making the profits and decretal amounts taxable as revenue receipts. The Court also affirmed that deemed interest on business loans was exigible under section 12(7). However, regarding the penalty under section 111, the Court held that since the assessee had disclosed the relevant facts in his wealth statement, the burden of proving deliberate concealment or fraud was on the Revenue, and penalty was not warranted. The key principle laid down is that isolated transactions where the dominant intention from inception is to resell for profit constitute an adventure in the nature of trade, and penal provisions require clear proof of conscious concealment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a decretal amount received through a compromise decree in a suit regarding agricultural land is taxable as a revenue receipt?
  • Does the purchase and subsequent resale of land with the intention of making profit constitute an adventure in the nature of trade?
  • Whether an interest-free or low-interest loan advanced to a firm attracts deemed interest income under section 12(7) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is the imposition of penalty under section 111 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 justified when an assessee has disclosed particulars in a wealth statement and no deliberate concealment or fraud is established?
  Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs (M/s.) SiddiqueK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 295 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sohrab vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 431 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-04
  bail applicationKaro Karihonor killingabettorQisas and DiyatLi'anfurther enquirycriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arises from a murder case where the petitioner, Sohrab, was accused of facilitating the murder of two individuals by holding them while his co-accused committed the act, allegedly under the pretext of 'Karo Kari' (honor killing). The core legal question is whether an accused who merely held the deceased, without inflicting fatal blows, is entitled to bail, and whether the 'Karo Kari' defense warrants such relief. The High Court dismissed the bail application, holding that the applicant's role in facilitating the crime, despite being unarmed, prima facie connects him to the offense. The court emphasized that 'Karo Kari' is not a legal justification for murder and that Islamic law mandates specific procedures, such as 'Li'an,' for handling adultery allegations, rather than extrajudicial killings. The court affirmed that bail is not a matter of course and depends on the specific facts of each case. It directed the trial court to expedite proceedings, ensuring key witnesses are examined within three months to prevent prejudice against the accused.

  Questions settled

  • Is an accused who held the deceased to facilitate a murder entitled to bail if they did not personally inflict fatal injuries?
  • Does the defense of 'Karo Kari' (honor killing) provide a legal justification for murder under Pakistani law?
  • What is the legal procedure for handling allegations of adultery under the Offence of Qazf (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a trial court be directed to expedite the examination of witnesses in a bail matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Shahzad vs A.O & S.D.M., Karachi and another1994 MLD 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-25Read full judgment →
• Sirajul Haq and 2 others vs Karachi Development Authority through DirectorGeneral1994 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sirajul Haq And 2 Other vs Karachi Development Authority Through Director General1994 PLD Karachi 315 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sindh Employees Social Security Institution, Karachi vs Spencer &1994 PLC 503 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Abdul Karim vs The State through Inspector Faqir Muhammad1994 MLD 1095 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-25Read full judgment →
• Shaz Din vs The StatePTCL 1994 CL. 199 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
• Sharfuddin vs The Zonal Municipal Committee, District South, Karachi1994 MLD 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-08
  public contractslowest tenderinjunctionprima facie casemunicipal committeesuppression of factsjudicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a building contractor, filed a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and mandatory injunction against the Zonal Municipal Committee and others, claiming entitlement to a construction contract for a sports complex on the ground that their tender was the lowest. The defendants contested the suit, arguing that the plaintiff's tender failed to comply with mandatory submission conditions regarding signatures and stamps, offered a lesser covered area compared to the accepted bid, and that the plaintiff had previously withdrawn an unconditional constitutional petition on the same subject-matter without disclosure. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established a prima facie case, a legal right, and entitlement to injunctive relief in the award of a public contract. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie legal right, that the municipal authority acted lawfully within its statutory discretion in evaluating project needs and tender compliance, and that the plaintiff was disentitled to equitable relief due to suppression of material facts. The court laid down the principles governing judicial review of public contract allocations, the requirements of valid tender compliance, and the application of equitable doctrines in injunction matters.

  Questions settled

  • Is a public authority bound to accept the lowest tender regardless of project specifications, tender compliance, and administrative requirements?
  • Does a contractor acquire an enforceable legal right to the award of a public contract solely by submitting the lowest monetary bid?
  • What are the essential ingredients a plaintiff must satisfy to obtain an interlocutory injunction in a suit concerning a public works contract?
  • Does the unconditional withdrawal of a constitutional petition under Order 23 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent civil suit on the same cause of action?
  • Whether failure to disclose the prior filing and withdrawal of a constitutional petition disentitles a party to equitable relief such as an injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sharfuddin vs The Zonal Municipal Committee South, Karachi And OtherK.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 500 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-06Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin and 2 others vs Karachi Building Control Authority and another1994 MLD 647 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-14Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ahmed Qureshi-- vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ahmed Qureshi vs The StateK.L.R 1994 Criminal Cases 1 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• Shakil Ahmad vs Gulzar Ahmad and 5 others1994 MLD 512 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Majid- vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary,1994 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Majid vs Government of Sindh through Secretary; Housing1994 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-22Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Hameed vs Hifazat Hussain Jafri1994 PLD Karachi 379 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed and 4 others vs District Judge, Sanghar and 3 others1994 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-14Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Hussain vs Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Hyderabad and others1994 MLD 2195 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• Samson John and 4 others vs Muhammad Farooq1994 MLD 52 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 9 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sajad Ali vs The State1994 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-18Read full judgment →
• Saidullah vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 41 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-05Read full judgment →
• Saghiruddin vs Muhammad Qassim and 6 others1994 MLD 487 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
• S.M. Asim, in the Matter of Petition under Section 276 of vs Not1994 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-19Read full judgment →