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. Zohra Bai And Another vs Messrs Standard Industries Ltd. Through Managing Director1994 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tayyaba Khan vs Syeda Begum End Another1994 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Tayyaba Khan vs Syeda Begum and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan through Legal Heirs and another vs Nazimuddin and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Sharifan Through Legal Heirs And Another vs Nazimuddin And Another1994 PLD Karachi 135 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Roshan Jehan and 6 others vs Mst. Noor Jehan1994 MLD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nusrat Khanum vs Liaqat Ali1994 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nighat Aijaz vs Muhammad Jameel1994 PLD Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-28
  Jactitation of marriageRestitution of conjugal rightsFamily Court jurisdictionSection 23 barFraud and forgeryMatrimonial disputeNikahnama validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves constitutional petitions arising from conflicting lower court judgments regarding a suit for restitution of conjugal rights and a suit for jactitation of marriage. The core legal question was whether Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, prohibits a Family Court from questioning the validity of a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, when the marriage is challenged as fraudulent or forged. The High Court held that the Family Court possesses exclusive jurisdiction to entertain and adjudicate suits for jactitation of marriage. It ruled that the embargo under Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, applies only when the marriage's existence is undisputed and it is assumed to be valid under Muslim Law. Consequently, the section does not preclude a Family Court from examining the validity of a marriage if it is challenged on grounds of fraud, forgery, or misrepresentation. The Court restored the trial court's judgment, confirming that the alleged marriage was not proven.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, bar a Family Court from inquiring into the validity of a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, when fraud or forgery is alleged?
  • Is a suit for jactitation of marriage exclusively triable by a Family Court?
  • Can a marriage registered under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961, be challenged in a Family Court if it is alleged to be the result of fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Kausar vs Shahid Rasool Jan1994 PLD Karachi 372 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Aslam (Late) through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad Mehmood1994 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs Chairman, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi and 21994 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mehmooda Begum vs Chairman, Karachi Port Trust, Karachi And 21994 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Bai and otherss vs Muhammad and others1994 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khadija Bai And Other vs Muhammad And Other1994 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-04Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana Khatoon vs Mst. Bushra and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 92 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farzana Khatoon vs Mst. Bushra And 3 Other1994 PLD Karachi 92 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Roshan Ara vs Government of Sindh through Deputy1994 MLD 882 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Bilquis vs The Sindh Land Commissioner Through Secretary,1994 PLD Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shaista Begum vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1994 MLD 274 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shaista Begum vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1994 PTD 194 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-23
  registration of firmspartnership actministerial dutystatutory complianceforeign investmentregistrar of firmsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Registrar of Firms to register a partnership firm involving a Pakistani citizen and a foreign national. The core legal question was whether the Registrar possesses the authority to demand extraneous documents, such as No-Objection Certificates from government ministries or details regarding foreign investment, beyond the statutory requirements prescribed by the Partnership Act 1932. The Court held that the Registrar’s refusal based on these extraneous objections was without lawful authority. The Court clarified that the Registrar’s satisfaction is strictly limited to verifying compliance with the specific procedural requirements of Section 58 of the Partnership Act 1932. Consequently, the Registrar cannot inquire into the nature of the business or the necessity of foreign investment. However, the Court upheld the Registrar’s right to demand proper verification and attestation of the application form as mandated by the Act and its rules. The key principle established is that the registration of a firm is a ministerial act contingent solely upon compliance with the specific procedural requirements of the Partnership Act 1932, and the Registrar lacks jurisdiction to impose additional, unauthorized conditions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Registrar of Firms have the authority to demand a No-Objection Certificate from the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the registration of a partnership firm?
  • Is the Registrar of Firms empowered to inquire into the nature of business or foreign investment details when registering a firm under the Partnership Act 1932?
  • To what extent is the Registrar of Firms required to be satisfied before recording an entry in the register of firms under the Partnership Act 1932?
  • Can the Registrar of Firms refuse registration based on grounds not specified in Section 58 of the Partnership Act 1932?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rehana Mahar vs Pakistan And Others1994 P LC (C.S.) 854 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naseer Fatima and 2 others vs Mst. Surayia Abid Ali1994 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Naseer Fatima And 2 Other vs Mst. Surayia Abid Ali1994 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. MJ. Hemani vs Abid Ali1994 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-13Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Daulat Roshan Ali vs Mrs. Shahnaz Begum1994 MLD 485 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
• Momin Bai vs Muhammad Ismail1994 MLD 418 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-08Read full judgment →
• Moin Alam vs The StateK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 66 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-03Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Sadique Umrani And Other vs Government of Sindh Through Chief Secretary, Government Of Sindh, Sindh Secretariate Karachi And 3 OtherK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 170 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mobina BEGUMPlaintiff vs The Joint Secretary, Ministry of Religious and Minority Affairs, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1994 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-08
  ex parte decreefraud and misrepresentationmaintainabilityevacuee trust propertywant of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The matter arose from an application filed under section 12(2) read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the defendants to set aside an ex parte decree obtained by the plaintiff in a suit concerning a lease of land claimed to be evacuee trust property. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. in the presence of prior orders, concluded proceedings under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C., and whether allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and want of jurisdiction were prima facie sustainable. The court held that the application under section 12(2) C.P.C. was maintainable and competent, as the grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, and lack of jurisdiction constitute distinct substantive remedies that are not barred by the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 C.P.C. The court laid down the key principle that an application under section 12(2) C.P.C. provides an independent and substantive mechanism to challenge judgments tainted by fraud, misrepresentation, or jurisdictional defect, and the dismissal of a separate procedural remedy like Order IX Rule 13 does not preclude its invocation unless the exact same vital ground has been fully examined and determined in the prior proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable after the dismissal of an application under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the dismissal of proceedings for setting aside an ex parte decree under Order IX Rule 13 bar a subsequent challenge based on fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether the provisions of section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a substantive right that supersedes procedural technicalities regarding finality of previous judgments?
  • Can a decree obtained by concealing material judicial orders and binding decisions of superior courts be assailed as having been procured through fraud or misrepresentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Parveen Kassimali Popatiya vs Nizari Cooperative Housing1994 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Miss Par Veen Kassimali Popatiya vs Nizari Cooperative Housing1994 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muhammad Khalid vs Bin Yameen'1994 MLD 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mirza Abdur Rahim Baig and anothers vs Abdul Haq Lashari and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 388 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mirza Abdur Rahim Baig And Another vs Abdul Haq Lashari And 3 Other1994 PLD Karachi 388 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mir Nabi Bux Khan Zehri vs Shaikh Amir Muhammad Khan and another1994 MLD 772 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mian Azam Jamil and another vs Sohail Aslam and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mian Azam Jamil And Another vs Sohail Aslam And Another1994 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shah Corporation Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through DirectorGeneral of Defence Purchase, Ministry of Defence, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 127 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shafi Corporation Ltd vs Government of Pakistan Through Director General Of Defence Purchase, Ministry Of Defence, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 127 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rimpa (Private) Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Companies-I, Karachi1994 PTD 517 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs R.B. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Habib Bank Limited1994 MLD 2199 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs R.B. Avari Enterprises (Pvt.)Limited, Karachi vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Food, Agriculture and Cooperatives, Islamabad and 2 others1994 PTD 865 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Quality Builders Ltd vs Messrs National Insurance1994 PLD Karachi 407 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Prism Communications Ltd., Karachi vs Mrs. Shirin Arif1994 PLD Karachi 181 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs P.I.A.C. vs Wafaqi Mohtasib and 2 others1994 MLD 244 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nizamuddin Faridul Haq vs The Collector of Customs, (Appraisement),Karachi And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 480 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nizamuddin Faridul Haq vs The Collector of Customs, (Appraisement), Karachi and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 480 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nasir Flour Mills (Pvt.) Ltd, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others1994 PTD 1421 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-01
  interim staytax recoverydivision bench precedentincome taxstay of demand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter came before the High Court of Sindh as a petition seeking interim relief against tax recovery demands. The core legal question was whether the respondent department should be restrained from enforcing a tax demand under Section 80-D and recovering the amount via a notice issued under Section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, in light of a precedent set by another Division Bench in a similar case. Relying on the cited precedent, the High Court granted the interim stay, restraining the department from enforcing the demand under Section 80-D. Furthermore, the Court directed that if the amount had not yet been recovered from the third respondent pursuant to the notice under Section 92, no further recovery actions should be taken. The key principle laid down is that consistency in judicial orders warrants the grant of interim stay in tax recovery matters where a Division Bench has previously granted similar relief in an identical case.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interim stay against tax recovery should be granted if a Division Bench has already granted similar relief in an identical case?
  • Can the tax department proceed with recovery under Section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 while a challenge to a demand under Section 80-D is pending and supported by precedent?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammadi Oil Trading Co. through Partner, Karachi vs Regional1994 PTD 494 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-09
  Self-Assessment Schemedetailed scrutinyincome taxarbitrary actiondisclosure of evidenceadministrative lawtax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged a notice issued by the tax authorities selecting their case for detailed scrutiny under the Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1991-92, pursuant to Circular No. 22 of 1991. The core legal question was whether tax authorities can initiate detailed scrutiny proceedings under the circular without disclosing the material evidence upon which the suspicion of gross understatement of income is based. Relying on the precedent set in Pakistan Educational Society v. The Government of Pakistan, the Court held that the selection for scrutiny is invalid if the underlying material evidence is not disclosed to the assessee. The Court emphasized that mere assertions by the department regarding the existence of evidence are insufficient to validate such actions. The ratio decidendi is that any administrative action taken under the circular must be transparent; failure to disclose the material evidence renders the action arbitrary and discriminatory. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notice, while granting the respondents liberty to initiate fresh proceedings strictly in accordance with the established legal requirement of disclosing the supporting material to the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Can tax authorities initiate detailed scrutiny of an income tax return under the Self-Assessment Scheme without disclosing the material evidence justifying such action?
  • Does a mere assertion by tax authorities that they possess definite information regarding income understatement satisfy the legal requirement for initiating scrutiny proceedings?
  • Is an administrative action taken by tax authorities without disclosing the underlying material evidence considered arbitrary and discriminatory?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kotri Textile Mills Ltd., Dhabeji Through Factory Mananager vs Union Council, Dhabeji And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kotri Textile Mills Ltd., Dhabeji through Factory Manager vs Union1994 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khan Foundry & Workshop, Faisalabad through Proprietor vs The Registrar of Trade Marks Registry, Government of Pakistan, Karachi and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 157 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Khan Foundry & Workshop, Faisalabad Through Proprietor vs The Registrar of Trade Marks Registry, Government of Pakistan, Karachi And Another1994 PLD Karachi 157 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Contractors Through Its Partner vs Province of Sindh1994 PLD Karachi 89 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Contractors through its Partner vs Province of Sindh1994 PLD Karachi 89 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs International Tea Traders, Karachi vs The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and another1994 PTD 1422 · Sindh High Court · 1994-07-21
  constitutional jurisdictionvires of statuteincome tax recoveryalternative remedystay of recoverymaintainability of petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner seeking a stay of income tax recovery proceedings initiated under Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The respondents opposed the application, arguing that the petition was not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, because the petitioner had an efficacious alternative remedy by way of an appeal under Section 129 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, which would automatically stay recovery under Section 85 of the same Ordinance. Conversely, the petitioner contended that the petition was maintainable because it challenged the vires of Section 80-C of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, a matter beyond the jurisdiction of the Income Tax Authorities, which only the High Court could adjudicate. Relying on the precedent of Gulistan Textile Mills v. Federation of Pakistan, the Court accepted the application, holding that where the constitutionality of a statutory provision is challenged, the High Court has jurisdiction to intervene, and restrained the respondents from effecting recovery under the impugned section.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable when the vires of a statutory provision are challenged despite the availability of an appellate remedy?
  • Does the filing of an appeal under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 automatically stay the recovery of income tax?
  • Are Income Tax Authorities competent to strike down the provisions of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and others1994 PTD 581 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-05
  constitutional jurisdictionstay of recoveryvires of legislationalternative remedytax demandinterim reliefwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for stay filed by the petitioner, Messrs Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd., seeking to restrain the respondents from recovering a tax demand of Rs. 65,98,424 pending the final disposal of the main constitutional petition. The core legal question was whether the High Court should grant a stay of recovery proceedings when the petitioner has challenged the vires of the legislation under which the tax was demanded, despite the availability of alternative remedies under the Income Tax Ordinance. The Court held that while parties are generally required to exhaust statutory remedies, a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 remains maintainable when the vires of legislation is challenged, or when the action is alleged to be mala fide or without jurisdiction. Consequently, the Court granted the stay, restraining further recovery action regarding the specific tax amount, subject to the petitioner furnishing security to the satisfaction of the Court's Nazir, including an additional amount calculated at a 24% annual profit rate on the disputed sum.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 when the vires of legislation is challenged, despite the availability of alternative statutory remedies?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court grant a stay of recovery proceedings in tax matters?
  • Can a court require the furnishing of security as a condition for granting a stay of tax recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Galaxy Construction Limited vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Highway Division of Communications and Works Department1994 MLD 754 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-20
  toll tax leasetime is essence of contractrebate and remissionsupervening impossibilitywaiver and estoppelcounter-suitsbreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of two counter-suits arising out of a lease contract for toll tax collection on the Super Highway between Messrs Galaxy Construction Limited and the Province of Sindh. The core legal questions involved whether time was of the essence of the contract, whether the contractor was entitled to a rebate or remission in the lease amount due to supervening events, heavy rains, political agitations, and government-imposed restrictions, and whether the government could lawfully impose penalties and forfeit securities. The Sindh High Court held that time was not of the essence of the contract since the government accepted delayed payments without protest for months, and that the contractor was entitled to a rebate and refund due to losses caused by unforeseen events and government acts. The key principles laid down include that intention for time to be the essence of a contract must be expressly stated or clearly deducible from the conduct of the parties, and a party cannot enforce penalty clauses or claim defaults after waiving delays through continued acceptance of performance.

  Questions settled

  • Whether time can be considered the essence of a contract when the lessor continuously accepts delayed periodic payments without protest?
  • Is a toll collection lessee entitled to a reduction or rebate in the lease amount due to supervening events, political agitations, and government-imposed restrictions?
  • Does the acceptance and appropriation of delayed installment payments by a government department amount to a waiver of penalty clauses?
  • Whether a party is estopped from claiming penalties and forfeiting security deposits after failing to raise timely objections to delays?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delsec (Pvt.) Ltd: vs Syed Basit Ali1994 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delsec (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Syed Basit Alt1994 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1994-06-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs City Bank Na., Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1994 PTD 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1994-03-21
  income tax referencepenal interestdeductible business expensebanking companiesstatutory interpretationcredit ceilingspenalty vs interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two income tax references involving banking companies that sought to deduct "penal interest" paid to the State Bank of Pakistan as business expenses under the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether such payments, made due to the banks' failure to maintain credit ceilings under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, constituted non-deductible penalties for an infraction of law or admissible business expenses. The Court held that the terms "penalty" and "penal interest" are distinct, as evidenced by their separate usage in the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956. Because the State Bank acted under Section 36(4)(a) of the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, which levies interest rather than a penalty, the payments were not punitive in nature. The Court concluded that these payments were integrally connected to the banks' normal business operations and were therefore admissible as deductible expenses under Section 10 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The principle established is that penal interest, distinct from a penalty, is a deductible business expense.

  Questions settled

  • Is 'penal interest' paid to the State Bank of Pakistan for violating credit ceilings a deductible business expense under the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  • Does the term 'penalty' in the State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, carry the same legal meaning as 'penal interest'?
  • Are payments made by banking companies for the infraction of statutory provisions admissible as allowances under Section 10(2)(xvi) of the Income-tax Act, 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bastern Poultry Services vs The Government of Pakistan and others1994 PTD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arif Cotton Ginners and 19 otherss vs Habib Bank Limited and 31994 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arif Cotton Ginners And 19 Other vs Habib Bank Limited And 31994 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Federation of Pakistan and another1994 PTD 575 · Sindh High Court
  customs dutysales taxvested rightsretrospective applicationexemption withdrawalbonded warehousebill of entry
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by an importer of steel scrap challenging the enhancement of customs duty and the subsequent levy of sales tax on goods that had already landed and for which Bills of Entry had been filed prior to the issuance of the amending notifications. The petitioner contended that the withdrawal of the sales tax exemption could not be applied retrospectively to defeat vested rights, relying on the Al-Samrez principle. The High Court of Sindh examined whether the subsequent notifications could retrospectively affect the imported goods. The Court held that while the petitioner was liable to pay the enhanced customs duty of Rs. 1,500 per metric ton due to the statutory intervention of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, the same did not apply to sales tax. Since no provision corresponding to Section 31-A of the Customs Act existed under the Sales Tax Act, the vested right acquired by the petitioner upon the arrival of the goods and filing of the Bills of Entry could not be retrospectively defeated by a subsequent notification withdrawing the sales tax exemption.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vested right acquired by an importer upon the arrival of goods and filing of Bills of Entry be retrospectively defeated by a subsequent notification withdrawing a sales tax exemption in the absence of an enabling statutory provision?
  • Does the statutory override under Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 apply to the levy and collection of sales tax?
  • Is an importer liable to pay enhanced customs duty if the rate is increased after the landing of goods but before clearance, where Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 is applicable?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehmood vs The State1994 MLD 890 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-05Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Ali Khan vs Abdul Rashid through Legal Heirs1994 MLD 2411 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
• Masud Ahmad Siddiqui vs Rashid Hasan and anothers1994 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Masud Ahmad Siddiqui vs Rashid Hasan And Another1994 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-26Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Health1994 PLD Karachi 370 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
• Masood Ahmed vs Government of Sindh Through Secretary, Health1994 PLD Karachi 370 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-28Read full judgment →
• Maqboolur Rahman vs Mst. Shamsul Qamar1994 MLD 522 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hussain And 8 Other vs Government of Sindh Through Chief1994 PLC (C.S.) 551 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-05Read full judgment →
• Malik Javed vs The State(K.L.R. 1994 Shariat Cases 62) · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-03Read full judgment →
• Malik and Company vs Director, Telegraph Stores & Workshop, Etc1994 PTD 1320 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-26Read full judgment →
• Majid Latif vs The State1994 MLD 967 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-16Read full judgment →
• Lt.Com. (Retd.) Abdul Aziz and 2 others vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 31994 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-28Read full judgment →
• Lt.-Com. (R) Abdul Aziz And 2 Other vs Muhammad Ibrahim And 3 Other1994 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-28Read full judgment →
• Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd. and anothers vs United Bank Limited, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd. And Another vs United Bank Limited, Karachi1994 PLD Karachi 296 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Larkana Sugar Mills Ltd, And Other vs United Bank Limited, I.I.K.L.R. 1994 Civil Cases 142 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-11Read full judgment →
• Khushrang and another vs The State1994 MLD 962 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-25Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Ahmad and anothers vs The State and 3 others1994 PLD Karachi 363 · Sindh High Court · 1994-02-03Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Qureshi vs Karachi Port Trust through Chairman and 2 others1994 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Khan Muhammad Qureshi vs Karachi Port Trust Through Chairman And 2 Other1994 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-21Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and another vs Syed Hassan Shah Bukhari and others1994 MLD 903 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-15
  revision applicationconcurrent jurisdictionlowest grade courtcivil procedurerevisional jurisdictionreturn of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application was directed against an order passed by the VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Karachi (South) in a civil suit involving a subject-matter value of Rs. 24,000. The core legal question addressed by the Sindh High Court was whether a revision application against an order of a subordinate court, where the subject-matter value falls within the appellate jurisdiction of the District Court, should be filed directly in the High Court or the District Court in light of concurrent revisional jurisdiction and the principle of institution in the court of lowest grade. The Court held that since the District Court possesses concurrent revisional jurisdiction under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 15 mandates that proceedings be instituted in the court of lowest grade having concurrent jurisdiction, the revision application ought to have been filed before the District Court. Consequently, the High Court ordered the return of the memorandum of revision application along with its enclosures to the counsel for the appellants for presentation before the competent District Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a revision application against an order of a subordinate court should be filed in the District Court when both the High Court and the District Court possess concurrent revisional jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle embodied in section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 require proceedings to be instituted in the court of lowest grade?
  • What is the procedure to be followed by the High Court when a revision application is erroneously filed directly instead of before the competent District Court having concurrent jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and 6 others vs Mst. Ahmadunnisa and 17 others1994 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed And 6 Other vs Mst. Ahmadunnisa And 17 Other1994 PLD Karachi 81 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-02Read full judgment →
• Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mecca Masjid Trust1994 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Kathiawar Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Mecca Masjid Trust1994 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1994-05-11Read full judgment →
• Karimbhai vs Hatimbhai1994 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1994-04-17Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux vs S.H.O. Khawaja Ajmer Nagri Police StationK.L.R. 1994 Criminal Cases 62 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Chairman and Managing Director and another vs Muhammad Ahmad1994 MLD 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1994-01-11Read full judgment →
• Karachi Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Mirza Jawad1994 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-21Read full judgment →
• Karachi Catholic Cooperative Housing Society Ltd vs Mirza Jawad1994 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-21Read full judgment →
• Jawaid vs The State1994 MLD 965 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-23Read full judgment →
• Jawad Mir Muhammadi and 2 others vs Haroon Mirza and 12 others1994 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Jawad Mir Muhammadi And 2 Other vs Haroon Mirza And 12 Other1994 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1993-11-03Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Ahmed alias Aamer vs The State1994 MLD 59 · Sindh High Court · 1993-09-27Read full judgment →
• Jamaluddin Qureshi vs M/s. Fassmaz Limited1994 MLD 426 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →