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.
- Shaikh Mushtaque Ali vs Mrs. Rahat Abbas1993 MLD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Sher vs Asghar Ali1993 MLD 190 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-28Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Iqbal. vs Saira Bano1993 CLC 1761 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Afzal vs Virbai through Legal Heirs1993 CLC 1702 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant, directing him to vacate the premises due to alleged default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could order eviction when the relationship of landlord and tenant was disputed and the landlord's title to the specific demised premises was not established. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's order was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the respondent failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship, as the respondent's title to the specific portion occupied by the appellant remained unproven, particularly in the absence of a demarcation plan for the allotted property. The Court emphasized that the burden of proving the landlord-tenant relationship lies initially on the landlord. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon disputed questions of title; where a landlord's title is genuinely disputed, the landlord must first establish their ownership through a competent Civil Court before seeking ejectment proceedings.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to decide disputed questions of title regarding the demised premises?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant when the tenant denies the landlord's title?
- Can a landlord maintain an ejectment application against a tenant without first establishing title to the specific property in a Civil Court when that title is disputed?
- Shahzadi Begum vs Suleman Khan and 3 others1993 CLC 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Shahid Muhammad Khan and 2 others vs The State and another1993 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Shahid Bawani vs Government of Sindh through Home Secretary and another1993 P Cr. L J 2528 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-11Read full judgment →
- Shahabuddin vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2056 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-24Read full judgment →
- Shahab Matloob vs Government of Province of Sindh through Chief1993 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the Sindh Government's nomination of four students to reserved seats at the Balochistan Engineering College, Khuzdar. The petitioners, who possessed superior academic marks, contended that the nominations were arbitrary, mala fide, and ignored merit. The core legal question was whether the government possessed unfettered discretion in these nominations or was bound by merit-based criteria. The Court held that the nominations were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. It found that the college prospectus explicitly mandated merit-based selection. Furthermore, the Court determined the nominations were mala fide, as the selected candidates were related to high-ranking government officials and had significantly lower marks than the petitioners. The Court affirmed that while Principles of Policy under the Constitution are not directly enforceable, they serve as vital aids for interpreting legal instruments to ensure merit-based access to professional education. Consequently, the Court directed the government to reconsider the nominations strictly on merit.
Questions settled- Whether the government has unfettered discretion to nominate students against reserved seats in an educational institution when the prospectus mandates merit-based selection?
- Can the Principles of Policy under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 be used as an aid to interpret legal instruments?
- Does the nomination of candidates based on personal connections rather than merit constitute a mala fide exercise of executive power?
- Shah Muhammad Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed seeking the quashment of proceedings pending before the Deputy Commissioner and S.D.M., Karachi (East), arising from an F.I.R. registered under Section 188/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant was accused of removing sand in violation of an order promulgated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether the court could take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on a complaint filed by a Station House Officer (S.H.O.) rather than the public servant whose order was allegedly violated or their superior. The High Court held that the proceedings were illegal because they violated the mandatory requirements of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which restricts cognizance of such offences to complaints filed by the specific public servant concerned or their superior. Consequently, the Court quashed the entire proceedings against all accused, establishing the principle that failure to adhere to the statutory complaint procedure under Section 195 constitutes an abuse of the process of law.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 188 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 based on an F.I.R. lodged by a police officer?
- Who is authorized to file a complaint for the violation of an order promulgated under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the failure to comply with the complaint requirements of Section 195 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 warrant the quashment of criminal proceedings?
- Shah Mohammad Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 340 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-14Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Ali Khan vs Mahboob Alam1993 MLD 219 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a rent dispute where the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on grounds of rent default, unauthorized subletting, and unauthorized structural alterations. The Rent Controller dismissed the ejectment application, finding no evidence to support the allegations. On appeal, the landlord abandoned the default claim but pressed the grounds of subletting and structural impairment. The High Court examined whether the tenant’s act of allowing a nephew to reside in the premises constituted subletting and whether adding a wooden screen to a balcony impaired the premises' value or utility. The Court held that subletting requires the tenant to part with exclusive possession and control of the property, which was not established here as the relative was a family member. Furthermore, the Court held that minor structural changes, such as adding a screen, do not constitute grounds for ejectment unless they materially impair the property's value or utility, a burden the landlord failed to meet. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, affirming that mere permissive occupation by family members does not constitute subletting.
Questions settled- Does the presence of a relative residing with a tenant in rented premises constitute unauthorized subletting?
- What is the legal test to determine whether a tenant has sublet the premises to a third party?
- Does the addition of a minor structural modification, such as a balcony screen, automatically constitute grounds for ejectment based on impairment of value or utility?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a tenant's structural modifications have materially impaired the value or utility of the rented premises?
- Shafi Muhammad alias Muhammad Shafi vs Government of Sindh1993 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-22Read full judgment →
- Shabihul Hassan Rizvi vs Director General_Commissioner Excise and Taxation, Sindh, and 2 others1993 CLC 765 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir and 2 others vs Mujeebur Rehman1993 CLC 173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir and 2 others vs Abdul Hamid1993 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir And 2 Other vs Mujeebur RehmanK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 196 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Ahmed vs Mst. Ghulam Sakina and 2 others1993 CLC 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-02Read full judgment →
- Schlumberger Seaco Inc., Islamabad vs Commissioner of Income Tax1993 PTD 85 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged orders by the Commissioner of Income Tax rejecting 57 applications for tax exemption regarding foreign technicians employed by the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the petitioner qualified as an "approved undertaking" under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, and the associated Central Board of Revenue circulars. The Court held that the petitioner, having been historically treated as an "approved undertaking" based on the 1977 Circular, was protected by clause (d) of the 1986 Circular from new restrictive conditions regarding actual drilling operations. Consequently, the Court declared the rejection orders without lawful authority. Furthermore, applying the principle that orders built upon a void foundation are themselves void, the Court ruled that the subsequent re-assessment orders for the assessment years 1982-83 to 1987-88 were also of no legal effect. The judgment establishes that administrative authorities cannot impose unstated mandatory requirements for tax exemptions and that "approved undertaking" status, once established, cannot be arbitrarily revoked by subsequent departmental clarifications if those clarifications contain savings clauses for existing entities.
Questions settled- Does the failure to produce a certificate from foreign revenue authorities justify the rejection of an application for tax exemption under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
- Does an entity previously treated as an 'approved undertaking' under the 1977 Circular lose that status due to the 1986 Circular's restrictive definitions?
- Are re-assessment orders based on an underlying order that is declared void also rendered void and of no legal effect?
- Can a Commissioner of Income Tax consider new grounds for rejection on remand if the previous remand order did not explicitly restrict the scope of the fresh hearing?
- Saz Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom 50 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Hussain and others vs The State1993 MLD 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Sartaj Restaurant vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 1911 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Sardar alias Sardaro vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 2289 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Samiuddin Rehmani alias Tinno vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1668 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), KarachiPTCL 1993 CL. 295 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Collector of Customs1993 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners, a textile mill, challenged the imposition of Regulatory Duty on imported Viscose Staple Fibre. They argued that a prior exemption granted by the Federal Government under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding customs duties should also cover the subsequently imposed Regulatory Duty. The core legal question was whether an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, applies to a Regulatory Duty imposed by a later notification under Section 18(2) of the same Act. The Court held that the petition was without merit. It reasoned that the power to grant exemptions under Section 19(1) of the Customs Act, 1969, applies only to customs duties 'chargeable' at the relevant time. Consequently, an exemption notification cannot prospectively cover duties levied by subsequent notifications. The Court established the principle that an exemption notification issued under the Customs Act, 1969, does not automatically extend to regulatory duties imposed by the government after the date of the exemption notification.
Questions settled- Does an exemption notification issued under Section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, apply to regulatory duties imposed by a subsequent notification?
- Can an exemption from customs duties granted by the Federal Government extend to duties not yet chargeable at the time of the notification?
- Is a regulatory duty imposed under Section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, subject to prior exemption notifications issued under Section 19 of the same Act?
- Saleem Ahmed and anothers vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
- Sakina Bai vs MRs, Amna Muhammad Iqbal and 2 others1993 CLC 1740 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- Sajawal Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 541 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
- Sain Bux vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2298 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
- Safdar Khan vs The State and 4 others1993 P Cr. L J 2413 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-18Read full judgment →
- Saeeduddin vs Iilrd Senior Civil Judge (East) at Karachi And AnotherK.L.R 1993 Civil Cases 33 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
- Saeeda Begum vs Shameem Ahmed1993 CLC 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Masih vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-30Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Education Society and anothers vs Pakistan and 4 others1993 CLC 2516 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-02Read full judgment →
- Sachal Muhammad vs Ahmed Sag I-HR Shahzada and another1993 MLD 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-01Read full judgment →
- Saadabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Managing Director, Sindh Cooperative Housing Authority and 3 others1993 MLD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-28Read full judgment →
- S.M. Yawar Ali- vs S. Abid Ali and another1993 MLD 2205 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- S.M. Tufail Ahmad vs Willayat Hussain and 2 others1993 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from a suit for damages for malicious prosecution and defamation filed by the applicant, a senior advocate, against three police officers following his arrest and subsequent acquittal in a criminal case. The applicant challenged the concurrent dismissal of his suit by the trial and appellate courts. The core legal question was whether police officers, acting in their official capacity to investigate a complaint, are liable for damages for malicious prosecution merely because the accused was acquitted under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the mere acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not automatically render investigating officers liable for malicious prosecution. The ratio established is that a plaintiff must prove that the defendants acted with malice or improper motive and that a cause of action accrued against them. Since the applicant failed to demonstrate any mala fides or specific wrongful acts by the police officers, who were merely performing their statutory duties, the Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts and dismissed the revision application.
Questions settled- Does the mere acquittal of an accused person under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render the investigating police officers liable for damages for malicious prosecution?
- Is a plaintiff in a suit for malicious prosecution required to prove mala fides or improper motive on the part of investigating officers to succeed in a claim for damages?
- Can a court exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 where the lower courts' concurrent findings are not shown to be perverse?
- S. Muhammad Athar and 3 others vs S.M. Mazhar Jaffery and 8 others1993 PLD Karachi 389 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- Rodney William Walsh vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 94 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
- Rodney William Walsh vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-21Read full judgment →
- Rizwanullah Lodhi vs Messrs United Bank Limited and another1993 CLC 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Limited vs Chairman, SindhK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 68 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Razia Sultana vs Water & Powr Development Authority1993 MLD 477 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
- Raza Muhammad and others vs Mst. Jammati and others1993 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux Bhugro vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 602 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-17Read full judgment →
- Rasool Ahmad vs Abdul Hafeez1993 PLD Karachi 488 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-28Read full judgment →
- Rashid Khan and 8 others vs M. Murtaza Khan and 12 others1993 CLC 1989 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-31Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmed Degree holder vs Messrs Taj Company1993 CLC 1099 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-13Read full judgment →
- Rahmat Khan vs Abdul Razzaque1993 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenged an order of the Rent Controller dismissing the appellant-landlord's ejectment application against the respondent-tenant for a commercial shop on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized construction, nuisance, and personal bona fide need. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed a wilful default in rent payment and whether the landlord established a bona fide personal need for the premises, alongside the interpretation of 'mutual agreement' under the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant failed to prove either a mutual agreement for advance rent or a wilful default, as the tenant had tendered rent and subsequently deposited it before the Rent Controller in accordance with the law, and further failed to establish a bona fide personal need. The court laid down that the expression 'mutual agreement' under section 15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, does not require a written agreement, and that allegations of default must be carefully scrutinized when coupled with other unproven eviction grounds.
Questions settled- Whether the expression 'mutual agreement' for the payment of rent under section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, requires a written agreement?
- Does an admission by a tenant of offering rent in advance for certain months suffice to prove a mutual agreement for advance rent?
- Whether a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal need is required to explain the availability of alternative premises and the specific details of such need?
- How should a Rent Controller scrutinize allegations of default in rent payment when brought alongside multiple unproven grounds for eviction?
- Rahat Mahmood vs Tariq Rashid and another1993 PLD Karachi 648 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses two applications in a civil suit: an application for an interim injunction by the plaintiff and an application for the rejection of the plaint by defendant No. 1. The core legal question involves whether a subsequent civil suit seeking specific performance and claiming ownership on a benami basis is barred by the final adjudication of a prior rent case and appeal ordering the tenant's eviction, and whether the principles of res judicata apply. The Sindh High Court held that although Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure does not strictly apply because the prior decision was rendered in rent proceedings rather than a suit, the general principles of res judicata do apply to decisions of tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction. The Court ruled that the plaintiff, claiming through a benamidar bound by the prior eviction proceedings, was precluded from relitigating title and that the plaint was barred by law. The key principle laid down is that a final decision on title in rent proceedings by a forum of exclusive jurisdiction operates as res judicata, barring a subsequent civil action, and plaints that constitute an abuse of the court process must be rejected at the outset.
Questions settled- Does a final decision on title in rent proceedings operate as res judicata in a subsequent civil suit?
- Can the doctrine of res judicata be invoked based on decisions of courts or tribunals of exclusive jurisdiction outside Section 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether a plaint can be rejected under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when it is barred by the general principles of res judicata and previous binding adjudications?
- Rafique Jabir vs Superintendent of Police and 2 others1993 CLC 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for damages filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, following the death of the plaintiff's son in a road traffic accident caused by a water tanker. The core legal question was the determination of the quantum of compensation payable to the beneficiaries (the parents) for the loss of their unmarried son, considering his potential future earnings and the expected duration of dependency. The court held that in the absence of controverting evidence from the ex parte defendants, the plaintiff's averments regarding the deceased's qualifications and potential career trajectory were accepted, though claims regarding current income from private tuitions were rejected. The court established that for an unmarried victim, it is reasonable to expect them to contribute half of their future earnings to their parents. Applying a multiplier approach, the court calculated the dependency period by deducting the years the deceased would have spent in further education and accounting for future family obligations. The suit was decreed for Rs. 4,68,000, representing the calculated loss of dependency.
Questions settled- What is the reasonable proportion of an unmarried victim's earnings that can be expected to be contributed to their parents in a fatal accident claim?
- How should the period of dependency be calculated when the deceased was a student expected to pursue higher education?
- Can a court accept uncontroverted averments in an ex parte suit regarding the potential future earnings of a deceased victim?
- Raeesuddin vs Dr. Aftab A. Khan and 5 others1993 MLD 1704 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-17Read full judgment →
- Raeesa Begum vs Syed Ali Zafar Naovi1993 MLD 404 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-26Read full judgment →
- Qureshi Industries vs Karachi Development Authority, Civic Centre, Karachi through its Director General1993 PLD Karachi 553 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arose from a dispute regarding the unilateral cancellation of an industrial plot allotment by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA). The applicant had been allotted a plot by the KDA's governing body and had paid the full occupancy value. Subsequently, the KDA cancelled the allotment without notice, citing internal re-planning. The trial court decreed in the applicant's favor, but the appellate court reversed this decision. Upon review, the High Court held that the KDA could not unilaterally cancel an allotment after the governing body had approved it and the allottee had paid the full occupancy value, as this created a vested right. The Court established that a formal allotment letter is a mere formality once the governing body approves the allotment. Furthermore, the KDA was precluded from introducing new pleas at the appellate stage that were not raised in the original pleadings. The Court concluded that the cancellation was illegal, void, and mala fide, and restored the trial court's decree.
Questions settled- Can the Karachi Development Authority cancel an allotment of an industrial plot after the governing body has approved it and the full occupancy value has been paid?
- Is the issuance of a formal allotment order a mandatory prerequisite for the creation of an interest in an allotted plot, or is it a mere formality?
- Can a party raise a new plea in an appeal that was not included in the original pleadings or issues framed by the trial court?
- Does an allottee of a plot acquire a vested right in the property upon payment of the full occupancy value?
- Quresh Ali vs The State and others1993 PLD Karachi 424 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-30Read full judgment →
- Qurban Ali Khan vs IV Civil & Family Judge (Central), Karachi and another1993 PLD Karachi 159 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenging orders passed by a Family Court in an execution application for the recovery of a dower amount, whereby attachment of the judgment-debtor's property was ordered. The core legal question was whether a Family Court is exclusively restricted to recovering money decrees as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, or whether it possesses wider powers including following the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Sindh High Court held that section 13(3) of the Act is an enabling provision vesting a discretionary power in the Family Court to direct recovery as arrears of land revenue through the phrase 'if the Court so directs', and this does not oust the general powers of the Family Court to execute decrees through other appropriate judicial methods. The petition was accordingly dismissed, affirming that Family Courts have broad powers in executing money decrees beyond solely relying on land revenue recovery.
Questions settled- Whether a Family Court is legally bound to execute a money decree exclusively as arrears of land revenue under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Does the phrase 'if the Court so directs' under section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 confer discretion upon the Family Court regarding the mode of execution?
- Are the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 completely barred in proceedings before a Family Court by virtue of section 17 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
- Can a Family Court adopt modes of execution other than land revenue recovery when enforcing a money decree?
- Quetta Town Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Karachi1993 CLC 787 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-06Read full judgment →
- Quaid Johar and 2 others vs Asghar Ali and 2 others1993 MLD 2173 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
- Qazi Manzoor Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 429 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- Qayyum Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 675 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-30Read full judgment →
- Qassim through Legal Heirss vs Aziz Baig1993 CLC 2385 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-15Read full judgment →
- Qasim through Legal Heirs vs Ivth Senior Civil Judge and Rent1993 MLD 1846 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
- S. Ziauddin Ahmad vs The State1993 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-13Read full judgment →
- Qamar-Ul-Islam vs The Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan1993 MLD 1362 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a student candidate against the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan, challenging its policy of declaring examination results through a code system instead of disclosing marks, and refusing answer script inspection or re-checking. The core legal questions concerned the maintainability of a constitutional petition against the respondent Institute under Article 199 of the Constitution, and whether the petitioner had a vested right to challenge the examination policy. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable as the Institute did not perform functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under the tests laid down by the Supreme Court, since its control and management vested in its own Council and its funds were managed independently rather than provided by the State. Furthermore, the court held on merits that the Examination Committee acted within its lawful powers under the applicable bye-laws in formulating the uniform examination policy. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Institute of Chartered Accountants of Pakistan is a person performing functions in connection with the affairs of the Federation or a Province under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
- Does a candidate have a vested right to compel the Institute of Chartered Accountants to disclose marks or follow a particular examination policy?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained against a private or autonomous body whose control and management does not vest in the Government and whose funds are not provided by the State?
- Qamar Bughio vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 482 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
- Qamar Bughio vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2135 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order addresses a bail application filed by Qamar Bughio, Resident Director of Ghee Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (G.C.P.), who was accused in an FIR under Section 409/34, Pakistan Penal Code, and Section 5(2) of Act II of 1947, for alleged misappropriation of 4,000 metric tons of edible oil worth Rs. 72 million. The core legal questions involved the applicant's culpability, whether the property was entrusted to him, the applicability of the principle of consistency given co-accused were granted bail, and medical grounds for bail. The court dismissed the bail application, finding sufficient evidence of the applicant's involvement, including his delay in reporting the pilferage and failure to take timely action. It was held that the applicant, as Resident Director, had dominion over the property, thus attracting Section 409 PPC. The court further clarified that the principle of consistency is not absolute and applies only when a person is entitled to bail on merits, which the applicant was not. Medical grounds were also rejected due to insufficient current evidence.
Questions settled- Can a person claim bail solely on the principle of consistency if co-accused have been granted bail?
- Is the principle of consistency an absolute and inflexible rule in bail matters?
- Can a public servant having dominion over property be guilty of criminal breach of trust under Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code, even without specific entrustment?
- What constitutes entrustment of property for the purpose of Section 409, Pakistan Penal Code?
- Under what circumstances can medical grounds be considered for granting bail?
- Qaimuddin vs Ghulam Shah1993 CLC 336 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Qadri Brothers Foundry & Workshop and 2 others vs Mst. Safia and another1993 MLD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
- Pyorrhoea Cure Trust through Managing Trustee and anothers vs Hakim1993 MLD 1244 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Province of Sindh through Deputy Commissioner, Dadu and 2 otherss vs Haji Khan1993 MLD 2349 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
- Prince Sheikh Abdul Qadir vs Nawab Sheikh Nasiruddin and 7 others1993 MLD 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
- Prince Sheikh Abdul Qadir vs Nawab Sheikh Nasiruddin and 7 others1993 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns an application for the restoration of an appeal that was dismissed by a Division Bench of the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether an appellate court has the jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on its merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel under Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, or if such a dismissal should be construed as one for default, thereby allowing restoration under Order XLI, Rule 19. The Court held that an appellate court lacks jurisdiction to dismiss an appeal on merits when the appellant or their counsel is absent. Such an order, even if purporting to be on merits, is legally deemed a dismissal for default under Order XLI, Rule 17(1), making an application for re-admission under Order XLI, Rule 19 competent. The change in language in Rule 17(1) from "shall be dismissed" to "may make an order that the appeal be dismissed" only provides discretion to adjourn or dismiss for default, not to decide on merits without hearing the appellant.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal on merits in the absence of the appellant or their counsel?
- What is the proper interpretation of Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure regarding the dismissal of an appeal for appellant's default?
- When an appeal is dismissed in the absence of the appellant, can it be re-admitted under Order XLI, Rule 19 of the Code of Civil Procedure?
- Does the change in language in Order XLI, Rule 17(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure from "shall be dismissed" to "may make an order that the appeal be dismissed" authorize a decision on merits in the appellant's absence?
- President of the Islamic Republic of PAKISTANReferring Authority vs Sardar Muqeem Khan Khosa1993 CLC 833 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
- Premier Insurance Co. of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan National1993 CLC 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-30Read full judgment →
- Pragma Leather Industries vs MRs, Sadia Sajjad1993 CLC 273 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-03Read full judgment →
- Port Qasim Authority vs Incharge East Division and 5 others1993 MLD 1306 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
- Picic vs M/s. Indus Steel Pipe Ltd.PTCL 1993 CL. 325 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
- Picic vs Messrs Indus Steel Pipe Ltd.1993 MLD 94 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a winding-up petition filed by the Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation against Indus Steel Pipe Limited due to the company's alleged inability to pay its debts. The core legal question was whether the company, having failed to comply with a statutory notice of demand, must be deemed unable to pay its debts under the Companies Ordinance, 1984, and whether the company’s assertions of solvency or disputed debt constituted a valid defense. The Court held that the company must be wound up, ruling that the statutory notice served under Section 306 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, created a legal fiction of insolvency upon non-compliance. Consequently, the Court affirmed that once such notice is ignored, the company is deemed unable to pay its debts, rendering inquiries into actual solvency unnecessary. Furthermore, the Court established that a winding-up petition cannot be defeated by frivolous or unsubstantiated disputes regarding the debt; a dispute must be bona fide and substantial. Finally, the Court clarified that creditors may appropriate payments toward interest or principal in the absence of specific instructions from the debtor.
Questions settled- Does a company's failure to comply with a statutory notice of demand create a legal fiction of insolvency under the Companies Ordinance 1984?
- Can a company resist a winding-up petition by claiming solvency when it has failed to comply with a statutory notice of demand?
- What constitutes a bona fide dispute sufficient to defeat a winding-up petition based on an undisputed debt?
- Is a creditor entitled to appropriate payments toward interest or principal in the absence of specific instructions from the debtor?
- Philomena Mathew and 4 others vs Miss Abida Riasat Rizvi1993 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-05Read full judgment →
- Pervaiz Masih vs Anwar Masih1993 MLD 1800 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18Read full judgment →
- Papu alias Akbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-31Read full judgment →
- Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Rawalpindi vs Messrs1993 CLC 1739 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan State Oil Company Limited vs Pakistan Oil Pipelines Limited and 6 others1993 PLD Karachi 322 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition for the winding up of Pakistan Oil Pipelines Limited was filed by Pakistan State Oil Company Limited under the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal question concerned whether the company should be wound up due to the oppression of minority shareholders and the failure of its substratum. The court held that the company must be wound up. It established that while a company may technically be a public company, it functions as a quasi-partnership when it lacks public participation and is managed by two competing groups with equal voting power. The court ruled that where the paramount object for which a company was incorporated has failed, its substratum is considered gone, justifying a winding-up order under the just and equitable clause, notwithstanding other ancillary objects listed in the Memorandum of Association. Additionally, the court affirmed that exclusion from management and a deadlock between equal shareholders, combined with a lack of probity, warrants judicial intervention to dissolve the entity to prevent further acrimony and litigation.
Questions settled- Can a public company be treated as a quasi-partnership for the purpose of winding up?
- Does the failure of a company's main object constitute a loss of substratum even if the Memorandum of Association lists other independent objects?
- Is a deadlock between equal shareholders and exclusion from management sufficient grounds for winding up a company under the just and equitable clause?
- Pakistan Paper Agency and another vs K.M.C.1993 MLD 1681 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Oxgen Ltd. vs Pakistan Through The Secretary To The GovernmentPTCL 1993 CL. 301 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Adamjee Insurance1993 MLD 1841 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-25Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Messrs Hazir (Pvt.)1993 PLD Karachi 190 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 was filed by Pakistan International Airlines Corporation against an ad-interim injunction granted by a Single Judge under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent, a catering contractor, challenged the corporation's award of a fast-food contract to another party without public tenders, alleging violations of the corporation's Procurement Manual. The core legal questions were whether internal procurement guidelines have statutory force and whether a temporary injunction should be granted against a public corporation's commercial decisions. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the injunction. The Court held that temporary injunctions are discretionary equitable remedies requiring the concurrent satisfaction of a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss. It ruled that courts must exercise extreme circumspection before granting interim orders against public authorities in commercial matters due to far-reaching administrative and financial consequences. Furthermore, internal administrative manuals generally lack statutory force and do not confer enforceable rights on third parties.
Questions settled- Whether internal administrative guidelines or procurement manuals of a statutory corporation have statutory force and confer enforceable rights on third parties?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted solely on the establishment of a prima facie case without satisfying the requirements of balance of convenience and irreparable loss?
- What factors must a court consider before granting an interim injunction that interferes with the commercial and administrative operations of a public authority?
- Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd., Karachi1993 PLD Karachi 90 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment Corporation Limited vs FazalK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 88 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Engineering Consultants vs Pakistan International Airlines1993 CLC 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal was preferred by a partnership firm against an order of a learned Single Judge vacating an interim injunction granted in a suit for declaration, permanent injunction, and damages arising out of a construction consultancy contract repudiated by the respondent (PIA). The dispute centered on whether the respondent was entitled to encash an unconditional bank guarantee securing a mobilization advance and a performance bond during the pendency of the suit. The High Court observed that courts generally show reluctance to restrain the encashment of unconditional bank guarantees and letters of credit, except in rare instances where refusal would perpetuate fraud or apparent injustice. Finding the bank guarantee was unconditional and secured an unadjusted advance, the Court permitted its encashment minus a pro-rata adjustment for withheld running bills. Conversely, the Court held that the performance bond stood on a different footing requiring a prima facie determination of default, which could not be established without recording evidence. The appeal was accordingly partly allowed.
Questions settled- Under what circumstances can a court grant an ad-interim injunction to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee?
- Whether the legal principles governing the restrain of an unconditional bank guarantee apply identically to the encashment of a performance bond?
- Can a performance bond be encashed pending a suit when the question of contractual default requires the recording of evidence?
- Pakistan Engineering Consultants vs Pakistan International Airlines1993 CLC 882 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for a perpetual injunction and a money decree filed by Pakistan Engineering Consultants against Pakistan International Airlines (PIA) and a bank, seeking to restrain the encashment of bank guarantees and performance bonds. The core legal question was whether the court should grant an interim injunction to prevent the encashment of these financial instruments amidst disputes regarding the underlying contract. The court held that bank guarantees and performance bonds are autonomous and independent contracts, imposing an absolute obligation on the issuing bank to pay upon demand, regardless of any disputes between the parties to the primary contract. Consequently, the court vacated the previously granted interim injunction. The key principle laid down is that courts should not interfere with the mechanism of bank guarantees or letters of credit, as they are the lifeblood of commerce. Judicial intervention is permissible only in exceptional circumstances, specifically where clear and established fraud is proven, and the bank has notice of such fraud. Absent such fraud, the bank's obligation to honor the guarantee remains absolute and enforceable.
Questions settled- Are bank guarantees and performance bonds independent of the underlying contract between the parties?
- Under what circumstances can a court restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee or performance bond?
- Does the court have the authority to treat an application filed under one provision of the Code of Civil Procedure as one under another if the substance of the application warrants it?
- Is an interim injunction granted until the disposal of a suit subject to the same procedural considerations as an order granted until further orders?
- Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority vs Abdur Rehman and another1993 MLD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Aluminium and Industrial (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan1993 CLC 2226 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-20Read full judgment →
- Pak1stan Seamen Contributory Welfare Fund, Karachi vs Income Tax1993 PTD 734 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- Pak-Libya Holding Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Rahimbakhsh Textile1993 MLD 649 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Pak Carpet Industries Limited vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1993 CLC.334 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- P.I.C.I.C. vs Fazal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1993 PLD Karachi 671 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two applications filed by Fazal Corporation Private Limited and Firdous Spinning & Weaving Mills (Private) Limited seeking to recall and stay a prior consent order dated December 11, 1991. Under the prior order, the Official Liquidator was directed to sell certain shares and encash bank guarantees deposited by the petitioner, M/s. P.I.C.I.C., in winding-up proceedings. The applicants contended that the pledged shares and bank guarantees were not assets of the company in liquidation and that the petitioner must enforce its rights through a separate suit rather than through winding-up proceedings. The Court held that by virtue of section 404 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, insolvency rules apply to the winding up of insolvent companies, and that the secured creditor had surrendered its security in accordance with the Second Schedule to the Insolvency (Capital of the Federation and Dacca) Act, 1909. Furthermore, the Court ruled that pledged shares coupled with blank transfer deeds and bank guarantees constitute assets of the company and that the execution of blank transfer deeds waives the requirement of notice under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872. Consequently, the Court dismissed the applications, upholding the validity of the consent order and the sale of securities within the winding-up proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether insolvency rules apply to the winding up of insolvent companies regarding the rights of secured creditors under section 404 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
- Do pledged shares coupled with blank transfer deeds and bank guarantees constitute assets of a company in liquidation?
- Does the execution of a blank transfer deed waive the pawnor's right to a notice of sale under section 176 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Can a consent order directing the Official Liquidator to sell shares and encash bank guarantees be recalled by a party that originally consented to it?
- Orient Straw Board & Paper Mills Limited vs Commissioner of Income-1993 PTD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference application concerns whether "straw-board" and "grey-board" manufactured by the assessee qualify for sales tax exemption under Item No. 62 of Notification No. 9 dated 27-6-1951, which exempts "Chip Board, Particle Board and Hard Board." The Appellate Tribunal had previously denied the exemption, reasoning that only the specifically named items were exempt, regardless of their technical composition. The High Court rejected this interpretation. It held that the "Explanation" appended to Item No. 62 provided a precise technical definition of "Chip Board" and "Particle Board" based on their chemical and physical properties. Since expert evidence established that the assessee's products met these technical criteria, they fell within the scope of the exemption. The Court established that while taxing statutes require strict construction, a technical definition provided within an "Explanation" must be given effect over common trade names. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal erred in ignoring the technical definition, and the assessee’s products were entitled to the exemption.
Questions settled- Does an 'Explanation' in a fiscal notification that provides a technical definition of a product expand the scope of a tax exemption beyond the items explicitly named in the main entry?
- Should a product be granted a tax exemption based on its technical composition as defined by statute, even if it is marketed under a different trade name?
- Can an appellate authority ignore a technical definition provided in an 'Explanation' to a notification when determining the eligibility of goods for tax exemption?