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.
- MRs, Aneesa Begum and anothers vs MRs, Aminuddin and 5 others1993 CLC 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
- Montres Rolex vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi and another1993 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Surat Jan vs Mir Azam Khan and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for compensation filed by the mother of a deceased victim who died in a fatal mini-bus accident caused by rash and negligent driving. The core legal questions involved the determination of the deceased's probable income for compensation calculation, the appropriate deduction for personal expenses, and the liability of the defendants. The Court held that in the absence of concrete evidence regarding the deceased's actual income, a reasonable estimate based on minimum wage trends should be applied, with a tiered calculation for different periods. The Court determined that 50% of the deceased's earnings should be deducted as personal expenses, with the remainder representing the benefit to the dependent mother. Furthermore, the Court applied a 20% enhancement to the total compensation to balance the deceased's future career prospects against the likelihood of marriage and family maintenance. The key principle laid down is that compensation in fatal accident cases involving unmarried victims should be calculated by estimating probable earnings, applying a 50% deduction for personal expenses, and adjusting for future life advancements and contingencies to ensure a just and equitable award.
Questions settled- What is the standard percentage of earnings to be deducted as personal expenses in fatal accident cases involving an unmarried victim?
- How should a court determine the probable income of a deceased victim when no satisfactory evidence of actual employment or earnings is provided?
- Are the liabilities of registered owners, actual owners, and drivers in a fatal motor vehicle accident joint and several?
- Should an enhancement for future life prospects be applied to compensation awards in fatal accident cases?
- Moinuddin vs Punno OK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 172 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Moinuddin vs Punno O and another1993 P Cr. L J 215 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
- Moinuddin Paracha and 6 others vs Sirajuddin Paracha and, 23 others1993 CLC 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Moinuddin Paracha and 6 others vs Sirajuddin Paracha and 23 others1993 CLC 1606 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-18Read full judgment →
- Moin Alam vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1913 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-11Read full judgment →
- Mohammed Naeem And Another vs (M/s) Karimi Bidi WorksK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 159 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Salim And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 389 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-04Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Abid vs Sub-Divisional MagistrateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 44 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
- Mohamed Rafi Ali vs Mst. Zubeda Khatoon1993 CLC 1595 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-22Read full judgment →
- Mod International (Pvt.) Limited vs National Detergents Limited1993 MLD 605 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-12Read full judgment →
- Mjs. Spiceco International vs Regional Commissioner of Income Tax, Southern Region, Karachi and another1993 PTD 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the selection of their income tax returns for detailed audit and scrutiny under paragraph 4(ii) of Circular No. 22 of 1991 issued under section 59 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, arguing that the action was taken without any definite information based on material evidence and violated principles of natural justice. The core legal questions involved whether tax authorities could select self-assessment returns for audit without satisfying the mandatory pre-condition of possessing definite information based on material evidence, and whether prior notice or disclosure of material to the assessee was required. The Sindh High Court held that while prior notice before initiating the inquiry is not mandatory, the tax authorities are strictly bound to exercise their discretionary powers fairly, honestly, and within the parameters of the circular. The Court ruled that selecting a case for audit without disclosing or substantiating the existence of definite information based on material evidence renders the action arbitrary, discriminatory, and legally unsustainable. The key principle laid down is that administrative discretion to audit self-assessment returns based on suspicion of gross under-statement of income must be supported by verifiable material evidence, and failure to disclose such material upon challenge renders the selection void.
Questions settled- Whether the Income Tax Department can select a return filed under the self-assessment scheme for detailed audit without possessing definite information based on material evidence?
- Is it mandatory for the Income Tax Officer to issue a prior notice or disclose the underlying material to an assessee before selecting their case for scrutiny under paragraph 4(ii) of Circular No. 22 of 1991?
- Whether the exercise of discretionary power by tax authorities to pick cases for audit is open to judicial review when the material forming the basis of such action is not disclosed?
- Does the use of the word 'suspected' in paragraph 4(ii) of Circular No. 22 of 1991 empower tax authorities to initiate scrutiny merely on the basis of suspicion or rumor without concrete evidence?
- Miss Zohra Masud vs Aftab Ahmed1993 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-28Read full judgment →
- Miss Zaffar Fatima Rizvi vs Syed Saleem Raza1993 CLC 270 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This rent appeal was filed before the Sindh High Court by an appellant landlady challenging the Rent Controller's dismissal of her ejectment application against the respondent tenant. The ejectment was sought on grounds of default in the payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement for her own residence following her retirement from service. The High Court examined whether the tenant's failure to tender or deposit rent between the institution of the rent case and the passing of an order under Section 16(1) constituted actionable default, and whether the landlady successfully established her bona fide personal need. The High Court held that non-payment of rent post-institution prior to a Section 16(1) order constitutes default under Section 15(2)(ii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 in the same proceedings without requiring a fresh cause of action. Furthermore, the landlady's unchallenged testimony regarding personal need was deemed accepted. Setting aside the Rent Controller's order, the High Court allowed the appeal and ordered the tenant's eviction.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to pay or deposit rent between the institution of an ejectment case and the passing of an order under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 constitute actionable default under Section 15(2)(ii)?
- Can a default in payment of rent occurring after the institution of an ejectment application be penalized in the pending proceedings without requiring a fresh cause of action?
- What is the legal effect of a party's failure to cross-examine a witness on material averments made in an affidavit-in-evidence regarding bona fide personal requirement?
- Can the Rent Controller interfere with the landlord's prerogative regarding the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation required for personal bona fide use?
- Miss Shah Begum vs Ashraf Ali Naz1993 PLD Karachi 151 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The applicant instituted two civil suits for dissolution of partnership concerns and rendition of accounts, valuing the suits at Rs. 10,000 each for court fees and jurisdiction. The plaints disclosed that the partnerships stood dissolved under an agreement where the respondent admitted liability of a specific sum exceeding the trial court's pecuniary jurisdiction. The trial court ordered the return of the plaints for presentation before the proper court, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The applicant challenged these orders through civil revision applications under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code, contending that the valuation in a suit for accounts is exclusively at the plaintiff's discretion and that preliminary issues ought to have been framed. The Sindh High Court held that where a plaint on its face discloses the true value of the subject-matter, a plaintiff cannot be permitted to assign an arbitrary or artificial valuation to circumvent pecuniary jurisdiction. The Court affirmed that a court is empowered to revise an improper valuation and return the plaint without recording evidence or framing preliminary issues when the lack of jurisdiction is apparent from the plaint itself. Consequently, the revision applications were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a plaintiff can assign an arbitrary valuation to a suit for accounts when the true value of the subject-matter is apparent on the face of the plaint?
- Does a civil court possess the jurisdiction to revise an arbitrary valuation of a suit for the purpose of determining pecuniary limits?
- Is it mandatory for a court to frame a preliminary issue regarding jurisdiction before returning a plaint under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the lack of pecuniary jurisdiction is evident from the plaint?
- What options are available to a plaintiff when a plaint is returned by a court for want of pecuniary jurisdiction?
- Miss Rukhsana Saleem vs Tanvir Alam and 18 others1993 P Cr. L J 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-30Read full judgment →
- Miss Qamar Ali vs Syed Nadir Ali and others1993 CLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for the appointment of a receiver and an injunction concerning a commercial property known as Bombay Hotel in Karachi, which was purchased benami by the deceased husband in the name of his wife. The core legal questions centered on whether the property was benami, and whether a receiver should be appointed to dispossess co-heirs currently managing the property. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of an independent source of income by the wife, a property purchased by a husband in his wife's name is presumed to be a benami transaction, with the ostensible owner holding it as a trustee for the real owner. However, the court declined to appoint a receiver or dispossess the defendants in the absence of proof of waste or damage, ruling instead that the interests of justice and other heirs are best protected by directing the defendants in possession to file regular quarterly accounts and deposit a proportionate share of the income in court. The key principle laid down is that while a receiver will not be appointed to dispossess a co-owner without proof of waste, alternative equitable measures such as periodic accounting and depositing shares can be ordered to protect co-heirs.
Questions settled- Whether a property purchased by a husband in the name of his wife without an independent source of income is considered a benami transaction?
- Can a co-owner in possession of a disputed property be dispossessed through the appointment of a receiver without proof of waste or damage?
- What alternative equitable orders can a court pass instead of appointing a receiver when co-heirs allege misappropriation of rental income?
- Miss Faryal Wali and others vs District Magistrate and others1993 CLC 60 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns two Constitutional Petitions challenging the cancellation of Permanent Resident Certificates (P.R.C.) by the District Magistrate, Shikarpur, following allegations of misrepresentation. The petitioners had obtained P.R.Cs based on School Leaving Certificates which were later found to be fraudulent, as the issuing Head Master denied signing them and the school register contained different names at the relevant serial numbers. The core legal question was whether the District Magistrate possessed the authority to review and cancel a previously issued P.R.C. and whether the proceedings violated natural justice. The Court held that while the Sindh Permanent Resident Certificates Rules, 1971, may not explicitly grant a power of review, the principle that fraud vitiates all proceedings overrides such technical limitations. The Court found the cancellation justified because the certificates were obtained through clear misrepresentation and fraud. The key principle laid down is that any document or certificate obtained through fraud is void ab initio, and the doctrine of fraud vitiating proceedings allows authorities to cancel such documents even in the absence of an express statutory power of review.
Questions settled- Does the principle that fraud vitiates proceedings allow a District Magistrate to cancel a Permanent Resident Certificate even if the relevant rules do not explicitly grant a power of review?
- Can a petitioner who obtained a certificate through misrepresentation seek relief from the High Court under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is a decision to cancel a certificate valid if the authority provided the affected party with notice and an opportunity to be heard, even if the party failed to avail of that opportunity?
- Miss Abida Reasat Rizvi vs Fazal Ellahi1993 CLC 1701 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- Miskeen Khan and 2 others vs Muhammad Naseer Baloch and 9 others1993 MLD 455 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-11Read full judgment →
- Mirza Muhammad Sabir Baig vs Muhammad Saeed1993 MLD 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-25Read full judgment →
- Mirza Athar Baig and 21 others vs Province of Sindh through Secretary, Ministry of Education, Karachi and 3 others1993 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-10Read full judgment →
- Mir Shaukat Faizi vs Mst. N1ghat Bashir1993 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Khan and another vs Officer-on-Special Duty, Federal1993 MLD 1356 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 88 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
- Mir Jawed Ali Talpur vs Mrs. Z. Shirazee1993 MLD 2186 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-14Read full judgment →
- Michael Masih And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 67 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
- Michael Maseeh and another vs The State1993 MLD 529 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-13Read full judgment →
- Mian S.M. Yousuf Baghpatee vs Karachi Building Control Authority1993 CLC 2491 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a property owner challenging notices issued by the Karachi Building Control Authority (KBCA) and the Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) directing him to carry out repairs on the top floor of his building, failing which the tenants would be authorized to do so. The petitioner contended that the building was not in a dangerous condition, that the statutory requirements for issuing such notices were not met, and that the authorities were acting to settle a civil dispute between the landlord and tenants. The High Court of Sindh examined Section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance 1979 and Section 114 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979. The Court held that the authority's power to order repairs or demolition under Section 14 is contingent upon a proper inquiry and a factual finding that the building is likely to collapse or is dangerous to human life. The Court ruled that the authorities cannot exercise these powers arbitrarily, nor can they usurp the jurisdiction of the Rent Controller to resolve private landlord-tenant disputes. Consequently, the impugned notices were declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether the Karachi Building Control Authority can issue repair notices under Section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance 1979 without conducting a proper inquiry to establish that the building is likely to collapse?
- Can a building control authority exercise its statutory powers regarding dangerous buildings to resolve or arbitrate private civil disputes between a landlord and tenants?
- Does a repair notice signed by an official without personal inspection or application of mind satisfy the statutory requirement of an 'enquiry' under Section 14 of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance 1979?
- Mian S.M. Yousuf Baghpatee vs Fatima Bai1993 MLD 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mian Manzoor Ali vs AsadullahK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 52 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs. A.C.E. Electric Co. vs The Government of Pakistan And AnotherK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 74 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs United Bank Limited vs Messrs International Commercial1993 MLD 607 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shahkar Aarts vs Chief Eng. Pak. PWD. and another1993 CLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shafio Hanif (Pvt.) Ltd., Karachi vs Bank of Credit and Commerce International, (Overseas) Limited, Karachi1993 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses multiple suits involving questions of law and fact regarding the jurisdiction of Banking Tribunals under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, vis-a-vis civil courts. The core legal questions revolve around the extent to which the jurisdiction of the High Court is ousted by the 1984 Ordinance, the maintainability of set-offs and counter-claims, the handling of successive or counter-suits across different fora, and the proper procedure for suits instituted in civil courts when the Banking Tribunal was initially non-functional. The court held that the jurisdiction of Banking Tribunals is exclusive regarding claims filed by banking companies against customers in respect of finance, but civil courts retain stopgap jurisdiction when the tribunal is non-functional, and suits properly instituted must be transferred once the tribunal becomes functional. The key principles laid down include the nature of ouster of civil court jurisdiction under special banking laws, the conditional validity of proceedings during a tribunal's non-functionality, and the application of principles regarding successive suits and transfer of matters.
Questions settled- To what extent does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 take away the original civil jurisdiction of the High Court?
- Whether a set-off or counter-claim can be entertained in a suit where an independent suit incorporating it may not have been maintainable?
- How should successive or counter-suits filed in different fora covering the same subject-matter be managed to avoid conflicting decisions?
- In what manner should a suit be dealt with if it was validly instituted in a civil court when a Banking Tribunal was non-functional, but subsequently becomes exclusively triable by the Tribunal?
- Messrs Searle Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through Additional Secretary, Ministry of Finance and another1993 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the assessment of imported consignments of Aspartame 18% to customs duty and sales tax under PCT heading 2106.9090 instead of PCT heading 2924.2900, as well as the levy of a redemption fine. The core legal questions involved the correct tariff classification of the imported chemical mixture under the Pakistan Customs Tariff and the legality of altering a past assessment practice. The Sindh High Court held that since the imported product contained deliberate additions of lactose (76%) making it suitable for use as a sweetening preparation, it stood excluded from Chapter 29 and was correctly classified under heading 2106.9090. The Court further held that administrative circulars such as Customs General Orders cannot override statutory assessment powers, but set aside the redemption fine as there was no concealment or restriction violation, only a bona fide classification dispute. The petitions were accordingly dismissed with the modification regarding the refund of the fine.
Questions settled- Whether an imported chemical compound mixed with other substances to render it suitable as a sweetening agent falls under Chapter 29 or Chapter 21 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
- Can administrative instructions like Customs General Orders override statutory assessment powers under the Customs Act?
- Is a redemption fine justified in a bona fide tariff classification dispute where there is no violation of import restrictions or evasion of leviable duty?
- Messrs Saudagar Ice FACTORYs vs Zulfiqar and others1993 CLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sampak Paper and Board Mills Limited vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Razak Mill Stores vs Messrs Mian Chambers, Sharah-E-Liaquat, Karachi through Mian Saifullah1993 MLD 1557 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This First Rent Appeal challenged an order by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance for failure to deposit rent within the prescribed time. The appellant contended that the Controller should have first resolved preliminary jurisdictional issues regarding the landlord's authority and the maintainability of the eviction application. The appellant further argued that the eviction suit was premature as no default existed at the time of filing and that the mandatory notice under Section 18 of the Ordinance regarding change of ownership was not served. The High Court held that while jurisdictional issues must be addressed before substantive orders, the appellant had effectively abandoned this plea through its conduct. The Court further clarified that a rent case is maintainable even if no rent is currently outstanding, provided it is based on a prior default that has not been waived. Consequently, the Court found the tentative rent deposit order lawful and upheld the subsequent striking off of the defence for non-compliance, dismissing the appeal while granting the tenant time to vacate.
Questions settled- Must a Rent Controller determine a preliminary jurisdictional issue before passing a tentative order for rent deposit?
- Can a landlord file an eviction application based on a prior default even if no rent is currently outstanding?
- Does the receipt of arrears of rent in a lump sum constitute a waiver of default?
- Is an order striking off a tenant's defence under Section 16(2) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance sustainable if the underlying order for rent deposit was lawful?
- Messrs R.B. Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Habib Bank Limited1993 CLC 610 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan State Oil Limited vs Messrs Pakistan Burmah Shell1993 CLC 57 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
- Mirza Imam Baig vs Syed Nasir Mian1993 CLC 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Educational Society vs The Government of Pakistan1993 PTD 804 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged the selection of their income tax returns for detailed scrutiny under Circular No. 22 of 1991, issued under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities could select returns for audit without disclosing the 'definite information based on material evidence' required by the Circular, and whether this process violated natural justice. The Court held that while the Income-tax Officer is not required to issue a notice or provide a hearing prior to initiating scrutiny, the exercise of discretionary power must not be arbitrary or capricious. The Court determined that the Department’s mere assertion of possessing 'definite information' without substantiating it with material evidence renders the selection process discriminatory and invalid. Consequently, the Court quashed the impugned notices, ruling that administrative actions must be supported by evidence to withstand judicial scrutiny. The key principle established is that when administrative discretion is challenged, the burden rests on the authority to demonstrate that the action was taken fairly, in good faith, and strictly within the parameters of the governing statute and circulars.
Questions settled- Is the Income-tax Officer required to provide a pre-notice hearing to an assessee before selecting a return for detailed scrutiny under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
- Can the tax authorities select a case for detailed scrutiny based solely on an unsubstantiated assertion of 'definite information' without disclosing the underlying material evidence?
- Does the failure of tax authorities to demonstrate that administrative action was based on relevant material evidence render such action arbitrary and liable to be quashed?
- Is the power of the Central Board of Revenue to select cases for detailed scrutiny subject to judicial review regarding the parameters of its exercise?
- Messrs Najib Zarab Limited vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1993 PLD Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioners challenged letters and orders issued by the Central Board of Revenue and Customs authorities discontinuing transit facilities for tyres destined for Afghanistan under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965. The core legal question was whether the authorities could invoke domestic customs restrictions to deny transit facilities to goods intended for a landlocked country under the guise of preventing smuggling, and how international law interacts with municipal legislation. The Sindh High Court held that goods in transit across Pakistan to a foreign territory under Section 129 of the Customs Act, 1969 and the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement, 1965 do not constitute 'imports' into Pakistan, and authorities cannot unlawfully curtail transit rights through executive instructions or letters to combat smuggling when specific remedies exist. The petition was allowed, and the impugned letters were quashed with directions to clear the transit goods.
Questions settled- Whether rules of international law override municipal law in case of a conflict?
- Do goods in transit across Pakistan to a foreign territory constitute imports under the Customs Act?
- Can transit facilities granted under the Afghan Transit Trade Agreement be unilaterally curtailed by executive instructions?
- What are the legal remedies available to authorities when transit goods are surreptitiously diverted into the domestic market?
- Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Nisar Rice Mills, Lahore1993 CLC 1627 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved a banking recovery suit filed at the main seat of the Sindh High Court at Karachi for a loan amount exceeding ten million rupees, where the cause of action, the defendant's business, and the mortgaged property were all located within the territorial jurisdiction of the Sukkur Bench. The core legal question concerned whether suits under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 could be instituted at provincial High Court benches rather than exclusively at the main seat, and how cases erroneously filed at the wrong bench or seat should be handled procedurally. The court held that each High Court and its respective benches constitute a Special Court under the Ordinance with co-extensive jurisdiction, and that suits can be instituted at appropriate benches based on territorial nexus. Concluding that the suit lacked a jurisdictional connection to Karachi, the court held that since the High Court as a whole possessed jurisdiction, the plaint could not be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure; instead, the matter was referred to the Chief Justice under Rule 5 of the High Court of Sindh Benches Rules, 1987 for transfer to the Sukkur Bench.
Questions settled- Whether suits under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 can be instituted at the provincial High Court benches as well as the main seat?
- Does the conferment of Special Court jurisdiction upon a High Court create a new jurisdiction or rely on pre-existing Original Civil Jurisdiction?
- Can a plaint be returned under Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure when a suit is filed at the wrong bench of the same High Court that otherwise has jurisdiction?
- What jurisdictional facts are necessary to attract the Original Civil Jurisdiction of the High Court in banking recovery matters?
- Messrs Mother Care Nursing & Maternity Home vs Mrs. Syeda Raisa1993 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Merkuria Sucden vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1993 CLC 714 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for a mandatory injunction, or alternatively a temporary injunction, to compel the defendant to deliver a specific quantity of rice or restrain its alienation. The core legal question is whether the plaintiff, a bona fide purchaser for value who relied on warehouse receipts and representations issued by the defendant, is entitled to delivery despite the defendant's claim that the property in the goods had not passed to the original buyer due to contract cancellation. The court held that the defendant is estopped from denying the plaintiff's right to delivery, as the defendant's conduct and representations induced the plaintiff to act to its detriment. However, the court declined to grant a mandatory injunction for immediate delivery, as such relief is generally limited to restoring the status quo ante rather than creating a new state of affairs. Consequently, the court granted a temporary injunction restraining the defendant from alienating the rice pending the suit's disposal. The key principle established is that a seller is estopped from asserting lack of property transfer against a third party when the seller's own representations have induced that party's reliance.
Questions settled- Can a seller be estopped from denying a third-party purchaser's right to delivery of goods based on representations made in warehouse receipts, even if the property in the goods has not technically passed to the original buyer?
- Is a mandatory injunction available at an interlocutory stage to create a new state of things, or is it limited to restoring the status quo ante?
- Under what circumstances can a court grant a mandatory injunction under Order 39, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Messrs Mehran Medical Complex (Pvt.) Ltd. and 2 others vs Abdul Hafeez1993 MLD 1843 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Mazari & Co. through Proprietor vs Province of Sindh through Additional Chief Secretary and another1993 CLC 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition challenges the unilateral cancellation of a contract for octroi and parking rights by the provincial government. The petitioner, having been awarded the contract and having commenced performance, was abruptly informed of its cancellation without prior notice. The core legal question is whether the government possesses the authority to cancel a valid, concluded contract with a private party without adhering to the principles of natural justice, specifically the requirement of a show-cause notice. The Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The ratio establishes that the principle of 'audi alteram partem' must be read into every statute unless expressly excluded. Once a valid contract is executed, it creates vested rights that cannot be extinguished unilaterally by the government without observing due process and providing an opportunity for a hearing. Consequently, the Court quashed the cancellation order, while noting that the respondents remain free to initiate lawful proceedings if they believe irregularities exist, provided they follow proper legal formalities.
Questions settled- Can the government unilaterally cancel a valid contract with a private party without serving a show-cause notice?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem applicable to the cancellation of a government contract where the statute does not expressly exclude it?
- Does the power of general supervision and control under Section 53 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 authorize the government to cancel a contract without an opportunity of hearing?
- Messrs Latif Trading Company vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 others1993 CLC 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1993-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, was filed by shipping agents challenging the seizure and detention of a launch by custom authorities without fulfilling statutory prerequisites. The core legal question was whether the detention and seizure of a conveyance without issuing a mandatory show-cause notice within the statutory period under the Customs Act, 1969, is legally sustainable. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of sections 157, 168, and 180 of the Customs Act, 1969, are mandatory in nature and must be strictly followed. Since no show-cause notice containing the grounds for confiscation was served within two months of seizure as required by section 168(2) read with section 180, the seizure was declared to be of no legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that failure to issue a statutory show-cause notice within the stipulated timeframe invalidates the seizure of goods or conveyances, necessitating their release to the person from whom they were seized.
Questions settled- Whether the seizure of a conveyance under the Customs Act, 1969 becomes illegal if no show-cause notice is issued within two months?
- Are the provisions regarding the issuance of a show-cause notice under section 180 of the Customs Act, 1969 mandatory in nature?
- What is the legal consequence under section 168(2) of the Customs Act, 1969 when authorities fail to issue a show-cause notice within the prescribed period following a seizure?
- Messrs Karachi Tank Terminals (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Collector of Customs1993 MLD 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-16Read full judgment →
- Messrs Incom Services vs Messrs Sui Gas Transmission1993 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed under sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, against an arbitral award. The dispute arose from a contract for the transportation of line pipes, where the plaintiff claimed damages for trailer detention and loss of trailers during civil riots. The defendant contended that the arbitration reference was strictly limited to the detention charges and that the arbitrator exceeded his jurisdiction by adjudicating the claim for lost trailers. The Court examined the scope of the reference, noting that the correspondence between the parties and the appointment letter explicitly confined the dispute to detention charges. The Court held that an arbitrator’s jurisdiction is strictly limited by the terms of the reference; adjudicating matters outside this scope constitutes misconduct. Consequently, the award regarding the lost trailers was set aside for lack of jurisdiction. However, the Court upheld the award concerning detention charges, finding it based on documentary evidence and within the arbitrator's domain, emphasizing that the Court cannot act as an appellate body to re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact.
Questions settled- Can an arbitrator adjudicate claims that were not specifically included in the terms of reference?
- Does an arbitrator's decision to consider matters outside the scope of reference constitute misconduct under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Is a court empowered to re-examine evidence or act as an appellate body when reviewing an arbitral award under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Does the failure to record oral evidence in arbitration proceedings automatically invalidate an award?
- Messrs Hafiz Textile Mills Limited vs Commissioner for WorkmensK.L.K. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 266 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Hafiz Textile Mills Limited vs Commissioner for Workmen's1993 PLD Karachi 709 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation and Authority under the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, which directed the employer to pay wages for the period employees were prevented from resuming duties, along with ten times compensation on each allowed amount. A preliminary objection was raised regarding the maintainability of the writ petition due to the availability of an alternate remedy by way of appeal under Section 17 of the Act. The High Court overruled the preliminary objection, holding that the availability of an alternate remedy does not bar the exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where an order is passed without jurisdiction or contains an error apparent on the face of the record resulting in manifest injustice. On merits, the High Court held that the claim for wages for the period during which workers were not allowed to resume duty fell under the category of 'delayed wages' rather than 'deduction from wages' under Section 15 of the Act. Consequently, compensation under Section 15(3) was statutorily capped at Rs. 10 per worker, making the award of ten times compensation illegal and without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Does the availability of an alternate statutory appeal bar the High Court from exercising Constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the impugned order contains an error apparent on the face of the record?
- What is the statutory limit on compensation that can be awarded under Section 15(3) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 in cases involving delayed wages as opposed to deducted wages?
- Do wages for a period during which employees were improperly restrained from resuming duties fall under the category of 'delayed wages' or 'deduction from wages' under the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Messrs Everest Corporation vs Messrs Dacca Mercantile Company, Karachi and 4 others1993 MLD 1303 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Eastern Poutry Services vs Government of Pakistan and others1993 PTD 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Eastern Automobiles (Private) Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan1993 PLD Karachi 9 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This rent appeal before the Sindh High Court challenged the order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of a 21,000-square-foot godown premises under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal issues concerned whether all four factors enumerated under Section 8(1) must co-exist to determine fair rent, whether evidence concerning newly constructed office premises could be used as a comparator for godown premises under Section 8(1)(a), and whether the Rent Controller could rely on newly produced compromise documents submitted at the time of announcing judgment without prior notice to the opposing party. The High Court held that all four ingredients under Section 8(1) need not co-exist and that existence of any single factor may suffice. However, the Court found that the landlord failed to prove similarity of circumstances, as office premises are not comparable to a godown, and relying on compromise documents without giving notice violated principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for fresh disposal.
Questions settled- Must all four factors listed in Section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 co-exist for the Rent Controller to determine fair rent?
- Can newly constructed office premises with modern amenities be treated as 'similar premises' situated in 'similar circumstances' for fixing the fair rent of a godown under Section 8(1)(a) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Can a Rent Controller rely on compromise documents produced at the time of judgment announcement without providing notice and an opportunity of hearing to the opposing party?
- Is mere oral testimony of a landlord's witness sufficient to prove the prevailing rent of comparable premises in the absence of tenancy agreements, rent receipts, or examination of the relevant tenant?
- Messrs D.M. Brothers vs Collector of Customs and another1993 MLD 632 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Chas A. Mendoza vs Syed Tausif Ahmed Zaidi and 2 others1993 PLD Karachi 790 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction, mandatory injunction, accounts, and damages, alongside an application for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from manufacturing, selling, and advertising dental cream under the infringing trade mark "Medicare" and using a confusingly similar get-up and wrapper. The plaintiffs claimed exclusive proprietary rights based on their registered trade mark "Medicam" used since 1989. The defendants contested the application, asserting they had used the trade mark "Medicare" since 1979 and that the marks were visually and phonetically distinct. The Sindh High Court held that the competing trade marks and their packaging shared striking visual and structural similarities, particularly in their identical first syllables and color schemes, likely to cause deception and confusion among unwary purchasers. Establishing a prima facie case, balance of convenience, and potential irreparable loss in favor of the plaintiffs, the court allowed the application and granted the temporary injunction.
Questions settled- Whether the use of a competing trade mark with similar initial syllables and get-up constitutes infringement of a registered trade mark?
- Does a plaintiff establish a prima facie case for a temporary injunction in a trade mark infringement suit by showing striking similarities in packaging and colour scheme?
- Whether the likelihood of confusion for unwary purchasers is a decisive factor in granting interim injunctive relief in trade mark matters?
- Messrs Bata Pakistan Limited vs Begum Ashraf Burney1993 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Atif Ltd. vs The Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. and another1993 MLD 587 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abdul Razzak & Company vs Assistant Collector of Customs1993 PLD Karachi 227 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking a declaration and the recovery of Rs. 2,00,000 deposited as a 25% earnest money bid for 600 bags of betel-nuts at a customs auction. The plaintiff contended that the auction was conducted on the basis of a sample shown beforehand, which was fit for human consumption, but the actual goods delivered were rotten and unfit. The defendants argued that the auction was on an "as is where is" basis, that betel-nuts have industrial uses, and that the deposit was forfeited due to non-payment of the balance. The High Court of Sindh found that the defendants failed to prove any industrial use or that the auction was strictly on an "as is where is" basis. Although the court held that betel-nuts do not fall under the definition of "food" under the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance 1960, it ruled that selling goods unfit for human consumption by a government department is opposed to public policy. Consequently, the agreement was declared void under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, and the plaintiff was held entitled to a refund under Section 65 of the Contract Act 1872.
Questions settled- Does the sale of goods unfit for human consumption by a government department violate public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act 1872?
- Is a bidder entitled to a refund of their earnest money deposit under Section 65 of the Contract Act 1872 if the underlying auction agreement is void as being opposed to public policy?
- Does the term 'food' as defined in the West Pakistan Pure Food Ordinance 1960 include betel-nuts?
- Messrs Abdul Ghaffar Kasam - vs Messrs Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd.1993 MLD 1324 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
- Mehmood vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 402 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Ahmed Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2093 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-20Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1330 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Ahmad Siddiqui vs Area Councillor, K.M.C., Karachi East and 6 others1993 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-06Read full judgment →
- Mazharul Islam vs Mst. Mafia1993 MLD 1829 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-21Read full judgment →
- Master Bilawal Ali Zardari vs K.Da. And others1992 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-25Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Ahmad vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1394 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-04Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmed and 3 others vs The State and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 672 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad And Other vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 106 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-01Read full judgment →
- Manthar and anothers vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 417 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ferozuddin Baweja and 8 others vs Provincial Government1993 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
- Messrs Asma Builders vs Government of Sindh and 9 others1993 CLC 326 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the cancellation of a sanctioned building plan by the Karachi Building Control Authority due to alleged deviations, including the use of under-size reinforcement bars and violation of open space requirements. The core legal question was whether the Building Control Authority or its officers possessed the legal power to cancel an approved building plan on account of such deviations under the relevant statutory framework. The Sindh High Court held that the action of cancelling the approved building plan was unwarranted by law, as neither section 7-A of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 nor the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 1979 vest the authority with the power to cancel an approved plan for structural deviations. The Court laid down the principle that while unauthorized deviations from a sanctioned building plan entail specific statutory consequences such as demolition or the charging of scrutiny fees, the authority cannot cancel the initial approval granted to the building plan unless expressly empowered by law.
Questions settled- Does the Karachi Building Control Authority have the power to cancel an approved building plan due to deviations or unauthorized construction?
- What actions are legally permissible against a builder who deviates from a sanctioned building plan under the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Do the words 'without prejudice to any other action' in section 7-A of the Sindh Buildings Control Ordinance, 1979 confer an implied power of plan cancellation?
- Messrs Asad Brothers vs Ibadat Yar Khan1993 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition arises from concurrent judgments and decrees of the lower courts which decreed a suit filed by the respondent-landlord against the applicant-tenants for damages, compensation for wrongful use and occupation, water charges, and a permanent injunction. The plaintiff alleged that the tenants had committed a breach of the lease agreement, trespassed into common areas, converted a common toilet into a pantry, and created a nuisance that caused other tenants to vacate. The trial court and the first appellate court found in favor of the plaintiff on all issues. Before the High Court, the applicant's counsel challenged only the quantum of damages as excessive relative to the monthly rent. The High Court held that concurrent findings of fact based on evidence are not open to interference in revision unless vitiated by non-reading or misreading of evidence, and noted that the Supreme Court had already affirmed the finding of nuisance in related eviction proceedings. The Court ruled that damages for unauthorized use, nuisance, and discomfort can be exemplary and differ from contractual loss of bargain. The revision was dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts can be interfered with under section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Is the measure of damages for nuisance and unauthorized use of premises distinct from damages recoverable for breach of contract?
- Whether exemplary damages can be awarded against a tenant for causing nuisance and unauthorized occupation of common areas?
- Malik Qasim Ali vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-25Read full judgment →
- Major Shujat Yar Khan vs Rana Abdul Waheed and another1993 MLD 1784 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-25Read full judgment →
- Major League Baseball Properties, Inc., New York vs The Assistant1993 MLD 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-04Read full judgment →
- Major (Retd.) Mumtaz Ahmed vs Blase D'Sa and another1993 MLD 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
- Madina Masjid Committee and 3 others vs Anjuman1993 CLC 2227 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges concurrent judgments and decrees passed by the lower courts which decreed a suit for declaration, injunction, and possession filed by an unregistered association, Anjuman Ghulaman-e-Mustafa, through its President. The core legal question was whether an unregistered society or association can institute a suit in its own name or through an office-bearer without complying with procedural requirements for representative suits. The Sindh High Court held that an unregistered society lacks legal personality and cannot sue in the name of its office-bearer under the Societies Registration Act 1860, which applies exclusively to registered societies. The Court laid down the principle that a suit by or on behalf of an unregistered association or a large group of persons with a common interest must either implead all members individually or strictly follow the procedure for representative actions under Order I, Rule 8 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revision petition, set aside the judgments of the courts below, and dismissed the improperly framed suit.
Questions settled- Can an unregistered society or association file a suit in the name of its President or office-bearer under the Societies Registration Act 1860?
- What is the correct procedure under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for an unregistered association to institute a suit for the enforcement of its rights?
- Does a cause of action belonging to an unregistered association vest in all its members individually?
- Ma. Hasnain vs Sheikh Azhar Mahmood1993 MLD 2208 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-16Read full judgment →
- M.A. Qayyum vs MRs, Roshan Sultana and other1993 CLC 1723 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-27Read full judgment →
- M s. Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan vs Mohammad Yousaf1993 MLD 469 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- Loung vs Yar Ali and another1993 P Cr. L J 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-08Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs Riaz Ahmed1993 MLD 1856 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
- Larkana Sugar Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. and another vs United Bank Limited1993 MLD 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- L. Hussain vs Mohammad Nawab And 4 OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-30Read full judgment →
- Kraft General Foods Inc. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1993 MLD 236 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-08Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Akbar Waheed vs Karachi Development Authority1993 MLD 87 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-26Read full judgment →
- Khanan vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad and 40 others vs Muhammad Buta and 38 others1993 PLD Karachi 185 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-17Read full judgment →
- Khalilurrahman vs Mst. Nargis Begum1993 CLC 2461 · Sindh High Court · 1993-07-10Read full judgment →
- Khalilur Rehman vs MRs, Rashida1993 CLC 2237 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant-landlord sought the eviction of the respondent-tenant from a flat, initially alleging default in rent and later asserting a personal requirement for his grown-up children. Following a remand order directing the amendment of pleadings to specify the requirement, the appellant failed to amend his application but introduced new grounds in subsequent affidavits, including a claim that he required the premises to live separately from his wife. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding the landlord's claim lacked bona fides. On appeal, the High Court upheld the dismissal. The Court held that a landlord cannot prove a case different from that pleaded, and the failure to amend pleadings after a remand order is fatal. Furthermore, the Court determined that the landlord’s shifting stance regarding which family member required the premises, coupled with his simultaneous sale and re-letting of other vacant flats in the same building, demonstrated a lack of good faith. The principle established is that a landlord’s claim for personal requirement must be consistent, pleaded with sufficient particulars, and substantiated by evidence of genuine need, rather than being a pretext for eviction.
Questions settled- Can a landlord succeed in an eviction application if they fail to amend their pleadings following a court-ordered remand?
- Does the sale or re-letting of other vacant properties by a landlord during the pendency of an eviction suit negate the claim of bona fide personal requirement?
- Is a landlord permitted to shift the grounds of personal requirement from one family member to another during the course of litigation?
- Does the failure to disclose specific details of family members in an eviction application preclude a landlord from establishing a bona fide need?
- Khalilur Rehman vs Mohammad ShafiK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 903 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- Khalilur Rehma.N vs Muhammad Shafi1993 MLD 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
- Khalid Textile Mills Ltd vs Government of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 199 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid Nasim and others vs Asma Yousaf and anothers1993 CLC 127 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →