Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Ali Nawaz vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Marjan and 2 others vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 others1993 P Cr. L J 1922 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-19Read full judgment →
• Al-Athar Limited and 4 others vs Sajjad Hussain1993 MLD 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-18
  recovery suitpleadingsAmanatadvance paymentbreach of contractcivil appealscope of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from a suit for the recovery of Rs. 150,000, which the respondent claimed was deposited as "Amanat" (trust) with the deceased defendant during negotiations for the purchase of company shares. The defendants contended the sum was an advance payment for the sale. The trial court found the amount was indeed an advance payment, not "Amanat," yet still decreed the suit in favor of the respondent, holding the defendants liable. The core legal question was whether a court may grant a decree based on a theory of liability—such as breach of contract—that was never pleaded by the plaintiff, particularly after the trial court rejected the specific factual basis asserted in the pleadings. The High Court held that a party cannot advance a case inconsistent with their pleadings. Since the respondent failed to establish the "Amanat" claim, and no case of breach of contract was pleaded, the trial court erred in granting relief. The court established that a suit must be dismissed if the plaintiff fails to prove their pleaded case, as courts cannot grant relief on unpleaded grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a decree based on a theory of liability that was not pleaded by the plaintiff?
  • Does a failure to prove the specific case pleaded in a suit necessitate its dismissal?
  • Is a party entitled to the refund of an advance payment if they fail to prove the money was given as a trust (Amanat)?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmed vs The State1993 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-21Read full judgment →
• Akhter Ali Shah vs M/s. Singer Sewing Machine Company through1993 MLD 1817 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Ali G. Kazi, J Union Texas Pakistan Inc. vs Assistant1993 MLD 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alam and 3 others vs M/s. Hindustan Sanitary and Drainage1993 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-20Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2294 · Sindh High Court · 1993-06-17Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and 4 others vs Mst. Hameeda Sahaf1993 CLC 290 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-18Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmed vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1968 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Muhammad Muhmood Alam and another1993 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Abbasi vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1925 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-09Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Hussain vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 452 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Agha Ghulam Ali vs The State and 3 others1993 P Cr. L J 1135 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-05Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 455 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-30Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 41 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam and another vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 828 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-24Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed Saeed vs Federation of Pakistan and others1993 CLC 2022 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01
  storage chargesKarachi Port Trustconfiscated goodsCustoms Actvesting in Federal Governmentdetention certificateimport policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court arose from the detention and subsequent confiscation of imported scrap goods by Customs Authorities, which were later ordered to be restored to the petitioners by the Collector of Customs on appeal. The petitioners faced a dilemma when the Karachi Port Trust (K.P.T.) demanded heavy storage charges for the release of the goods. The core legal questions involved the applicability of specific storage charge provisions under the Karachi Port Trust Act and liability for storage charges when goods remain confiscated under section 182 of the Customs Act. The court held that while Note 8 of the K.P.T. Notification specifically governs goods subject to a Customs Detention Certificate, under section 182 of the Customs Act, confiscated goods vest in the Federal Government. Consequently, the Federal Government, and not the innocent petitioners, is liable for storage charges accruing during the period of wrongful confiscation, though the K.P.T. retains a statutory lien over the goods until dues are satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Note 6 or Note 8 of the Karachi Port Trust notification applies to goods held under a Customs Detention Certificate?
  • Does the Federal Government become liable for storage charges when imported goods are wrongfully confiscated by Customs Authorities under section 182 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the Karachi Port Trust have a lien over goods for unpaid dues despite the goods being under confiscation by the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Adil Jiha vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1115 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-17Read full judgment →
• Adil Jaffar and another vs Mrs. Farida Muhammad Ali and 2 others1993 MLD 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-03Read full judgment →
• Adeel Usmani and 3 others vs Mirza Nasim Baig1993 MLD 2558 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Abdur Razzak vs Muhammad Yasin1993 MLD 224 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-15Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rahman vs Tanweer Usmani1993 CLC 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 2254 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-29
  post-arrest bailpreparation for dacoitycriminal procedurebail applicationrecovery of weapon
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a post-arrest bail application filed by the applicant, Abdul Wahid, who was charged under Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly preparing to commit dacoity. The prosecution alleged that the applicant was apprehended by police based on intelligence that he and others were armed and preparing for a robbery. The applicant sought bail after his initial application was dismissed by the Sessions Judge. During the proceedings, the State counsel conceded that the available material did not sufficiently demonstrate that the applicant had made the necessary preparations to commit an offence under Section 399, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Furthermore, it was noted that the applicant had already been granted bail in a separate case concerning the recovery of the same weapon (a T.T. Pistol) used as evidence in the present matter. Finding merit in the submissions, the Court admitted the applicant to bail, emphasizing the lack of evidence regarding the essential ingredients of the charged offence.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere presence of an accused with a weapon, without further evidence of preparation, satisfy the requirements of Section 399 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Should bail be granted when the State concedes that the material available does not support the essential ingredients of the charged offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid alias Babu vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1431 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed Bajwa vs The State and another1993 P Cr. L J 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Deputy Collector Of Customs, Karachi And AnotherPTCL 1993 CL. 732 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Siddiqui and another vs District Magistrate, Badin and 31993 CLC 9 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Shah Zaidi vs University of Karachi and another1993 CLC 2026 · Sindh High Court · 1993-05-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad Hashmi vs Syed Muhammad Yaqoob1993 MLD 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehmat Abbasi vs Malik Muhammad Asadullah and another1993 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Mst, Rehana Akhtar and another1993 CLC 1538 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs The State1993 P Cr. R J 1928 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs Tawakal Hussain Khan1993 CLC 2268 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rafiq alias Qasoo vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-27Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik BADRUDDINt vs Grosvenor Casino Limited1993 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1993-02-25
  foreign decree executionSection 44-A C.P.C.execution proceedingsjudgment-debtor objectionsreciprocating territorycivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from execution proceedings concerning a foreign decree passed by a court in England. The appellant challenged the execution, raising various objections, including the lack of proper certification and the decree's failure to meet natural justice standards. The Single Judge dismissed these objections solely because the appellant failed to deposit the decretal amount or furnish security, invoking Order XXI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court examined whether this rule applies to foreign decrees executed under Section 44-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Section 44-A is a self-contained code governing the execution of foreign decrees, and the provisions of Order XXI, Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not applicable to such proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that the executing court must hear and adjudicate upon the judgment-debtor's objections regarding the validity of the foreign decree, particularly those under Section 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without requiring the prior deposit of the decretal amount or security. The appeal was allowed, and the objections were remanded for proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XXI, Rule 23-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the execution of foreign decrees under Section 44-A?
  • Is Section 44-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a self-contained provision for the execution of foreign decrees?
  • Can a judgment-debtor raise objections under Section 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against the execution of a foreign decree without depositing the decretal amount?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Karim vs M/s. Orient Pakjstan Ltd.1993 CLC 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Soomro vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 461 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Shahid vs Syed Abdul Bashir1993 CLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-22
  personal bona fide useejectmentgood faithburden of prooflandlord and tenantcommercial premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court resolves two first rent appeals concerning the ejectment of tenants from commercial shops on the ground of personal bona fide use. The landlord sought eviction of the tenants to amalgamate adjacent shops to run a general store with his brothers, asserting that his current business premises shared with his father were insufficient. The tenants contested the claim, alleging mala fides, demands for increased rent, and Pugree, and argued that the relevant statute did not permit eviction for the requirement of brothers. The core legal questions centered on whether a landlord can seek ejectment for the requirement of brothers under the applicable statute, and how the burden of proof regarding 'good faith' or bona fides is discharged. The Court held that while the statute limits personal requirement grounds to the landlord, spouse, or children, the landlord in this case sufficiently established an honest, independent intent to start his own business. The Court dismissed the appeals, ruling that a demand for higher rent does not negate bona fide need if independently proved, and that the landlord's consistent evidence discharged the initial burden of good faith.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 permits the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement for the landlord's brothers?
  • Does a demand for higher rent by itself cast doubt on the personal bona fide requirement of leased premises by a landlord?
  • How is 'good faith' established under section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the landlord have to state the specific nature of the intended business in an ejectment application?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Memon vs Mst. Attiya Rehman1993 CLC 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-07
  rented premisesbona fide requirementdefault in payment of rentsubsequent eventsappellate court powersevictiontender of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller in favor of the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant. The eviction was originally granted on grounds of default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement. During the appeal, evidence was introduced showing the respondent had since obtained possession of another property (a bungalow) in Latifabad, which she was occupying. The appellant argued this rendered the ground of personal requirement invalid. The Court held that an appellate court may consider subsequent events occurring during the pendency of litigation. Finding that the respondent had failed to establish the unsuitability of the bungalow she now occupied, the Court ruled that the ground of personal requirement was no longer available. Regarding the alleged default, the Court found that the tenant had tendered rent via bank drafts within the statutory grace period, which the landlord had refused. Consequently, the Court held that no default occurred. The appeal was allowed, and the eviction order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can an appellate court take into consideration subsequent events that occur during the pendency of a rent appeal?
  • Does a landlord's acquisition of another property during the pendency of eviction proceedings invalidate the ground of personal requirement?
  • Is a tenant liable for default in rent payment if the landlord refuses to accept rent tendered via bank draft within the statutory grace period?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Syed Akhtar Ali and others1993 CLC 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-25
  personal requirementdefault in payment of rentcommercial and residential premisescross-objectionsejectmentlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal impugns an order of eviction passed against the appellant tenant on the ground of personal requirements of the respondent landlords. The core legal questions involved whether the demised premises were commercial or residential, whether landlords can seek commercial eviction for residential premises under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, whether a respondent can challenge adverse findings without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections, and whether the tenant proved payment of rent. The court held that the premises were shops based on PTOs, that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 does not distinguish between commercial and residential premises, that a respondent in whose favour the order stands can agitate adverse findings without a cross-appeal, and that the tenant failed to prove payment of rent, thereby committing a default. The key principles laid down are that the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 makes no distinction between commercial and residential premises for eviction purposes, and a non-aggrieved respondent can support an eviction order by challenging adverse findings without filing cross-objections.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 recognizes any distinction between commercial and residential premises for seeking eviction?
  • Can a respondent-landlord agitate findings decided against them by the Rent Controller without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections when the final order is in their favour?
  • Does the initial onus to prove default lie upon the landlord, and does it shift to the tenant once the landlord alleges non-payment of rent?
  • Can unexhibited PTOs whose veracity cannot be challenged be looked into by the court for deciding the nature of demised premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Khan and another vs Gul Rehman and 2 others1993 MLD 643 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs The State1993 MLD 1414 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir Darvesh through his Legal Heirs vs M/s. G.B. Construction1993 MLD 406 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 104 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 964 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar and 2 others vs Nizam Khan and another1993 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-05
  quashment of criminal proceedingsinherent jurisdictionSection 561-A CrPCSection 249-A CrPCSpecial CourtSuppression of Terrorist Activitiesabuse of processpremature application
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the quashment of a criminal case pending before the Special Court for Suppression of Terrorist Activities, Hyderabad, involving an alleged offence under Section 392 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioners contended that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction and that the complaint was a malicious counterblast to prior litigation. The core legal question was whether the High Court should exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings at a preliminary stage. The Court held that while it possesses the jurisdiction to quash proceedings in a Special Court, the application was premature because the petitioners had failed to first seek acquittal before the trial court under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court affirmed the principle that inherent powers are intended to prevent abuse of process, not to stifle prosecution, and that allegations of false implication based on prior litigation are evidentiary matters to be determined during the trial, not at the preliminary quashment stage.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending before a Special Court?
  • Is an application for quashment of criminal proceedings premature if the accused has not first moved the trial court for acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should criminal proceedings be quashed at a preliminary stage based on allegations of false implication arising from previous litigation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain and 2 others vs The Fourth Rent Controller, South1993 CLC 1809 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Ga. Madhwalla & Co. and another1993 MLD 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hai Siddiqui and 2 others vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 446 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-18
  pre-arrest bailcriminal conspiracykidnappingcustody of minorconcurrent jurisdictionprohibitory clause
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves applications for pre-arrest bail arising out of a criminal case registered under sections 360, 361, 363, 120, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, concerning the alleged kidnapping and removal of a minor child out of Pakistan in violation of court-ordered compromise terms. The core legal questions relate to whether the applicants had direct complicity or shared a criminal conspiracy in the offence, the scope of pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the direct maintainability of a bail application before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Session. The Sindh High Court held that mere knowledge or approval without active cooperation does not constitute criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and that arrest for ulterior motives or harassment warrants pre-arrest bail where evidence is lacking. The court confirmed the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicants, laying down that bail is the rule and jail the exception in offences falling outside the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and that approaching the High Court directly in matters of concurrent jurisdiction is a question of propriety rather than an absolute jurisdictional bar.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere knowledge, acquiescence, or approval without cooperation is sufficient to constitute a criminal conspiracy under section 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is apprehension of arrest for ulterior motives and unjustified harassment a valid consideration for the grant of pre-arrest bail under section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a bail application filed directly before the High Court without first approaching the Court of Session suffer from an absolute jurisdictional bar?
  • What is the general rule regarding the grant of bail for offences that do not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi and 4 others vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Industries and Mineral Development Department, Karachi and 3 others1993 MLD 600 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 184 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Bhatti vs The State1993 P Cr. L J 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-19
  forged currencycounterfeit notespossession of forged notesburden of proofcriminal intentguilty knowledgerecovery evidenceacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns criminal appeals against the conviction of the appellants under sections 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the possession of forged currency notes. The core legal question was whether mere possession of forged currency is sufficient to sustain a conviction under these provisions, or if the prosecution must establish the accused's knowledge or reason to believe the notes were forged and an intent to use them as genuine. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove these essential ingredients. Furthermore, the Court found the recovery evidence unreliable, noting that the Mashirnamas were prepared at the police station and the recovered items were not sealed, casting doubt on the integrity of the evidence. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court held that mere possession does not constitute an offence without proof of guilty knowledge or intent to defraud. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants, emphasizing that the burden lies on the prosecution to prove circumstances leading to an irresistible inference of criminal intent.

  Questions settled

  • Is mere possession of forged currency notes sufficient to sustain a conviction under sections 489-B and 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Does the prosecution bear the burden of proving that an accused had knowledge or reason to believe that currency notes in their possession were forged?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the recovery of forged currency is not supported by reliable, sealed evidence and the Mashirnamas were prepared at the police station?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Muhammad Sharif1993 CLC 1779 · Sindh High Court · 1993-03-13
  ejectmentdefault in rentcomparison of signatureshandwriting expertrent controllerQanun-e-Shahadat
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment order passed against a tenant for default in the payment of rent. The tenant resisted the application, claiming he had incurred repair expenses with the landlord's written consent, which were agreed to be adjusted against future rent. The Rent Controller held the tenant in default, disbelieving the plea and noting the landlord's denial of his signature on the disputed document. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller is legally bound to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 (or section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872) even if no formal request or expert opinion is sought by the parties. The Sindh High Court held that Article 84 is an enabling provision empowering the court to compare handwriting or signatures to do complete justice, and where an expert opinion is absent, the court must do so rather than fail to determine the genuineness of a crucial document. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded for a fresh decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court or Rent Controller is bound to compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures in the absence of an expert opinion?
  • Does Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat 1984 empower a court to compare handwriting or signatures to reach a proper conclusion?
  • Can a tenant avoid eviction for default in rent by claiming adjustment of repair costs against future rent without proving the landlord's consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Fareed Khan vs Ferozuddin1993 CLC 515 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Yahya and 4 others1993 MLD 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Muhammad Ashraf and 11 others1993 PLD Karachi 304 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-01Read full judgment →
• A.R. Umer vs Haji Abdul Karim1993 MLD 2215 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-22Read full judgment →
• A.R. Tahir vs M/s. Muhammad Ali & Sons1993 CLC 124 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09Read full judgment →
• A & B Oil Industries Ltd. vs Abbas1993 CLC 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1993-01-26Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Travent Karachi vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 217 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16Read full judgment →
• (M/s.) Pakistan Educational Society, Karachi vs The Government ofK.L.R. 1993 Tax & Custom Cases 56 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (M/s.) BURNEY's Industrial & Commercial Company (Private) Limited vsK.L.R. 1993 Labour & Service Cases 49 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• (Mst.) Musarrat vs The StateK.L.R. 1993 Criminal Cases 198 · Sindh High Court · 1992-12-31Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Najma Begum vs Ghulam RasoolK.L.R. 1993 Civil Cases 20 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-15Read full judgment →
• Zubair vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 124 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-05Read full judgment →
• Zubair Alias Nana vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2127 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16
  post-arrest bailheroin recoveryprohibition orderinvestigating powerspolice investigationmashircriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves consolidated post-arrest bail applications filed by Zubair alias Nana and others arising out of Crime No. 4 of 1992 registered at Police Station Liaquatabad under Article 3/4 of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, following the alleged recovery of 250 grams of heroin powder from each applicant. The core legal questions relate to whether police officers possess the authority to investigate, arrest, and prosecute offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, whether an alleged defect in the investigating agency affects the court's jurisdiction, and whether a woman is a competent mashir under the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984. The Sindh High Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that police officers possess powers of investigation under Chapter XIV of the Code of Criminal Procedure by virtue of Article 27(1) of the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979, and that any irregularity or lack of authority in the investigating agency does not vitiate the competence or jurisdiction of the trial court. The court laid down the principle that deeper appreciation of evidence is to be avoided at the bail stage and that defects in investigation do not bar trial proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether police officers have the power to investigate, arrest, and prosecute offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979?
  • Does a lack of authority or an illegality in the investigating agency affect the competence and jurisdiction of the trial court?
  • Whether a deeper examination of evidence and elaborate documentation of merits should be avoided while deciding bail applications?
  Read full judgment →
• Ziaul Khalique through Legal Heirs vs Mrs. Shirin Siddiq and another1992 CLC 1688 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Zawar Hussain vs Mst. Shamsunnisa and another1992 CLC 2293 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Khan vs Messrs Shahabuddin & Sons1992 PLD KARACHI 230 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Local1992 CLC 2396 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-09
  Octroi collection contractLocal government contractsOpen auctionInterim injunctionSpecific performanceVoid contractsInherent powersPublic revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over an Octroi collection contract for the Union Council, Landhi, for the year 1992-93. The plaintiff, having secured a contract via the Union Council, sought an injunction against the government's subsequent award of the same contract to a third party. The core legal question was the validity of these contracts, which were concluded without adherence to mandatory open auction procedures. The Court held that both the plaintiff's and the defendant's contracts were prima facie void, as they failed to comply with the statutory requirements of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979. The Court affirmed that public contracts for tax collection must strictly follow open auction procedures, with negotiated contracts permissible only under specific statutory provisos subject to government approval. Consequently, the Court found no prima facie case for an injunction, as specific performance cannot be granted for void contracts. Exercising inherent powers, the Court directed the parties to engage in a competitive process to ensure maximum public revenue, vacating the interim injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an interim injunction to enforce a contract that is prima facie void?
  • Does the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 1979, mandate open auctions for the award of Octroi collection contracts?
  • Can a local council award a contract through negotiation without complying with the statutory requirements for open auctions?
  • Does the High Court have the inherent power under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, to direct a competitive bidding process for public contracts when existing contracts are found to be void?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Mirza vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2344 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-22Read full judgment →
• Zafar Alam Babar And 2 Others vs Syed Baqar Ali Shah Gilani and 21992 P Cr. L J 655 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
• Younus vs Mst. Nazeran and others1992 CLC 42 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-15Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Masih Jacob vs (Mrs.) Louisa De SouzaK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 571 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-18Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Eusuf Mayet vs Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority, Karachi1992 CLC 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19
  natural justiceshow-cause noticecancellation of allotmentright to hearingconstitutional petitionproperty rights
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority to cancel a plot previously purchased by the petitioner from an original allottee, a transfer which the Authority had initially approved. The core legal question was whether the respondent authority could unilaterally cancel the plot allotment without providing the petitioner with prior notice or an opportunity to be heard. The Sindh High Court held that the cancellation order was invalid due to the violation of the principles of natural justice, specifically the failure to provide a show-cause notice and a hearing. Consequently, the Court set aside the cancellation order. The judgment establishes the principle that before a statutory or public authority takes adverse action affecting the property rights of an individual, such as the cancellation of an allotment, it is mandatory to issue a prior show-cause notice detailing the grounds for the proposed action and to grant the affected party a full and fair opportunity of being heard in accordance with the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can a housing authority cancel a plot allotment without providing the allottee a prior show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard?
  • Is the principle of natural justice applicable to the cancellation of plot allotments by a public authority?
  Read full judgment →
• West Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation vs M/s. Sheikh1992 CLC 2047 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29
  breach of contractterritorial jurisdictionearnest moneydamagesmitigation of damagescontractual repudiationcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals arising from a suit for damages following a breach of contract for the purchase of sugar. The core legal questions were whether the High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction, whether the buyer was justified in repudiating the contract due to alleged inferior quality, and whether the seller was entitled to forfeit the earnest money. The Court held that the High Court had territorial jurisdiction because the contract was modified at the seller's Karachi office, establishing a cause of action within its limits. Regarding the quality dispute, the Court ruled that the buyer failed to prove the sugar was inferior, as the contract did not specify a particular quality and the mill produced only one standard. Furthermore, the Court determined that the earnest money could not be forfeited because the contract lacked an express forfeiture clause; consequently, it was correctly adjusted against the damages awarded. The judgment affirms that a party claiming damages must mitigate losses and that forfeiture of earnest money requires explicit contractual authorization.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have territorial jurisdiction over a contract dispute if the contract was modified at the defendant's office within the court's jurisdiction?
  • Can a party forfeit earnest money in the absence of an express forfeiture clause in the contract?
  • Is a buyer justified in repudiating a contract for goods based on alleged inferior quality if the contract did not specify a particular quality standard?
  • What is the duty of a party claiming damages for breach of contract regarding the mitigation of losses?
  Read full judgment →
• Waqf Mohammad Meiir Elahi vs Abdul Ghani Suleman1992 CLC 1634 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-09Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Dr. Tajamul Hussain1992 CLC 2253 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-30Read full judgment →
• Wali Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2208 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• Wadho Akhara Trust a Public Hindu Religious vs Fazal Shah DeceasedK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 371 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Vincent and others vs Karachi Development Authority and others1992 CLC 518 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-12
  dangerous buildingnoticeright of hearingconstitutional petitionalternative remedytenants
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by tenants and occupants of outhouses situated on a specific plot in Karachi, impugning a public notice issued by the Karachi Development Authority declaring the structure dangerous. The core legal question revolved around whether the tenants were entitled to a notice and a right of hearing before the inspection committee surveyed the allegedly dangerous building. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of express exclusion of the right of hearing in the governing law, the tenants were entitled to a notice from the inspection committee prior to inspection, as implementation of the report would adversely affect them. The Court further held that the availability of an alternative remedy such as an appeal does not oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior courts, especially when procedural fairness like the right of hearing has been violated. The petition was consequently accepted in terms of a companion judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Are tenants entitled to a notice and right of hearing from an inspection committee before a building is declared dangerous?
  • Does the availability of an alternative remedy like an appeal divest the superior courts of their constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does an inspection report of a committee hold legal validity if mandatory procedural safeguards are not followed?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1960 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30
  compoundable offencecompromisewaiver of Qisasacquittalcriminal appealmisreading of law
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellants under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following a trial for murder. The appellants had previously moved an application before the trial court to compound the offence with the legal heirs of the deceased, which the trial court allowed. However, despite accepting the compromise, the trial court proceeded to convict the appellants under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the trial court, having permitted and accepted a compromise between the parties, retained the authority to convict the appellants under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in its application of the law. The court clarified that Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, only applies when there is no full compromise regarding the offence. Once a court grants permission to compound an offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, it is legally obligated to acquit the accused under Section 345(6), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the High Court set aside the convictions and acquitted the appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the authority to convict an accused under Section 311, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, after having already accepted a valid compromise between the parties?
  • What is the legal effect of a court accepting a compromise application under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the compounding of an offence under Section 345, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, distinct from the compounding of Qisas under Section 310, Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs The Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1992 PLC 554 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Mian Tajammul Hussain1992 CLC 871 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-12Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Bismillah Oil Mills and others1992 CLC 1390 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Unison Limited and anothers vs Federal Government and another1992 CLC 921 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ulfat Ali vs Abdul ShakoorK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 186 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-03Read full judgment →
• Ulfat Ali vs Abdul Shakoor1992 CLC 744 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12
  rented premisesejectmentwilful defaulttenancy agreementstatutory grace periodpostal money orderattestation of agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against a tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The core legal questions were whether the tenancy agreement was enforceable despite lacking statutory attestation, and whether the tenant had committed wilful default. The Court held that because the tenancy agreement was not attested as required by Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, it was unenforceable, and the tenancy was governed by an oral agreement. Consequently, the tenant was entitled to the statutory grace period for rent payment. The Court determined that the tenant had effectively tendered rent via money order within the grace period, and that such postal receipts constituted valid proof of payment under Section 10(4) of the Ordinance, rendering the examination of the postman unnecessary to prove refusal. The eviction order was set aside, establishing the principle that an unattested tenancy agreement reverts to an oral tenancy, and that postal receipts are sufficient evidence of rent tender, precluding claims of default when payment is attempted within statutory grace periods.

  Questions settled

  • Is a tenancy agreement enforceable if it is not attested by the Rent Controller or a competent magistrate as required by the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the failure to attest a tenancy agreement render the tenancy an oral one subject to statutory grace periods for rent payment?
  • Are postal money order receipts sufficient proof of rent tender under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, without the need to examine the postman?
  • Does the acceptance of rent arrears by a landlord constitute a waiver of the right to seek eviction on the ground of default?
  Read full judgment →
• Ulbrichts Wwe. Ges M.S.H. a-4690, Schwanenstadt_Kaufing,Austria vs Ulbrichts (Pakistan) (Private) LtdK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 559 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• ULBRICHT's Wwe. Ges M.B.H., Austria vs ULBRICHT's (Pakistan) (Private)1992 PLD Karachi 249 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-16
  winding upcompanies ordinancejust and equitable clauseinability to pay debtsprivate limited companypartnership principlesdisputed debt
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a winding-up petition filed by a foreign company, a 49% shareholder and creditor, against a local joint venture private limited company under sections 305 and 309 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The core legal questions concern whether the private company is liable to be wound up under the 'just and equitable' clause due to alleged management deadlocks, exclusion of shareholders, and lack of confidence, and whether it is unable to pay its undisputed debts. The Sindh High Court held that the principles of partnership dissolution apply to private companies under the just and equitable clause only when strict conditions like even voting division, complete exclusion, or genuine deadlocks are established, which were absent here. The Court further held that a winding-up petition cannot be used as a substitute for a recovery suit or to exert pressure when the alleged debt is subject to a bona fide and substantial dispute. The petition was consequently dismissed with costs, affirming that mere disagreements or disputes over heavy cross-claims do not warrant winding up a solvent, profit-earning company engaged in vital defense production.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principles for dissolving a partnership firm apply to the winding up of a private limited company under the just and equitable clause?
  • Does a mere disagreement between two groups of shareholders in a private limited company constitute a deadlock justifying a winding-up order?
  • Can a winding-up petition be maintained by a creditor when the alleged debt is subject to a bona fide and substantial dispute?
  • Is a winding-up petition a valid substitute for a regular suit for the recovery of commercial debts?
  Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Appellate Sindh Labour Tribunal1992 PLC 660 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-28Read full judgment →
• Treet Corporation Limited - vs Government of Pakistan Through Its1992 PLD KARACHI 427 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-05
  constitutional petitionmarking feedelegated legislationsubordinate legislationultra vireslevy of feeexecutive power
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitutional Petition challenged a Notification dated 10-7-1981 issued by the Pakistan Standard Institution levying a marking fee on manufactured goods, as well as the demand raised against the petitioner under the said notification. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Standard Institution or the Federal Government possessed the statutory authority under the Pakistan Standard Institution (Certification Marks) Ordinance 1961 to levy a marking fee through rules or regulations in the absence of an express provision in the parent statute. The High Court of Sindh allowed the petition, declaring the impugned notification and demand of marking fee to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The Court laid down the principle that the power to levy any fee or charge must be specifically conferred on the executive by primary legislation. Where the parent Act does not empower the authority or executive to impose a specific fee, such a fee cannot be lawfully levied or created through subordinate legislation, rules, or regulations.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executive authority levy a fee or financial charge without express statutory authorization in the parent Act?
  • Can subordinate rules or regulations impose a fee where the governing statute does not specifically empower the authority to levy it?
  • Does general rule-making power under a statute enable the Federal Government to create and collect new levies not specified in the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Travel Agents Association of Pakistan vs M/s. Skyline (Pvt.) Travels1992 CLC 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-01
  attachment before judgmentcivil proceduretravel agentsrecovery of moneyimpounding passportsfurnishing security
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application under Order 38, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the Travel Agents Association of Pakistan seeking attachment of assets and office premises of the defendants along with the impounding of their passports to prevent them from leaving the country to delay or defeat the recovery of a claimed amount of Rs. 9,42,848.77. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff established sufficient grounds for attachment before judgment based on the defendants' alleged intention to leave the country. The Sindh High Court held that while attachment before judgment is not to be ordered lightly and requires satisfaction that the defendants are about to leave the country or dispose of property, such satisfaction can be deduced from affidavits and surrounding circumstances. The Court directed the defendants to furnish security for the claimed amount within one month, failing which attachment before judgment would issue against their assets and office premises and their passports would be impounded. The key principle laid down is that the requisite satisfaction for pre-judgment attachment can be derived from the surrounding circumstances and material on record without necessarily requiring direct evidence of intent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether attachment before judgment can be granted upon vague allegations of the defendant intending to leave the country?
  • Can the court's satisfaction regarding a defendant's intent to delay or defeat the execution of a decree be deduced from surrounding circumstances and affidavits?
  • What relief can a court grant under Order 38, Rule 5, C.P.C. if the defendant fails to furnish the security ordered by the court?
  Read full judgment →
• The Trustees of Port of Karachi vs Norwhich Union Fire Insurance1992 CLC 2412 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-27Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ismail alias MOTAAccused1992 MLD 182 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ismail Alias MotaK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 383 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• The State vs Aamer And Others1992 P Cr. L J 267 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-13Read full judgment →
• The Pakistan General Insurance Company Limited vs Mst. Bakhtan Bibi1992 CLC 1960 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-31Read full judgment →
• The Ismailia Garden Cooperative Housing Society Limited and 2 others1992 CLC 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →