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.

• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone "a", Karach vs M/s. Packagesi.PTCL 1992 CL. 426 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone "B" Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 330 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs M/s. M.1992 PTD 30 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
• Waqar Yousuf vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 764 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 43 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 37 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-30Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 35 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, East Zone. vs M/s. Universal Impex.PTCL 1992 CL. 278 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi. vs M/s.PTCL 1992 CL. 247 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messrs Universal Impex1992 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax South Zone, Shahrah E- KamalK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 93 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commisioner of Income Tax, Central 'B', Karachi. vs M/s. PhilipsPTCL 1992 CL. 416 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Burmah Oil PLC and another vs Pakistan State Oil Company Limited1992 CLC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-18Read full judgment →
• Tawakkal General Export Corporation Karachi And Other vs Collector of Customs And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 105 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tawakkal General Export Corporation And Another vs The Collector1992 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-20
  constitutional petitioncustoms detentionexport quality controlultra viresstatutory interpretationofficial gazette notificationSchedule V commodities
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, challenged the detention of export consignments by Customs authorities. The petitioners alleged that the detention of their textile goods for being substandard was mala fide and without jurisdiction. The core legal question was whether the respondents possessed the authority to detain these goods under the Export (Quality Control) Order, 1973, and related standards. The Court held that the action taken by the respondents was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The ratio decidendi is that while the 1973 Order generally prohibited the export of inferior goods, subsequent government notifications, including the 1990 notification, restricted quality control requirements to specific commodities listed in Schedule V. As the petitioners' goods were not included in this Schedule, the respondents lacked the legal basis to initiate detention proceedings. Furthermore, the Court noted that the standards relied upon by the respondents were not properly published in the official Gazette as required by law. Consequently, the petition was allowed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the general prohibition on exporting inferior goods under the Export (Quality Control) Order, 1973, apply to goods not listed in the subsequent Schedule V notifications?
  • Is a detention of goods by Customs authorities lawful if the standards relied upon for classifying goods as substandard were not published in the official Gazette?
  • Can a constitutional petition be maintained against an administrative action that is patently without jurisdiction, despite the existence of alternative remedies under the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Pervaiz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 955 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-07
  judicial confessionpolice custodyadministration of oathinadmissible evidencemurderacquittalcircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 304, Part I, of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the trial court, arising from the strangulation death of the deceased. The core legal questions involved the admissibility and voluntariness of the appellant's judicial confession, compliance with mandatory procedural provisions for recording confessions, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence connecting the appellant to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that the judicial confession was inadmissible and unreliable because the accused was administered an oath in violation of Section 5 of the Oaths Act 1873, was kept in police custody contrary to law when the confession was recorded, and the Magistrate failed to follow mandatory statutory requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Finding no ocular or incriminating circumstantial evidence linking the appellant to the offense, the court laid down that administration of an oath to an accused person rendering a confession is a statutory illegality making the confession inadmissible, and that confessions obtained while the accused remains improperly detained in police custody without adequate reflection time must be rejected. The appeal was accepted and the appellant acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a judicial confession rendered inadmissible if an oath is administered to the accused person?
  • Can a judicial confession be relied upon when the accused is kept in police custody at the time of its recording?
  • Does the failure of a Magistrate to comply with mandatory statutory provisions for recording confessions vitiate the confessional statement?
  • Whether information regarding a crime reported by an accused to a police station is sufficient to connect them to the commission of the offense without further corroborative evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Tariq Alias Baboo vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-13Read full judgment →
• Tajamul Hussain vs Messrs Afghan Carpets (Pvt). Ltd. and others1992 CLC 1646 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• Taj Mohammed Alias Tajoo vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 58 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Saghir Ahmed Naqvi vs Zia-Ud-Din & AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 337 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Saghir Ahmad Naqvi vs Zia-Ud-Din and another-1992 P Cr. L J 72 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Rashid Ahmed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 676 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaim Ali Shah vs The State1992 P Cr.L J 242 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Qaim Ali Shah vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 106 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Pir Wajayat Shah. vs The State.PTCL 1992 CL. 138 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Nasir Abbas And 2 Others vs Malik Noor Hussain And Another1992 P Cr. L J 670 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Ali Zaidi- vs Mst. Qaisar Jahan And Another1992 PLD Karachi 104 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12
  inherent powerscriminal procedurepossessory disputerevisional jurisdictionappraisement of evidenceabuse of process
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 challenging an order passed by the Additional Sessions Judge reversing the final order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate under section 145(6), which had directed restoration of possession to the applicant. The core legal question concerned the maintainability and scope of inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A, Cr.P.C. to interfere with concurrent or revisional findings involving the assessment of evidence in possessory disputes under section 145, Cr.P.C. The Sindh High Court held that while the powers under section 561-A are not curtailed by revisional provisions and can be invoked, the High Court as a matter of practice will not interfere with or substitute its own appraisement of evidence unless the finding is patently illegal, results in a miscarriage of justice, or is necessary to prevent an abuse of the process of the court. The court concluded that the primary object of proceedings under section 145 is merely to preserve peace as a stopgap arrangement pending civil adjudication, and dismissed the application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the revisional powers under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 limit the inherent powers of the High Court under section 561-A?
  • Can the High Court reassess or substitute its own appraisement of evidence in an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What is the primary object of proceedings under section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Under what circumstances will the High Court interfere with a revisional order under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Munawar Ali Zaidi vs Mst. Qaiser Jahan And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 192 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ali Hashmi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1178 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Khurshid Hyder vs Labour Court No: III Karachi Block-6 And 2(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 170) · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Khursheed Haider vs Sindh Labour Court No. III and 2 others1992 PLC 562 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Khursheed Haider vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1992 PLC 654 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Ikramuddin Bulki vs Mg. Ishrat Warsi1992 CLC 366 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashad Ali Sadiq vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1992 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-15
  attachment of immovable propertyprivate alienation after attachmentexecution of foreign decreeagreement to sellsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  These high court appeals challenge an order restraining the completion of a property transaction and declaring a sale transfer void due to a subsisting attachment. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation filed an execution application for a foreign decree, during which a house was ordered to be attached. Subsequently, the judgment-debtor entered into an agreement to sell and a conveyance deed with the appellant. The core legal questions involved whether the attachment was valid despite a partial vacation order and minor non-compliance with procedural formalities, and whether an agreement to sell executed prior to attachment protects a subsequent transfer under execution proceedings. The court held that substantial compliance with attachment procedures suffices and that Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 renders private alienations after attachment void, distinguishing it from attachment before judgment under Order 38 Rule 10. The key principles laid down are that substantial compliance with Order 21 Rule 54(2) satisfies legal requirements, and that Section 64 strictly voids private transfers made after attachment during execution proceedings regardless of prior agreements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an attachment of immovable property is rendered invalid if the bailiff fails to conduct a proclamation by beating of drum while other requirements of Order 21 Rule 54(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are fulfilled?
  • Does Section 64 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 render a private transfer of property void if an agreement to sell was executed prior to the attachment of the property in execution proceedings?
  • Whether the provisions of Order 38 Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding attachments before judgment apply equally to attachments made in execution of a decree under Section 64?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Afsar Ahmad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Abul Hassan Rizvi vs Mehtab MirK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 468 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-08Read full judgment →
• State Through The Advocate-General Sindh And Ex-Officio Public1992 PLD Karachi 347 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurnace Corporation of Pakistan vs Messrs Cooperative1992 CLC 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-11Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan, Through The Banking Officer, Banking Control1992 P Cr. L J 1208 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Welcome International And 2 Others1992 P Cr. L J 777 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-20Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs the Investors And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 786 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Patleyinternational (Pvt.) Ltd. And 21992 P Cr. L J 782 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs East & West Thinkers Associates (R)1992 P Cr. L J 958 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Debnum (Pvt.) Ltd. And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 773 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-12Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Director, Banking Inspection1992 MLD 723 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan through Deputy Director, Banking Inspection1992 MLD 720 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan Through Deputy Director, Banking Inspection1992 P Cr. L J 686 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-15Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan Through Assistant Director, Banking Control1992 P Cr. L J 262 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Standard Investment (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Ark Industrial Management Ltd.1992 CLC 1099 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sindh Small Industries, Corporation, Hyderabad vs Chairman, Sindh1992 PLC 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-04Read full judgment →
• Sikander vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 97 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-23Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 394 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Siddiq and anothers vs Chamber of Commerce and Industries, Karachi1992 MLD 651 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-24Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 570 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sher Alias Ilyas And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sher Alias Ilyas And Another vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 481 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali Akhtar and anothers vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. and another1992 CLC 1964 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-26
  Banking CourtLeave to defendRecovery of loansSecurityMortgaged propertyConstitution petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Special Court (Banking), which had dismissed the petitioners' application to accept already mortgaged property as security for the purpose of obtaining leave to defend a recovery suit. The core legal question was whether property already mortgaged to a bank could legally be accepted as security for the condition of leave to defend a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that the Banking Court erred in treating the petitioners' application as a review petition rather than a compliance request. Relying on established precedent, the Court held that the term 'security' under Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, is broad enough to include security already held by the bank against the loan. Consequently, the impugned order was declared to be without legal effect, and the petition was allowed, affirming that previously mortgaged assets qualify as valid security for the purpose of conditional leave to defend.

  Questions settled

  • Can property already mortgaged to a bank be accepted as security for the purpose of granting leave to defend a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the term 'security' in Section 12(5) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, include security already held by the bank against the loan?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Anisur Rehman vs Muhammad Umer and others1992 CLC 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-13
  ejectmentcross-objectionsdefault in rentstatutory tenancyutility chargespersonal requirementnuisance
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller on grounds of default in rent payment and nuisance. The respondents filed cross-objections challenging the rejection of ejectment on grounds of personal requirement and conversion of premises. The High Court considered the maintainability of cross-objections, the computation of default in a statutory tenancy, liability for utility charges, and the legal standard for proving nuisance. The High Court held that cross-objections are not maintainable under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. It further held that upon expiry of a fixed-term lease, a statutory tenancy begins, allowing sixty days for rent payment; hence, rent tendered via money order was within time. Regarding gas charges, landlords cannot profit from utility collections and must prove actual consumption shares; acceptance of reduced charges without protest constitutes waiver. Lastly, nuisance requires material discomfort or frequent, severe conduct rendering life miserable, which was unestablished. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Are cross-objections maintainable in proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • When does default occur in a statutory tenancy following the expiry of a fixed-term agreement?
  • Can a landlord claim default for utility charges without proving the tenant's actual share of consumption?
  • What degree of misconduct or offensive language is required to constitute nuisance under rent laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali vs Shaikh Ahmed Din and 5 others1992 CLC 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-22Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2228 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Shama Zari Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sindh1992 PLC 733 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
• Shahzado vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1985 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Mumtaz vs N.E.D. University of Engineering & Technology, Karachi through Registrar and 4 others1992 CLC 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shaheen Airport Services, Karachi vs Sindh Employees' Social Security1992 PLC 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-08Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin and 5 others vs Liaquat Ali and 2 others1992 CLC 1434 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs Shaikh Sajjad Hussain and 2 others1992 CLC 1446 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz Khan Junejo vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 242 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan vs Special Judge Anti-Corruption and another-1992 P Cr. L J 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-13
  transfer of criminal casebias of trial judgesuppression of material factsanti-corruption trialclean hands doctrineapprehension of fair trial
  Summary & questions settled

  This transfer application was filed under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the transfer of a pending corruption case from the Court of the Special Judge Anti-Corruption, Sukkur, on the grounds of alleged bias, hostility, and unfair treatment by the trial judge towards the applicant and his counsel. The core legal question was whether sufficient and substantiated grounds of bias or apprehension of a non-fair trial existed to warrant the transfer of the criminal case. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that the allegations of bias were vague, general, and unsupported by necessary documentation or affidavits, and that material facts concerning prior unsuccessful legal proceedings and deliberate attempts to delay the conclusion of the trial had been suppressed. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking the transfer of a case must approach the court with clean hands, and vague allegations of judicial bias unsupported by specific evidence, coupled with deliberate suppression of relevant material, do not constitute valid grounds for transferring a criminal trial.

  Questions settled

  • Whether vague and general allegations of bias against a trial judge are sufficient to warrant the transfer of a criminal case under Section 526 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the suppression of material facts and prior proceedings disentitle an applicant from seeking discretionary relief like the transfer of a case?
  • Whether the failure to place supporting documents or personal affidavits on record regarding alleged courtroom incidents weakens an application for case transfer?
  Read full judgment →
• Shagufta Andleep vs Abdul Razzaq And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2168 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-15
  habeas corpusminor custodyillegal detentionnatural guardianHigh Court jurisdictionGuardians and Wards Actsummary proceedingsinterim custody
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, concerned the alleged improper detention of a 2.5-year-old minor daughter by her father, the respondent, who had forcibly removed her from the mother's custody. The core legal question was the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, in matters of minor custody, particularly when the father is the natural guardian. The Court held that it possesses extraordinary, efficacious, speedy, and appropriate jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to issue directions in the nature of habeas corpus for the recovery of minors, especially when custody has been disturbed illegally or improperly. This remedy is available without prejudice to the rights of parties to have the matter finally adjudicated by a Guardian Judge under the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890. The Court directed that the custody of the minor daughter remain with the applicant mother, subject to any future decision by a competent Family Court/Guardian Judge.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, to order the recovery of a minor from the custody of a parent?
  • Can the High Court interfere in minor custody disputes under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, even if the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, provides an ordinary remedy?
  • What is the scope of the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, regarding the custody of a minor?
  • Is the remedy under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, for minor custody considered efficacious, speedy, and appropriate?
  • Does the High Court's decision on minor custody under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, prejudice the rights of parties to seek final adjudication from a Guardian Judge?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Khalid vs Fakhruddin1992 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-20
  rented premisespersonal useevictionlandlord definitionexecution of decreestay of executionownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from execution proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, concerning an eviction order granted for personal use. The core legal question is whether a landlord can evict a tenant for personal use from premises spanning two plots, where one plot is owned by the landlord and the adjacent plot by his son, and whether the statutory definition of "landlord" in the context of personal use includes persons merely authorized to collect rent. The Court held that while the general definition of "landlord" is broad, the specific provisions regarding "personal use" under Sections 14 and 15(2)(vii) restrict the term to the actual owner of the premises. Consequently, the Court confirmed a stay of execution regarding the portion of the property owned by the landlord's son, while permitting execution for the portion owned by the landlord. The key principle established is that the right to seek eviction for personal use is tied to ownership, and the statutory definition of "landlord" must be interpreted contextually, excluding mere rent collectors from invoking personal use grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'landlord' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the purpose of 'personal use' eviction, extend to persons merely authorized to collect rent?
  • Can a landlord invoke the right to evict a tenant for personal use under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, if the premises are owned by a third party, such as the landlord's son?
  • Is the definition of 'landlord' in the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, subject to the context of the specific provision in which it is used?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Hanif And Another vs Bank of America National Trust1992 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sh. Inayatullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2101 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-24Read full judgment →
• Sevenup Company vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marksii and another's1992 CLC 694 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20
  trade mark registrationlikelihood of confusiontrade mark oppositionphonetic similarityvisual similarityintellectual propertyconsumer choice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated appeals challenging the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks' decision to dismiss oppositions filed by the appellants, Seven-Up Company and Canada Dry Corporation, against the registration of the trade mark "7-Spot". The appellants contended that the use of the numeral "7" and the word "Spot" in the respondent's mark infringed upon their existing registered marks, "7-Up" and "Hi-Spot", potentially causing public confusion. The core legal question was whether the respondent's mark "7-Spot" so nearly resembled the appellants' marks as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion under the Trade Marks Act. The High Court upheld the Assistant Registrar's decision, holding that the marks were visually and phonetically distinct. The Court affirmed that common components like a numeral or a generic word, when not separately registered, do not grant an exclusive monopoly. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that for goods of everyday character, consumers typically exercise specific choice, reducing the likelihood of confusion. The ratio establishes that trade marks must be considered in their entirety rather than by dissecting individual common elements, and that likelihood of confusion is a question of fact dependent on the overall impression.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the use of a common numeral or word in a trade mark, when not separately registered, constitutes infringement of an existing mark?
  • Does the likelihood of confusion between two trade marks require a bit-by-bit comparison of their components?
  • Is the popularity of a product a relevant factor in determining the likelihood of consumer confusion in trade mark registration cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Irrigation and Power Department, Government of Sindh vs Syed Tasneem Hussain and others1992 PLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan vs The State1992 MLD 588 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-29Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh and others1992 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26
  medical college admissionmerit listNational Cadet Corps marksvested rightnecessary partiesprospectus rulesstatutory force
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a student, challenged the denial of admission to an M.B.,B.S. program at Chandka Medical College, Larkana, arguing that the Selection Committee failed to include 20 marks for his National Cadet Corps service as required by the National Guards Act 1973 and the college prospectus. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to admission based on merit after the inclusion of these marks, and whether the prospectus rules created a vested right to admission. The court held that while the prospectus rules, issued under the Sindh Medical Colleges Act 1987, have statutory force and the petitioner was indeed entitled to the additional marks, the petition must be dismissed. The holding rested on the procedural failure of the petitioner to implead nine other candidates who ranked higher than him on the merit list, rendering the court unable to grant the requested relief. The court affirmed that while rules governing admission create vested rights once a final selection list is published, procedural requirements regarding necessary parties must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Do rules contained in a medical college prospectus issued under a statute have statutory force?
  • Does a candidate whose name appears in the final selection list for a medical college acquire a vested right to admission?
  • Can a court grant relief in a constitutional petition challenging a merit list if the petitioner fails to implead other candidates who ranked higher on that list?
  Read full judgment →
• Salman Rais vs Major (Retd.) Shaikh A. Naeem And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 406 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-02Read full judgment →
• Salim Mall vs Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of CommerceK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 240 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saleem Raj And Other vs The State And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 517 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem Raj And 3 Others vs The State and 3 others-1992 P Cr. L J 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-01Read full judgment →
• Sajid Ali Shah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2082 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• Sahib Khan & Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 300 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• Saffar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 789 · Sindh High Court · 1992-10-24
  quashing of proceedingsSindh Crimes Control Actmechanical ordervague allegationscriminal procedurepreventive jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application has been filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, impugning an order passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Mehar, under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question concerns the legality of proceedings initiated on vague and general allegations without specific instances of criminal acts and where the accused had only been challaned rather than convicted in prior cases. The court held that the allegations were vague and general, and the impugned order was passed mechanically without application of mind, failing to comply with the provisions of the Sindh Crimes Control Act, 1975. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the pending proceedings before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate were quashed, establishing the principle that proceedings under preventive maintenance statutes cannot be sustained when based on vague police reports lacking specific instances and mere involvement in challaned cases without convictions.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under the Sindh Crimes Control Act be initiated on the basis of vague and general police reports?
  • Does mere involvement and challan in criminal cases, without conviction, suffice for passing an order under the Sindh Crimes Control Act?
  • Whether an order passed mechanically without application of mind under section 4/14 of the Sindh Crimes Control Act is liable to be quashed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  Read full judgment →
• Safeer Ahmad alias Muhammad Shafiq vs Abdul Rasheed and another1992 CLC 1896 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-08
  Civil RevisionOral GiftRegistration of Gift DeedPossessory TitleMutation of PropertySummary DismissalAdmission of Title
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts, which dismissed the applicant's suit regarding a disputed property. The applicant, claiming title through a gift from his grandmother, sought mutation of the property in his name. The trial court dismissed the suit, citing the grandmother's lack of title, the collusive nature of the proceedings, and the lack of registration of the gift deed under the Registration Act. The core legal question was whether the unregistered deed of gift was valid and whether the suit could be summarily dismissed despite the respondent's admission of the applicant's title. The High Court held that the document in question was merely a written declaration affirming a prior oral gift and delivery of possession, which did not require registration. Furthermore, the Court determined that the lower courts erred in summarily dismissing the suit, noting that even possessory title is transferable unless prohibited by law. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned judgments and remanded the case to the trial court for a decision in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a written declaration of a prior oral gift and delivery of possession require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Can a suit be summarily dismissed when the defendant has admitted the plaintiff's title in a counter-affidavit?
  • Is possessory title of a property transferable in the absence of a legal prohibition?
  Read full judgment →
• Safdar Zaman vs The State1992 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Saeeduddin vs Iiird Senior Civil Judge (East), Karachi And Another1992 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26
  family courtdissolution of marriagerejection of plaintdirectory vs mandatoryprocedural complianceconstitutional petitionSindh Muslim Family Courts Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from a family suit for the dissolution of marriage filed by the respondent against the petitioner. The petitioner challenged the trial court's refusal to reject the plaint, arguing that the respondent failed to comply with Rule 4(2)(c) of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, by providing the address of her advocate instead of her own residential address. The petitioner contended that this provision is mandatory and that non-compliance necessitates the rejection of the plaint. The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether the requirement to provide a specific address under the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, is mandatory, such that its breach warrants the rejection of the plaint. The Court held that while the rule uses the word "shall," the Rules contain no penal provision prescribing the rejection of a plaint for such non-compliance. Consequently, the Court determined that the provision is directory rather than mandatory. The petition was dismissed in limine, establishing the principle that procedural requirements in the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, lacking explicit penal consequences for non-compliance, are directory in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement to provide a residential address under Rule 4 of the Sindh Muslim Family Courts Rules, 1965, mandatory or directory?
  • Does the failure to provide a personal address in a family court plaint automatically result in the rejection of the plaint?
  • Can a plaint be rejected for non-compliance with procedural rules where the governing statute prescribes no specific penalty for such non-compliance?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed- vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 137 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-10
  post-arrest bailmurderfirearm injuriesweapon recoverypolice witnessesidentification
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was moved on behalf of the applicant involved in a case registered under sections 302, 147, 148, and 149 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, relating to the murder of a police official. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to post-arrest bail in view of the police testimony, identification, recovery of the weapon matching empty shells at the crime scene, and medical evidence. The Sindh High Court held that there was prima facie sufficient material connecting the applicant to the commission of the offence, noting that the accused was named in the F.I.R., witnessed firing by police personnel who previously knew him, and a weapon corresponding to the recovered forensic evidence was recovered from him. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that at the bail stage, evidence cannot be deeply sifted or detailed, and where reasonable grounds exist connecting the accused to a heinous crime, bail must be refused.

  Questions settled

  • Whether evidence can be sifted in detail at the bail stage?
  • Does the absence of private witnesses when police officials are available vitiate the prosecution case for the purpose of bail?
  • Whether a delay of two hours in lodging the F.I.R. is fatal when properly explained by humanitarian rescue efforts?
  • Can bail be granted when the accused is specifically nominated in the F.I.R., identified by witnesses, and linked through matching weapon recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Saeed Khan And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• S. Mujtaba Ali Naqvi vs (Mst). Noor Jehan BegumK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases I6 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• S. Khurshid Alam vs Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Limited, Karachi and others1992 CLC 480 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-28Read full judgment →
• S. Anwar Ali Shah vs Syed Muhammad Ali1992 CLC 867 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-18Read full judgment →
• Rusi Jal Dubash vs Messrs Brigstock Eduljee and Company and others1992 PLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-24Read full judgment →
• Rtd. Lt.Col. Jamilur Rehman Qureshi vs Abdul Qayyum1992 CLC 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-17Read full judgment →
• Rifatullah Khan Lodhi vs Mukhtar All Khan Lodhi and 12 others1992 CLC 1117 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03
  rejection of plaintlimitationjoint family propertypartition suitco-sharerOrder VII Rule 11
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the defendants seeking rejection of a plaint on the grounds of limitation. The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration, partition, and possession regarding land originally allotted to his deceased father. The plaintiff alleged that his brother, the ancestor of the defendants, fraudulently transferred the land in his own name to the exclusion of other heirs. The core legal question was whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the application for rejection of the plaint should be dismissed, as the issue of limitation required evidence and could not be determined solely on the face of the plaint. The Court noted that the suit involved claims to joint family property, potentially invoking Article 127 of the Limitation Act 1908, which provides a twelve-year limitation period. The principle laid down is that when a suit involves complex questions of fact regarding limitation, such as the date of exclusion from joint family property, the plaint should not be rejected summarily under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of limitation without recording evidence when the claim involves joint family property?
  • Does Article 127 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to a suit for partition filed by a person claiming to be excluded from joint family property?
  • Is the possession of a co-sharer or co-heir deemed to be on behalf of other co-heirs in the context of joint family property?
  Read full judgment →
• Rifaoat Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
• Riaz Muhammad and anothers vs Sarwer Shah and 2 others1992 CLC 2462 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-09Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Khan vs Anjum Hayat Mirza1992 CLC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-27Read full judgment →
• Rehan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-06Read full judgment →
• Registrar of High Court vs Editor of the English Daily `the News' And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1893 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →