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.
- Rasool Bux vs Deputy Collector of Customs And Others1992 P Cr. L J 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux Baloch vs Muhammad Wahid And 3 Others1992 P Cr. L J 2578 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Rashid Ahmad And Other vs Syed Wasim Ahmad And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 132 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
- Rana Zulqarnain And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 812 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
- Rana Muhammad Salim vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 750 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves criminal revision applications filed against the refusal of the Sessions Judge to grant interim custody (Superdiginama) of buses and trucks to their respective owners. The vehicles were detained by the police following road accidents resulting in cases under the Qisas and Diyat Ordinance, 1990, on the ground that they constituted weapons of offence. The core legal question was whether a motor vehicle involved in a traffic accident case can be classified as property used for the commission of an offence under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, thereby justifying its continued detention during trial. The Sindh High Court held that a motor vehicle involved in a traffic accident caused by rash or negligent driving cannot be construed as a weapon of offence or property used for committing the crime under Section 516-A, Cr.P.C. The court established that the statutory phrase regarding property used for an offence implies direct instruments of crime like guns or swords, and detaining a vehicle unnecessarily penalises the innocent owner. Consequently, the revision applications were accepted, setting aside the lower court orders and directing the return of the vehicles to their registered owners.
Questions settled- Whether a motor vehicle involved in a traffic accident can be treated as a weapon of offence or property used for the commission of an offence under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can the interim custody of a vehicle seized in a criminal case be withheld from its true owner who was not involved in the alleged offence?
- What is the scope and interpretation of the phrase property used for the commission of any offence under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What are the statutory limitations and requirements regarding the inspection and return of motor vehicles involved in accidents under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance 1965?
- Rana Masood Armed vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 213 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision petition challenges two orders passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, which cancelled the applicant's bail and forfeited his surety bond due to his failure to appear in court. The applicant, facing trial under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, failed to attend hearings due to a serious spinal injury, supported by a medical certificate. The trial court rejected the medical evidence, cancelled the bail, and subsequently ordered the forfeiture of the surety bond without issuing a show-cause notice. The High Court held that the trial court's rejection of the medical certificate was arbitrary and that the cancellation of bail was unjustified, especially given the lack of evidence that the accused was intentionally delaying proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that the forfeiture of the surety bond was procedurally illegal, as the trial court failed to follow the mandatory procedure under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which requires recording grounds for forfeiture before demanding payment. The revision petition was allowed, and both impugned orders were set aside.
Questions settled- Can a court cancel bail based on an accused's failure to appear without evidence that the accused is intentionally thwarting the course of justice?
- Is a trial court required to issue a show-cause notice before ordering the payment of a penalty upon the forfeiture of a surety bond?
- What is the correct procedure for a court to follow under Section 514 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when forfeiting a bail bond?
- Rafique Ahmad vs Mst. Tafseela and others1992 CLC 1401 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition challenges the appellate judgment and decree which set aside the trial court's decision in favor of the petitioner. The core legal question revolves around whether a subsequent suit for pre-emption is barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when an earlier suit based on an agreement to sell was filed and subsequently dismissed for non-prosecution. The Sindh High Court held that a suit based on an agreement to sell and a subsequent suit based on a right of pre-emption under Muslim Law arise from distinct and different causes of action and do not stem from the same transaction. Therefore, Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not bar the pre-emption suit. Furthermore, the Court established that an objection under Order 2 Rule 2 cannot be entertained at the appellate stage if it was not raised in the pleadings and no issue was framed by the trial court.
Questions settled- Does a suit for pre-emption based on Muslim Law share the same cause of action as an earlier suit based on an agreement to sell?
- Is a subsequent suit barred under Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when the causes of action in the two suits are distinct?
- Can a defendant raise an objection regarding the maintainability of a suit under Order 2 Rule 2 for the first time at the appellate stage without having pleaded it or framed an issue in the trial court?
- Does the failure to claim pre-emption in a suit based on a contract of sale attract the bar of Order 2 Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Raees Baig vs The State1992 MLD 731 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
- Qazi. Naseem Ahmed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 963 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-09Read full judgment →
- Qamaruddin And Other vs Abu Bakar KhanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 352 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-14Read full judgment →
- Q.B.E. Insurance Limited vs The Trustees of the Port of Karachi through Chairman and others1992 CLC 804 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for damages filed by an insurance company against the Trustees of the Port of Karachi (KPT) following a fire that destroyed a consignment of jute goods. The core legal question concerned the liability of the KPT as a statutory bailee under the Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886, and whether it had exercised the requisite standard of care. The Court held that while a bailee bears the initial burden of placing all material facts before the court regarding the care taken, the ultimate burden remains on the plaintiff to prove the bailee's negligence. The Court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding that the KPT had adequately demonstrated that it acted as a man of ordinary prudence, taking reasonable precautions against foreseeable risks. As the cause of the fire remained unknown and the KPT had shown it took prompt, effective measures to extinguish it, the plaintiffs failed to establish negligence. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, confirming that the KPT was not liable for the loss.
Questions settled- Can a person who is not a party to a suit file an appeal without obtaining leave from the appellate court?
- Does the burden of proof regarding negligence shift to the plaintiff after a bailee has placed all material facts before the court?
- Is the Karachi Port Trust considered a statutory bailee under the Karachi Port Trust Act 1886?
- Does the failure to examine specific witnesses by a bailee automatically lead to an adverse inference if the bailee has otherwise established reasonable care?
- Punhoon vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- Punhoon And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-12Read full judgment →
- Professor Nasir Ahmed vs The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad and 2 others1992 P Cr. L J 2510 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
- Premier Tobacco Industries Limited, Karachi- vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1992 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-13Read full judgment →
- Pirdad vs Muhammad Umar And Another1992 P Cr. L J 122 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
- Piral Alias Pir Bux vs The State another s1992 P Cr. L J 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-07Read full judgment →
- Piracha Multipurpose Corporation vs Province of Sindh and another1992 CLC 1627 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-27Read full judgment →
- Pir Mazharul Haq vs The StateK.L.R 1992 Criminal Cases 559 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
- Pir Mazhar Ul Hao vs The State---Opponent1992 P Cr. L J 1910 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court disposes of five bail applications filed by Pir Mazhar-ul-Haq, who was refused bail by the Special Court in cases registered under section 365-A/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for alleged kidnapping for ransom to destabilize the government. The core legal question was whether bail could be granted based on the tentative assessment of evidence consisting solely of the applicant's alleged abscondence—which was found to be unintentional as he voluntarily surrendered—and confessional statements of co-accused. The Court held that under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984, a co-accused's confession can only be used as circumstantial evidence when supported by other direct independent evidence, and cannot alone sustain a conviction. Consequently, finding no reasonable grounds to believe the applicant was guilty at this tentative stage, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant. The key principle laid down is that in the absence of independent corroborative evidence, uncorroborated confessional statements of co-accused are insufficient to withhold bail.
Questions settled- Whether the confession of a co-accused can form the sole basis for refusing bail in the absence of independent corroborative evidence?
- Does voluntary surrender before the expiry of a proclamation under section 87 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 negate the allegation of intentional abscondence?
- How is a confessional statement of a co-accused treated under Article 43 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 compared to the repealed Section 30 of the Evidence Act 1872?
- Pir Ghulam vs The State1992 MLD 358 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
- Philip Morris Incorporated vs Lakson Tobacco Company Limited and another1992 MLD 677 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
- Petitioner: Pakistan Tabacco Co. Limited. vs Respondents: Pakistan throughPTCL 1992 CL. 282 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Paul Fernandes vs M/s, Hirjibhai Behrana And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 266 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-07Read full judgment →
- Paul Fernandes vs Messrs Hirjibhai Behrana Dare Mehar (Parsee Temple1992 MLD 232 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-07Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited vs Government of Sindh and 21992 PLC 490 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Steel Peoples Workers' Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and 6 others1992 PLC 715 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by an industry-wise trade union challenging the referendum proceedings and Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) certificate issued by the Provincial Registrar of Trade Unions under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The petitioner contended that the establishment was a country-wide entity beyond the provincial Registrar's jurisdiction, that the referendum application was premature under Section 22(10), and that the voters' list was defective. The High Court dismissed the petition, ruling that small liaison and regional offices across different cities formed a single integrated establishment due to common ownership, management, finance, and control. The Court further held that the term 'entertain' in Section 22 means proceeding to adjudicate on the merits, and since notices were issued after the expiry of the two-year statutory bar, the proceedings were not premature. Crucially, the Court held that the petitioner's voluntary participation in the referendum proceedings and scrutiny of the voter list disentitled it from challenging the outcome under Article 199 due to acquiescence and waiver.
Questions settled- What legal tests determine whether regional or liaison offices of a company located in different cities constitute a single establishment under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- What is the meaning of the word 'entertain' under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 regarding applications for holding a CBA referendum?
- Can a trade union challenge the validity of a voters' list or the jurisdiction of the Registrar in a constitutional petition after having fully participated in the referendum without protest?
- Does a workman lose the right to vote in a CBA referendum merely by reason of being enrolled as a member in more than one registered trade union?
- Pakistan Seamen's Union, Karachi vs The Registrar, Trade Unions, Karachi and 22 others1992 PLC 1289 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Railways Through Divisional Superintendent vs Karachi1992 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses an application under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of a plaint filed by Pakistan Railways against the Karachi Development Authority (K.D.A.) and a cooperative housing society. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 for failing to seek consequential relief of possession, whether the suit was barred for want of statutory notice under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957, and whether a pre-suit notice was mandatory under section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act 1925. The Court held that the plaint was indeed liable to be rejected on multiple grounds: it lacked the mandatory statutory notices required under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957 and section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act 1925 regarding acts done in the exercise of statutory powers and touching the business of a registered cooperative society. The key principle laid down is that failure to serve mandatory pre-institution statutory notices to public authorities and cooperative societies, where applicable, renders the suit non-maintainable and warrants rejection of the plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Is a suit for declaration simpliciter barred under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 when the plaintiff is not in possession of the suit land and omits to pray for possession?
- Whether a suit against the Karachi Development Authority is barred under Article 131 of the Karachi Development Authority Order 1957 in the absence of a mandatory pre-institution statutory notice?
- Does a suit challenging an act touching the business of a registered cooperative society require a mandatory notice under section 70 of the Sindh Cooperative Societies Act 1925 to be maintainable?
- Pakistan Printing Ink Industries (Pvt) Ltd vs Messrs Elite Publishers1992 MLD 223 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Oxygen Ltd. vs Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, the Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1992 PTD 1000 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Wajid Ali Khan1992 PLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Messrs Khaud Brother1992 PLD Karachi 78, · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application from the Sindh High Court addresses the scope and interpretation of Order XLI, Rules 22 and 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 concerning the rights of a successful respondent in an appeal. The core legal question was whether a respondent in whose favour a decree has been passed is entitled to challenge or attack findings on issues decided against them in the lower court without filing a cross-appeal or cross-objections, and the extent of the appellate court's powers under Rule 33. The Court held that while a respondent seeking to vary or attack the decree itself must file cross-objections under Rule 22, a successful party defending a favorable decree may support it on any ground, including by attacking findings on issues that went against them, without filing cross-objections. Furthermore, Rule 33 grants the appellate court wide plenary powers to make any order or pass any decree to do complete justice, irrespective of the absence of an appeal or cross-objections by a party.
Questions settled- Can a successful respondent in an appeal support the decree by attacking findings on issues decided against them without filing cross-objections?
- What is the extent of the appellate court's power under Order XLI Rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to grant relief in the absence of an appeal or cross-objections?
- When is it mandatory for a respondent to file cross-objections in an appeal under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Pakistan Food Manufacturers vs Sadiq Ishaque and others1992 CLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a Rent Controller's order directing the ejectment of the appellants from the demised premises. The respondents sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, subletting, and personal bona fide requirement for an educational institution. The High Court examined whether the appellants committed default, whether the premises were sublet, and if the requirement was bona fide. The Court held that the appellants committed default in rent payment by failing to tender rent within the prescribed period or deposit it in court promptly after the landlord's alleged refusal, rejecting the excuse of subsequent deposit. However, the Court reversed the findings on subletting, ruling that mere shared usage by a sister concern without transferring exclusive possession does not constitute subletting. Additionally, the Court rejected the claim of personal bona fide requirement, finding no evidence of the respondents' capability or intent to establish an educational institution. Despite reversing findings on subletting and bona fide need, the Court upheld the eviction order solely on the ground of proven rent default.
Questions settled- Does the usage of premises by a sister company constitute subletting if the original tenant retains exclusive possession?
- Is a tenant liable for eviction for default in rent payment if they fail to deposit rent in court after the landlord refuses to accept it?
- What constitutes sufficient evidence to prove a landlord's personal bona fide requirement for an educational institution?
- Pakistan Defence Housing Authority vs Meer Brothers1992 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-15Read full judgment →
- Orient Straw Board & Paper Mills Limited, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad1992 PTD 1369 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- Nuzhat Shoukat vs Superintendent, Central Jail, KarachiK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 245 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah vs Quresh Ahmad1992 CLC 2508 · Sindh High Court · 1992-09-01Read full judgment →
- Noor Muhammad and anothers vs Building Control Authority and 21992 CLC 729 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiffs, occupants of shops in a building, challenging a notice issued by the Building Control Authority threatening action under section 7-A of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the Building Control Authority could issue a notice under section 7-A regarding alleged violations in a building constructed and regularized prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance, and whether a pre-suit notice under section 20-A was mandatory for challenging an act done without jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of the Ordinance are prospective, applying only to constructions in progress at its commencement, and not to buildings already completed prior to its promulgation. Consequently, an action taken without jurisdiction cannot be termed an act done 'under the Ordinance', rendering the requirement of a pre-suit notice under section 20-A inapplicable. The court laid down the principle that statutory barring provisions and notice requirements apply exclusively to orders and actions passed with jurisdiction, and actions that are ultra vires do not enjoy such statutory protection.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 6(1) and section 7-A of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979 apply retrospectively to buildings completed prior to the promulgation of the Ordinance?
- Does an act done without jurisdiction by a statutory authority qualify as an 'act done under the Ordinance' for the purpose of mandatory pre-suit notice under section 20-A of the Sindh Building Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Are statutory barring provisions and notice requirements applicable to orders passed without jurisdiction?
- Noor Khan vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a post-arrest bail application filed on behalf of applicant Noor Khan, who was charged under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code for committing murder during the course of a robbery. The core legal questions involved the evidentiary value of a judicial confession alleged to have been obtained through coercion, the determination of the accused's age for the purpose of statutory concessions, and whether bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure can be claimed as a matter of right. The Sindh High Court held that the confessional statement, prima facie appearing true and voluntary, implicated the accused and warranted no deeper appreciation of evidence at the bail stage. The Court further held that a medical board's age assessment supersedes a school leaving certificate, and that the grant of bail under the first proviso to Section 497(1) is discretionary rather than mandatory, especially in heinous offences. The bail application was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a judicial confession containing inculpatory admissions is sufficient to deny post-arrest bail?
- Which evidence regarding age, between a school leaving certificate and a medical board report, should be given preference?
- Can bail under the first proviso to subsection (1) of Section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure be claimed as a matter of right?
- Noor Ahmad And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 888 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-08Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1970 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Nizam-Ud-Din vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 62 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-30Read full judgment →
- Nestle Italiana S.P.A. vs Bela Ghee Mills Ltd. And Another1992 PLD Karachi 3 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-05Read full judgment →
- Nestle It Aliana S.Pa. vs Bela Ghee Mills Limited And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 527 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-05Read full judgment →
- Nazir Masih vs Mst. Hajera Shaheen and 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed Channa vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-23Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2191 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nazeer Ahmad And 3 Other vs The State And Another Rcspondents1992 PLD Karachi 163 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
- Nazar Ali And Another vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 140 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the trial court convicting the appellants under section 392/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery. The core legal questions involve the reliability of the identification of the accused, the legal effect of non-production of the alleged robbed property in court, and the consequences of failing to examine recovery mashirs. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the identity of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, that the investigation was dishonest and manipulated, and that the failure to produce the recovered property in court or examine material witnesses vitiates the trial. The court laid down the principle that in robbery cases where recovery of robbed property is claimed, the prosecution must produce the property in court for identification, and failure to do so, along with the non-examination of recovery witnesses, renders the recovery doubtful and vitiates the proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the failure of prosecution witnesses to identify the accused in court render the identity of the accused doubtful?
- Is the non-production of allegedly recovered robbed property in court a material irregularity that vitiates the trial?
- What is the legal effect when the prosecution fails to examine the mashirs of recovery and arrest?
- Does a severely flawed and dishonest investigation entitle the accused to the benefit of reasonable doubt?
- Nawaz Alias Ali Nawaz vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-21Read full judgment →
- Nauroz Khan vs Mst. Zulakha1992 CLC 1930 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-28Read full judgment →
- National Beverages (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Prince Glass Works Ltd. and 2 others1992 CLC 1868 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-20Read full judgment →
- National Bank of PAKISTANs vs Messrs Marri Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory and 2 others1992 CLC 1077 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman), Karachi And Another1992 PLD Karachi 339 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the order dated 21-11-1991 passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) directing the National Bank of Pakistan to report compliance regarding service benefits awarded to an employee following litigation up to the Supreme Court of Pakistan. The employee had filed a complaint alleging mal-administration after contempt proceedings in the High Court were dismissed with observations to approach the Supreme Court. The primary legal issue was whether the Wafaqi Mohtasib had jurisdiction to entertain a complaint concerning personal service grievances and enforce court judgments. The High Court held that under Article 9(2) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 (Presidential Order No. 1 of 1983), the Ombudsman's jurisdiction is categorically barred regarding personal grievances of public servants relating to their service. The Court further ruled that the Ombudsman cannot act as an executing court to enforce judicial orders, and constitutional protection under Article 270-A cannot validate orders passed without jurisdiction. The petition was allowed.
Questions settled- Does the Wafaqi Mohtasib have jurisdiction to investigate or adjudicate upon a complaint involving a personal grievance relating to service by a public servant?
- Can the Wafaqi Mohtasib assume the functions of an executing court to enforce orders and judgments passed by the High Court or Supreme Court?
- Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 protect an order passed by a statutory authority that is ex-facie without jurisdiction?
- Whether the availability of an alternate remedy bars the High Court from exercising its constitutional writ jurisdiction where the impugned order is challenged as being wholly without lawful authority?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) And AnotherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 431 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Bawany Industries Limited and others1992 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns applications filed by defendants to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a recovery suit. The core legal questions involved the validity of substituted service via publication when defendants were residing abroad, and whether an application filed on the court's reopening day after winter vacation was time-barred. The Court held that substituted service under Order V, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is invalid if the defendants are not avoiding service but are residing abroad. Consequently, the ex parte decree was set aside. Regarding limitation, the Court affirmed that under Section 4, Limitation Act 1908, an application filed on the reopening day of the Court is within time, even if the court office remained open during the vacation. The Court further established that for the purpose of limitation, a defendant must have specific knowledge of the particular decree passed against them, as vague knowledge of proceedings is insufficient. The applications were allowed, and the defendants were granted leave to file written statements.
Questions settled- Can substituted service be considered valid if the defendant is residing abroad?
- Does the filing of an application on the reopening day of the Court satisfy the limitation period if the period expired during vacation?
- Is vague knowledge of legal proceedings sufficient to trigger the limitation period for setting aside an ex parte decree?
- What are the grounds for setting aside an ex parte decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Alam Industries Ltd. Karachi And 5 OtherPL D 1992 Karachi 295 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Alam Industries LimitedK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 447 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-10Read full judgment →
- Nasir Al vs Muhammad Ali And Another1992 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-02Read full judgment →
- Nasim Ahmad vs The State1992 MLD 620 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi convicting the appellant under sections 408 and 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code for criminal breach of trust and forgery in connection with bank cheques. The core legal question was whether the prosecution successfully established that the appellant forged the account-holder's signatures on the cheque book requisition slip and disputed cheques, and whether a handwriting expert's report could be relied upon without the expert being examined. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove forgery or misappropriation, and that a handwriting expert's report is inadmissible as legal evidence unless the expert is produced and subjected to cross-examination. The court laid down the principle that an expert report cannot form the basis of a conviction without the author testifying, and that an extra-judicial admission made under an assurance of case withdrawal in bank departmental proceedings is insufficient to sustain a criminal conviction without corroborative proof. The appeal was accepted and the conviction set aside.
Questions settled- Whether a handwriting expert's report can be admitted and used as legal evidence without the expert being produced for cross-examination?
- Can a criminal conviction be sustained solely on the basis of an unwritten admission made during a bank departmental inquiry under an assurance of the withdrawal of the case?
- Does the mere filling out of a cyclostyled cheque book requisition slip establish that the accused forged the account-holder's signature thereon?
- Naseeruddin vs Muhammad Iqbal and another1992 CLC 1310 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
- Naheed Hussain Alias Naheed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 982 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
- Nadeem Ahmed vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 575 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
- Naban Khan vs Province of Sindh And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2251 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-04Read full judgment →
- M/s. Paragon Silk Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central1992 PTD 951 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Limited. vs Government of Pakistan throughPTCL 1992 CL. 376 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited vs Commissioner of Income-1992 PTD 227 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-12Read full judgment →
- M/s. Pakistan Machine Tool Factory vs Sindh Labour Appellate1992 PLC 650 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-05Read full judgment →
- M/s. Packages Limited vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, CentralK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Mandviwalla Motors Limited, Karachi vs The Commissioner of IncomePTCL 1992 CL. 420 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s. Fateh Textile Mill Limited through Resident Director vs Pakistan1992 CLC 2300 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by a public limited company challenging the recovery of sales tax on processed cotton fabrics cleared prior to the budget speech of the Finance Minister on June 3, 1989. The core legal question revolved around whether sales tax could be lawfully levied and recovered on goods pursuant to a budget announcement and notification issued under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, before the Finance Bill formally became an Act. The court dismissed the petition, holding that under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931, a declared provision in a Money Bill takes immediate force of law upon the introduction of the Bill, and that tax liability is distinct from payability. Furthermore, the court held that the power to grant an exemption implies the power to withdraw or vary it under Section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, and that Rule 22(2) of the Central Excise Rules strictly prohibits the removal of goods from a factory on budget announcement days. The petition was consequently dismissed as meritless.
Questions settled- Whether a declared provision in a Finance Bill acquires the force of law immediately upon its introduction under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931?
- What is the distinction between taxability or liability and the payability of a tax enforced by executive authorities?
- Does the power to grant a tax exemption under statutory provisions imply the power to withdraw, vary, or amend the same exemption?
- Can goods be lawfully removed from a factory or warehouse on the day appointed for the announcement of the annual or supplementary budget of the Federal Government?
- M/s. Dewan Metharam Dharmdas Trust through it Trustees vs Shiri1992 CLC 975 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-20Read full judgment →
- M/s. Banqu E Indosuez, (Bangque Del' Indochine Et Desuezs vs Syed1992 CLC 1641 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- M/s. A.R. Khan & Sons (Pvt) Ltd vs Registrar, Trade Unions & OtherK.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 191 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-12Read full judgment →
- M/s, Platinum Insurance Co.Ltd vs M/s. State Life InsuranceK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 136 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M/s S. Abdulla & Co. vs Collector of CustomsK.L.R 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 60 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
- M/s Abdullah & Company & Other vs Govt: of Sindhh And 2 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 382 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, Karachi vs Haji Shaikh Yaoinud Din1992 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal was filed under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against the order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant bank's ejectment from the demised premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide need of the landlords' sons. The core legal questions involved whether the ejectment application was barred by section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932, whether the appellant committed a default in paying rent, and whether the personal requirement pleaded by the respondents was bona fide. The Sindh High Court held that section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 does not apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller, that the tenant defaulted by paying short of the enhanced rent agreed with the previous owner and failing to properly tender subsequent rent, and that the landlords established a bona fide personal need for their sons. The court laid down that a transfer of property under section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 conveys all accrued rights including the right to recover rent, that non-disclosure of the exact nature of the intended business or ownership of other properties in the ejectment application is not fatal to a claim of personal need, and that the burden to prove payment of rent shifts to the tenant when non-payment is established.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of section 69 of the Partnership Act, 1932 apply to ejectment proceedings before a Rent Controller?
- Does the transfer of a building under section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 pass the right to recover rent accrued under an existing tenancy agreement to the new owner?
- Is it mandatory for a landlord seeking ejectment on grounds of personal use to state the specific nature of the business intended to be carried on in the premises?
- Does the failure of a landlord to disclose the ownership of other properties in an ejectment application render the claim of personal bona fide need invalid?
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Haji Sohrab Khan1992 CLC 1511 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate1992 PLC 1023 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner bank to challenge the orders of the Sindh Labour Court and the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of respondent No. 3 with full back benefits after setting aside his dismissal. The core legal questions involved whether respondent No. 3 was a 'workman' under the relevant labor laws, and whether the charge-sheet issued to him for alleged misconduct was barred by time under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the classification of an employee as a workman depends on the nature of their actual duties—which were clerical in this case—rather than their designation, and that the employer failed to prove that the charge-sheet was issued within the statutory limitation period from the date the misconduct came to the employer's notice. The key principle laid down is that the determination of a workman status rests on the substantial duties performed, and the burden of establishing timely knowledge of misconduct for issuing a charge-sheet lies squarely on the employer.
Questions settled- Does the determination of whether an employee is a workman depend on their official designation or the actual nature of the duties performed by them?
- Is an employee performing clerical duties such as maintaining cash registers and ledgers considered a workman under labor laws despite holding a managerial title without written orders?
- Who bears the burden of proof to establish that a charge-sheet for misconduct was issued within the statutory period from the date the misconduct came to the employer's notice?
- Can a mere assertion of supervisory duties without specific evidence suffice to exclude an employee from the category of a workman?
- Muslim Commercial Bank Limited Karachi vs Haji Shaikh YaqinuddinK.L.R. 1992 Revenue Cases 212 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muntizma Committee, Al-Mustfa Colony (Regv.), Karachi And 3 Other1992 PLD Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns Constitutional Petitions filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 by a registered society and several residents of Abbas Town, Karachi. The petitioners sought to restrain respondents from encroaching upon a 3.5-acre plot allegedly designated for public amenities like a playground and clinic. The core legal questions addressed were whether an association of persons has locus standi to maintain a petition for the enforcement of its members' rights, and whether the petitioners qualified as "aggrieved persons" under Article 199. The Court dismissed the petitions in limine, holding that the petitioners failed to demonstrate the infringement of any personal or legal right. The Court affirmed that while Public Interest Litigation is a recognized legal mechanism, it requires a bona fide grievance and cannot be invoked by parties lacking a direct interest or standing. Furthermore, the Court noted that a society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860 must sue through authorized office-bearers, which was not satisfied here. The judgment clarifies that the "aggrieved person" requirement remains a necessary threshold for constitutional petitions.
Questions settled- Can an association of persons maintain a constitutional petition for the enforcement of the rights of its members?
- Does a registered society have the legal standing to file a petition under Article 199 if not represented by its authorized office-bearers?
- What constitutes an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of maintaining a petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
- Under what conditions can a court entertain public interest litigation initiated by a party not personally aggrieved?
- Munawar Hasan vs Badiul Hasan1992 CLC 2495 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller allowing the respondent-landlord's ejectment application against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment, while deciding personal requirement and nuisance against the landlord. The core legal question revolved around whether the tenant had legally justified depositing rent in court without first offering it directly to the landlord upon the conclusion of previous litigation. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under the relevant statutory provisions, it is primarily the mandatory duty of the tenant to tender rent directly to the landlord, and alternate modes of payment such as postal money order or depositing in court can only be resorted to if the landlord refuses or avoids acceptance. The burden of proving such refusal lies squarely on the tenant, which the appellant failed to discharge through cogent evidence or production of deposit receipts. The court established that continuing to deposit rent in court without first offering it to the landlord after the termination of earlier proceedings constitutes a default in law.
Questions settled- Is it mandatory for a tenant to first offer rent directly to the landlord before resorting to depositing it in court or sending it by money order?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that the landlord refused or avoided accepting the rent?
- Does continuing to deposit rent in court after the conclusion of previous litigation without a fresh offer to the landlord constitute a legal default?
- Can a tenant establish payment of rent by merely making oral assertions without producing receipts or documentary proof of deposit?
- Mumtaz And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 527 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-19Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz And 13 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2325 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal bail application arose from a murder case registered in April 1987, wherein five remaining applicants sought post-arrest bail after prolonged incarceration ranging between four and five years. The core legal question concerned whether the applicants remained disentitled to bail under the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 as desperate or hardened criminals, despite inordinate and scandalous delays in the conclusion of the trial that violated previous directives of the High Court. The Sindh High Court allowed the bail application and held that while the fourth proviso restricts bail for desperate criminals upon the expiry of two years, the law does not sanction indefinite detention as an under-trial prisoner when trial delays amount to a flagrant abuse of the process of law. The Court laid down the principle that inordinate, shocking, and unjustified trial delays attributable to prosecution avoidance provide a valid ground for granting bail under criminal jurisprudence, overriding statutory bars against habitual or desperate offenders.
Questions settled- Does the fourth proviso to section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 permit keeping an accused in custody as an under-trial prisoner for an indefinite period?
- Can inordinate and unjustified delay in the commencement or conclusion of a trial serve as a sufficient ground for the grant of bail in heinous offenses?
- Whether prolonged incarceration without trial for a period of four to five years amounts to an abuse of the process of court warranting the release of the accused on bail?
- Mukhtar Hussain vs Mehar Elahi And,OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 306 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammed Ishaq vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 65 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2498 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Muhammad Jamil and 4 others1992 CLC 873 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises out of a challenge to concurrent judgments of lower courts dismissing an application under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an ex parte decree. The core legal question was whether the trial court's order permitting substituted service under Order V, Rule 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without recording proper satisfaction or reasons, and without full compliance regarding bailiff procedures, rendered the subsequent ex parte proceedings and decree illegal. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court failed to record proper satisfaction that the defendants could not be served by ordinary means, making the substituted service illegal and vitiating the ex parte decree. The High Court laid down the principle that an order for substituted service requires proper judicial satisfaction and adherence to procedural safeguards, and tax or utility survey documents do not constitute proof of property ownership.
Questions settled- Whether an order allowing substituted service without recording proper satisfaction or reasons is illegal?
- Can tax and utility survey documents be treated as conclusive proof of property ownership?
- Does failure to comply with the procedural requirements of substituted service vitiate a subsequent ex parte decree?
- Can concurrent findings of lower courts be set aside in revisional jurisdiction if they are based on illegal procedural foundations?
- Muhammad Zakir And 9 Others vs Muhammad Farooq And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2320 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-05Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yusuf Shaikh and others vs Mrs. Raisa Abdus Shakoor1992 CLC 2487 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs The State and others-1992 P Cr. L J 1370 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 arose from an order passed by a Sub-Divisional Magistrate attaching and sealing the disputed premises under Section 145(4) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which order was subsequently set aside in revision by the Additional Sessions Judge. The core legal questions involved were whether the High Court's inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A is barred when a matter has been decided in revision by the Sessions Court, whether the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 145 is ousted due to pending civil litigation, and whether an interim injunction protecting possession 'except in due course of law' ousts magistrate's jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that powers under Section 561-A are not curtailed by revisional powers of the Sessions Court, that pending civil litigation alone does not oust a Magistrate's jurisdiction unless possession is specifically regulated by a competent civil court, and that a routine restraint against forcible ejectment does not regulate possession. The application was dismissed with a direction to conclude the Section 145 proceedings expeditiously.
Questions settled- Does the exercise of revisional jurisdiction by a Court of Session under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar the High Court from entertaining an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the jurisdiction of a Magistrate under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically ousted by the mere pendency of civil litigation regarding the same property?
- Does an interlocutory civil court order directing parties not to eject each other except in due course of law constitute an order regulating possession that ousts the Magistrate's jurisdiction under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- What is the primary object of initiating and conducting proceedings under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Yousuf Alias Salim vs Aba Ali Adam And Another1992 P Cr. L J 2176 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-19Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus Siddiqui vs Full Bench, National Industrial1992 PLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaseen vs Mst. Amir Bibi1992 CLC 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yaqoob, Lasani Engineering Company vs Punjab1992 CLC 2036 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal before the Sindh High Court arose from an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks, who allowed an opposition by respondent No. 1 and dismissed the appellant's application for registration of a trade mark in Urdu for agricultural implements. The core legal question was whether the appellant's proposed trade mark was visually and phonetically deceptively similar to the already registered trade marks of respondent No. 1, thereby likely to cause confusion and deception among unwary purchasers in the market. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding that where rival marks share a dominant, prominent word in relation to identical goods targeting the same class of uneducated rural consumers, registration must be refused to protect public interest and prevent consumer deception. The key principle laid down is that trade mark registration statutes must be construed to safeguard both public interest—protecting unwary consumers from confusion—and private rights, and that the public tends to remember brands by their dominant features or abbreviations.
Questions settled- Whether an application for trade mark registration can be refused on the ground of deceptive similarity when rival marks share a dominant prominent word?
- Does a trade mark Registrar's order rejecting an application constitute a speaking order if it provides clear and intelligible reasons for the decision?
- Whether the likelihood of confusion and deception among unwary consumers is a primary consideration in trade mark registration disputes?
- Can the co-existence of other dissimilar registered marks justify the registration of a confusingly similar mark for identical goods?
- Muhammad Usman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 88 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-06Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Provincial Election Authority, Sindh And 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-11Read full judgment →