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.
- Iqbal Muhammad Khan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others1992 PLC 549 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves three constitutional petitions directed against decisions of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals as non-maintainable on the ground that an appeal under section 37 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 must be filed by the aggrieved person in person rather than through an advocate, agent, or attorney. The core legal question was whether an appeal before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 requires personal presentation by the aggrieved party. The Sindh High Court held that the Tribunal's view was misconceived, ruling that the statute does not mandate personal filing and permits an aggrieved party to file an appeal either personally or through a duly authorized agent, advocate, or attorney, and that procedural defects in presentation are curable irregularities. Consequently, the High Court declared the Tribunal's orders illegal, set them aside, and remanded the cases back to the Tribunal for decision on merits.
Questions settled- Whether an appeal under section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be filed through an advocate or authorized agent or if it must be presented by the aggrieved person in person?
- Can the provisions of Order III of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 be pressed into service for the presentation and signing of appeals under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does a defect in the presentation, signing, or verification of a memorandum of appeal constitute a fatal flaw or a curable procedural irregularity?
- International Industries People Labour Union vs International1992 PLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns High Court Appeals challenging a single judge's decision regarding the determination of a Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the two-year statutory embargo on re-determining a CBA, prescribed by Section 22(10) of the Ordinance, applies to trade unions certified under Section 22(9-a) (without a secret ballot) or is restricted to those certified under Section 22(9)(e) following a contested secret ballot. The Court held that the two-year embargo applies exclusively to unions certified under Section 22(9)(e) after a contested ballot. The Court established the principle that judicial interpretation cannot supply words to a statute unless an omission is palpable and clearly indicated by context. Because the legislature did not amend Section 22(10) to include certifications under Section 22(9-a), the embargo does not extend to them. Consequently, a union certified without a contest does not enjoy the two-year protection, and the Registrar may initiate referendum proceedings for a new CBA determination despite the absence of a two-year lapse.
Questions settled- Does the two-year embargo on re-determining a Collective Bargaining Agent under Section 22(10) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply to unions certified under Section 22(9-a)?
- Can a court supply missing words to a statute to extend a statutory embargo to a class of entities not explicitly mentioned by the legislature?
- Is a trade union certified as a Collective Bargaining Agent without a secret ballot entitled to the same two-year protection as a union certified after a contested ballot?
- International Cargo Handling Company (Pvt. Limited vs Port Bin Oasim1992 PLD Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter arose from an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the plaintiff, seeking an ad interim injunction against the Port Bin Qasim Authority to restrain interference with its cargo handling operations. The defendant refused to finalize the contract on the grounds that the Wafaqi Mohtasib had cancelled the plaintiff's pre-qualification and debarred it in proceedings initiated by a third party. The plaintiff challenged the Mohtasib's order as void, without jurisdiction, and passed in violation of the principles of natural justice without notice. The core legal questions were whether the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 precludes civil courts from examining orders passed without jurisdiction, and whether an order condemning a party unheard is legally sustainable. The High Court held that the Mohtasib's jurisdiction is limited under Section 9(1) and that Section 29 does not bar court scrutiny where an order is mala fide, coram non judice, without jurisdiction, or violative of audi alteram partem. Consequently, the Court granted an interim injunction.
Questions settled- Does the statutory bar of jurisdiction under Section 29 of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 prevent a civil court from examining an order passed without jurisdiction or in violation of law?
- Does an adverse order passed by the Wafaqi Mohtasib without giving notice or an opportunity of hearing to an affected party violate the principle of audi alteram partem and render the order void?
- Can the Wafaqi Mohtasib exercise jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed under Section 9(1) of the Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order 1983 to debar a third party who was not made a party to the proceedings?
- Interhom (Pvt.) Limited vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation1992 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-27Read full judgment →
- Inter-Ocean Cargo Services vs Federation of Pakistan And OtherK.L.R 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 76 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-28Read full judgment →
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Rose Textile Mills Ltd. and 6 others1992 CLC 1706 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-01Read full judgment →
- Indus Steel Pipes Ltd. vs Indus Steel Pipes Ltd.1992 CLC 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-12Read full judgment →
- Indus Steel Pipes Limited vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21992 PLC 657 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges an order by the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had directed the reinstatement of a respondent with back benefits. The respondent, initially claiming to be a permanent employee, alleged he was stopped from entering his workplace, while the petitioner contended the respondent was a temporary/casual worker who had voluntarily abandoned his employment. While both the Labour Court and the Appellate Tribunal concurrently found the respondent was not a permanent workman, the Tribunal ordered reinstatement, citing a failure to comply with the written order requirement under Standing Order 12(3). The High Court held that the Tribunal erred by overlooking the critical factual dispute regarding whether the respondent was terminated or had abandoned his employment. The Court emphasized that the burden of proof lay on the respondent to establish he was stopped from working, which he failed to discharge. Consequently, the High Court set aside the Tribunal's order, ruling that in the absence of evidence of termination, there was no cause of action for a grievance petition.
Questions settled- Does a workman have a cause of action for a grievance petition if they voluntarily abandon their employment?
- On whom does the burden of proof lie to establish that a workman was stopped from entering the workplace by the employer?
- Is an employer required to issue a written termination order under Standing Order 12(3) if the employee has abandoned their service?
- Can a Labour Appellate Tribunal order reinstatement without evidence that the employer terminated the employee's services?
- Indus Battery Employees' Union and 2 others vs Member, National1992 PLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) concerning alleged unfair labour practices and an illegal strike. The petitioners sought to set aside NIRC orders, including an interim prohibitory order, arguing lack of notice and jurisdiction. The core legal question revolved around the NIRC's jurisdiction to pass interim orders and take preventive measures under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, in cases where an unfair labour practice is likely to occur. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the NIRC possesses jurisdiction to deal with cases where unfair labour practice is likely to occur and can pass interim orders to prevent such apprehended commission. The court affirmed that Regulation 32(2) is preventive in nature, allowing the NIRC to advise, direct, or prohibit actions to avoid unfair labour practices, and that the petitioners were heard on their objections.
Questions settled- Does the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) have jurisdiction to pass interim orders to prevent an unfair labour practice that is likely to occur?
- Can the NIRC issue directions or prohibitions under Regulation 32(2) of the NIRC (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, to avoid the occurrence of an unfair labour practice?
- Is the NIRC empowered to take preventive measures for the recurrence of unfair labour practices under Section 22-A(g) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Will a High Court ordinarily undertake the resolution of disputed questions of fact in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Inayatullah And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2312 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- In re: Muhammad Salim Khan vs Not1992 CLC 2273 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-09Read full judgment →
- In re: Aizad Beverages Industries Ltd. vs Not1992 CLC 2445 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
- Imtiaz Hussain vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Works, Estate, Islamabad and 2 others1992 CLC 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision application arises from a dispute over the allotment of a government plot. The respondent, claiming to be a statutory tenant following his father's death, filed a suit for declaration and cancellation of a subsequent allotment order issued by the Estate Office to the applicant. The trial court rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing a bar on jurisdiction, but the appellate court remanded the case for trial on merits. The High Court, upon review, held that the original allotment to the respondent's father created only a license, not a vested tenancy, and such status did not devolve upon legal heirs. Furthermore, the court affirmed that under the Federal Government Lands & Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966, the government may terminate such licenses at will. Consequently, the court ruled that the suit was barred by Section 10 of the Ordinance and failed to disclose a cause of action. The appellate order was set aside, and the trial court's rejection of the plaint was restored.
Questions settled- Does an allotment of government land to a private individual create a tenancy or a mere license?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit challenging the government's termination of a license for government land given the bar under the Federal Government Lands & Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1966?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without requiring evidence or a written statement if the claim is barred by law?
- Does the status of a licensee of government land devolve upon legal heirs upon the death of the original allottee?
- Imran Ahmad Alias Mani And Another vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
- Imam Bux vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-21Read full judgment →
- ICI Pakistan Limited vs Chairman, Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21992 PLC 572 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-09Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim vs Noor Muhammad1992 CLC 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim And 2 Others, vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2315 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim And 2 Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 532 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-09Read full judgment →
- House Building Finance Corporation vs Mrs. Sarwar Jehan1992 PLD Karachi 329 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil matter before the Sindh High Court arises from applications seeking the restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution and the condonation of delay in filing the same. The core legal questions involved whether the incorrect printing of an advocate's name in the cause list constitutes sufficient cause for absence, and what period of limitation and procedural provisions govern the restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the omission of an advocate's correct name from the cause list constitutes sufficient cause for non-appearance, and since the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Limitation Act 1908 do not prescribe specific provisions or limitation periods for the restoration of revision applications, the Court exercises inherent jurisdiction under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, with the residuary Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applying a three-year limitation period. Consequently, the application for restoration was allowed and restored to its original number, rendering the application for condonation of delay superfluous.
Questions settled- Does the incorrect printing or omission of an advocate's name in the cause list constitute sufficient cause for absence on the date of hearing?
- Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs an application for the restoration of a revision application dismissed for non-prosecution?
- Does Article 163 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to the restoration of revision applications or is it restricted to suits?
- What is the applicable limitation period for filing an application for the restoration of a revision application?
- Holiday Inn Workers Union vs Registrar of Trade Union And Another(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service Cases 9) · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
- Hayatullah And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 525 · Sindh High Court · 1992-07-21Read full judgment →
- Hashim Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 174 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
- Hanifa Begum and others vs Muhammad Qamaruzzaman through Legal1992 CLC 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns execution proceedings where the judgment-debtors filed objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to stay the execution of decrees. The primary legal questions were whether the judgment-debtors could challenge the recovery of interest on the decretal amount based on the contention that interest is un-Islamic under Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether the attached property could be treated as sufficient security to entertain these objections. The Court held that the applications and objections were not maintainable on the principle of res judicata, as identical objections had been previously dismissed by the Court in an order dated 6-12-1990. Furthermore, the Court found that the judgment-debtors failed to furnish adequate security for the decretal amount, rendering their objections meritless. The Court emphasized that objections under Section 47 cannot be entertained until the judgment-debtor either deposits the decretal amount or provides satisfactory security, noting that the judgment-debtors were merely attempting to protract the execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a judgment-debtor raise objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 that have already been dismissed in previous proceedings?
- Is a court required to entertain objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the judgment-debtor has not deposited the decretal amount or furnished security?
- Can attached property be considered sufficient security for the purpose of entertaining objections under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Hameer And Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2030 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the conviction of five appellants under Section 402, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro. The prosecution alleged that the appellants had assembled to commit dacoity, having been apprehended by a police party after an exchange of fire. The trial court had acquitted the appellants of charges under Sections 307 and 353, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, but convicted them under Section 402. The core legal question was whether the prosecution sufficiently established that the appellants had assembled for the specific purpose of committing dacoity. The High Court held that the conviction was unsustainable. The Court reasoned that the trial court had already disbelieved the testimony of the police witnesses regarding the charges under Sections 307 and 353; therefore, it was legally inconsistent to rely on the same uncorroborated testimony to sustain a conviction under Section 402. The Court laid down the principle that to establish an offence under Section 402, the prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused assembled specifically for committing dacoity, and mere presence of five or more persons is insufficient without extraneous corroborating circumstances.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of witnesses who were disbelieved by the trial court regarding other charges arising from the same transaction?
- What are the essential ingredients required to prove an offence under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Is the mere presence of five or more persons sufficient to establish an assembly for the purpose of committing dacoity under Section 402 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
- Hameer And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2026 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Hajiani Hajrabai vs Afzal Ali And OtherK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 555 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Haji Taj Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2125 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-16Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Aslam vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2187 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
- Haji Ismail Ibrahim vs Income Tax Officer, Circle w-II, West Zone, KarachiPTCL1992 CL. 471 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Ismail Ibrahim vs Income Tax Officer, Circle W-II, West Zone, Karachi and 2 others1992 PTD 45 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-10Read full judgment →
- Haji Habib & Co.s vs Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. and 3 others1992 CLC 1586 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
- Haji Faqir Muhammad vs Abdul Razzak And Another1992 PLD Karachi 398 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant instituted an appeal challenging the dismissal of his rent eviction application by the First Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi South. The appellant sought the eviction of respondent No. 1 and respondent No. 2 on grounds of non-payment of rent, reconstruction, and unauthorized subletting. Respondent No. 2 contested the application, asserting exclusive ownership and possession while denying any tenancy relationship. Two main issues arose: whether the appeal was time-barred due to delays in supplying copying stamps under the Sindh Civil Court Rules, and whether a valid landlord-tenant relationship existed between the appellant and the respondents. The High Court affirmed that the appeal was timely under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, as no official communication date for copying fees was established under Rule 323(1). On the merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, ruling that the burden of proving tenancy rests strictly upon the alleged landlord. Entries in Excise and Taxation Department records and mere ownership or leasehold rights do not ipso facto establish a landlord-tenant relationship without credible, conscious evidence of tenancy.
Questions settled- Can time spent obtaining certified copies be excluded under Section 12(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 where the date of communication under Rule 323(1) of the Sindh Civil Court Rules is not established?
- Does a party have the right to introduce substantive amendments to pleadings without prior leave or permission of the Court?
- Do entries in Excise and Taxation Department records establish the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship between the parties?
- Does the mere acquisition of leasehold ownership rights ipso facto create a relationship of landlord and tenant with existing occupants of a property?
- Haji Faqir Muhammad Through His Legal Heirs vs Khuda Bakhsh And Another1992 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-03Read full judgment →
- Habibur Rehman vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1551 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-20Read full judgment →
- Habibullah vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2489 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-24Read full judgment →
- Habibullah and 11 others vs Mst. Shamim Akhtar and 9 others1992 CLC 1567 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-04Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Limited vs Reyazokhalid Limited and 3 others1992 CLC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-26Read full judgment →
- Gulshan Spinning Mills Limited vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1992 CLC 1579 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
- Gul Hassan vs Kadir Bux And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2021 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
- Gul Faraz Khan And 2 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1133 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-16Read full judgment →
- Gul Bahar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1645 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-14Read full judgment →
- Grindlays Bank Limited vs Messrs Cheap John1992 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a suit for the recovery of Rs. 52,104.19 filed by Grindlays Bank Limited against Messrs Cheap John, arising from an unpaid overdraft facility. The defendants admitted the debt but contended that the suit was time-barred and that the surrender of life insurance policies by the partners constituted full and final settlement of the bank's claim. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether the bank had agreed to accept the surrender value of the insurance policies in full satisfaction of the debt. The Court held that the suit was within the limitation period, as the defendants had acknowledged the liability in writing through various letters, the last being dated 22-4-1975. Furthermore, the Court found that the defendants failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the alleged full and final settlement agreement. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, holding that the bank's statement of accounts was admissible and correct under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891, and awarded the claimed amount with interest.
Questions settled- Does a written acknowledgment of debt by the debtor extend the limitation period for a recovery suit?
- Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a defendant claims that a partial payment or collateral realization constitutes full and final settlement of a debt?
- Is a statement of accounts produced by a bank admissible in evidence under the Bankers Books Evidence Act 1891?
- Government of Sindh through Secretary, Housing, Karachi and 2 others1992 PLD Karachi 150 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged a judgment and decree by the Additional District Judge, Nawabshah, modifying a land acquisition award. The appellants, the Government of Sindh and the Municipal Committee, Nawabshah, sought to contest the compensation awarded for acquired land. The respondents raised two preliminary objections: first, that the appeal was not competently instituted because the advocate filing it lacked proper authorization from the Government; and second, that the Municipal Committee, as a local authority, lacked the locus standi to file an appeal against an award in a land acquisition reference. The Court held that the appeal was not maintainable on both counts. Regarding the first issue, the Court found that the advocate lacked the requisite authorization to represent the Government. Regarding the second issue, the Court affirmed the principle that under the Land Acquisition Act, a local authority or company for whom land is acquired has no right to demand a reference under Section 18, nor a right to appeal against the court's decision on such a reference, as the award becomes final against them.
Questions settled- Does a local authority or company for whom land is acquired have the locus standi to file an appeal against a court's decision on a land acquisition reference?
- Can an appeal filed on behalf of the Government be maintained if the advocate lacks specific authorization or appointment as a law officer?
- Does a local authority have the right to demand a reference under Section 18 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Government of Sindh through Mechanical Engineer vs Muhammad1992 PLC 31 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
- Government of Sindh and others vs Khalil Ahmed1992 CLC 1958 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to challenge a compromise decree passed on 23-12-1985 in a suit concerning land ownership and the issuance of a No-Objection Certificate. The petitioners, who were defendants in the original suit, alleged fraud or misrepresentation regarding the status of the land, which they claimed was evacuee property. The core legal question was whether the application filed on 23-7-1989 was time-barred under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the application was indeed time-barred. It reasoned that the right to apply under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 accrues from the date of the impugned decree or when the alleged fraud or misrepresentation becomes known to the applicant. Since the petitioners were present during the original proceedings and were aware of the property's status, the three-year limitation period commenced on the date of the compromise decree. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition without addressing the merits of the case.
Questions settled- From what date does the period of limitation commence for an application filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party challenge a compromise decree under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if they were present during the proceedings and aware of the facts at the time?
- Government of Pakistan vs Messrs Overseas Enterprises (Pte) Ltd.1992 CLC 1138 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved a commercial dispute arising from a contract for the supply of hardwood bridge and crossing timbers (sleepers) by the defendant to the plaintiff, Government of Pakistan (Pakistan Railways). After shipment from Singapore and delivery at Karachi, the plaintiff conducted a subsequent inspection and claimed that a majority of the sleepers were defective, invoking the arbitration clause. The sole arbitrator rejected the plaintiff's claim and partly allowed the defendant's counter-claim for refund of bank guarantees and performance bonds, holding that pre-shipment inspection by the plaintiff's appointed inspector absolved the defendant of further liability. The plaintiff filed objections against the award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The Sindh High Court held that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct by ignoring crucial contractual clauses and the express reservations in the inspection certificates—which stated that visual pre-shipment inspection did not relieve the seller of contractual obligations—as well as statutory provisions under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930. Consequently, the High Court set aside the arbitral award.
Questions settled- Does a pre-shipment inspection certificate absolve a seller from liability for latent defects when the certificate expressly states it is based on a visual inspection only?
- Can an arbitral award be set aside under the Arbitration Act, 1940, for error on the face of the award and failure to consider vital contract documents?
- Whether the provisions of sections 15 and 16 of the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, regarding description and merchantable quality apply notwithstanding a buyer's pre-delivery inspection?
- What is the legal effect of an inspection clause read in conjunction with standard railway conditions regarding a contractor's continuing responsibility for supplied goods?
- Government of Pakistan Through DivisionalEngineer Telegraphs, Hyderabad vs Muhammad Abbas1992 PLD Karachi 144 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited vs Inspecting Assistant1992 PTD 82 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-24Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Group Limited vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi1992 PTD 636 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference application from the Sindh High Court arises from assessment proceedings for the assessment years 1975-76, 1976-77, and 1977-78, where the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal referred a question regarding whether manufacturing royalties received by a United Kingdom non-resident company from a Pakistani company were exempt from Pakistan tax under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The core legal question was whether payments for specific manufacturing services (sub-clauses (d) and (g) of clause 4 of the consultancy agreement) qualified as exempt royalty or industrial and commercial profits under the Treaty. The Court held, following its earlier precedent, that payments for services under sub-clauses (d) and (g) did not fall within the definition of royalty under Article VIII of the Treaty. Furthermore, the Court held that these technical services rendered by the assessee's staff constituted 'personal services' which are expressly excluded from the definition of 'industrial or commercial profits' under Article II(1)(k), and thus they are not exempt from income tax under Article III of the Treaty. The reference question was accordingly answered in the affirmative.
Questions settled- Whether manufacturing royalties received by a non-resident company are exempt from Pakistan tax under the Agreement for Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and the United Kingdom?
- Does the definition of industrial or commercial profits in Article II(1)(k) of the Double Taxation Treaty include payments for technical services rendered through staff delegation?
- Are technical services rendered by a company through its staff considered personal services that stand excluded from the definition of industrial or commercial profits under the Double Taxation Treaty?
- Whether payments for factory inspection and technical advice under a manufacturing agreement qualify as royalty under Article VIII of the Pakistan-United Kingdom Double Taxation Treaty?
- Glaxo Group Limited and 2 others vs Evron (Private) Limited and another1992 CLC 2382 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged the dismissal of an application for an interim injunction in a patent infringement suit. The appellants, holders of Pakistani patents for processes related to 'ranitidine hydrochloride,' alleged that the respondents infringed these patents by importing and selling a drug named 'Melfax' containing the patented compound. The core legal question concerned whether the importation and sale of a product manufactured abroad using a process patented in Pakistan constitutes actionable infringement under the Patents and Designs Act, 1911, and whether an interim injunction was warranted. The Court held that the importation and sale of such products constitute a 'user' of the invention, thereby infringing the patent. It rejected the respondents' arguments regarding patent invalidity and public interest. Furthermore, the Court determined that the balance of convenience favored the appellants, as the respondents had made minimal capital investment compared to the appellants' established market presence. Finally, the Court ruled that mere delay, absent evidence of prejudice to the defendant, does not disentitle a plaintiff from obtaining interlocutory relief. The appeal was allowed, and the interim injunction was granted.
Questions settled- Does the importation and sale of a product manufactured abroad using a process patented in Pakistan constitute patent infringement?
- Does the possession of patented goods with the intention of sale amount to a 'user' of the invention under the Patents and Designs Act, 1911?
- Is a plaintiff disentitled from seeking an interim injunction solely due to a delay in filing the suit, if the delay has not caused prejudice to the defendant?
- What principles govern the balance of convenience in patent infringement cases involving competing commercial interests?
- Ghullam Kadir and others vs State Life Insurance1992 CLC 1410 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Nazir of the Sindh High Court, Karachi and others1992 CLC 2490 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-18Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 1852 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain vs Messrs Adam Limited and 3 others1992 CLC 1883 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-08Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Ali vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2033 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal question concerns whether the prosecution established guilt beyond reasonable doubt, given that the trial court acquitted the co-accused based on the same evidence, and the prosecution failed to examine the Investigating Officer and the first medical examiner. The Sindh High Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. The Court established that where eye-witnesses are closely related to the deceased and have been disbelieved regarding co-accused, their testimony against the remaining accused requires independent material corroboration, which was absent here. Additionally, material contradictions regarding the place of occurrence, the timing of the FIR, and the failure to examine crucial witnesses—specifically the Investigating Officer and the first medical officer—created significant gaps in the prosecution's case. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Questions settled- Whether the testimony of interested witnesses, who have been disbelieved regarding co-accused, can be relied upon against the remaining accused without independent corroboration?
- Does the non-examination of the Investigating Officer in a murder trial cause material prejudice to the accused?
- Can a conviction be sustained when there are material contradictions regarding the place of occurrence and the timing of the FIR?
- General Tyre & Rubber Company of Pakistan Limited, Karachi vs Sindh1992 PLC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenge an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which reinstated employees previously terminated by the petitioner. The core legal questions were whether the employees qualified as 'permanent workmen' and whether their termination letters complied with the statutory requirement to provide explicit reasons for dismissal. The High Court held that the employees were 'temporary workmen' because the nature of the work was temporary and not likely to exceed nine months; the mere duration of employment or re-hiring after short breaks does not confer permanent status. However, the Court further held that the termination letters, which merely stated that services were 'no longer required,' failed to meet the 'explicit' requirement of Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The Court established that the classification of a workman depends on the nature of the work, not the duration of service, and that employers must provide clear, specific reasons for termination to facilitate judicial review. The case was remanded to the Tribunal for a fresh decision regarding compliance with Standing Order 12(3).
Questions settled- Does the duration of employment or re-hiring after short breaks automatically confer the status of a 'permanent workman' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Is the statement 'services are no longer required' a sufficient reason for termination under Standing Order 12(3) of the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- What is the legal test for distinguishing between a 'permanent workman' and a 'temporary workman' under the Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Francis (Muslim Name Mohammad Yaqoob) vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 981 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-07Read full judgment →
- Fida Hussain Ansari vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-31Read full judgment →
- Feroze Ahmed vs Mst. Zohra KhatoonK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 284 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
- Feroze Ahmad vs Mst. Zehra Khatoon1992 CLC 735 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in the payment of rent. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant's deposit of rent before the Rent Controller was valid without prior refusal by the landlord, whether the tenant committed a default under section 10 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and whether the landlord's withdrawal of deposited rent constituted a waiver of the default. The Sindh High Court held that a tenant cannot arbitrarily choose to deposit rent with the Rent Controller without a genuine refusal or avoidance by the landlord to accept it, and that failure to pay rent within the stipulated timeframe constitutes a valid default leading to ejectment. Furthermore, the Court held that the mere withdrawal of deposited arrears by a landlord does not amount to a waiver of the right to seek ejectment unless there is an intentional relinquishment of a known right with full knowledge. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Does the deposit of rent in the office of the Rent Controller constitute a valid tender without a prior refusal or avoidance by the landlord to accept the rent?
- What is the prescribed time limit for the payment of rent in the absence of a written agreement between the landlord and tenant under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the withdrawal of arrears of rent by a landlord from the Rent Controller amount to a waiver of the tenant's default in timely payment?
- What are the consequences under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 once a tenant commits a default in the payment of rent within the prescribed period?
- Fayyaz Hussain vs Tahir Naseem1992 PLD Karachi 423 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal concerns the dismissal of a recovery suit on the grounds of Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant had previously sued for recovery of three loan instalments and subsequently filed a second suit for the remaining balance. The lower courts dismissed the second suit, reasoning that the entire claim should have been included in the first suit. The core legal question was whether the second suit was barred under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given the appellant's claim that the loan was repayable in monthly instalments. The High Court held that Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, only bars subsequent suits where the cause of action for the entire claim had already accrued at the time of the first suit. Since the loan was repayable in instalments, the cause of action for the remaining balance had not accrued when the first suit was filed. The Court established that a plaintiff is not barred from suing for subsequent instalments that were not due at the time of the initial litigation.
Questions settled- Does Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a subsequent suit for loan instalments that had not yet fallen due at the time of the first suit?
- Is a plaintiff permitted to adduce oral evidence regarding the mode of loan repayment when the written mortgage agreement is silent on the matter?
- Can a court reject a party's uncontroverted sworn testimony regarding the terms of a loan agreement?
- Farrukh K. Captain. vs Exxon Chemical Pakistan Ltd. and 8 others.PTCL 1992- CL.103 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Farooq Hussain vs Muhammad Saleem Khan1992 CLC 2276 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant's defence and directing the vacation of the premises due to non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The respondent had filed an eviction application under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, alleging default in rent payment. A consent tentative rent order was previously passed requiring the appellant to deposit future rent in the specific rent case. The appellant subsequently deposited rent for certain months in a separate Miscellaneous Rent Case rather than the current rent case, and failed to deposit rent for August 1990 by the due date. The Court held that depositing rent in a different case file, contrary to the explicit terms of a consent tentative rent order, constitutes a violation of that order. Furthermore, the unexplained delay in depositing rent for August 1990 confirmed the default. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the striking off of the defence and ordering the appellant to vacate the premises, establishing that strict adherence to the terms of a tentative rent order is mandatory to avoid eviction.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in a separate miscellaneous case file instead of the specific rent case constitute a violation of a tentative rent order?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for failing to comply with a consent tentative rent order regarding the place of deposit?
- Is an unexplained delay in depositing rent sufficient grounds to uphold an order striking off a tenant's defence?
- Farida Mirza vs Income Tax Officer And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 6 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
- Faiyyaz Hussain vs Mrs, Noor Bano1992 CLC 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-07Read full judgment →
- F.W. Woolworth Company vs The Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks1992 CLC 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-17Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International Ltd. vs Messrs Fibers Inc. and 3 others1992 CLC 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-18Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International LIMITEDplaintiff vs Messrs Larkana Woollen1992 CLC 2161 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a summary suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether a court should postpone passing a decree against non-contesting defendants in a summary suit until the final disposal of the suit against other defendants who were granted leave to defend. The defendants argued that failing to postpone the decree could result in conflicting judgments. The Court held that Order XXXVII provides a self-contained, special summary procedure distinct from the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Where a defendant fails to obtain leave to defend or comply with conditional leave, the allegations in the plaint are deemed admitted, entitling the plaintiff to an immediate decree. The Court clarified that conflicting decrees against different defendants—arising from admissions versus adjudication—are legally permissible and do not offend principles of justice. Consequently, the Court rejected the request to postpone the decree and ruled that the plaintiff was entitled to an immediate decree against the non-contesting defendants.
Questions settled- Does the failure of some defendants to obtain leave to defend in a summary suit require the court to postpone the decree against them until the suit is decided against other defendants?
- Are conflicting decrees against different defendants in the same suit legally permissible when some are based on deemed admissions and others on adjudication?
- Is Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a self-contained provision for summary suits?
- Emirates Bank International Limited vs M/s Oosman Brother And OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 93 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-30Read full judgment →
- Dr. S. Husain vs MRs, Masiha Begum1992 CLC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-11Read full judgment →
- Dr. Quraishul Mujtaba Qarni vs S. Usman Ali Kazmi1992 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged an eviction order passed by a Rent Controller against the appellant, Dr. Quraishul Mujtaba Qarni, regarding residential quarters. The respondent, S. Usman Ali Kazmi, sought eviction on grounds of rent default, unauthorized subletting, structural alterations, and change of use. The appellant contested the application, denying the landlord-tenant relationship and asserting ownership through an alleged oral sale agreement and adverse possession. The core legal question was whether a tenant, having admitted the tenancy, could challenge the landlord's title or the validity of a gift made by the original owner. The Court held that the appellant, having admitted the tenancy, was estopped under Article 115 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 from denying the landlord's title. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that a tenant lacks locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift made by the landlord. Finding the relationship of landlord and tenant established and default in rent payment proven, the Court upheld the eviction order, emphasizing that a tenant cannot set up a title adverse to the landlord during the tenancy.
Questions settled- Can a tenant challenge the title of their landlord during the continuance of the tenancy?
- Does a tenant have the locus standi to challenge the validity of a gift of the property made by the landlord to a third party?
- Is a tenant permitted to raise a plea of adverse possession against their landlord?
- Can a party introduce evidence on a factual plea that was not raised in their written statement?
- Dr. Nizamuddin Memon vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 765 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-08Read full judgment →
- Dr. Muhammad Ali Ghazanfar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 849 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mahboob Ali Soomro vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 80 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Khalid Kamal Khan vs Dr. Arshad Kamal Khan and another1992 CLC 1887 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for the dissolution of a partnership firm. The core legal question was whether a subsequent "bifurcation proposal" regarding the business operations constituted a novation of the original partnership agreement, thereby extinguishing the original firm. The Court held that the bifurcation agreement, which introduced new parties and created independent administrative and financial structures, was fundamentally inconsistent with the original partnership deed. Consequently, the original partnership ceased to exist, and the suit for its dissolution was unsustainable. The Court affirmed the principle of novation under Section 62 of the Contract Act 1872, holding that where parties to a contract agree to substitute a new contract for an existing one, the original contract is discharged. If the terms of a subsequent agreement are so inconsistent with the former that they cannot stand together, the former is deemed rescinded. The Court found no error in the trial court's assessment of the evidence or its procedural modification of issues.
Questions settled- Does a subsequent agreement that is fundamentally inconsistent with an original partnership deed constitute a novation of contract?
- Can a suit for the dissolution of a partnership be maintained if the partnership has been extinguished by a subsequent arrangement?
- Is a court permitted to modify issues framed in a suit after hearing the evidence if it serves to clarify the real contest between the parties?
- Dr. Ahmed Ali vs Agha Mir Alavi And. Another1992 P Cr. L J 2038 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-04Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-28Read full judgment →
- Dada Steel Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Karachi vs Federation of Pakistan Through Secretary Finance, Islamabad And 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 335 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-14Read full judgment →
- Dada Steel Mills (Pvt.) Limited, Karachi vs M.V.I. Van And 2 Other1992 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-30Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Ma. Ghani & Company1992 PTD 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1992-05-05Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-C, Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 39 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-C vs M/s. Transoceanic1992 PTD 232 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-14Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-B, Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 708 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-31Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-'C', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 751 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference case from the Sindh High Court addresses the validity of reopening an income tax assessment under section 34 of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922 (corresponding to section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979). The core legal question was whether the Income Tax Officer could legally reopen a concluded assessment where all material facts were fully disclosed and considered, and no new facts were discovered, amounting merely to a change of opinion. The court held that while an assessment can be reopened if income has escaped assessment, a mere change of opinion by the Income Tax Officer does not justify reopening a concluded transaction where all facts were previously disclosed. The court affirmed the principle laid down by the Supreme Court that interference under section 34 or section 65 is impermissible in the absence of new facts or discovered material, and since the determination below involved a mixed question of fact and law, the Tribunal's view on the question of law was correct.
Questions settled- Whether proceedings initiated under section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 are valid in law when based merely on a change of opinion by the Income Tax Officer?
- Can an assessment be reopened under section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 or section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 when all material facts have already been fully disclosed by the assessee?
- Does the question of whether an action taken by an Income Tax Officer falls within the ambit of section 34 of the Income Tax Act, 1922 constitute a pure question of law or a mixed question of law and fact?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs Messrs Bath1992 PTD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-21Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 758 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs Algemence1992 PTD 1161 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-12Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M/s Transoceanic SteamshipK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 8 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Raziki Ink Co. Ltd.1992 PTD 339 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Mehran Associates Limited1992 PTD 719 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-27Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs James Finlay1992 PTD 338 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Glaxo Laboratories (Pak.) Ltd.1992 PTD 57 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs a & B Investment Company1992 PTD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference before the High Court of Sindh concerned the interpretation of Section 45-A(a)(i) of the repealed Income-tax Act 1922. The respondent assessee filed a tax return but failed to pay its admitted tax liability under Section 22-A of the Income-tax Act 1922. The Income-tax Officer levied additional tax under Section 45-A. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal set aside the levy, holding that because the assessee had not paid the tax, no terminal date of payment existed, rendering the calculation of additional tax under Section 45-A impossible. The High Court affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that the words "to the date of its payment" in Section 45-A(a)(i) clearly indicate that the provision applies only when actual payment has been made. In the absence of actual payment, the terminal date is missing, making quantification of additional tax impossible under Section 45-A of the Income-tax Act 1922. The court emphasized that taxing statutes must be strictly construed according to their express language without importing unstated provisions.
Questions settled- Whether additional tax under Section 45-A of the Income-tax Act 1922 can be levied in the absence of a terminal date of actual payment?
- Does the phrase 'to the date of its payment' in Section 45-A(a)(i) of the Income-tax Act 1922 restrict the applicability of additional tax to cases where payment has actually been made?
- Can a court import missing terminal dates into a taxing statute where the legislature has not expressly provided them?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone-C, Karachi vs D. M. Bamjee1992 PTD 29 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'B' Karachi vs Messrs E.M.I.1992 PTD 734 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-28Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, South Zone, Karachi vs Noor Jehan S. Ali1992 PTD 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone-B, Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 750 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone-B, Karachi vs Messrs Saeed1992 PTD 755 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-18Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone-B, Karachi vs Messrs1992 PTD 762 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-18Read full judgment →