Latest Judgments

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

• Abdul Manna N vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1992-04-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Soomro vs The State1992 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1992-02-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif Khan vs Dhanjishaw Bahranji Ghadially and another1992 CLC 827 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1992-08-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir vs Muhammad Nawaz And Others1992 P Cr. L J 2044 · Sindh High Court · 1992-06-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 498 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Alias Karo And 3 Others vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 767 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs The StateKLR1992 Criminal Cases 295 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mohammad Shah KhanK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 250 · Sindh High Court · 1991-12-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1992 P Cr. L J 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs Ali Muhammad and 3 others1992 CLC 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs S.M.Saghiruddin Hassan & 3 OtherK.L.R. 1992 Civil Cases 184 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs S.M. Saghiruddin Hasan and 3 others1992 CLC 698 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan Niazi and others vs Mrs. Salma Rehman and another1992 CLC 777 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-10
  abandoned propertySection 12(2) CPCspecific performancefraud and misrepresentationlocus standiunregistered sale deedregistration of documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was filed by the Board of Trustees of the Abandoned Properties to set aside a decree for specific performance of a contract. The applicants alleged the decree was obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, as the property in question was 'abandoned property' under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975. The core legal questions concerned whether the applicants, as non-parties, had the locus standi to challenge the decree and whether the underlying agreement effectively transferred title. The Court held that the decree was obtained by suppressing material facts. It determined that the unregistered agreement of sale was ineffective to transfer title under the Registration Act, 1908, meaning the property remained vested in the Federal Government. Consequently, the Court set aside the decree. The judgment establishes that Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 permits 'any person,' regardless of whether they were a party to the original suit, to challenge a judgment or decree obtained through fraud, misrepresentation, or want of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'person' in Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include individuals who were not parties to the original suit?
  • Can an unregistered agreement of sale for immovable property exceeding one hundred rupees in value effectively transfer title?
  • Is a suit for specific performance barred if the property in question has been declared as abandoned property under the Abandoned Properties (Taking Over and Management) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz And Other vs The State And.Other1992 PLD Karachi 378 · Sindh High Court · 1992-03-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Alias Baboo And Other vs The StateK.L.R. 1992 Criminal Cases 215 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-24Read full judgment →
• Abba Umar Shekha vs Habib Bank Limited and 2 others1992 CLC 1880 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-28Read full judgment →
• A.F.Ferguson & Co. vs District Court Karachi And Other(K.L.R. 1992 Labour & Service 1) · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-30Read full judgment →
• A&B Food Industries Limited vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, CentralK.L.R. 1992 Tax & Custom Cases 104 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• A & B Oil Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (B'1992 PTD 736 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• A & B Oil Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax ('B'Range), Karachi.PTCL 1992 CL. 460 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-13Read full judgment →
• 1Qbal Khan and 7 others vs Mst. Haseen Zamani Begum and 2 others1992 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1991-11-26Read full judgment →
• (Mst). Kulsoom (Fatima) vs Wazir Ali Aad 13 OtherK.L.R 1992 Civil Cases 150 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• (Mst) Nadira Yusuf vs Shaikh Mohammad ArshadK.L.R.1992 Civil Cases 134 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Zubair vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Zareef Khan vs The Administrator, Karachi Circle, Auqaf Department1991 MLD 2323 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Zaman Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue and 2 others1991 MLD 1591 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
• Zakiuddin And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Zakariya vs Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue Sindh, Karachi and 3 others1991 MLD 2317 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Zahooruddin vs Haji Hussain through his Legal Heirs and others1991 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26
  civil revisionadditional evidenceframing of issuesfailure to exercise jurisdictionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition challenges the appellate court's judgment for altogether ignoring and failing to dispose of two pending applications filed during the appeal—one seeking additional evidence through the appointment of a Commissioner and the other for framing or re-casting of issues. The core legal question addresses whether an appellate court can decide an appeal while completely ignoring and failing to adjudicate upon applications touching the matters in controversy. The Sindh High Court held that it is a fundamental and mandatory obligation of a court of law to entertain, address, and dispose of all applications properly brought before it in accordance with the law, either by accepting or rejecting them. The Court ruled that rendering a judgment while refusing or failing to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law vitiates the decision. Consequently, the revision was allowed, the appellate judgments and decrees were set aside, and the matter was remanded back to the appellate court for a fresh decision in accordance with the law after disposing of the pending applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appellate court can decide an appeal without disposing of pending applications filed before it?
  • Is it an obligation of a court of law to entertain and adjudicate upon all applications brought before it in accordance with law?
  • What is the legal effect when an appellate court renders a judgment upon a refusal to exercise jurisdiction conferred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahooruddin vs Haji Husain and 4 OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 489 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
• Zahoor vs The State1991 MLD 1951 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Zahoor vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 549 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-08Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Khan vs Qazi Fateh Din1991 MLD 333 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin vs Riaz Ahmed and another1991 CLC 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13
  EjectmentLandlord-tenant relationshipDefault in rentSublettingBona fide personal useProof of tenancyRent agreementDocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, challenged the dismissal of an ejectment application by the Rent Controller. The appellant landlord sought ejectment of his alleged tenant, Umerdin (respondent No. 2), and sub-tenant, Riaz Ahmed (respondent No. 1), on grounds of rent default, subletting, and bona fide personal use. The Rent Controller found that Umerdin was not the tenant, but rather Riaz Ahmed was the tenant, who had not defaulted on rent as he had deposited it in court. The Rent Controller also held that the landlord failed to prove his bona fide requirement for the premises. The High Court upheld these findings, emphasizing that the landlord failed to prove the landlord-tenant relationship with Umerdin through a properly executed agreement under Section 5 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, or by proving the documents under Qanun-e-Shahadat. Additionally, the landlord's claim for bona fide personal use was deemed insufficient due to a casual approach in the application and lack of tangible supporting evidence. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • What is the evidentiary value of a photostat copy of a rent agreement without the landlord's signature and not drawn in accordance with Section 5(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a landlord establish a bona fide personal use requirement for ejectment without sufficiently explaining the need in the application and supporting it with tangible evidence?
  • Does a tenant commit default in rent payment if, upon the landlord's refusal to accept rent, the tenant deposits the rent in court?
  • What is required to prove the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer-Ud-Din vs Riaz Ahmed & AnotherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 415 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Islam vs Mrs. Azra Malik1991 PLD Karachi 377 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30
  arbitration awardrule of courtSection 12(2) CPCfraud and misrepresentationpower of attorneytermination of agencydeath of principaldecree against dead person
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose from applications filed under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the legal heirs of a deceased property owner (Mst. Masooda Bhurgari) to set aside an arbitration award and consent decree passed in a suit between the plaintiff (purchaser) and the deceased's attorney. The core legal questions were whether an agency and power of attorney survive the death of the principal, whether an arbitration reference and subsequent decree against an attorney without joining the legal heirs of a deceased principal are valid, and whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable to set aside a decree making an award a rule of the court. The Sindh High Court held that under Section 201 of the Contract Act 1872, an agency terminates upon the death of the principal. Since the principal died prior to the arbitration reference, proceedings initiated solely against the attorney without impleading legal heirs were a nullity. The court ruled that an application under Section 12(2) CPC was maintainable and governed by the limitation period under Article 95 of the Limitation Act 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a power of attorney and the agency created thereunder terminate upon the death of the principal under Section 201 of the Contract Act?
  • Can an arbitration proceeding and resulting decree be valid when conducted solely against an agent after the death of the principal without impleading the legal heirs?
  • Is an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable to challenge a decree that made an arbitration award the rule of the court on grounds of fraud, misrepresentation, or lack of jurisdiction?
  • Which provision of the Limitation Act governs an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside a decree obtained by fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafarul Hassan Qureshi vs Messrs. Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd.1991 CLC 1580 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07
  administration suitbenami transactionwillnon-joinder of partiesprovident fund nomineeinheritanceburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff for administration and accounts under Order XX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, claiming to be the sole surviving heir of his deceased brother who died intestate. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of the administration suit in the absence of certain co-heirs, the validity and proof of a disputed Will left by the deceased, whether a nominee of provident fund and insurance benefits is the absolute owner or merely a trustee, and the determination of ownership regarding properties held benami. The court held that an administration suit is maintainable even if some co-heirs are not joined as parties, provided an effective decree can be framed, that the Will executed by the deceased was validly proved and not rebutted, that a nominee holds funds merely as a trustee for legal heirs, and that properties purchased in the wife's name by the husband are presumed to be benami. The court laid down principles regarding the presumption of adverse inference under Article 129(g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order 1984 for withholding documents, the competency of executing a Will while in a feeble state, and the status of nominees regarding employer benefits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administration suit is maintainable and liable to be dismissed for the non-joinder of some co-heirs?
  • Does a nominee for provident fund and group insurance benefits receive the money as an absolute owner or as a trustee for the legal heirs?
  • What is the legal presumption when a property is acquired by a husband in the name of his wife?
  • What adverse inference is drawn under the law of evidence when a party deliberately withholds documents in their possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs The State1991 MLD 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-13Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs Arif And Others1991 P Cr. L J 529 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob Ali vs Mst. Dur Bibi and 3 others1991 CLC 947 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Whitehorn International Limited vs M. V. Ghantouti (Exbismillah) and another1991 MLD 75 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-29Read full judgment →
• Waseemuddin and 2 others vs Nadeemuddin1991 CLC 924 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Province of Sindhh, and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Revenue Cases 106) · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary and 31991 MLD 2499 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26Read full judgment →
• Volkart (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Interavia Pakistan Ltd.1991 MLD 2147 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-11Read full judgment →
• Usman Ali Isani vs Karachi Development Authority through DirectorGeneral and 3 others1991 CLC 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• University of Karachi and anothers vs Muhammad Rafique and 4 others1991 CLC 752 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Universal Brushwares (Private) Limited and anothers vs Messrs Syed1991 CLC 382 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-05
  patented designdesign infringementtemporary injunctionattachment before judgmentnovelty and originalityregistered proprietorfunctional feature
  Summary & questions settled

  This order resolves applications for a temporary injunction and attachment before judgment in a suit concerning alleged design infringement. The plaintiffs, proprietors of a registered toothbrush design featuring a specific arrangement of inner upstanding and outer slanting bristles, sought to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling similar toothbrushes. The defendants contended that the design was neither new nor original, pointing out that foreign companies had manufactured toothbrushes with identical bristle settings prior to the plaintiffs' registration. The High Court considered whether a design copied from abroad could be deemed 'new or original' in Pakistan. Rejecting the plaintiffs' contention that local novelty suffices, the court held that a person imitating an existing foreign design cannot claim copyright protection or status as a proprietor under the Patents and Designs Act 1911, even if registered locally. Furthermore, the court noted that the feature copied related to functional bristle arrangements rather than shape or configuration. Finding no prima facie case, the court dismissed both applications.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a design imitated from an existing foreign product can be considered 'new or original' for protection under Pakistani law?
  • Does a person who registers a design in Pakistan after copying it from abroad qualify as a 'proprietor' under the Patents and Designs Act 1911?
  • Can functional features of an article, such as bristle settings, be protected as a registrable design against alleged infringement?
  Read full judgment →
• United Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner for Workmen's1991 PLC 479 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Muhammad Majeed alias Abdul Majeed1991 CLC 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Noor Silk Mills Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 888 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Shahid Corporation1991 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14
  Banking TribunalLiquidated damagesFinance agreementMark-upRecovery suitBanking Tribunals Ordinance 1984Contractual liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a judgment by the Banking Tribunal, which decreed a suit for the recovery of finance but refused to award liquidated damages stipulated in the finance agreement. The appellant, a banking company, challenged this refusal, arguing that the agreement explicitly provided for liquidated damages upon default. The core legal question was whether a Banking Tribunal, constituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984, possesses the jurisdiction to award liquidated damages as agreed upon in a finance contract. The High Court held that the Banking Tribunal erred in its observation that the Ordinance prohibited the award of such damages. Finding no such restriction within the statutory framework of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984, the Court concluded that the Tribunal was entitled to enforce the contractual terms regarding liquidated damages. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned observation and remanded the case to the Tribunal for a fresh determination in accordance with the law. The judgment affirms that Banking Tribunals must enforce valid contractual provisions for liquidated damages unless specifically barred by statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 prohibit a Banking Tribunal from awarding liquidated damages stipulated in a finance agreement?
  • Is a Banking Tribunal empowered to enforce contractual clauses regarding liquidated damages agreed upon between a bank and a customer?
  • Can a Banking Tribunal refuse to grant liquidated damages on the sole ground that there is no specific provision for them in the Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Messrs Altaf Limited and another1991 CLC 1754 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-30Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Kurnool Muhammad Muneer1991 CLC 1758 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23
  recovery of bank loanoverdraft facilitylimitation periodtime-barred debtpromise to paypart paymentpenal interestcompound interestvoid promissory note
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was instituted by United Bank Limited for the recovery of Rs. 6,089,344.11 arising from an overdraft facility secured by promissory notes and pledged shares. The defendant contested the claim, alleging the suit was time-barred, the security documents were signed in blank, and the statement of account unlawfully included penal, compound, and exorbitant interest. The High Court of Sindh examined whether time-barred amounts could be revived and whether penal interest was recoverable. The Court held that while ordinary acknowledgments cannot revive an already time-barred debt, a written promise to pay a time-barred debt constitutes a fresh agreement and cause of action under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act 1872. The limitation period was subsequently extended by part payments under Section 20 of the Limitation Act 1908. Furthermore, penal interest was disallowed as it was not backed by an agreement, and unstamped or uncancelled promissory notes were deemed void. Consequently, the Court decreed the suit for Rs. 6,020,797 after deducting the unauthorized penal interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can a written promise to pay a time-barred debt furnish a fresh cause of action under Section 25(3) of the Contract Act, 1872?
  • Does a balance confirmation note executed after the expiry of the limitation period revive a time-barred debt?
  • Can a bank charge penal interest on an overdraft facility in the absence of an explicit agreement between the parties?
  • Is a claim for the recovery of a loan with compound interest contrary to public policy under Section 23 of the Contract Act, 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Trust Ceramic Industries Landhi vs Deputy Collector II, Central Excise1991 CLC 1923 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21
  excise dutyexcisable goodsmarketability testcentral excisemanufacturing processvendable goodstaxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges the imposition of Central Excise Duty on 'glaze', a chemical preparation used by the petitioner in manufacturing ceramic wares. The petitioner contended that the glaze is not a distinct, marketable product but an intermediate material consumed in-house during the manufacturing process, and thus not subject to excise duty. The core legal question was whether excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, can be levied on a product that is not 'vendable' or marketable. The Court held that for goods to be 'excisable' under the Act, they must possess the quality of being marketable. Relying on the principle that excise duty is attracted only when a marketable good is produced, the Court declared the impugned orders without lawful authority. The matter was remanded to the Deputy Collector to conduct a factual inquiry into whether the glaze is indeed a vendable good. Additionally, the Court directed the authority to determine if a prior practice existed of not charging duty on glaze, which would impact the prospective or retrospective application of the Central Board of Revenue's General Order No. 3/86.

  Questions settled

  • Can Central Excise Duty be levied on a product that is not marketable or vendable?
  • Does the definition of 'excisable goods' under the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944 require that the goods be capable of being sold in the market?
  • Is a General Order issued by the Central Board of Revenue regarding excise classification applicable retrospectively if a contrary practice previously existed?
  Read full judgment →
• Transpak Corporation Ltd vs Registrar of Trade MarksK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 518 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
• Transpak Corporation Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 658 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13
  trademark registrationdeceptive similarityRegistrar of Trade Markstrademark advertisementconfusing similarityintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the refusal by the Registrar of Trade Marks to register the appellant's trademark "Shield" for toothpaste, citing its confusing similarity to the existing registered mark "Bronze Shield." The appellant contended that the Registrar should have advertised the application before rejection, pursuant to the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Trade Marks Act. The Court held that the Registrar is not legally obligated to advertise an application before rejecting it, as the proviso grants the Registrar discretion, indicated by the word "may," to advertise before acceptance, not before rejection. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the Registrar's decision on merits, finding that the mark "Shield" was deceptively similar to "Bronze Shield" for the same class of goods, creating a tangible risk of confusion for consumers. The principle laid down is that the Registrar has the discretion, not a mandatory duty, to advertise a trademark application before acceptance, and that registration may be refused without prior advertisement if the mark is deceptively similar to an existing registered trademark.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Registrar of Trade Marks legally required to advertise a trademark application before rejecting it?
  • Does the use of the word 'may' in the proviso to Section 15(1) of the Trade Marks Act grant the Registrar discretion regarding the advertisement of trademark applications?
  • Can the Registrar of Trade Marks refuse registration of a trademark without prior advertisement if it is deceptively similar to an existing registered mark?
  Read full judgment →
• Trans-Ocean Asia- vs Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd.1991 MLD 1660 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-13Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs International Trading and Sales Inc1991 CLC 32 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited vs Messrs Riko International1991 MLD 2572 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
• Tippo Enterprises vs Hoechst Aktiengesell Schafi and another1991 CLC 1717 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-23Read full judgment →
• The. Commissioner of Income-Tax Central `B', Karachi vs Messrs Evens1991 PTD 680 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• The Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Syed Sharif Hussain Shah1991 MLD 1589 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• The Superintendent Telegraph Workshop, Kotri vs Nihal Ahmed(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 54) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
• The State vs Irfanullah and 3 others1991 MLD 451 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-23Read full judgment →
• The State vs Inamur Rehman Alvi1991 P Cr. L J 815 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-19Read full judgment →
• The State vs Inamur Rehman Alvi1991 MLD 1818 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Inamur Rehman AlviK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 573 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• The Pakistan Institue of International Affairs and anothers vs Mrs.1991 MLD 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
• The Committee of Receivers of Assets of Mrabdul Wahab Galadari vs Abdul Wahab Ebrahim Galadari and anothers1991 CLC 694 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-31
  foreign decree enforcementinterim injunctionprima facie casejurisdictional challengeinterlocutory proceedingsbalance of convenienceirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, a Committee of Receivers appointed under a Dubai Royal Decree, filed a suit seeking the transfer of shares held by the defendant in a Pakistani company, asserting that these shares constituted "Galadari Assets" subject to the Decree. The defendants challenged the maintainability of the suit, arguing that Pakistani courts cannot enforce foreign executive decrees and that the court lacked jurisdiction. The Court addressed applications for interim relief and the production of additional evidence. The Court held that while jurisdictional challenges are significant, they need not be decided at the interlocutory stage if the suit presents a serious question for trial and a prima facie case is established. Consequently, the Court declined to appoint an interim receiver, as no waste was alleged, but granted an interim injunction restraining the transfer of the disputed shares to prevent irreparable prejudice. The Court affirmed that interim relief should be the least restrictive measure necessary to preserve the status quo pending final adjudication of the complex legal and jurisdictional issues involved.

  Questions settled

  • Must a court decide the question of jurisdiction before granting any form of interim relief in a suit?
  • Can an interim receiver be appointed in a suit where no allegation of waste of property is made?
  • Does a party's admission of a legal position in a foreign court constitute a binding estoppel in domestic proceedings?
  • Is a court required to allow the cross-examination of an attorney regarding inconsistent legal pleas made in different forums?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone "a", Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 836 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-08Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone B', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 678 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-15
  sales tax exemptionproduct of steamres judicata in tax matterssubsequent assessment yearsreference applicationSodium Silicate Liquified
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from reference applications filed by the Department under Section 17(4) of the relevant tax laws against the order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal, which had granted exemption to the respondents for manufacturing Sodium Silicate Liquified under Item 15 of Sales Tax Notification No. 9 of 1951. The core legal questions involved whether Sodium Silicate is a product of steam, whether the Tribunal could reopen the issue despite earlier contrary decisions, and whether the principle of res judicata applies to income tax proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the determination of whether Sodium Silicate is a product of steam is a pure question of fact settled by evidence, and further held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to proceedings before income tax authorities, allowing authorities to take a different view in subsequent assessment years if fresh evidence is presented. The application was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination that Sodium Silicate is a product of steam constitutes a question of fact?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to proceedings before Income Tax Authorities for subsequent assessment years?
  • Can Assessing Authorities or the Tribunal take a different view in subsequent assessment years if fresh evidence and additional facts are provided?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Messrs Rizki Ink Company Limited1991 PTD 783 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central `B', Karachi vs Messrs Philips1991 PTD 672 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone-B, Karachi, vs Messrs1991 PTD 841 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-13Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `C', Karachi vs B.D.1991 PTD 839 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs S.M. Naseem Allahwala1991 PTD 843 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Roneo Vickers Ltd. Karachi1991 PTD 171 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
• Thanwar vs Haji Muhammad Bux Chandio and 2 others1991 MLD 447 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-25Read full judgment →
• Tariq Niaz vs Masooda Begum1991 CLC 1733 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07Read full judgment →
• Tambrands Inc vs Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 1414 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad Alias Tajoo vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2167 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Zaffar Hussain Naqvi vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2304 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Tanweer Hussain Zahidi vs Federal Government of Pakistan1991 CLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Pir Walayat Shah vs The State1991 PLD Karachi 268 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Mukarram Ali vs Messrs Glaxy Construction (Pvt.) Ltd.1991 CLC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Anwar Iqbal vs Messrs Bangladesh Shipping1991 CLC 473 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06
  original civil jurisdictionterritorial jurisdictioncause of actioncarrying on business through agentpreliminary issuerecovery of wages
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff instituted a suit for recovery of wages against the defendant shipping company after his services were terminated via a telex sent through a local shipping agent in Pakistan. The defendant raised a preliminary issue regarding the territorial jurisdiction of the High Court, arguing that neither did the defendant carry on business in Karachi nor was the contract executed there. The court examined the scope of Section 20 and Section 120 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, alongside relevant case law, and held that while Sections 16, 17, and 20 are inapplicable to the High Court in its original civil jurisdiction, the general principles of law and territorial nexus still apply. The court found that because a part of the cause of action, including the receipt of the termination message and the signing of the agreement, occurred within Karachi, and because the defendant carried on business through a local agent within the jurisdiction, the High Court possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain and try the suit. The preliminary issue of jurisdiction was accordingly decided in favor of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sections 16, 17, and 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to the High Court in the exercise of its original civil jurisdiction?
  • Does the non-applicability of section 20 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to the High Court entirely remove the requirement of a territorial nexus for instituting a suit?
  • Whether the receipt of a termination telegram within Karachi constitutes a part of the cause of action giving jurisdiction to the Sindh High Court?
  • When does an agent's business activity within the jurisdiction qualify as carrying on business by a foreign principal for the purpose of establishing court jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Ahmad vs Nishat Mughera and 7 others1991 CLC 1065 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Laique Ali vs Mst. Noushin Murad and 2 others1991 CLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Khalid vs Independent Newspapers Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and another1991 PLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamal Shahid vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 531 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamal Shahid vs The State1991 MLD 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Hidayat Shah vs Shabbir Shah alias Shabbir Hussain Shah and another1991 P Cr. L J 255 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Fayaz Hussain Shah and 14 others vs Province of Sindh and 41991 PLC (C.S.) 447 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Atiq Ul Hassan And Another vs The State---Opponents1991 P Cr. L J 2342 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Aqil Ali vs Mst. Amina Bai1991 CLC 1884 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Anwar Ali vs Syed Habib Hussain1991 MLD 945 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Basit vs Mrs. M Ubarak1991 CLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-20
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentbona fide personal requirementtenancy agreementrent controllergrace period
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant regarding a residential property in North Nazimabad, Karachi. The landlord sought eviction on grounds of default in rent payment, personal bona fide requirement, unauthorized alterations, subletting, change of use, and expiry of the tenancy agreement. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, finding no merit in the grounds and concluding that the personal requirement was not in good faith due to evidence suggesting an intended sale of the property. Upon appeal, the High Court affirmed that the landlord failed to prove grounds regarding alterations, subletting, or change of use. However, the Court found that the Rent Controller erred in its assessment of rent default. The Court held that the tenant failed to pay rent within the stipulated grace period, rejecting the Controller's erroneous application of a 60-day grace period. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rent Controller's order, and ordered eviction based on the established default in rent payment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a clause in a power of attorney indicating an intent to sell property negate the landlord's claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  • Is a tenant entitled to a 60-day grace period for the payment of rent under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the failure to pay rent within the stipulated time period, despite subsequent deposits in court, constitute a default sufficient for ejectment?
  Read full judgment →