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.

• Swami Narayan Temple Estate Trust vs Director1991 CLC 1886 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and anothers vs Bunday Ali and 7 others1991 CLC 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-22Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmed vs Syed Wahid Hussain1991 MLD 1340 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31
  default in rentburden of proofnuisanceinflammable goodsevictiontenantlandlord
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of five first rent appeals arising from a common order regarding the eviction of tenants from flats and shops on the grounds of wilful default in rent payment and creating a nuisance by storing highly inflammable plastic goods. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord successfully discharged the burden of proving default and whether storing inflammable goods constituted a nuisance under rent law. The Sindh High Court held that once the landlord stated on oath that he had not received rent for the disputed period, the initial burden of proof was discharged and shifted to the tenants to affirmatively prove payment, which the tenants failed to do. Furthermore, the court held that storing highly inflammable plastic goods in the premises constituted a nuisance as it endangered life, health, and the comfortable enjoyment of property by other occupants. The appeals were consequently dismissed, upholding the eviction orders with a three-month grace period for vacating the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does the initial burden of proof lie upon the landlord to establish non-payment of rent in eviction proceedings?
  • Does storing highly inflammable plastic goods in a rented building constitute a nuisance under rent restriction laws?
  • Does the deposit of rent after the due date protect a tenant from eviction on the ground of default?
  • When does the onus shift to the tenant to prove the payment of rent after the landlord's statement on oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman Bhai vs Muzaffar Ahmad Qadri1991 CLC 1252 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-20Read full judgment →
• Sui Gas Employees' Union vs National Industrial Relations Commission1991 PLC 651 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-29Read full judgment →
• Sui Gas Employees' Union vs Member and Registrar, Industrywise Trade1991 PLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-22Read full judgment →
• Sudheer vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26
  attempted robberyred-handed arrestminor discrepanciesjurisdictionarms ordinancecoram non judicecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 393, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sanghar. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitnesses in a red-handed arrest case involving injuries, and the competency of the Additional Sessions Judge to try offences under the Arms Ordinance, 1965. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable and the appellant's arrest on the spot with injuries adequately established his guilt for attempted robbery. However, regarding the firearms charge, the Court held that under section 14-A of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, Sessions and Additional Sessions Courts lack jurisdiction to try offences under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, rendering that portion of the trial coram non judice. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal against the robbery conviction while setting aside the conviction under the Arms Ordinance due to lack of jurisdictional competence of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in the testimony of injured eyewitnesses are sufficient to discard their evidence in a case of red-handed arrest?
  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • What is the minimum sentence prescribed under section 398 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when an offender attempts robbery while armed with a deadly weapon?
  Read full judgment →
• Sudheer vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 414 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03Read full judgment →
• State Through Advocate General, Sindh Karachi vs Messrs Aspro1991 P Cr. L J 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Solo Susice Narodni Podnik vs Sindh Match Works (Pvt.) Limited and another1991 CLC 37 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-17
  trade mark registrationopposition proceedingsspecial circumstanceshonest concurrent userdistinctivenessnon-user of trade markpassing offrectification
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the rejection of an opposition filed by a foreign manufacturer against the registration of a trade mark by a local entity, Sindh Match Works. The core legal question was whether a local manufacturer could register a trade mark similar to an existing registered mark when the foreign proprietor’s goods had been absent from the local market for a prolonged period. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, upholding the Deputy Registrar’s decision to allow the registration. The court held that where a foreign proprietor’s goods have been unavailable in the local market for a significant duration, and a local manufacturer has developed a sizable business using a similar mark without objection, the local user’s adoption is not dishonest. Such facts constitute "special circumstances" under Section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, justifying the Registrar's discretion to allow concurrent registration. The court affirmed that distinctiveness is determined by the local market, not foreign markets, and that the absence of the foreign goods creates a vacuum allowing for legitimate local development of the mark.

  Questions settled

  • Does the absence of a foreign proprietor's goods from the local market for a long duration constitute 'special circumstances' for registering a similar trade mark by a local manufacturer?
  • Is the distinctiveness of a trade mark determined by its reputation in the local market or in foreign markets?
  • Can the registration of an identical or similar trade mark be permitted under the Trade Marks Act despite the existence of a prior registered mark?
  • Does the failure of a registered proprietor to object to the use of a similar mark by a local manufacturer over a significant period establish 'honest concurrent user'?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohrab vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 234 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sodho vs The State and another1991 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1991-10-01
  habitual offenderpreventive proceedingsgeneral reputationquashing of proceedingsnatural justicegood behaviour
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court through an application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns the legality of proceedings and the requirements of establishing habitual criminality, specific instances of dangerous conduct, and proper evidence of general reputation under Section 110, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as well as the simultaneous passage of orders under Sections 112 and 117(3). The court held that the proceedings were unsustainable, noting that a single or isolated instance of involvement does not constitute a 'habit' requiring repeated or persistent acts, that vague police allegations without specific instances are insufficient, that evidence of general reputation must come from neighbourhood residents rather than police officials alone, and that passing orders under Sections 112 and 117(3) simultaneously violates natural justice by denying a fair defense opportunity. The court established the principle that preventive sections cannot be used as an engine of oppression and must be supported by tangible facts showing habitual criminal tendencies or specific desperate acts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a single or isolated involvement in a criminal case form the basis of proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the uncorroborated evidence of police officials alone sufficient to prove general reputation under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the simultaneous passing of orders under Sections 112 and 117(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 violate principles of natural justice?
  • What constitutes 'habit' for the purpose of taking preventive action against habitual offenders under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin And Another vs The State and 7 others-1991 P Cr. L J 2338 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-15Read full judgment →
• Sindh Road Trransport Corporation vs Noor Bux(K.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 36) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
• Sindh Match Works (Private) Limited vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade1991 CLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-17
  trade mark rectificationnon-use of trade markperson aggrievedspecial circumstancestrade mark registrationlocus standiintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns an application for the rectification and removal of a registered trade mark from the register due to non-use. The appellant sought to remove the respondent's trade mark under Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, alleging a continuous period of non-use exceeding five years. The core legal questions were whether the appellant qualified as an 'aggrieved person' with standing to challenge the registration and whether the respondent's non-use was excused by 'special circumstances' under Section 37(3). The Court held that the term 'person aggrieved' must be interpreted liberally to include any party whose commercial activities are restricted by an existing registration, thereby granting the appellant locus standi. However, on the merits, the Court found that the respondent's non-use resulted from an import ban, which constituted 'special circumstances' beyond the proprietor's control. The Court established that 'special circumstances' under Section 37(3) refer to involuntary, external events such as acts of State or war, rather than voluntary commercial decisions. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, as the respondent's non-use was protected by the statutory exception.

  Questions settled

  • Who qualifies as an 'aggrieved person' for the purpose of seeking the removal of a trade mark from the register?
  • What constitutes 'special circumstances' under Section 37(3) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, to excuse the non-use of a registered trade mark?
  • Does an import ban on goods constitute a 'special circumstance' sufficient to prevent the removal of a trade mark for non-use?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 21991 PLC 508 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-12
  termination simpliciterlabour lawmisconductunauthorised absencegeneral power of attorneyconstitutional petitiongrievance petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the termination of the petitioner's employment as a timekeeper by the respondent company. The petitioner, having been arrested in a criminal case under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, failed to report for duty after his leave expired. The employer, citing the petitioner's prolonged absence and the inability to keep the position vacant indefinitely, terminated his services via 'termination simpliciter'. The core legal questions were whether the manager possessed the authority to terminate the petitioner's services and whether the termination was legally valid under the relevant labour laws. The High Court held that the manager was duly authorized by a general power of attorney to issue such orders, and the termination was a valid exercise of the employer's right under Standing Order 12(1). The Court affirmed that an employer may terminate a workman's services provided reasons are stated, and the burden of proving mala fides or colourable exercise of power lies with the employee. As the petitioner failed to establish mala fides and had acted with unclean hands, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employer terminate a workman's services as 'termination simpliciter' due to prolonged absence caused by incarceration?
  • Does the burden of proving mala fides in a termination of service case lie with the employee?
  • Is a manager authorized to terminate an employee's service if a general power of attorney explicitly grants such disciplinary powers?
  • Can a court interfere with a termination order if the employer has followed the procedure of stating reasons under the Standing Orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Hayat Khan vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and OtherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases185 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sikandar A. Karim vs Central Board of Revenue and 2 others1991 CLC 729 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Sibte Zahid Naqvi vs The VTH Sindh Labour Court at Karachi, through Its Presiding Officer, Sultan Ahmed Siddiqui and Other(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 26) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shibli Farooqi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another1991 PLC (C.S.) 438 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-05Read full judgment →
• Shams! Industrial Company vs Munawar Ali1991 CLC 1059 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1358 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Shamboo Alias Shahmir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-26Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Yusufaly Son Limited vs Wa. Fritze & Co. and 4 others1991 MLD 1665 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-21Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Waheeduddin vs Mst. Samina Begum and 5 others1991 MLD 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Jamilur Rahman vs Sultan Ahmad through his Legal Heirs1991 CLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-28Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Begum vs Khursheed Alam & Co. Ltd. and 7 otherss1991 CLC 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Faridi vs Sirajul MasjidK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 560 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Shahnawaz Faridi vs Sirajul Masjid1991 MLD 2568 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-06Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mirza vs Merloni Finanziaria S.P.A. and another1991 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-11
  trade markopposition to registrationdeceptive similaritylikelihood of confusionhonest concurrent useprior usertrade marks registrydiscretion of registrar
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the appellant's application for registration of the trade mark 'ARISTON' (Label) for goods including water heaters and stoves, and allowing the first respondent's opposition. The core legal questions involved whether section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 operated as a bar due to the likelihood of deception or confusion, and whether the appellant was entitled to concurrent registration under section 10(2) of the Act. The Sindh High Court held that the first respondents, as prior worldwide users and lawful proprietors who had established reputation and user of the mark in Pakistan since 1974, were entitled to protection against the unauthorized, non-bona fide adoption of the identical mark by the appellant. The Court ruled that the Deputy Registrar correctly found a strong likelihood of confusion and deception among consumers, and that no case of honest concurrent use was made out. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 operate as a bar to the registration of a trade mark that is phonetically and visually identical to an existing established mark?
  • Whether an applicant can claim honest concurrent registration under section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 when their adoption of the mark is not shown to be bona fide?
  • What is the extent of appellate interference with the exercise of judicial discretion by the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks in refusing registration?
  • Does priority in the adoption and use of a trade mark take precedence over priority in registration under trade mark law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmad Naqvi and 3 others vs Adalat Hussain1991 MLD 656 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Dino vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 269 · Sindh High Court · 1991-09-16Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs Town Committee, Khairpur Nathan Shah through Chairman, District Dadu and another1991 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Shafiqur Rehman vs Saeed Ahmed1991 MLD 1393 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-04Read full judgment →
• Shafique Ahmed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shafaat Hussain vs Masood Hasan Khan1991 CLC 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Tiles and Ceramics Limited through Managing Director vs Member (Judicial), Central Board of Revenue, Karachi and 21991 PTD 527 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sh. Gulzar Ali & Company and others vs Special Judge, Special Court of Banking for Sindh at Karachi and another1991 MLD 2136 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• Secretary, Irrigation & Power Department vs Syed Tasneem HussainK.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 34 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Schlumberger Seaco Inc. through Manager for Pakistan And Attorney-in-Fact vs Central Board of Revenue through its Secretary, Islamabad and 2 others1991 PTD 975 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-27Read full judgment →
• Sattar Cotton Ginning Factory Limited vs Eastwest Shipping and Trading Company Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 670 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-21Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ahmad Khan vs Government of Pakistan and 2 others1991 PLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
• Sardar Rahim Bux vs Federal Land Commissioner and others1991 CLC 845 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mehmood Ali vs (Mst) Rahimunnisa and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 534 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Santas Maria Teresa vs The State1991 MLD 2576 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-19Read full judgment →
• Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 5 others1991 CLC 456 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20
  central excise dutysugar millsexemption notificationvested rightpromissory estoppelretrospective operationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses multiple constitutional petitions filed by various sugar mills located in the Province of Sindh, challenging the withdrawal of central excise duty exemptions and the demand for refunds. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Government could lawfully withdraw exemptions previously granted to old and new sugar mills under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, whether such exemptions created vested rights or invoked the doctrine of promissory estoppel, and whether excise duty is leviable upon manufacture or upon clearance from the factory. The Court held that exemptions granted under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 can be varied or rescinded by the Federal Government under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, as they constitute privileges rather than vested rights, and promissory estoppel does not bar statutory powers. However, the Court ruled that for new sugar mills whose two-year statutory exemption period had already commenced and taken effect, the withdrawal before the expiry of that period was illegal and without lawful authority. The petitions of old sugar mills and the refund challenges were dismissed, while specific petitions by new sugar mills regarding unexpired two-year exemptions were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Federal Government has the power under section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to rescind or withdraw tax exemptions granted under section 12-A of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Does a tax exemption notification create a vested right that prevents the Government from withdrawing the exemption before the expiry of a stated period?
  • Can the doctrine of promissory estoppel be invoked against the Government to restrain it from withdrawing statutory tax exemptions?
  • Whether central excise duty is to be levied based on the date of manufacture or on the date when goods are cleared from the factory?
  • Whether the withdrawal of a 50% central excise duty exemption granted to new sugar mills before the expiry of their two-year production period is lawful?
  Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Khan And Another vs The State and 2 others-1991 P Cr. L J 1375 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-27Read full judgment →
• Salman Ashraf vs Begum Asmatunnisa1991 MLD 1510 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-08Read full judgment →
• Salim Khan And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmed vs The Province of Sindh through Secretary, Home and 21991 MLD 8 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
• Said Ahmed vs The Province of Sindh & OtherK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 375 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sahab Khan vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2207 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-21Read full judgment →
• Safdar Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ali vs Ghafoor and others1991 MLD 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-27Read full judgment →
• Sadruddin Lakhani vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 831 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Saadat Hussain vs Abdul Wahid Khan1991 MLD 2129 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-24Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ali Baig vs S. Bux Ellahi1991 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-17
  ejectmentpersonal requirementretired employeelandlord and tenantrent casesummary evictionSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a landlord's appeal against the dismissal of his rent case seeking eviction of a tenant under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the ground of retirement from service. The core legal question was whether a landlord who rented out the premises after his retirement is entitled to seek summary eviction under Section 14, and whether he established a genuine need for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the proviso to subsection (1) of Section 14 explicitly bars a landlord from invoking these provisions if the premises were rented out after retirement. Furthermore, the court held that although proof of strict bona fide requirement is not required in the same manner as under other provisions, the landlord must still establish a genuine need, and unreasonable delay in filing the application coupled with successive rent increases and alternative income demonstrates a lack of genuine need. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord who rented out premises after his retirement invoke Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for eviction?
  • Does a landlord seeking eviction under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 have to establish a genuine need for the premises?
  • What is the effect of an unexplained delay in filing an eviction application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Sa. Rizvi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division and 2 others1991 MLD 1834 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-26
  constitutional petitionmartial law regulationjurisdictionmala fidescoram non judicecivil servantservice tribunallaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 filed by a former Central Government Class-I civil servant challenging his dismissal from service under Martial Law Regulation 58. The core legal questions involved whether Article 270-A of the Constitution completely ousts the jurisdiction of superior courts to review actions taken under Martial Law Regulation 58, whether the Provincial Government was competent to take disciplinary action against a Central Government employee on deputation, and whether the impugned dismissal was vitiated by mala fides and lack of jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that Article 270-A does not provide absolute immunity to actions that are patently illegal, coram non judice, or mala fide. The Court found that the Provincial Government lacked jurisdiction to proceed against a Central Government officer, the trial by the Military Tribunal was a sham based on a pre-determined secret list, and the action suffered from malice. The petition was allowed, setting aside the dismissal order and directing the refixation of the petitioner's retirement date.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 270-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 completely oust the jurisdiction of superior courts from reviewing actions taken under Martial Law Regulation 58?
  • Whether the Provincial Government is competent to initiate disciplinary proceedings and dismiss a Central Government Class-I officer on deputation?
  • Does an act done without jurisdiction or in a mala fide manner amount to an act that is coram non judice?
  • Is a constitutional petition barred by laches when the delay is adequately explained by ongoing legal proceedings and pursuit of remedies?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M. Zafar vs ViceAdmiral (Retd.) Iqbal F. Qadir1991 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07
  cantonment rent restrictionejectmentdefault in rentpersonal bona fide uselandlord and tenantsuitability of accommodation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal was filed under section 24 of the Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 against the order of the Additional Controller of Rent, directing the eviction of the appellant from the demised residential premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions revolved around whether the appellant committed a default in the payment of rent and whether the respondent-landlord established a genuine, personal bona fide need for the premises. The court held that the tenant indeed committed a default in rent payment for four months, which could not be masked by a concocted plea of a loan, and that the landlord's personal requirement for the premises was well-established and bona fide. The court affirmed that the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation is the prerogative of the landlord, and a tenant cannot dictate how a landlord should utilize his property or determine the living arrangements of the landlord's family. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant who commits default in tendering rent within the stipulated period is liable to ejectment irrespective of a subsequent lump sum tender?
  • Is the suitability and sufficiency of accommodation the exclusive prerogative of the landlord?
  • Can a tenant dictate where a landlord should presently reside or how the landlord's family should occupy their property?
  Read full judgment →
• S.M. Zafar vs Vice Admiral (Retd.) Iqbal F. QuadirK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 549 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• S.M. Nafis-Ul-Hassan Shah vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1991 MLD 2607 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-22Read full judgment →
• S.M. Corporation Limited vs New Era Textile Mills Limited and anothers1991 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08
  delivery of possessionadverse possessioncompromise agreementlimitationestoppelpleadingscompany assetsinjunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff company, S.M. Corporation Limited, against defendant No.1, New Era Textile Mills Limited, and defendant No.2, Sindh Industrial Trading Estate Limited, seeking a decree for the delivery of possession of a valuable piece of land measuring 1.67 acres forming part of Plot No. F-62 S.I.T.E., which was allegedly unauthorisedly occupied and annexed by defendant No.1. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation or the doctrine of adverse possession, whether it was hit by estoppel or the provisions of Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the disputed land formed part of the assets of defendant No.1 under a prior court-recorded compromise agreement. The High Court held that defendant No.1 failed to establish adverse possession, waiver, estoppel, or that the disputed land constituted its asset under the compromise. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, directing defendant No.1 to vacate and hand over possession of the land. The key legal principles laid down are that a claim based on title is governed by Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908 requiring proof of adequacy, continuity, and exclusiveness for adverse possession, and that a party pleading estoppel or procedural bars like Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. must specifically raise and prove the same in its written statement.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes the burden of proof required to establish adverse possession against a registered title holder under Article 144 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can a defendant rely on the bar contained in Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without specifically pleading the necessary facts and points of law in its written statement?
  • Whether a joint managing director's unauthorized attempt to transfer company property without formal corporate approval binds the company or creates an estoppel against it?
  • Does a general compromise agreement and settlement between company groups transferring shares and management operate to automatically pass title to a disputed plot of land not specified therein?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Zahir Hussain vs Mahbub Jaffer Ali1991 CLC 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• S. Mujtaba Ali Naqvi vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum through Legal Heirs and 2 others1991 MLD 1849 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Saeed Muhammad Sabir & Co. and anothers vs Abdul1991 MLD 357 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali vs Mohsin Naqvi and 3 others1991 CLC 1751 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-03Read full judgment →
• Rifaqat Ali vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 469 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Rifaqat Ali vs The State1991 MLD 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
• Riaz Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 246 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-03Read full judgment →
• Riaz Ahmed Mansuri vs Abid Ali Qazi and OtherK.L.R.1991 Civil Cases 648 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Baloch and 3 others vs Fateh Muhammad Khan and 8 others1991 PLC 570 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-09Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmad and 9 others vs Syed Wasim Ahmad and 6 others1991 MLD 821 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Abdul Hafeez and 3 others vs Ahmed and anothers1991 CLC 370 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31
  fatal accidentsvicarious liabilitylife expectancyquantum of damagesrash and negligent drivingcompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for compensation filed by the parents of a deceased woman, Mst. Razia Begum, who died in a road accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of a truck owned by the defendant. The core legal questions were whether the defendants were liable for the accident and, if so, how to determine the quantum of compensation, specifically regarding the average life expectancy of the victims' dependents. The Court held the defendants vicariously liable for the fatal accident, finding the driver negligent and the owner responsible. Regarding compensation, the Court departed from the traditional judicial practice of setting 65 years as the average life expectancy in Pakistan, instead adopting 70 years as a more realistic standard given advancements in medical care, living standards, and societal conditions. The Court further held that while the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, limits beneficiaries to parents, spouses, and children, it allowed for flexibility in calculating life expectancy for specific claimants based on evidence of longevity in their family, thereby awarding compensation to the parents based on these adjusted life expectancy calculations.

  Questions settled

  • Are siblings of a deceased person entitled to claim compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • What is the current judicial standard for average life expectancy in Pakistan for the purpose of calculating compensation in fatal accident cases?
  • Can a court deviate from the standard average life expectancy when determining compensation for a specific claimant?
  • Is a vehicle owner vicariously liable for the rash and negligent driving of their employee?
  Read full judgment →
• Rao Muhammad Owais Qarni vs Mst. Tauheed Aisha and 2 others1991 MLD 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-18
  Family Courtinterlocutory orderappealabilityconstitutional petitiondiscretionary ordercross-examinationWest Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by a Family Court and an Appellate Court, which refused to recall witnesses for cross-examination in a family suit. The core legal questions were whether such an interlocutory order constitutes a "decision" appealable under Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, and whether such discretionary orders are amenable to constitutional jurisdiction. The High Court held that the term "decision" in Section 14 does not encompass every interlocutory order but is limited to determinations of substantive issues forming part of the case. Consequently, the trial court's order was not appealable. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that discretionary orders passed by a court acting within its jurisdiction cannot be challenged in a constitutional petition merely because the decision might be perceived as incorrect. The principle laid down is that procedural interlocutory orders do not qualify as appealable "decisions" under the Act, and constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to interfere with the discretionary exercise of power by a competent court, even if the decision is allegedly erroneous.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'decision' in Section 14 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, include every interlocutory order passed by a Family Court?
  • Can a discretionary order passed by a Family Court acting within its jurisdiction be challenged in a constitutional petition?
  • Is an order refusing to recall witnesses for cross-examination appealable under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964?
  Read full judgment →
• Rameshalal vs Munoharlal1991 MLD 349 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-30Read full judgment →
• Raja Ghulam Hyder vs Major (RTD) Jamshed Alam KhanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 582 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
• Raja Ghulam Hyder vs Major (Recd.) Jamshed Alam Khan1991 MLD 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-07
  framing of issuesres judicatainterlocutory ordersinherent powerslandlord and tenantcivil revisionmaterial propositions
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arises from a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent and charges filed by the applicant-plaintiff against the respondent-defendant. The core legal question was whether an issue improperly framed regarding a third party's separate alleged tenancy could be struck off, and whether the rule of res judicata barred subsequent applications for the deletion or modification of issues. The Sindh High Court held that the framing of proper issues is an ongoing obligation of the court to ensure justice, and that interlocutory orders do not attract strict res judicata to bar the re-examination of issues when justified. The court established that issues must be confined strictly to material propositions of fact and law necessary for the decision of the actual controversy between the parties, excluding extraneous matters relating to third parties. Consequently, the revision was allowed and the irrelevant issue was ordered to be struck off.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court alter, modify, or strike off issues at any stage of the proceedings?
  • Does the principle of res judicata apply to interlocutory orders in the same manner as final adjudications?
  • Are courts required to frame issues on every allegation made and denied, or only on material propositions in controversy?
  • Can an application under Order XIV Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be dismissed solely on the ground that a previous similar application was dismissed?
  Read full judgment →
• Rahman Hafeez and Other vs S.M. Yousuf and OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 6 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
• Rahimuddin vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1991-07-16Read full judgment →
• Rahim Jan & Co. vs Sindh Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi1991 PLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux Jamali, M.Pa. vs The State1991 MLD 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-19Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah vs Manager (M/s) Western Pakistan Tanneries, S.I.T.E.(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 31) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
• Rafiq And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 774 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
• Raees Ahmad Khan vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1381 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-11Read full judgment →
• Rachna Chemical Industries vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance,1991 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-11
  sales tax exemptionvested rightsretrospective operationconstitutional petitionletter of credittaxing statute
  Summary & questions settled

  In these ten Constitution Petitions, the Sindh High Court addressed whether the withdrawal of sales tax exemption under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, through a notification dated 26-6-1988, could be applied retrospectively to infringe upon the petitioners' vested rights accrued through payments and the opening of letters of credit prior to that date. The court examined whether the invocation of machinery provisions under the Customs Act, 1969, affects the substantive tax exemptions granted under the separate and distinct Sales Tax Act, 1951. Relying on established precedent, the court held that the petitioners had acquired vested rights to the exemption based on contractual commitments and acts performed prior to the notification, and that an executive notification withdrawing the exemption cannot operate retrospectively to divest those rights. Consequently, the petitions were allowed and bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners were ordered to be cancelled.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the withdrawal of exemption under section 7 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 can be given retrospective effect so as to infringe accrued vested rights?
  • Does the invocation of section 3(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 convert sales tax into customs duty or divest it of its inherent attributes?
  • Do contractual commitments and the opening of letters of credit prior to a notification create a vested right to tax exemption?
  Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali vs Hoor Bux and 2 others1991 CLC 248 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-28
  Civil RevisionRemand of caseAppellate jurisdictionEvidentiary lacunaeSpecific ReliefTitle and possessionDuty of appellate court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns Civil Revision Applications challenging an order of remand passed by the First Appellate Court in a suit for declaration and permanent injunction regarding agricultural land. The core legal question was whether the appellate court was justified in remanding the suit to the trial court to allow the plaintiff to prove the saleable right of his vendors, despite the issue already being framed and evidence having been concluded. The High Court held that the appellate court’s judgment was laconic and failed to adjudicate the issues on merits as required by law. The Court established that a remand order is improper when parties have already adduced sufficient evidence to their satisfaction, as the object of remand is not to permit parties to fill evidentiary lacunae. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that under Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a court must provide findings and reasons for each issue. Given the limited scope of revisional jurisdiction compared to appellate powers, the Court set aside the remand order and directed the District Judge to rehear the appeal on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Is it legally permissible for an appellate court to remand a case solely to allow a party to fill evidentiary lacunae?
  • What is the legal duty of an appellate court regarding the adjudication of issues under Order XX, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the distinction between the scope of appellate jurisdiction and revisional jurisdiction under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a High Court, while exercising revisional jurisdiction, decide a case on merits when the first appellate court has failed to record findings on the issues?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Arifuddin and anothers vs Civil Karachi 291 Government of Sindh1991 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-18
  fatal accidentdamagesnegligencecontributory negligencecrash helmetres ipsa loquiturlife expectancy
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by the parents of an eighteen-year-old student who died in a road accident, seeking recovery of Rs. 12,00,000 under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855. The plaintiffs alleged that the driver of a bus belonging to the defendants drove rashly and negligently, colliding with the deceased's motorcycle and causing fatal head injuries. The defendants contended that the deceased was negligent, failed to wear a crash helmet, and did not yield the right of way. The High Court of Sindh applied the maxim of res ipsa loquitur, finding that the accident was prima facie caused by the bus driver's negligence, which shifted the burden of proof to the defendants. However, the Court also addressed the deceased's failure to wear a crash helmet as required by Section 89-A of the Motor Vehicles Ordinance, 1965. Drawing on persuasive English precedents, the Court held that failing to wear a helmet constitutes contributory negligence as it represents a lack of care for one's own safety. Consequently, the Court reduced the assessed damages by twenty-five percent and decreed the suit accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a motorcyclist to wear a crash helmet in violation of statutory provisions constitute contributory negligence?
  • To what extent should damages be reduced in a fatal accident claim if the deceased is found guilty of contributory negligence for failing to wear safety gear?
  • How is the pecuniary loss and life expectancy of parents calculated for awarding damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Abdul Qayyum vs Khursheed Nisar1991 CLC 913 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
• Qasim and 7 others vs The State1991 MLD 1668 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-05Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Shafeeq Vohra vs The State and another1991 MLD 2590 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-29
  superdariinterim custody of vehiclestolen propertybona fide purchasertransfer order forminherent powerscriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two interconnected criminal miscellaneous applications filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 concerning the interim custody (superdari) of a snatched and subsequently recovered motor car. The core legal question was whether the interim custody of a proven stolen vehicle should be granted to the admitted rightful owner or to a subsequent purchaser from a third party holding an open transfer letter. The Sindh High Court held that stolen property must be restored to its rightful owner rather than a purchaser from a thief, even if the latter claims bona fide purchase, and that an open transfer letter does not constitute a valid document of title. The High Court set aside the conflicting orders of the lower appellate courts and directed that the custody of the car be handed over to the original owner on superdari subject to furnishing a personal bond, establishing the principle that a victim whose vehicle is stolen should not be forced to a civil suit while a purchaser from a thief retains possession.

  Questions settled

  • Whether interim custody of a stolen vehicle should be given to the rightful owner or to a purchaser from a thief?
  • Does an open transfer order form constitute a valid document of title for a motor vehicle?
  • Can a court deny the interim custody of recovered stolen property to the admitted owner on the ground that title is disputed by a purchaser from an accused?
  • What are the powers of a criminal court under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding the disposal and interim custody of seized property?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadri Brothers Foundary & Workshop and 4 others vs Masood1991 CLC 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-26
  sublettingdefault in payment of rentpartnership firmrent appeallandlord and tenantevictiontender of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal by the tenant arises from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an eviction application on the grounds of subletting and default in payment of rent. The respondent landlord sought eviction from the plot in question, alleging that the original tenant Rahim Bux had sublet the property to a partnership firm in contravention of the agreement and law, and had defaulted on rent payments for several years. The appellants contested the proceedings, denying subletting and default, and asserting that the firm was a family concern operating in the same style since the inception of the tenancy, while also claiming lack of knowledge regarding the original owner's death. The Rent Controller found against the appellants on the issues of subletting and default, while ruling against the landlord on personal bona fide need. Upon appeal, the Sindh High Court upheld the eviction order, holding that the occupation of the premises by a newly formed partnership firm constituted unlawful subletting, and that sending rent cheques in the name of a deceased person with knowledge of their demise did not constitute a valid tender of rent in the eyes of the law, thereby establishing default.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the formation of a partnership firm by the heirs of an original sole-proprietor tenant constitutes subletting under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the tendering of rent cheques in the name of a deceased landlord, with the knowledge of the landlord's death, constitute a valid payment of rent in law?
  • Whether the acceptance of rent cheques from a business concern for a period prior to the formation of a formal partnership precludes the landlord from alleging subletting upon the creation of the partnership?
  • Does a failure to deposit rent in court or remit valid payment after acquiring knowledge of the landlord's death and succession amount to a default in payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Qadir Dad vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 533 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-04Read full judgment →
• Province of Sindh and 4 others vs Waseem Construction Co.1991 CLC 66 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31
  arbitration awardextension of timefunctus officioerror apparent on the face of the recordinterest from date of awardrule of the courtscope of judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment of the Sindh High Court making an arbitration award a rule of the court. The core legal questions involved the validity of an arbitration award made after an initial time expiry but subsequently extended by the court, the scope of judicial review of an arbitrator's findings of fact, and the competency of an arbitrator or court to award interest from the date of the award. The court held that an order extending time for making an award operates retrospectively to validate actions done during the interim period, that courts will not interfere with an arbitrator's findings of fact supported by evidence unless there is an error apparent on the face of the record, and that although an arbitrator cannot grant interest beyond the date of the award, such interest incorporated into a decree is deemed adopted by the court under statutory powers. The appeal was partly allowed by modifying the decretal amount after setting aside specific unsupported claims.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order granting extension of time for making an arbitration award operates retrospectively to validate intermediate acts?
  • Can an arbitration award be challenged on the ground that it was signed before the formal extension of time was granted by the court?
  • Does an arbitrator have the authority to award interest for the period from the date of the award until payment?
  • To what extent can a court interfere with findings of fact recorded by an arbitrator in an award?
  Read full judgment →
• President vs Ms. Benazir Bhutto1991 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19
  disqualification from membershipinfructuous proceedingselection lawjurisdiction of special courtpreliminary issuesconstitutional interpretationChief Election Commissioner
  Summary & questions settled

  The respondent, Ms. Benazir Bhutto, filed applications seeking the dismissal of References pending against her, contending that her election to Parliament rendered the proceedings infructuous. She argued that the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification from Membership) Order, 1977, was temporary and that jurisdiction to disqualify a sitting member rested exclusively with the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 63(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court examined whether the References had become infructuous in their entirety. It held that even if the Court lacked jurisdiction to disqualify a sitting member—a function reserved for the Chief Election Commissioner—it retained jurisdiction to disqualify a person from being elected or chosen, which remained relevant for future elections or by-elections. Consequently, the Court ruled that as long as any fraction of relief remained available, the proceedings could not be dismissed. The Court emphasized the principle of avoiding fragmentary decisions, opting to proceed with the merits of the case rather than disposing of the matter on preliminary technical grounds, as justice requires a comprehensive examination of all controversies.

  Questions settled

  • Does the election of a respondent to Parliament render pending disqualification References against them automatically infructuous?
  • Does a Special Court constituted under the Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Disqualification from Membership) Order, 1977, possess the jurisdiction to disqualify a sitting member of Parliament?
  • Is the jurisdiction to determine the disqualification of a sitting member of Parliament or a Provincial Assembly exclusively vested in the Chief Election Commissioner under Article 63(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Should a court dispose of a case on preliminary issues when the entire controversy cannot be resolved without a detailed examination of facts and law?
  Read full judgment →
• Porho and 3 others vs The State1991 MLD 1695 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-09Read full judgment →
• Picic vs Allied Textile Mills, Ltd.1991 MLD 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-23Read full judgment →
• Panjo vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 247 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-30
  murderdeath sentenceeye-witness testimonydelayed FIRnon-examination of investigating officercriminal appealacquittalprejudice to defense
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the conviction and death sentence of the appellant, Panjo, for the murder of Soomar, as handed down by the IIIrd Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, along with others, throttled the deceased to death. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of the eye-witness testimony, the impact of delayed police examination of witnesses, the effect of the non-examination of the Investigating Officer, and the evidentiary value of a second statement made to police. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with inconsistencies, including an unexplained 8.5-hour delay in lodging the F.I.R., the witnesses' delayed examination by police, and the implausibility of the eye-witness accounts regarding the physical layout of the crime scene. The Court emphasized that the non-examination of the Investigating Officer prejudiced the defense by preventing the cross-examination of witnesses regarding their prior statements. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, the death sentence was rejected, and the appellant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine the Investigating Officer cause prejudice to the accused?
  • Can a second statement made by a complainant to police authorities be treated as an F.I.R.?
  • Is the testimony of eye-witnesses reliable when they are examined by the police after a significant delay?
  • Does the presence of motive alone suffice to establish guilt in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Pan Ocean Enterprises (Pvt.) Limited vs Thai Rayon Company Limited and others1991 CLC 1837 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Paklibya Holding Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sualeheen S. Piracha1991 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-30
  banking suitrecovery of loanleave to defendcondonation of delaysubstituted serviceservice by publicationlimitation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 for the recovery of Rs. 76,85,809.43 with interest. The defendant was served through publication in a newspaper pursuant to Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980, followed by refusal to accept service from the bailiff and subsequent affixation of summons at his address. The defendant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for leave to appear and defend, along with an application under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 seeking condonation of delay. The defendant claimed non-service due to an alleged change of office address and unawareness of the newspaper publication. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the application for condonation of delay, holding that under Rule 8, service by any of the prescribed modes constitutes valid service as affirmed in binding precedent. Consequently, the application for leave to defend was dismissed and the suit was decreed under Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Is service of summons effected under any one of the modes prescribed in Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules 1980 sufficient and good service in law?
  • Can delay in filing an application for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 CPC be condoned without an explanation for each day of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does a defendant's plea of not reading the newspaper in which substituted service was published constitute a valid ground for condoning delay?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4others1991 PTD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1992-01-31
  income taxassessmentreassessmentdepreciation allowancetax exemptiontax creditself-assessment schemechange of opinionindustrial undertakinggifted machinery
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged income tax assessment orders for multiple years, primarily concerning the disallowance of depreciation, tax credit, and exemption claims. The core legal questions involved whether reassessment proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance were valid when initial assessments were made under the Self-Assessment Scheme without proper inquiry, the interpretation of "actual cost to the assessee" for depreciation on gifted machinery, and the meaning of "set up" and "industrial undertaking" under Clause 122 of the Second Schedule for tax exemption in cases of factory expansion. The Sindh High Court held that the "change of opinion" principle does not apply to mechanical self-assessments. It further ruled that for gifted machinery, "actual cost to the assessee" for depreciation is the fair market value at acquisition. Regarding exemption, an "industrial undertaking" must be an independent, self-reliant unit, not merely an expansion, unless the new machinery is independently capable of manufacturing goods. The court declared the impugned assessment orders without lawful authority and remanded the cases for fresh assessment consistent with its interpretations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of "change of opinion" apply to reassessment proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance when the initial assessment was made mechanically under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
  • How is "actual cost to the assessee" for depreciation allowance determined under Section 23(1)(v) and Rule 8(7) of the Third Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance when machinery is acquired by gift?
  • What constitutes "setting up an industrial undertaking" for the purpose of tax exemption under Clause 122 of the Second Schedule to the Income Tax Ordinance, particularly in cases of expansion of an existing factory?
  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable against income tax assessment orders when the dispute primarily involves the interpretation of fiscal statute provisions and jurisdictional issues, despite the availability of alternative remedies?
  Read full judgment →