Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Grand Folks English School vs Excise and Taxation Officer1991 PLC 757 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan was filed to challenge a notice issued by the Excise and Taxation Officer requiring the petitioner, an educational society running an educational institution, to file a return under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether an educational institution falls within the definition of "establishment" under section 2(b) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The Sindh High Court held that an educational institution does not fall within the definition of "establishment" under the Ordinance, as the relevant terminology was lifted from the definition of "industry" in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which had previously been judicially interpreted to exclude educational institutions. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notice to be without jurisdiction, lawful authority, and of no legal effect, thereby allowing the petition.
Questions settled- Whether an educational institution falls within the definition of establishment under section 2(b) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
- Does an educational institution constitute an industry under section 2(xiv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Government of Sindh through Secretary, Education Department and 31991 CLC 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil revision petition is directed against the appellate judgment whereby the order of the trial court dismissing the respondents' suit for non-prosecution was set aside. The core legal question concerns whether the date fixed for framing of issues constitutes a date of hearing for the purposes of prosecution of a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether the appellate court erred in restoring the suit. The High Court held that the date fixed for framing of issues is indeed a hearing within the meaning of the rules and the Code of Civil Procedure, and where counsel's presence was noted in the cause list on the relevant date, the dismissal for non-prosecution was unjustified. The appellate court's judgment restoring the suit suffered from no material irregularity or jurisdictional defect. The key principle laid down is that a date fixed for framing of issues is a substantive date of hearing, and non-appearance cannot be presumed if counsel's presence is duly recorded.
Questions settled- Whether the date fixed for the framing of issues in a civil suit constitutes a date of hearing?
- Can a civil suit be lawfully dismissed for non-prosecution when counsel for the plaintiff is shown to be present in the cause list?
- Under what circumstances may an appellate court interfere with the trial court's order refusing to restore a dismissed suit?
- Government of Sindh through Land Acquisition Officer, Southern Region1991 MLD 2313 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Government of Sindh through Abdul Majeed Shaikhs vs Syed Shakir Alia1991 MLD 1258 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Government of Sindh and 3 others vs Amiruddin1991 MLD 345 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
- Government of S1NDH through Chief Secretary and 2 others vs Pakistan1991 PLD Karachi 359 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-04Read full judgment →
- Globe Textile Mills Limited vs Collector of Customs and another1991 CLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1991 PTD 195 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference concerns whether payments received by a non-resident UK company from its Pakistani subsidiary for various technical and advisory services under a 1951 agreement qualify as 'royalty' under Article VIII of the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The assessee claimed exemption for all services listed under clause 4 of the agreement, while the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal restricted the exemption to manufacturing information and patents. The High Court held that the definition of 'royalty' encompasses consideration for the use or privilege of using intellectual property, including patents, secret processes, and formulas. Applying the principle of ejusdem generis, the Court determined that services ancillary to the exploitation of such intellectual property, including factory administration, technical staff training, and storage stability information, also qualify as royalty. However, services involving general inspection were deemed outside this scope. The Court concluded that payments for clauses 4(a), (b), (c), (e), and (f) constitute royalty, while rejecting the request to reframe the question to include exemption under Article III.
Questions settled- Does the term 'royalty' under the Pakistan-UK Double Taxation Avoidance Agreement include payments for technical services ancillary to the use of patented processes?
- Can the High Court reframe a referred question to introduce a new legal claim for exemption that was not agitated before the Tribunal?
- Are payments for factory administration and technical staff training considered 'royalty' when they are directly connected to the exploitation of licensed manufacturing processes?
- Does the principle of ejusdem generis apply to the interpretation of 'other like property' within the definition of royalty in tax treaties?
- Glaxo Group Limited vs Evron (Private) LimitedK.L.R 1991 Civil Cases 564 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Group Limited and 2 otherss vs Evron (Private) Limited and another1991 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from manufacturing and selling a drug containing ranitidine, alleging patent infringement. The defendants challenged the validity of the patents, citing prior use, acquiescence, and laches. The Court addressed whether an interlocutory injunction was appropriate given the existence of serious triable issues. It held that patent rights must be worked exclusively and without controversy to justify interim protection. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that significant, unexplained delay in initiating legal action after becoming aware of the alleged infringement is fatal to an application for an interim injunction. Finding that the plaintiffs had delayed for over a year after notice, and that the validity of the patent was contested, the Court refused the injunction. Instead, it applied the principle that where serious questions exist for trial, the court should avoid granting an injunction and instead order the defendant to maintain and submit periodic accounts of sales to safeguard the interests of both parties until the final disposal of the suit.
Questions settled- Does registration under the Drugs Act, 1976 constitute a valid defense against an infringement suit under the Patents and Designs Act, 1911?
- Is significant, unexplained delay in filing a suit for patent infringement fatal to an application for an interlocutory injunction?
- Should an interlocutory injunction be granted when there is a serious question to be tried at the hearing?
- Can a court order a defendant to maintain and submit accounts of sales as an alternative to granting an interim injunction in a patent infringement suit?
- Glaxo Group Limited and 2 others-s vs Pakistan Pharmaceutical1991 MLD 85 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for a temporary injunction in a patent infringement suit concerning the pharmaceutical drug `ranitidine hydrochloride`, marketed under the brand name `Zantac` by the plaintiffs, and allegedly copied and sold by the defendants under the name `Rantid`. The core legal question is whether the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of patent infringement, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss to warrant an ad interim injunction, and whether registration of a drug with the Ministry of Health protects against patent violation. The court held that the chemical names and descriptions used by the defendants were identical to the plaintiffs' patented compound, creating a clear case of infringement, and that regulatory registration with the Ministry of Health does not exempt a manufacturer from patent laws. The court laid down the principle that imitation of a patented life-saving pharmaceutical compound constitutes patent infringement justifying an interim injunction, as the balance of convenience and potential hazard to public health heavily favor the patent holder.
Questions settled- Does the registration of a pharmaceutical product with the Ministry of Health provide immunity against an action for patent infringement?
- Whether the imitation of the chemical formula of a patented drug by a competitor constitutes a prima facie case of patent infringement for the grant of an interim injunction?
- Does the balance of convenience in cases involving the imitation of patented life-saving drugs lie in favor of granting an interim injunction?
- Will a plaintiff suffer irreparable loss if a competitor is allowed to market an identical patented pharmaceutical compound pending the final disposal of the suit?
- Ghullam Rasool vs Khadim Hussain And Others1991 P Cr. L J 241 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arises from an application under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the complainant seeking cancellation of pre-arrest bail granted to respondent No. 1 and post-arrest bail granted to respondents Nos. 2 and 3 in a murder case registered under Section 302/114/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance 1965. The complainant contended that respondent No. 1 failed to prove mala fides for pre-arrest bail, was an absconder, and that respondents Nos. 2 and 3 acted in pre-concert. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that uncontroverted averments of police harassment justified pre-arrest bail, and that an accused not subjected to proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as an absconder disentitled to bail. The Court further noted that allegations of firing in the air were falsified by the site inspection mashirnama, and respondents Nos. 2 and 3 were only attributed a 'lalkara' without any overt act, requiring further inquiry under Section 497(2) Cr.P.C.
Questions settled- Can an accused be treated as an absconder disentitled to bail if proceedings under Sections 87 and 88 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 have not been initiated against him?
- Whether the mere mention of an accused's name in the FIR is sufficient to reject a plea for pre-arrest bail where uncontroverted allegations of police harassment and mala fides exist?
- Does an allegation of raising a 'lalkara' without any overt act justify the grant of bail on the ground of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can bail granted through the proper exercise of judicial discretion be cancelled under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without strong and compelling grounds?
- Ghulam Shabir Lashari vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 287 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenges an order passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Khairpur, which dismissed an application for the release of a motor-cycle on Superdari. The applicant was charged under the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, following an incident where a motor-cycle was allegedly used by the accused to intercept and rob the complainant. The core legal question was whether the motor-cycle, alleged to be the instrument of the crime, qualified as case property subject to the court's discretion under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court held that the motor-cycle was integral to the commission of the offence, as it was used to fell the complainant's vehicle, thereby facilitating the robbery. Furthermore, the Court noted that the applicant's claim of ownership based on a T.O. Form was insufficient, as it did not constitute a valid document of title and lacked registration with the Excise and Taxation Department. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision, affirming that the vehicle remained case property to be dealt with by the trial court.
Questions settled- Does a motor-cycle used to intercept a victim during a robbery qualify as case property under Section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is a T.O. Form alone sufficient to establish ownership of a motor-cycle for the purpose of claiming Superdari?
- Can a court refuse the release of a vehicle on Superdari if it is alleged to be the instrument of the crime?
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State and another1991 MLD 487 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir and anothers vs The State1991 MLD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Syed Ghulam Murtaza and others1991 CLC 254 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-30Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Muhammad Waris Bismil1991 CLC 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Rasool vs Abdul Aziz1991 MLD 299 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nafeez vs Government of Sindhh and OtherK.L.R.1991 Labour & Service Cases 192 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi Pirzada vs Chief Administrator, Auqaf and others1991 MLD 1515 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Naheed Qureshi1991 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 471 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder vs Mukhtiarkar & Authorized Officer and 2 others1991 CLC 404 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hussain through Legal Heirs and anothers vs Mahboob Alam and others1991 MLD 437 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court arose from a civil suit for declaration and permanent injunction where the plaintiffs claimed title to an evacuee house on the basis of a sale under a PTD. The core legal questions were whether such a suit based on alleged sale requires ad valorem court-fee under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, and whether the value of the property for court-fee purposes should be the current market value at the time of filing or the value stated in the alienation document. The Court held that a suit for declaration with consequential relief regarding title to immovable property based on a sale, gift, exchange, or mortgage falls squarely under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, thereby requiring ad valorem court-fee based on the value given in the alienation document rather than the current market value. The key principle laid down is that fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly in favour of the subject, and the phrase 'value of the property' in Section 7(iv-a) refers to the value specified in the relevant transfer document rather than the fluctuating current market value.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration and injunction where title is claimed on the basis of a sale is governed by Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
- Should the value of the property for payment of ad valorem court-fee under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, be the current market value at the time of filing or the value shown in the document of alienation?
- Does the phrase 'value of the property' under Section 7(iv-a) of the Court Fees Act, 1870, carry the same meaning as 'market value' under Section 7(v) of the said Act?
- Ghulam Hafeez vs Government of Sindh through Secretary, Labour, Sindh1991 PLC (C.S.) 530 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, an Audit Officer in the Sindh Social Security Institution, challenged his dismissal from service following a conviction by a Military Court, which was subsequently set aside by the Deputy Martial Law Administrator. The core legal question was whether a Constitutional petition is maintainable for an employee of a statutory body whose service conditions are governed by regulations framed by the institution's Governing Body rather than by statutory rules. The Sindh High Court held that the petition was not maintainable. Relying on established Supreme Court precedents, the Court determined that where an employee's terms and conditions are governed by internal regulations rather than statutory rules, the relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant. Consequently, such an employee cannot seek reinstatement through a writ petition, as they lack the protection of statutory rules and are not considered a civil servant. The Court concluded that the petitioner's remedy, if any, for wrongful dismissal lies in a claim for damages rather than a Constitutional petition, and thus dismissed the matter.
Questions settled- Is a Constitutional petition maintainable for an employee of a statutory body governed by internal regulations rather than statutory rules?
- Does the principle of master and servant apply to employees of a statutory body when service conditions are not governed by statutory rules?
- Can an employee of a statutory body seek reinstatement via a writ petition if their service conditions are not protected by statute?
- Ghulam Dastagir and others vs Mst. Mariam others1991 CLC 1526 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for partition claiming inheritance rights in the estate of their deceased uncle, Abdul Ghaffar. The defendants moved to reject the plaint, contending that the plaintiffs were signatories to a prior consent statement filed during execution proceedings of an earlier suit, which effectively relinquished their claims in favor of the deceased's daughters. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs were estopped from re-litigating their inheritance rights given the prior family settlement. The Court held that the consent statement constituted a valid family settlement and an adjustment under Order 23, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Consequently, the plaintiffs were estopped from challenging the arrangement, as they failed to plead that the settlement was fraudulent or void. The Court established that a family settlement, once acted upon, creates a binding estoppel against the signatories, precluding them from filing a subsequent suit on the same subject matter. Finding no cause of action, the Court rejected the plaint under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Does a consent statement filed in execution proceedings constitute a binding family settlement?
- Can a party be estopped from challenging a family settlement if they have not pleaded fraud or illegality?
- Is a plaint liable to be rejected under Order 7, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the plaintiff is estopped by a prior family settlement?
- Does the lack of registration invalidate a family settlement between parties?
- Ghulam Akbar vs Abdul Rashid1991 CLC 959 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding both default and personal need established. The appellant challenged the rent rate, arguing it was Rs. 100 rather than Rs. 300, and contested the personal requirement claim. The High Court observed that neither party produced cogent evidence to conclusively establish the rent rate, rendering the finding of default unsustainable on that basis. However, regarding personal bona fide requirement, the Court found the respondent's existing accommodation of two small rooms insufficient for his family of nine. The Court held that the growing needs of the respondent's seven children justified the requirement for the premises, rejecting the appellant's apprehension of re-letting as speculative, noting that statutory penalties would apply if the respondent re-let the premises. The appeal was dismissed, granting the appellant six months to vacate. The principle established is that a landlord's personal bona fide requirement is determined by the objective insufficiency of current accommodation relative to family size and growth.
Questions settled- Can a landlord's personal bona fide requirement be established based on the growing needs of a family?
- Does an inadvertent admission in a written statement regarding rent rate preclude a tenant from proving a different rate?
- Is a landlord entitled to ejectment if the current residential accommodation is insufficient for the family's size?
- Ghulam Abuzar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 344 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Abuzar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 697 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and life imprisonment of appellants Ghulam Abuzar and Mst. Ruqayya Bibi for the murder of the latter's husband, Dost Muhammad, under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the deceased was throttled and electrocuted. The core legal question was whether the circumstantial evidence, including an alleged judicial confession, extra-judicial confession, and motive, was sufficient to sustain a conviction when the medical evidence failed to establish the cause of death as unnatural. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the corpus delicti, as the medical report was inconclusive due to decomposition and the Chemical Examiner's report was negative. The Court found the judicial confession unreliable, noting it was recorded after prolonged illegal detention, and dismissed the extra-judicial confession and other circumstantial evidence as weak and contradictory. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants, holding that when the chain of circumstantial evidence is broken and the medical evidence does not support the prosecution's theory of death, a conviction cannot be sustained.
Questions settled- Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the medical evidence fails to establish the cause of death as unnatural?
- Does a judicial confession recorded after a period of prolonged illegal detention possess legal validity?
- What is the effect on the prosecution's case when the chain of circumstantial evidence contains missing links?
- Is a conviction for murder permissible based solely on an uncorroborated and retracted confession of a co-accused?
- G.Z. Malik vs Mrs. Khayyam Baig1991 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- G.M.Central Cotton Mills (Pvt) Ltd vs Amir Zaman(K.L.R. 1991 Labour & Service Cases 37) · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-17Read full judgment →
- G. Z. Malik vs Mrs. Khayyam Baig1991 PLD Karachi 370 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
- G Hulam Sarwar vs Ghous Bux and another1991 MLD 301 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
- Ferozuddin Shamsi and 5 others vs Haji Arif and 4 others1991 CLC 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-17Read full judgment →
- Feroze Ali vs Mst. Hafeezunnisa Begum1991 CLC 626 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-28Read full judgment →
- Federal Government vs Muhammad Saleh And 5 Others1991 P Cr. L J 2344 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Fazalur Rehman vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs Mst. Bundu Hajjan1991 MLD 651 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Fazal Hussain vs (Mst) Bundu HajjanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 593 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Fazal Akbar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1124 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Fazal Akbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 450 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Fateh Muhammad vs Registrar, Trade Union and another1991 PLC 158 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-26Read full judgment →
- Fasahat Ali vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum1991 CLC 1902 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a landlord's first rent appeal arising from the dismissal of an ejectment application filed on the ground of personal bona fide need under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question is whether the appellant-landlord successfully established a genuine and bona fide personal requirement for the disputed premises, particularly considering that the landlord's family size remained static, other properties owned by the landlord were bypassed, and the ejectment application closely followed the dismissal of a previous eviction proceeding on the ground of default against the same tenant. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord failed to prove both the objective necessity of personal requirement and the requisite good faith under Section 15 of the Ordinance. The court laid down the principle that while a landlord generally has the discretion to choose which property to vacate for personal use, such choice must be backed by good faith and satisfactory explanations where suspicious circumstances, such as the selective targeting of a tenant or successive dubious eviction applications, exist.
Questions settled- Whether a landlord must establish both personal requirement and good faith under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the failure to join a ground of personal need in an earlier default eviction application affect the bona fides of a subsequent ejectment application?
- Does a landlord have absolute discretion in choosing which property to vacate when multiple properties are owned, regardless of good faith?
- Can the lack of explanation for bypassing other available properties reflect negatively on the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement?
- Farrukh K. Captain vs Exxon Chemical Pakistan Ltd. and 8 others1991 PLD Karachi 441 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-28Read full judgment →
- Farman Sher Gill vs Mst. Seema Safdar1991 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Fareew Ahmad vs Fikree Development Corporation Ltd.1991 MLD 2609 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
- Farazuddin and another vs Pakistan Navy through Commanding Officer1991 CLC 1866 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court Appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing a Fatal Accidents Act 1855 suit as time-barred regarding adult legal heirs while keeping it alive only for minor plaintiffs. The deceased died in a 1981 accident, and the suit was instituted in 1988 by minor grandchildren alongside adult legal heirs (widow and son). The core legal questions were whether the rights of legal beneficiaries under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 are joint or several, and whether Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to save limitation for adult claimants when co-claimants are under minor legal disability. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that legal heirs under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 are tenants-in-common with distinct interests, and no adult claimant could grant a valid discharge without the concurrence of the minor claimants. Thus, under Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908, limitation did not run against any claimant, making the entire suit timely.
Questions settled- Whether the legal beneficiaries under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 hold a joint substantive right or distinct and several substantive rights?
- Does Section 7 of the Limitation Act 1908 save limitation for adult legal heirs when minor co-claimants are under a legal disability?
- Can an adult beneficiary under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 give a valid discharge without the concurrence of minor co-beneficiaries?
- Fakir Muhammad Behlim vs Exxon Chemicals Pak. Ltd.1991 MLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Fakir Muhammad and another vs Federation of Pakistan and another1991 PLC 830 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
- Fakhruddin and another vs Messrs Gestetner (Pakistan) Ltd.1991 CLC 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
- Faiz Ahmad and anothers vs Mst. Qudsia Khatoon1991 MLD 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first rent appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellants after striking off their defence for failure to deposit arrears of rent and monthly rent. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in ordering tentative rent and striking off the defence where the appellants denied the relationship of landlord and tenant based on an alleged agreement of sale. The Sindh High Court held that the Rent Controller had duly framed an issue regarding the relationship and that the appellants failed to produce the ownership documents or original agreement of sale, using delaying tactics. The Court ruled that an agreement of sale does not absolve a tenant from paying rent unless there is a clear term extinguishing the tenancy. The key principle laid down is that a tenant who enters into an agreement of sale for the rented premises remains liable to pay rent and continue as a tenant until the tenancy is legally determined.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller is bound to frame an issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant when denied by the tenant?
- Does an agreement to sell property between a landlord and tenant extinguish the obligation of the tenant to pay rent?
- Is a tenant justified in withholding rent merely on the basis of an unproved agreement of sale?
- Whether the Rent Controller is justified in striking off the defence of a tenant upon failure to comply with a tentative rent order?
- Faiz Ahmad and Another vs Mst. Qudsia KhatoonK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 453 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Faisal Rashid vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2331 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Faisal Rashid And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2040 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
- Exxon Corporation and anothers vs Syed Nisar Ahmed Jafree and another1991 MLD 2485 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-05Read full judgment →
- Emirates Bank International Limited vs Messrs Fair Commission Agency1991 CLC 450 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves several applications filed by the defendants under Order 37, Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for leave to appear and defend a recovery suit originally instituted by Union Bank of the Middle East Ltd., which later became Emirates Bank International Limited. The core legal questions concern the validity of the merger of Dubai Bank Ltd. With UBME under Section 48 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962, the accrual of limitation for suits filed against guarantors under guarantees payable on written demand, and the applicability of the doctrine of indoor management regarding corporate guarantees. The court held that the merger was validly sanctioned under Section 48 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962, that limitation against guarantors whose liability arises upon written demand commences from the date of such demand rather than the execution date, and that the defence raised was vague and lacking in bona fides. Consequently, the court granted conditional leave to defend subject to the furnishing of security for the claimed amount.
Questions settled- Does Section 48 of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 apply exclusively to banks incorporated in Pakistan?
- When does the period of limitation begin to run for filing a recovery suit upon a bank guarantee payable on demand in writing?
- Are corporate guarantees executed by directors binding under the doctrine of indoor management when not ultra vires the company?
- Is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend a summary recovery suit where the debt and borrowing are not denied?
- Elis D. Silva vs Salahuddin and another1991 MLD 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Elis D. Silva vs Salahuddin and an OtherK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 482 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
- Ehsan vs Mrs. Maimoona Begum1991 CLC 243 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-02Read full judgment →
- Dyno Pakistan Limited vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 PTD 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-27Read full judgment →
- Dr. Zubeda Hamid Ali Khan vs Mrs. Shibli1991 MLD 1383 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-24Read full judgment →
- Dr. Obaidurrehman and 5 otherss vs Messrs M.R. Sons and 2 others1991 CLC 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-05Read full judgment →
- Dr. Mahboob Ali Sooniro vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ishar Fatima vs Haji Muhammad and others1991 CLC 2074 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-09Read full judgment →
- Dr. Haider Ali Mithani and anothers vs Ishrat Swaleh and 4 otherss1991 CLC 409 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-06Read full judgment →
- Dr. Arshad Kamal Khan vs Mrs. Saeeda Khalid Kamal Khan1991 CLC 520 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
- Directorgeneral, Pakistan Post Office Department, through Assistant1991 CLC 1601 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-21Read full judgment →
- Daya Ram and another vs Muhammad Irshad and 2 others1991 CLC 900 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-14Read full judgment →
- Dawood Hercules Chemicals Limited vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-23Read full judgment →
- Darakshan Afridi and 2 others vs Additional Director (Com), Karachi1991 CLC 1844 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-26Read full judgment →
- Crescent Board Ltd. vs Collector of Customs (Appraising), Custom1991 CLC 1522 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-07Read full judgment →
- Cosmopolitan Development Company Ltd. vs Alfred C. Toepfer1991 CLC 1087 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-13Read full judgment →
- Cosmopolitan Development Company Limited vs District Council, Thatta and others1991 MLD 1513 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-13Read full judgment →
- Consolidated Shipping (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Bamber Shipping A.G., Auelestrasse1991 MLD 1367 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
- Consolidated Exports Ltd. vs Messrs Haji Abdul Razak & Co.1991 MLD 1308 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-26Read full judgment →
- Committee of Administration, Fauji Foundation, Rawalpindi Cantt. vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others s1991 CLC 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-30Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of. Income-Tax, Central Zone `B', Karachi vs Tarique1991 PTD 350 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax/Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs1991 PTD 495 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax/Income Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs M/s.PTCL 1991 CL. 299 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone `A', Karachi vs Messrs a & B1991 PTD 909 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Sales Tax vs Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited1991 PTD 973 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone,---a--- Karachi vs Messrs.1991 PTD 869 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from a dispute regarding the tax assessment of a private limited company. The core legal question was whether the deemed income derived from bonus shares (free reserves) could be adjusted or set off against the business loss, specifically unabsorbed depreciation, incurred by the assessee during the relevant tax year. The Income-tax Officer had initially set off the loss against the bonus share income, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal subsequently ruled that such adjustment was impermissible, as bonus shares do not fall under the heads of income enumerated in the Income-tax Act of 1922. The Commissioner of Income-tax challenged this decision. Relying on the precedent established by a Division Bench of the same Court in 'Commissioner of Income-tax (Central Zone), Karachi v. Messrs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.', the High Court held that losses cannot be adjusted against fictional income. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the assessee is entitled to carry forward and set off such unabsorbed depreciation against future income, consistent with the spirit and provisions of the relevant tax legislation.
Questions settled- Can deemed income from bonus shares be adjusted against business losses or unabsorbed depreciation?
- Is unabsorbed depreciation entitled to be carried forward and set off in subsequent years when it cannot be adjusted against fictional income?
- Does the High Court have the authority to reframe a question referred to it by the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs Messrs Seven-1991 PTD 860 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `C', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 493 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-29Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `C', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 569 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a reference application filed by the Commissioner of Income-Tax under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, seeking to refer a question of law to the High Court arising from an order of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The respondent, a non-resident banking company, claimed bad debts for the assessment year 1976-77, which were partly disallowed by the Assessing Officer and the Appellate Assistant Commissioner. The Tribunal, however, allowed the claim based on the consistent banking practice of accounting for bad debts and previous judicial precedents, concluding that the amounts written off were indeed bad debts. The core legal question revolved around whether the Tribunal was justified in holding the claimed bad debts as admissible under section 10(2)(xi) of the repealed Income Tax Act, 1922. The Sindh High Court held that the Tribunal's determination that the amount claimed was a bad debt constituted a pure finding of fact, which remained unchallenged by the applicant. Consequently, no referable question of law arose, and the High Court dismissed the application.
Questions settled- Whether the determination by the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal that an amount claimed is a bad debt constitutes a finding of fact?
- Whether a reference application under section 136(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance can be maintained when no question of law arises from the Tribunal's finding?
- Whether the claim for bad debts made by a banking company under the consistent practice of accounting is admissible under section 10(2)(xi) of the Income Tax Act, 1922?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `C', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 385 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-14Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `B', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 567 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-10Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `A', Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 905 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone `A', Karachi vs Glaxo1991 PTD 393 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference concerns the applicability of Section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act regarding a resident company purchasing raw materials from non-resident associates at allegedly inflated prices. The Income Tax Officer had invoked Section 42(2) to tax the deemed profit, but the Appellate Assistant Commissioner set aside this finding and remanded the matter. The Tribunal, however, failed to address the factual finding of manipulation, focusing instead on Section 42(1). The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was justified in excluding the application of Section 42(2). The High Court held that the applicability of Section 42(2) is contingent upon a clear factual finding that purchases were made at prices exceeding the international market, thereby artificially depleting the resident company's profits. Since the initial finding of manipulation was set aside and not restored, Section 42(2) could not be applied in the current state of the record. The Court clarified that if de novo proceedings establish such price manipulation, Section 42(2) would be applicable to tax the profits that should have normally accrued.
Questions settled- Does the applicability of Section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act depend on a factual finding of price manipulation between a resident and a non-resident associate?
- Can Section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act be applied if the finding of the assessing officer regarding inflated purchase prices has been set aside by an appellate authority?
- Is a finding of manipulated transactions a prerequisite for invoking the provisions of Section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act?
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone "B", Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 39 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone "B", Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 859 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone vs Messrs Karachi Race1991 PTD 36 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone a, Karachi vs Messrs1991 PTD 867 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-11Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pakistan Oxygen Ltd.1991 PTD 914 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs United Insurance Co. of Pakistan, Karachi1991 PTD 571 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs International General Insurance Co.1991 PTD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Abbott Finance Co. Ltd1991 PTD 915 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-24Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi vs Brooke Bond Pakistan1991 PTD 912 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-14Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi. vs Tarique SiddiquiPTCL 1991 CL. 384 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax vs M/s. Ranco Vichers Ltd., Karachi.PTCL 1991 CL. 351 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-15Read full judgment →