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.

• Col. (Retd.) Syed Muhammad Hassan vs Raza K. Minhas1991 CLC 2039 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-07
  bona fide requirementrented premisesevictionlandlord-tenant relationshippersonal usetenancy agreementhardship of tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the order of the Rent Controller dismissing an eviction application filed under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant sought eviction on the ground of bona fide personal requirement for his son’s family. The respondent contested the application, alleging the requirement was not bona fide, citing the respondent's investment in property improvements and potential hardship. The Court held that the landlord's requirement was bona fide. It established that a landlord residing in rented premises or as a licensee is not required to prove homelessness to justify reclaiming their own property. The Court affirmed that the landlord has the prerogative to determine their own housing needs, and a tenant cannot object to the size or luxury of the accommodation chosen by the landlord. Furthermore, the Court held that once a bona fide requirement is established, the tenant's potential hardship or investment in property improvements does not constitute a valid defense against eviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the impugned order and granted the tenant six months to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord residing in rented premises need to prove they are homeless to establish a bona fide requirement for their own property?
  • Can a tenant successfully resist an eviction application based on personal requirement by citing the hardship caused by vacating the premises?
  • Is it open to a tenant to challenge the bona fides of a landlord's requirement based on the size or luxury of the premises sought?
  • Does the expiration of a fixed-term tenancy agreement without a renewal clause support a landlord's claim for personal use?
  Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Siddique and others vs Mian Abdul Haq1991 MLD 1479 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-13Read full judgment →
• Chaudhary Brothers vs Mst. Asma Irfan1991 CLC 937 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-18Read full judgment →
• Char Shambay vs Karachi Dock Labour Board, Karachi1991 PLC 826 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-10Read full judgment →
• Chand Oil Depot vs Muhammad Ilyas Khan1991 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ch. Sardar Muhammad Khan vs Muhammad Miskeen and 2 others1991 CLC 963 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-22Read full judgment →
• Capt. (Rtd.) Allah Ditta vs Muhammad Siddique1991 CLC 1881 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-06Read full judgment →
• Calbin Klein Cosmetics Corporation vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-27Read full judgment →
• Cafedekhan vs Government of Pakistan through Deputy Controller, Department of Tourist Services, Karachi and another1991 CLC 337 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-22Read full judgment →
• Cafe Capital Firm, Karachi vs The Collector, Central Excise and Land1991 PLD Karachi 283 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-31Read full judgment →
• C.I.T., Central Zone `B', Karachi vs Messrs Hussain Sugar Mills Ltd.1991 PTD 207 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-09Read full judgment →
• Bonifacio-a-Burayage, Philippine National vs The StatePTCL 1991 CL. 81 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-26Read full judgment →
• Bonifacio a Burayag, Philppiine National vs The State1991PCr.LJ 22 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bonaventure Paul, Bishop of the Roman Catholic Diocese, Hyderabad vs Ali Muhammad and another1991 MLD 145 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-27Read full judgment →
• Block Drug Company Inc. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1991 MLD 2310 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-05Read full judgment →
• Best Foods (Private) Limited vs Tabani Corporation1991 CLC 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-28Read full judgment →
• Berger Paints Pakistan Limited vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 4 others1991 CLC 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-19
  excise duty exemptionstatutory interpretationtaxation lawtrade usageconstitutional jurisdictionpaint thinnerstariff classification
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recovery of excise duty on 'white spirit', 'xylene', and 'toluene' by the excise authorities, who contended these items were petroleum products under headings 03.14 and 03.16 of the Central Excise Tariff, rather than 'thinners' under heading 04.03, which were exempt from duty. The core legal question was whether these specific chemical substances qualified as 'thinners' (ancillaries of paints) under the exemption notification issued pursuant to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The Court, following Supreme Court guidance, applied the principle that statutory terms in taxation laws should be interpreted according to their popular sense or their specific meaning within the relevant trade. Holding that these substances are widely recognized as 'thinners' used to facilitate paint application, the Court ruled they fall under heading 04.03. Consequently, the Court declared the recovery proceedings unlawful, set aside the impugned orders, and directed the authorities to refund any excise duty collected on these items, establishing that trade usage and common parlance prevail over technical classification when interpreting tax exemptions for specific industrial materials.

  Questions settled

  • Should terms in a taxation statute be interpreted according to their popular sense or their specific meaning within a particular trade?
  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction examine findings of fact if they are erroneous on the face of the record and go to the root of jurisdiction?
  • Do 'white spirit', 'xylene', and 'toluene' qualify as 'thinners' under heading 04.03 of the First Schedule of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  Read full judgment →
• Before Abdul Rahim Kazi, Muhammad Hanif Khan vs Mst. Iqbal Begum1991 MLD 294 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-19Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Syed Mubashir Kazmi and another1991 MLD 382 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-13Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs M. Zakria and another1991 MLD 380 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-23Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Ghulam Mujtaba Khan1991 CLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed and others vs Ghulam Hyder and others1991 MLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-21Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs State1991 MLD 1156 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• Hyder Khan And Another vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 1841 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-29Read full judgment →
• Banqu E Indozuez vs Jet Travels Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 534 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-02Read full judgment →
• Banqu E Indosuez vs Jet Travels Limited and 4 otherss1991 CLC 446 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-07
  summary suitleave to defendequitable mortgagepromissory notepower of attorneyconsiderationrecovery of loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court arises from a suit for recovery of a loan and enforcement of securities filed by Banque Indosucz against Jet Travels Limited and four others under Order 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involved the validity of the plaint's institution by authorized attorneys, the legality of an equitable mortgage where title deeds and housing authority permissions were allegedly misused, whether a pronote executed for an outstanding balance lacked consideration, and the proof required for bank interest rates. The Court held that defects in filing authorities can be cured, a mortgagor cannot rely on their own fraud or deviation from housing authority permissions to invalidate a mortgage, a pronote given as security for an existing balance is supported by valid consideration, and conceded minimum interest rates require no further proof. The Court refused leave to defend to the defendants and decreed the suit jointly and severally.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defect in the filing of a plaint due to an omitted power of attorney be cured subsequently?
  • Is a mortgage rendered invalid if a mortgagor utilizes housing authority permission contrary to the stated purpose?
  • Whether a promissory note executed as security for an existing outstanding balance is deemed without consideration?
  • Does a plaintiff bank need to lead separate evidence to prove the bank rate of interest when the minimum rate is conceded?
  Read full judgment →
• Badshah Hussain vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2299 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-19Read full judgment →
• Badruddin vs Muhammad Yousuf1991 CLC 949 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-11Read full judgment →
• Azizullah vs Muhammad Rafi1991 MLD 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-09Read full judgment →
• Azizullah Memon vs Government of Sindh and others1991 PLC (C.S.) 862 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-02Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman Khan vs Federal Disability Board And 4 OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 68 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan, Commander (E) Pakistan Navy vs The Directorgeneral, Ports and Shipping and another1991 CLC 362 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmed vs Ashraf1991 CLC 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-03
  summary suitleave to defendcondonation of delayservice of summonsdishonoured chequetriable issuesfurnishing security
  Summary & questions settled

  This order of the Sindh High Court disposed of two applications filed by the defendant in a summary suit instituted under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a dishonoured cheque: one for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 and the other for grant of leave to defend the suit. The court evaluated whether the summons had been properly served and whether sufficient cause for delay was established, finding the bailiff's un-attested affixation of notice invalid and accepting the defendant's uncontradicted medical evidence of illness. On the merits of the leave application, the defendant raised factual disputes regarding the delivery of the cheque as a surety to a third-party broker, subsequent cash payment, and a discrepancy in the payee's name. The High Court held that the delay stood properly explained and that the defendant raised triable issues requiring evidence. Consequently, delay was condoned, and leave to defend was granted subject to furnishing security.

  Questions settled

  • Whether affixing a summons to a defendant's door without procuring attesting witnesses constitutes valid service in a summary suit?
  • Whether uncontradicted medical certificates advising bed rest constitute sufficient cause for condoning delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 in filing an application for leave to defend?
  • Whether a defence asserting that a disputed cheque was handed over as surety to a broker and subsequently paid in cash raises a triable issue warranting the grant of leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Attaur Rehman vs The State1991 P C r. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-12Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad And Others vs Iqrar Ahmad And Another1991 P Cr. L J 274 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-19
  second complaintdismissal of complaintSection 203 CrPCcriminal revisionabuse of processpreliminary inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an order entertaining a second criminal complaint after the dismissal of an initial complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question is whether the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203, Cr.P.C. acts as a legal bar to the institution of a second complaint on the same facts. The Court held that such a dismissal does not operate as a bar to a second complaint, as Sections 369 and 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not attracted in such instances. However, the Court established that a second complaint should only be entertained in exceptional circumstances, such as when the previous order was based on an incomplete record, manifest absurdity, or when new evidence is presented. In the present case, because the initial complaint was dismissed without examining the injured party or the medical officer, and the second complaint provided additional evidence, the trial court's decision to entertain the second complaint was upheld as legally sound and not an abuse of process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a complaint under Section 203 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 act as a legal bar to the filing of a second complaint on the same facts?
  • Under what circumstances can a second criminal complaint be entertained after the dismissal of the first complaint?
  • Do Section 369 and Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 operate as a bar to the entertainment of a second complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Atlas Autos Limited and anothers vs Registrar, Joint Stock Companies1991 CLC 523 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Associated Manufacturing and Packing Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1991 PTD 352 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 595 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31
  post-arrest bailsuppression of terrorist activitiesjurisdiction of high courtcriminal conspiracyscheduled offensesspecial court
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court arose from the rejection of pre-trial bail by the Special Court (Suppression of Terrorist Activities) at Karachi, where the applicants stood trial under sections 365-A, 395, and 120-B of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The primary legal question concerned whether the High Court retains jurisdiction under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail to an accused facing trial before a Special Court, notwithstanding the barring of section 498 and other provisions under section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975. The Court held that while section 498, Cr.P.C. and certain other revisional and appellate powers are excluded by section 7 of the 1975 Act, the High Court's general power to grant bail under section 497, Cr.P.C. at the pre-conviction stage remains intact, subject to the restrictions in section 5-A(8) of the Act. On merits, finding reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the alleged offenses including criminal conspiracy, the bail applications were dismissed with a direction to conclude the trial within two months.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court has jurisdiction under section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant bail to an accused facing trial before a Special Court under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975?
  • Does section 7 of the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act, 1975 completely bar the High Court from exercising all bail powers under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can the High Court invoke section 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in respect of proceedings before a Special Court?
  • Are the limitations on the grant of bail specified in section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applicable to under-trial prisoners before a Special Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali Zardari vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 385 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-31Read full judgment →
• Ashique Hussain vs 1ST Additional District Judge and Family Appellate1991 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-12
  maintenance allowanceTalaqdissolution of marriageMuslim Family Laws Ordinancejudicial acknowledgment of divorceIddat periodconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the concurrent judgments of the Family Court and the Appellate Court awarding maintenance to the respondent-wife. The core legal question concerned the validity of the divorce and the husband's liability for maintenance. The applicant contended that he had divorced the respondent, rendering her ineligible for maintenance beyond the Iddat period. The Court examined whether the husband's statement on oath in court acknowledging the divorce was sufficient to dissolve the marriage and whether the statutory notice requirement under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 was mandatory for the effectiveness of Talaq. The Court held that the husband's categorical statement on oath in court acknowledging the divorce effectively dissolved the marriage from the date of that statement. Furthermore, relying on established precedents, the Court ruled that the effectiveness of Talaq cannot be made contingent upon the service of notice to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961, as such a requirement is inconsistent with Islamic Injunctions. Consequently, the wife's entitlement to maintenance was limited to the period ending with the Iddat following the judicial acknowledgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a husband's statement on oath in court acknowledging a divorce effectively dissolve the marriage for the purpose of maintenance?
  • Is the effectiveness of a Talaq contingent upon the service of notice to the Chairman under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961?
  • Does the failure to provide notice under Section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 render a Talaq inoperative?
  Read full judgment →
• Asghari Begum vs Baji Dubash1991 CLC 203 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-19Read full judgment →
• Asghar Khan vs Abdus Salam and another1991 CLC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-16Read full judgment →
• Asad Ali Khan vs Muhammad Iqbal 12 others1991 MLD 365 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ark Industrial Managements Ltd. vs Joint Registrar, Government of Pakistan Corporate Law Authority Company Registration Office Karachi1991 CLC 1520 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Arif Baig vs Syed Nasir Hussain ZaidiK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 577 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Arif Baig vs Syed Nasir Hussain Zaidi1991 MLD 1078 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-27Read full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-23Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs Mrs. Alima Ahmed1991 CLC 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-23Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ai-Med vs Muhammad Sharif1991 MLD 701 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20
  ejectmentrent controllerstriking off defencerent orderarrears of rentpenal provisionstrict compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence and directing his ejectment for non-compliance with a rent order issued under Section 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether a rent order that fails to specify the exact amount of arrears, instead leaving the calculation to the tenant by permitting adjustments against previously deposited amounts, is legally valid and enforceable. The Court held that such an order is defective and illegal because it fails to perform the mandatory duty of determining the precise amount due. Relying on established precedent, the Court affirmed that provisions authorizing the striking off of a defence are penal in nature and must be strictly construed. While the direction for future rent was held valid and independent, the Court ruled that because the arrears direction was defective, all deposits made by the tenant could be adjusted against the valid future rent obligation. Consequently, the Court set aside the order of ejectment and remanded the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller strike off a tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent order that fails to specify the exact amount of arrears?
  • Are the directions for the payment of arrears and future rent in a rent order independent of each other?
  • Does a rent order that leaves the calculation of arrears to the tenant satisfy the requirements of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can deposits made by a tenant be adjusted against future rent if the direction regarding arrears in a rent order is found to be defective?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ahmed vs Mohammad SharifK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 598 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Amjad Rashid Khan Malik vs Mrs. Zubeda Rashid Khan Malik and 8 others1991 CLC 1986 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-18Read full judgment →
• Amirul Haq vs Attaur RehmanK.L.R. 1991 Civil Cases 54 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-13Read full judgment →
• Amir vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 534 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-02
  statutory bailprolonged detentiontrial delayadjournmentcriminal procedurebail application
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal bail application before the Sindh High Court concerns an accused, Amir, detained since November 1987 in connection with a case registered under sections 302, 504, 34, and 114 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the applicant was entitled to bail based on the statutory delay in the conclusion of his trial, given that he had been in continuous detention for approximately three years. The Court observed that the delay in trial disposal could not be attributed to the applicant, as his few requests for adjournments were based on genuine grounds, such as counsel illness or pre-occupation. The Court held that legitimate requests for adjournments do not bar an accused from invoking the statutory right to bail. Establishing that the applicant had exceeded the statutory period for detention without trial, the Court granted the bail application. The key principle laid down is that an accused cannot be penalized for seeking adjournments on valid grounds, and such requests do not negate the statutory right to bail when the detention period exceeds the prescribed limit.

  Questions settled

  • Does a legitimate request for an adjournment by an accused bar the invocation of the statutory right to bail due to trial delay?
  • Can an accused be penalized for trial delays caused by the illness or pre-occupation of their counsel?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail as a matter of right if they have been in continuous detention for more than two years without the trial being concluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1628 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Amin vs Haji Abdul Sattar through his Legal Heirs and 21 otherss1991 CLC 517 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmed vs Karachi Port Trust through its Chairman and 4 others1991 PLC (C.S.) 511 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Altaf Ahmad Khan vs Dr. Muhammad Naseer Akhtar1991 CLC 1861 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-07Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs International Complex Projects Ltd.1991 MLD 2599 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-01Read full judgment →
• Allah Wasayo vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 505 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo vs District Magisrate and others1991 CLC 226 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-16Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Khan vs Zeb Shah and another-1991 P Cr. L J 1397 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 358 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar And Another vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-09Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 506 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-20Read full judgment →
• Alexander S. Tsavliris & Sons vs Manta Lines Inc. and others1991 MLD 1484 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Alahram Building Limited vs Ardeshir1991 CLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-17Read full judgment →
• Al-Ghazi Tractors Limited vs The Province of Sindh through Government of Sindh, Department of Housing, Town Planning, Social Government, Karachi and 2 others1991 MLD 1616 · Sindh High Court · 1991-01-22Read full judgment →
• Akrar Khan vs The StateK.L.R. 1991 Criminal Cases 588 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-15Read full judgment →
• Akhter Hussain Alias Mulla Akhtar vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Trading Co. vs Food Department and otherss1991 CLC 258 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-17
  arbitration awardlimitation periodtime-barred objectionsnullity of awardarbitrator's authoritycontractual liabilityrule of the court
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application to make an arbitration award the rule of the court. The core legal questions were whether objections to the award were time-barred, whether the award was a nullity due to the arbitrator's failure to record evidence on oath, and whether the arbitrator exceeded his authority by granting compensation based on an alternate route. The Court held that the objections filed by the defendants were time-barred, having been submitted approximately five and a half months after the service of notice, well beyond the statutory period. The Court rejected the argument that the award was a nullity, clarifying that an arbitrator is not required to record evidence on oath unless specifically requested by the parties. Furthermore, the Court held that findings of fact by an arbitrator, such as the justification for escalation costs due to an alternate route, cannot be challenged in these proceedings. The Court affirmed that the award did not suffer from any illegality on its face, overruled the objections, and made the award the rule of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Are objections to an arbitration award maintainable if filed after the statutory limitation period?
  • Is an arbitration award rendered a nullity if the arbitrator decides the case based on documents without recording evidence on oath?
  • Can an arbitrator's finding of fact regarding contractual escalation be challenged when objections are time-barred?
  • Does an arbitrator act beyond his authority by granting compensation based on an alternate route if the contractor was aware of the route requirements?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain Alias Mula Khtar vs The StateK.L.R 1991 Criminal Cases 457 · Sindh High Court · 1991-04-01Read full judgment →
• Akber Khan vs The State1991 MLD 1829 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-21
  unlicenced armsjurisdictionAdditional Sessions JudgeMagistrate First ClassArms Ordinancecoram non judiceconviction set aside
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi. The core legal question was whether an Additional Sessions Judge has the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, or if such jurisdiction is vested exclusively in a Magistrate of the First Class. The Sindh High Court held that pursuant to section 14-A of the Arms Ordinance, 1965, jurisdiction to try offences under section 13 or section 14 (unless falling under the specific proviso) is exclusively vested in a Magistrate of the First Class. Consequently, the trial conducted by the Additional Sessions Judge was coram non judice, and the conviction was a nullity in the eye of the law. The appeal was allowed, the conviction was set aside, and considering the prolonged prosecution and custody, a re-trial was deemed unnecessary.

  Questions settled

  • Does an Additional Sessions Judge have the jurisdiction to try an offence under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Which court has exclusive jurisdiction to try offences falling under section 13 or section 14 of the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • What is the legal effect of a trial conducted by a Court of Session in a matter exclusively triable by a Magistrate of the First Class under the Arms Ordinance, 1965?
  • Whether a re-trial should be ordered when a conviction is set aside due to a lack of trial court jurisdiction and the accused has already suffered a prolonged ordeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Sharif and 2 others vs Syed Jamaluddin and 2 others1991 MLD 203 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-12
  rectification of register of membersCompanies Ordinance 1984fraudulent share transfersummary proceedingstransfer of sharescorporate litigationforged documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition sought the rectification of the register of members of a private limited company under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, following allegations of fraudulent share transfers. The core legal question was whether the summary remedy provided by Section 152 was appropriate for resolving these disputes and whether the alleged share transfers were valid. The Court held that the summary remedy was suitable as the facts were not overly complex and the respondents failed to produce necessary transfer deeds. The Court determined that the purported transfers were fraudulent and void, as the respondents failed to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 76 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, which necessitates a properly executed and stamped instrument of transfer. The Court affirmed that a forged or fraudulent transfer is a nullity and cannot defeat the title of the true owner. Consequently, the Court ordered the removal of the respondents' names from the register and the restoration of the petitioners' names, establishing that the true owner has a right to compel the company to rectify the register when shares are transferred without authority.

  Questions settled

  • Is the summary remedy under Section 152 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, available for resolving disputes regarding the rectification of a company's register of members?
  • Does a forged or fraudulent transfer of shares defeat the title of the true owner?
  • What are the mandatory requirements for the valid transfer of shares under Section 76 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984?
  • Can a court order the restoration of a member's name to the register if the transfer of their shares was based on fraudulent documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Sharif And 2 Other vs Syed Jamaluddin And 2 OtherPTCL 1991 CL. 209 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-12Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Khan vs Rai Sahib Roopchand and 3 others1991 MLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-04Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Alias Jajji vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 2233 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Mian vs Afzal Book Centre1991 CLC 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Masood Piracha vs Muhammad Bashir Herl1991 MLD 58 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Maritime Breakers Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1991 MLD 2580 · Sindh High Court · 1991-08-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Investment (Private) Limited through Managing Director vs Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad1991 PTD 618 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Saeed and 16 others vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1991 PLC 52 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-06Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan And 2 Others vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-06
  murdercommon intentioninterested witnessappreciation of evidencedeath sentencebenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants challenged their convictions for the murder of Abdul Ghani. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of related witnesses, the impact of prompt FIR registration, and the application of common intention under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that while the testimony of the complainant was credible and natural, the conviction of the two appellants who merely fired in the air could not be sustained under Section 34, as their actions did not demonstrate a shared intention to kill. Consequently, the court maintained the death sentence for the primary shooter, Amjad Hussain, but acquitted the other two appellants, granting them the benefit of the doubt. The judgment establishes that relationship to a deceased does not inherently disqualify a witness, provided their testimony is truthful and natural. Furthermore, it clarifies that while prompt FIR lodging is a material factor, common intention requires evidence beyond mere presence or non-lethal acts when the fatal act is attributable to a single perpetrator.

  Questions settled

  • Does the relationship between a prosecution witness and the deceased automatically render the witness 'interested' and unreliable?
  • Can the conviction of co-accused be sustained under Section 34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, if they only fired in the air and did not participate in the fatal act?
  • Does the prompt lodging of an FIR, by itself, exclude the possibility of false implication of the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Ghulam Ali vs Election Commission and others1991 PLD Karachi 396 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-12
  election disputepoll declared voidElection Commission powersriggingre-pollrepresentation of the peopleconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Election Commission of Pakistan declaring the provincial assembly election for constituency PS-14 Jacobabad-V as void under section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976, and directing fresh elections. The core legal questions involve whether the Election Commission possesses the jurisdiction to set aside an election after the notification of the returned candidate, whether section 103-AA is repugnant to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan, and whether the entire constituency's election can be invalidated due to malpractices at a few polling stations. The Sindh High Court held that proceedings under section 103-AA are distinct from election petitions under Article 225, that the Election Commission retains jurisdiction within sixty days of the notification, and that where illegalities affect the result and a clear outcome is not determinable from the remaining polling stations, invalidating the poll and ordering a fresh election in the constituency is legally justified. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 is repugnant to Article 225 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • Does the Election Commission become functus officio after the notification of a returned candidate under section 42(4) of the Representation of the People Act, 1976?
  • Can the Election Commission declare an entire constituency election void on account of irregularities confined to a few polling stations?
  • Whether proceedings under section 103-AA of the Representation of the People Act, 1976 constitute an election petition within the meaning of Article 225 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Afzal Hussain vs Mst. Naseem Fatima1991 CLC 892 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-04Read full judgment →
• Additional Chief Engineer (Army), Okara Cantt. and others vs Messrs1991 CLC 1476 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-28
  ex parte judgmentOrder VIII Rule 10 CPCsuit against governmentofficial designationsdeficit court feelimitationcondonation of delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ex parte judgment and decree passed by a learned single Judge under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit against government officials by their official designations without naming the Federal Government as a party under Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the computation of limitation under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the court's discretion to condone delayed payment of court-fee under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in the absence of gross negligence. The Sindh High Court held that public officers cannot be sued by their official designations unless they constitute a corporation sole, and suits against the government must properly name the government as a party. Furthermore, the court condoned the delay in paying deficit court-fees since the appellants were not guilty of contumacious delay. The court laid down the principle that an ex parte judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 should not be pronounced straightaway if the plaint suffers from fundamental legal defects or infirmities.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a public officer can be sued solely by their official designation without being a corporation sole?
  • Can an ex parte judgment under Order VIII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be pronounced when the plaint suffers from fundamental legal defects?
  • Whether the court can exercise discretion under Section 149 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to condone delayed payment of court-fee in the absence of gross negligence?
  • Is a suit maintainable against the government without complying with Section 79 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Adbul Qadeer vs Manager, Telephone Industries of Pakistan Ltd.1991 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-20Read full judgment →
• Adam Al1 vs ISHAQALIOpponent1991 MLD 1365 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-24Read full judgment →
• Abid Hussain Qureshi vs Syed Tahir Hussain Gardezi1991 CLC 929 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Bashir Ahmed1991 MLD 647 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdur Rehman vs Aslam Ahmed and another1991 MLD 649 · Sindh High Court · 1990-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdun Naseer vs Muhammad Saleem1991 CLC 926 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs The State1991 P Cr. L J 224 · Sindh High Court · 1990-08-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State and 9 others-1991 P Cr. L J 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Zahida Parveen and 10 others/Accused1991 MLD 403 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-19
  dissolution of marriageremarriage during IddatOffence of Zinabigamymens reaFamily Courts ActMuslim Family Laws Ordinanceirregular marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged the dismissal of a complaint filed under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, and the Pakistan Penal Code, alleging bigamy against a woman who remarried following a decree of dissolution of marriage. The core legal question was whether such a remarriage, contracted after the decree but before the expiry of the statutory notice period, constitutes a criminal offence or renders the marriage void. The court held that the revision was meritless, affirming that a decree for dissolution of marriage, once passed and notice sent, attains finality. It further held that a marriage contracted during the Iddat period is merely irregular (Fasid) and not void (Batil), and thus does not trigger criminal liability for bigamy. Crucially, the court emphasized that criminal intent (mens rea) is a prerequisite for conviction under the Hudood Ordinance. In the absence of such intent, and given the presumption of regularity in judicial acts, the court concluded that no offence was committed, thereby upholding the dismissal of the complaint.

  Questions settled

  • Is a marriage contracted by a woman during the Iddat period following a decree of dissolution of marriage void or merely irregular?
  • Does the non-service of notice of a dissolution of marriage decree to the Chairman render the decree ineffective?
  • Is criminal intent (mens rea) a necessary element for conviction under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Can a husband unilaterally revoke a decree of dissolution of marriage passed by a Family Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Khan vs Secretary, Housing, Town Planning and Local1991 PLC (C.S.) 241 · Sindh High Court · 1990-11-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar Bachani vs The State1991 PCr.LJ 2171 · Sindh High Court · 1991-06-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Karachi Development Authority1991 CLC 1591 · Sindh High Court · 1991-05-30
  temporary injunctionpublic auctionspecific performanceconcluded contractinvitation to treatKDA disposal of landcontractual bid rejection
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) from alienating a commercial plot after the plaintiff’s bid at a public auction was rejected by the KDA’s Governing Body. The core legal question was whether a concluded contract for the sale of the plot existed between the parties and whether the KDA’s contractual right to reject bids without assigning reasons was void as against public policy or in violation of the Contract Act 1872. The Court dismissed the application, holding that no concluded contract existed because the bid constituted an offer that remained subject to the Governing Body’s approval under the KDA (Disposal of Land) Rules, 1971. The Court affirmed that an auctioneer’s request for bids is an invitation to treat, not an offer. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the KDA’s reservation of the right to reject bids was a valid exercise of its statutory authority and did not violate the Contract Act 1872 or public policy, as the plaintiff failed to establish a prima facie case.

  Questions settled

  • Does a bid at a public auction constitute a binding contract before its acceptance by the relevant authority?
  • Is a clause in an auction agreement reserving the right to reject bids without assigning reasons void as against public policy?
  • Does the request for bids at a public auction constitute an offer or an invitation to treat?
  • Can a party claim specific performance of a land sale agreement where the statutory conditions for bid approval were not met?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Akeel and another1991 CLC 1873 · Sindh High Court · 1991-02-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak Limited vs Intrasea (Pvt). Limited. and 4 others1991 CLC 1894 · Sindh High Court · 1991-03-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razak vs Abdul Sattar Khan1991 MLD 326 · Sindh High Court · 1990-10-18Read full judgment →