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.

• Messrs F. Rehman & Co. vs Pakistan Industrial Development1990 MLD 1704 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs EURCYPEAlOGRAIN Ltd. vs Messrs Polychem Company Ltd.1990 PLD Karachi 254 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-30
  foreign awardarbitrationenforcement of foreign awardlimitation periodGAFTA rulesstamp dutyarbitration procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under section 5 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 to enforce a foreign award rendered by arbitrators in London under the Grain and Feed Trade Association (GAFTA) Rules arising from an arbitration agreement between the parties. The core legal questions involved whether the reference to arbitration was barred by limitation, whether the award was vitiated due to the lack of reasons or failure to follow contract terms regarding damages, and whether a foreign award is subject to stamp duty in Pakistan. The Sindh High Court held that the reference to arbitration was within the limitation period, that the scope of scrutiny for foreign awards is strictly limited to the grounds enumerated in section 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937, that the requirement of giving reasons under GAFTA Rules was directory rather than mandatory, and that foreign awards do not attract stamp duty under the Stamp Act. The court consequently dismissed the respondents' objections and made the foreign award a rule of the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the enforcement of a foreign award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937 is restricted exclusively to the grounds specified in section 7 of the said Act?
  • Whether a foreign award rendered abroad is subject to stamp duty under the Stamp Act before it can be made a rule of the court in Pakistan?
  • Whether the non-compliance with procedural rules requiring arbitrators to provide separate reasons renders a foreign award unenforceable?
  • How is the period of limitation for making a reference to arbitration under the GAFTA Rules to be computed when delivery dates are extended by mutual consent?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Design Group of Pakistan vs Clifton Cantonment Board1990 MLD 261 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-31
  arbitration awardlegal misconductarbitrator biasextension of timesetting aside awardevidentiary procedurefunctus officio
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns objections filed by the plaintiffs against an arbitration award rendered by the President of the Clifton Cantonment Board. The core legal questions were whether the arbitrator committed legal misconduct by failing to invite evidence and by rendering the award beyond the statutory four-month period, and whether the court should condone this delay. The Court held that the arbitrator committed legal misconduct by bypassing the evidentiary stage and proceeding directly to arguments, and further erred by issuing the award after the expiration of the four-month period. Although the Court acknowledged its power under the Arbitration Act to extend time ex post facto, it refused to exercise this discretion because the arbitrator had been explicitly cautioned by the plaintiffs regarding the time limit and proceeded regardless. Consequently, the Court set aside the award. The key principle laid down is that while arbitration forums are not strictly bound by formal rules of evidence, they cannot disregard the necessity of evidence entirely, and an arbitrator acts with legal misconduct by ignoring procedural fairness and statutory time constraints after being put on notice.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitrator proceed to make an award without inviting the parties to submit evidence?
  • Does an arbitrator commit legal misconduct by rendering an award after the expiration of the statutory time limit?
  • Can a court exercise its power under Section 28 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to condone delay in making an award after the award has already been issued?
  • Do pending applications under Sections 8, 11, and 12 of the Arbitration Act 1940 remain dormant once an award is filed in court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chanda Motors vs Central Board of Revenue and 3 others1990 PTD 948 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-01
  Income tax assessmentSpecial National Fund BondsContinuation of proceedingsAppellate proceedingsDoctrine of mergerTax set-offConstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the Central Board of Revenue to allow the petitioner to set off Special National Fund Bonds against income tax additions. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to this benefit under CBR Circular No. 9 of 1985, specifically regarding whether assessments finalized after the cutoff date of March 31, 1986, due to appellate proceedings, qualified for the set-off. The Court held that an appeal is merely a continuation of original proceedings, and all steps in the legal pursuit of a remedy—including suit, appeal, and second appeal—constitute a single, intrinsically connected legal proceeding. Consequently, the appellate order set aside the previous assessment, and the subsequent assessment orders passed on May 31, 1988, were the only valid orders in the field. The Court ruled that the petitioner was entitled to the set-off, quashed the impugned orders of the Central Board of Revenue, and directed the Income Tax Officer to rectify the assessment orders accordingly. This establishes the principle that appellate proceedings merge with original proceedings, forming a unified legal process for assessment purposes.

  Questions settled

  • Is an appeal considered a continuation of the original legal proceedings?
  • Does the term 'assessment' in tax law include reassessment and additional assessment?
  • When an appellate authority disposes of an appeal, does the original order merge into the appellate order?
  • Are assessment orders passed following an appellate decision considered the operative orders for tax purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cepcon (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs Rizwan Builders Ltd.1990 MLD 2027 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-18
  summary suitarbitration agreementstay of suitleave to defendstep in proceedingsprecedence of applicationsunequivocal intentionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses the procedural precedence between an application for leave to appear and defend a summary suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, and an application for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when both are filed simultaneously. The Court held that filing an application for leave to defend a summary suit concurrently with an application for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act does not constitute 'taking a step in the proceedings' within the meaning of Section 34, as it demonstrates an unequivocal intention not to submit to the court's jurisdiction. It was further held that an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is a substantive application and takes precedence over an application for leave to defend a summary suit, and should be heard and decided first. The Court emphasized that Section 34 is an overriding provision, upholding the parties' intention to resolve disputes through arbitration.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for stay of suit under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable in the face of Order XXXVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, requiring the defendant first to obtain leave to appear and defend the suit?
  • Whether filing an application under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, for leave to appear and defend the suit will tantamount to taking a step in the proceedings within the meaning of Section 34 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Which of the applications, one under Order XXXVII, Rule 3, Code of Civil Procedure, or one under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, has precedence over the other to be first taken up, heard, and decided?
  • Whether Section 34 of the Arbitration Act is applicable to summary suits under Order XXXVII, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure?
  • What is the significance, effect, and consequence when both an application for leave to defend and an application for stay of suit are filed simultaneously?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Banqu E De L' Indochine El De Suez vs Commissioner of Income-1990 PTD 149 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Artisans Craftsmen, Rehabilitation Society and 2 otherss vs Mst.1990 MLD 1702 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-01
  rejection of plaintwithdrawal of suitfresh suitcause of actionpecuniary jurisdictioncivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed by the defendants under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the rejection of the plaint. The defendants initially argued that the plaintiffs lacked a cause of action. During arguments, the defendants additionally contended that the plaintiffs had previously filed a suit on the same subject matter in the Civil Court, which was withdrawn only after the present suit was instituted in the High Court. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff can file a fresh suit before obtaining permission to withdraw the previous suit with liberty to file afresh under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court of Sindh held that permission to file a fresh suit must be obtained during the pendency of the first suit and prior to the institution of the second suit. Since the plaintiffs obtained a simple withdrawal without explicit permission to file afresh, and did so post facto, the subsequent suit was barred. Consequently, the Court rejected the plaint.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff institute a fresh suit before obtaining permission to withdraw an earlier pending suit on the same subject matter?
  • Does a simple order of withdrawal of a suit without explicit permission to file afresh bar a subsequent suit under Order XXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court grant post facto permission to file a fresh suit after such fresh suit has already been instituted?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs American Orient Lines Inc. and another vs Messrs New Jubilee1990 MLD 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-20
  reimbursementcontract of indemnitysubrogationmarine insuranceshort-landed goodscarrier liabilityquasi-contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges a judgment and decree in a suit for reimbursement filed by an insurer against a carrier. The core legal questions were whether an insurer, having satisfied a joint decree for short-landed goods, is entitled to reimbursement from the primary wrongdoer under Section 69 of the Contract Act 1872, and whether Section 135-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 provides the exclusive remedy for such claims. The court dismissed the appeal, holding that the insurer was entitled to reimbursement. It affirmed that Section 69 of the Contract Act 1872 applies when a person is compelled by law to pay a debt for which another is primarily liable. The key principle laid down is that Section 135-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 is a statutory recognition of subrogation but does not abrogate other equitable rights of indemnity available to an insurer. Furthermore, Section 69 of the Contract Act 1872 provides a broader remedy for reimbursement where a party, interested in the payment, is compelled by law to discharge a liability primarily owed by another, regardless of privity of contract.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 69 of the Contract Act 1872 apply to an insurer who satisfies a joint decree and seeks reimbursement from the primary wrongdoer?
  • Is Section 135-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 the exclusive remedy for an insurer to recover losses, or does it coexist with other equitable rights of indemnity?
  • Can an insurer maintain a suit for reimbursement against a carrier based on the principle of indemnity rather than solely on subrogation under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alpine Construction Co. Ltd. vs University of Karachi through ViceChancellor1990 MLD 1764 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-13
  arbitration awardmisconduct of arbitratorconstruction contractprice escalationcontractual interpretationprocedural irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns objections filed by the University of Karachi against an arbitration award granted to Messrs Alpine Construction Co. Ltd. regarding a construction contract. The core legal questions were whether the arbitrators committed misconduct by failing to frame issues and record formal evidence, and whether the award of 'escalation' costs violated the contract's express prohibition against claims for price 'fluctuations.' The Court held that arbitrators possess procedural discretion and are not strictly bound to frame issues or record formal evidence, provided they act fairly. However, the Court sustained the objection regarding the escalation claim, ruling that the arbitrators acted beyond the terms of reference by ignoring a clear contractual embargo on price fluctuation claims and relying on extraneous government directives that did not bind the University. Consequently, the Court upheld the remainder of the award but set aside the portion related to price escalation. The judgment reaffirms that while arbitrators are masters of fact and law, they cannot ignore express contractual prohibitions or rely on external documents inapplicable to the parties.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of an arbitrator to frame issues and record formal evidence constitute misconduct?
  • Can an arbitrator award claims for price escalation when the contract explicitly prohibits claims for price fluctuations?
  • Are arbitrators bound by the strict rules of the Evidence Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Constructions through Sole Proprietor vs Messrs Neptune1990 PLD Karachi 216 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-19
  arbitration awardarbitration agreementarbitrator misconductfiling award in courtcontract for workpayment for work donevalidity of arbitration agreementenforcement of award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerned an application to file an arbitration award in court under Section 14 of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The plaintiffs, contractors, sought to enforce an award given by a Sole Arbitrator regarding payment for construction work done for the defendants. The defendants contested the award, arguing there was no valid arbitration agreement, the work was not per plan, and the arbitrator misconducted the proceedings. The High Court held that the document dated 22-9-1987 constituted a valid arbitration agreement under Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, emphasizing that the explicit use of terms like "arbitrator" or "arbitration agreement" is not essential, nor is it a strict requirement for the agreement to be signed by all parties, as long as the intention to refer differences to a selected person for a final and binding decision is clear. The Court also found no evidence of arbitrator misconduct, noting the defendants' failure to call the arbitrator to substantiate their claims. Consequently, the defendants' objections were dismissed, and the award was made a rule of the Court.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes a valid arbitration agreement under Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Is it necessary for an arbitration agreement to explicitly use the words 'arbitrator' or 'arbitration agreement'?
  • Is a written arbitration agreement required to be signed by all parties to be valid?
  • Can an arbitrator's decision be challenged on grounds of misconduct without calling the arbitrator to testify?
  • When can an arbitration award be made a rule of the Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Majeed Chawla & Sons vs Anwar Yahya1990 MLD 1711 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-08
  fair rentfixation of rentcost of constructionrent appealadmissibility of documentsSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal arose from an application under Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking the fixation of fair rent. The core legal question concerned whether the Rent Controller properly evaluated the evidence regarding prevailing rents in the locality and the steep rise in construction costs and repair charges to fix the fair rent. The Sindh High Court held that the Rent Controller's fixation of fair rent at a modest rate was just and proper, finding that the various grounds under Section 8(1) can be considered cumulatively or independently, and that a just balance must be struck based on the preponderance of evidence. The key principles laid down are that unobjected documents admitted into evidence cannot easily have their admissibility challenged on appeal, and that fair rent determination requires weighing all relevant statutory factors to strike a just balance under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller can fix fair rent on the basis of a rise in the cost of construction and repair charges?
  • Can the admissibility of a document admitted into evidence without objection be challenged subsequently?
  • Whether the various grounds contemplated in Section 8(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, are to be considered cumulatively or independently for fixing fair rent?
  • Does the Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, apply to rent proceedings under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Aziz Ayoob vs Assistant Collector of Customs and 31990 PLD Karachi 378 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-15
  customs dutynormal priceprovisional assessmentvaluation of goodsunder-valuationburden of prooflimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the final assessment and demand notices issued by customs authorities regarding an imported consignment of Un-coated White Lined Duplex Board, wherein the normal price was redetermined under section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969, and proceedings were initiated under section 81 of the same Act. The core legal questions involved whether the goods were lawfully released provisionally under section 81, whether limitation periods under section 32 applied, and how the 'Normal Price' should be determined when goods are imported from a country different from their country of manufacture. The Sindh High Court held that the goods were validly released under section 81 subject to post-importation check, meaning limitation periods under section 32 did not bar the notice. The Court further laid down that while the 'Normal Price' generally refers to the price prevailing in the country of purchase, if that price is lower than the price in the country of manufacture, the burden shifts to the importer to justify the divergence; otherwise, customs authorities may apply the higher price level of the manufacturing country. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisional release of goods under section 81 of the Customs Act excludes the application of limitation periods prescribed under section 32 of the said Act?
  • Does the concept of 'Normal Price' under section 25 of the Customs Act refer to the price prevailing in the country of purchase or the country of manufacture?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when there is a divergence between the lower price in the country of purchase and the higher price in the country of manufacture?
  • Can unverified letters or certificates from a Pakistani Embassy abroad be solely relied upon by customs authorities to determine the normal value of imported goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.E.G. Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1990 PLC 806 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mercantile Cooperative Credit Society Limited vs Messrs Hafeez1990 MLD 899 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-12Read full judgment →
• Mehran Sugar Mills Ltd. vs District Council, Badin, through its1990 MLD 273 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mechanised Construction of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Commissioner1990 PLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-25Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Hussain Shah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 868 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-18Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1997 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-23Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, Mechanized Construction of Pakistan vs Sind1990 PLC 595 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Malik Mukhtar Ahmad Awan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 617 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-05
  interim protective bailanticipatory bailjurisdictioninter-provincial arrestcognizable offensewarrant of arrestremandHigh Court powersCode of Criminal Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two applications for interim protective bail before arrest, filed by an applicant facing charges under Sections 302, 148, 149, 109, and 307, 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code, 1860, in FIRs registered in Multan, Punjab. The core legal question was whether the Sindh High Court possessed jurisdiction to grant such bail for offenses committed and triable in another province. The Court held that it does have jurisdiction to grant interim protective bail to enable an accused person to approach the competent court in the province where the offense was registered. This decision was based on the interpretation of various provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, including Sections 58, 61, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, and 167, which allow police to pursue and arrest individuals anywhere in Pakistan and for warrants to be executed across provincial boundaries. The Court also noted a consistent practice of both Lahore and Sindh High Courts in granting such inter-provincial protective bail. The applications were granted, admitting the applicant to interim protective bail for two weeks to approach the Sessions Judge, Multan.

  Questions settled

  • Does a High Court have jurisdiction to grant interim protective bail for an offense registered in another province?
  • Can a police officer pursue and arrest an accused person anywhere in Pakistan, irrespective of where the offense was committed?
  • Is a warrant of arrest issued by a court in one province executable in any other place in Pakistan?
  • Can a Sessions Judge grant interim bail for a non-bailable offense when the person is arrested outside the issuing court's district?
  • What is the procedure for an accused person arrested outside the district where the warrant was issued, regarding their production before a Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Asif vs Province of Sindh through Its Chief Secretary, and 2 others1990 MLD 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-08
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionpolice appointmentcharacter verificationequitable reliefprevious criminal recordhonorable acquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, filed by Malik Muhammad Asif seeking a direction to the Inspector General of Police, Sindh, to issue his appointment order as an Assistant Sub-Inspector after he was selected and cleared initial tests. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its constitutional writ jurisdiction, should compel the police department to appoint an individual who had a history of sixteen criminal theft cases, notwithstanding his previous acquittal. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the petitioner's acquittal was not an honorable one and that writ jurisdiction is equitable in nature, meant to be exercised in aid of justice and good conscience rather than to perpetuate unfairness. The Court established the principle that it is not bound to grant relief to a petitioner simply on technical legal grounds if doing so would be contrary to public interest, equity, morality, and the dictates of fair play.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court is bound to issue a writ in favor of a petitioner who is legally entitled to relief when the grant of such relief is contrary to equity and good conscience?
  • Can the Inspector General of Police refuse to issue an appointment order to a selected candidate based on character verification disclosing a history of criminal cases resulting in acquittal?
  • Does an acquittal resulting from the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses constitute an honorable acquittal for the purpose of public service employment?
  • Can the writ jurisdiction of the High Court be invoked to aid a person with a questionable background in securing a position in a law enforcement agency?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Hassan vs Mst. Sheeran Bano1990 MLD 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Siddiqui vs Nafeesullah Rizvi and 2 others1990 MLD 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-28
  rejection of plaintinterim injunctioncooperative societies disputeallotment cancellationcivil court jurisdictionnecessary party
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil matter addresses applications for the rejection of a plaint and the issuance of an interim injunction in a dispute concerning the allotment, cancellation, and re-allotment of a residential plot originally allotted by a cooperative housing society. The plaintiff challenged the cancellation of his plot allotment, which was subsequently declared illegal and void by a nominee of the Deputy Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act, leading to a formal restoration of the plot in his favour. Meanwhile, the society had executed a registered sub-licence in favour of the defendant. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred under sections 54 and 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, whether the plaint disclosed a cause of action warranting rejection under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, and whether an interim injunction should be granted. The court held that the dispute involved complex mixed questions of fact and law not exclusively barred by the Cooperative Societies Act and that the plaint disclosed a valid cause of action. The court established that while documents attached to a plaint may be examined, a plaint cannot be rejected based on the defendant's disputed factual pleas, and confirmed that an interim injunction is appropriate where a prima facie case and balance of convenience favour the earlier allottee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil court's jurisdiction to adjudicate a plot dispute involving a cooperative society member is barred under sections 54 and 70-A of the Cooperative Societies Act?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the basis of pleas and defences raised by the defendant?
  • Whether an interim injunction restraining construction should be granted in favour of an earlier allottee whose plot allotment was restored after a prior cancellation?
  • When is a municipal or regulatory authority considered a necessary and proper party in a suit relating to property construction and demolition?
  Read full judgment →
• M.H. Abidi vs State Life Insurance Corporation1990 MLD 563 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-30
  constitutional jurisdictioncontractual claimsinsurance agent commissionlachesdisputed questions of factstatutory bodywrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, an insurance agent, challenged the State Life Insurance Corporation's refusal to pay commissions on Group Insurance Policies obtained for the Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation. The core legal questions concerned whether the High Court’s constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked to enforce contractual rights against a statutory body, whether the claim was barred by laches, and whether the court could determine the disputed nature of the insurance policies. The Court held that while constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 is not ousted merely because a contract is involved—particularly when dealing with statutory bodies performing public functions—it is not the appropriate forum for resolving complex, disputed questions of fact. The Court found that the determination of whether the policies were for single-year or multi-year durations, which would dictate the petitioner's entitlement to commissions, required evidence beyond the scope of writ jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, with the Court granting the petitioner liberty to seek redress through a civil suit where facts could be properly examined.

  Questions settled

  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked to enforce contractual rights against a statutory body?
  • Is the High Court the appropriate forum to resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the nature and duration of insurance policies?
  • Does the mere involvement of a contract in a petition oust the constitutional jurisdiction of the superior courts?
  • Is the doctrine of laches synonymous with the statutory bar of limitation?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Siddiq Mirza and anothers vs Assistant Director, E.E. Cell (F.Ia.) and 31990 MLD 1588 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-02
  constitutional petitiondouble jeopardyquashment of FIRcustoms fraudFederal Investigation Agencyalternative remedyprosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to restrain the Federal Investigation Agency from investigating a case involving the import of vehicles, and to quash an F.I.R. registered under the Customs Act 1969, on the grounds that multiple enquiries and F.I.Rs. relating to the same matter amount to double jeopardy. The core legal question was whether simultaneous investigations by different agencies or departmental proceedings alongside criminal investigation violate the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution and section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that prosecution commences only when proceedings before a court of law are initiated, and since the petitioners had not been prosecuted twice for the same offence, the constitutional bar against double jeopardy was not attracted. Furthermore, an alternate remedy for quashment of the F.I.R. existed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether investigation by different agencies into the same subject-matter amounts to double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan?
  • At what stage does the prosecution of a person commence for the purpose of invoking the bar against double jeopardy?
  • Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 maintainable for the quashment of an F.I.R. when an alternate remedy under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is available?
  • Do departmental proceedings and a pending police investigation constitute multiple prosecutions for the same offence?
  Read full judgment →
• M. Idrees vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 655 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-20
  statutory delaypost-arrest baildangerous criminalhabitual offenderattempted murdercriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two consolidated bail applications filed by an applicant detained in connection with multiple cases under Section 307/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The applicant sought bail primarily on the ground of statutory delay, having been in custody for over one year without the conclusion of the trial. The core legal question was whether the applicant, despite the statutory delay, should be denied bail under the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which restricts bail for 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminals. The Court held that the applicant’s involvement in numerous cases of murder and attempted murder demonstrated a habitual tendency toward violence, justifying his classification as a dangerous criminal. Relying on the principles established in Jumo v. The State, the Court affirmed that the determination of a 'dangerous' character is a tentative opinion based on the nature of the accusation, the conduct during the incident, and the accused's criminal record. Consequently, the Court dismissed the bail applications, holding that the statutory delay did not mandate release where the accused poses a clear danger to society.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fourth proviso to Section 497(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a previous conviction to classify an accused as a 'hardened, desperate or dangerous' criminal?
  • What factors should a court consider when forming a tentative opinion on whether an accused is a 'dangerous' criminal for the purposes of bail?
  • Can an accused be denied bail on the grounds of being a 'dangerous criminal' even if the statutory period for trial delay has been exceeded?
  Read full judgment →
• Lt.Col. (Retd.) G.M. Nizamuddin and anothers vs Syed Abdul Rahim and 31990 MLD 134 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-22Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-02Read full judgment →
• Lever Brothers Pakistan Limited vs Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal1990 PLC 523 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-08Read full judgment →
• Lever Brothers (Pakistan) Limited vs M.T. "Singapore Clipper" and 41990 PLD Karachi 445 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-22Read full judgment →
• Leslie Sequeira. vs Income Tax Officer Circle v, Zone C And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 464 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Leslie Sequeira vs Income-Tax Officer, Circle v, Zone C and another1990 PTD 58 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-31Read full judgment →
• Lal Khokhar vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-16Read full judgment →
• Kuwait Flour Mills Co. Sak vs m.v. "Kashmir" and others1990 MLD 2196 · Sindh High Court · 1990-07-12Read full judgment →
• Khursheed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-05
  revisional jurisdictionHudood lawsFederal Shariat Courtbail bond forfeitureouster of jurisdictioninterlocutory orderscase decided
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two criminal revision applications filed under Section 435/439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging orders of bail bond forfeiture passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Hudood) in cases registered under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979. The core legal question was whether the High Court retains revisional jurisdiction over interlocutory or ancillary orders passed by subordinate courts in cases governed by Hudood laws, or if such jurisdiction is exclusively vested in the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The Court held that the revision applications were incompetent before the High Court. It ruled that the term 'case decided' in Article 203-DD is sufficiently broad to encompass interlocutory and ancillary orders arising from Hudood proceedings. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain revisions in such matters, as Article 203-G of the Constitution expressly bars the jurisdiction of other courts in matters falling within the purview of the Federal Shariat Court's revisional authority. The applications were ordered to be returned to the applicants for presentation before the appropriate forum.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by subordinate courts in cases under the Offence of Zina (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the term 'case decided' in Article 203-DD of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include interlocutory or ancillary orders?
  • Is the jurisdiction of the High Court barred by Article 203-G of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 in matters subject to the revisional power of the Federal Shariat Court?
  Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux Baluch vs M. Atiqullah and others1990 PLC 599 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20
  unfair labour practicereinstatementback benefitsindustrial disputeNational Industrial Relations Commissiontrade unionconviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two constitutional petitions arising from an order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) regarding the dismissal of a trade union official, Khuda Bakhsh, for alleged unfair labour practices. The core legal question was whether the Commission, under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973, possessed the authority to order the reinstatement of a worker and grant back benefits when the underlying conviction for unfair labour practices had been set aside. The Sindh High Court held that the power to direct reinstatement is not an independent, ancillary, or incidental power, but is strictly consequential to a finding of guilt under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Commission lacked the legal authority to maintain an order for reinstatement and back benefits once the conviction had been quashed. The principle laid down is that the Commission's power to order reinstatement is conditional upon the accused being found guilty of the offence charged.

  Questions settled

  • Can the National Industrial Relations Commission order the reinstatement of a worker if the conviction for unfair labour practice is set aside?
  • Is the power of the National Industrial Relations Commission to direct reinstatement independent of a finding of guilt under Section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Regulations, 1973 allow for the grant of reinstatement as an interim relief during the trial of a complaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Khalid Abbas Dar vs Nawa-I-Waqt, Daily Urdu Newspaper of Nadai1990 PLC 504 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-24Read full judgment →
• Khadim Hussain vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1296 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23Read full judgment →
• Kh. Muhammad Kumail vs Gani and Tayab Ltd.1990 MLD 1177 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-02Read full judgment →
• Kazi Abdul Quddus vs The District Magistrate, Hyderabad and another1990 P Cr. L J 2016 · Sindh High Court · 1990-06-24Read full judgment →
• Kassim vs Budha Soomar and another1990 MLD 2217 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-29Read full judgment →
• Karachi Sind Development Corporation, Karachi [M/s.]. vs CommissionerPTCL 1990 CL. 210 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karachi Properties Investment Company (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central Board Of Revenue, Islamabad And AnotherPTCL 1990 CL. 1088 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Karachi Stevedores Conference and others1990 PLC 343 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-30Read full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Income-Tax Officer and others1990 PTD 580 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-19Read full judgment →
• Karachi Cooperative Housing Societies Union Ltd. vs Government of Sindh and 6 others1990 MLD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04
  co-operative societiesrevisional powersadvisor to chief ministerdelegation of powersrules of businessconstitutional petitionwithout lawful authority
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a registered union of co-operative societies, approached the Sindh High Court challenging orders passed by an Advisor to the Chief Minister directing an inquiry against it under the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, while a revision petition was pending. The core legal questions involved whether an Advisor to the Chief Minister could exercise revisional powers on behalf of the Provincial Government under Section 64-A of the Act, and whether such powers or functions could be delegated under the Sindh Government Rules of Business. The court held that prior to the relevant amendments to the Rules of Business, an Advisor did not possess the authority to exercise revisional powers for a department to which they were not attached, and that the Registrar's inquiry order, having been issued mechanically at the behest of the Advisor without independent application of mind, was without lawful authority. The court established that while the Provincial Government may exercise administrative or supervisory powers through designated functionaries under the Rules of Business, statutory powers must be exercised by authorized functionaries strictly in accordance with law and applicable rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Advisor to the Chief Minister exercise revisional powers under Section 64-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925 on behalf of the Provincial Government?
  • Whether rules framed under Article 139(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 can be treated as an integral part of the Constitution?
  • Is an inquiry ordered by a Registrar solely at the behest of an unauthorized functionary legally sustainable?
  • Can a statutory power conferred upon a government functionary be delegated in the absence of express authorization or necessary implication?
  Read full judgment →
• Kando Khaskheli vs The State1990 MLD 613 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• K.S. Sulemanji Esmailii & Sons Limited vs Pakistan through Member, Central Board of Revenue, and 2 others1990 MLD 2291 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-05Read full judgment →
• K.M. Hussain and 3 others vs Fayyazullah Shareef and another1990 P Cr. L J 1094 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-17Read full judgment →
• Juvenile Jail, Landhi, Karachi in Re: (Suo motu notice) vs Not1990 P Cr. L J 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-23
  suo motu jurisdictionhabeas corpusprisoner rightsjuvenile offendersSection 491 Cr.P.C.judicial activismlocus standipublic interest litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated from a suo motu notice by the Chief Justice of the Sindh High Court following an inspection of the Juvenile Jail, Landhi, which raised significant questions regarding the treatment of juvenile offenders, the legality of jail conditions, and the use of bar-fetters. The core legal question was whether the High Court could initiate judicial proceedings on its own motion under Article 199 of the Constitution or Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to address these issues. The Court held that while Article 199 requires an aggrieved party and thus does not permit suo motu initiation, Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 grants the High Court broad powers to ensure prisoners are treated in accordance with the law, allowing the Court to act without a formal application in matters of public interest. Furthermore, the Court ruled that an inspecting judge is not disqualified from hearing a matter they initiated unless personal bias or interest is demonstrated. The judgment affirms the Court's activist role in protecting constitutional rights and ensuring humane treatment of prisoners.

  Questions settled

  • Can the High Court initiate proceedings suo motu under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to initiate proceedings regarding prisoner treatment without a formal application?
  • Is a judge disqualified from hearing a matter simply because they initiated the proceedings based on their own inspection note?
  • Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 allow the High Court to initiate proceedings suo motu for the protection of prisoner rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Juma Khan vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 56 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-22Read full judgment →
• Jehan Shah and 2 others vs Haji Qalandar Khan and another1990 P Cr. L J 638 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
• Jeeyand alias Jeena vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 46 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Javed Shaikh and 3 others vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-08Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Marker Brother Ltd. [M/s.]. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1990 CL. 420 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad Farooqui and others vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 782 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-15Read full judgment →
• Ismail A. Rehman vs Muhammad Sadiq and 3 others1990 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-11
  double jeopardyautrefois acquitautrefois convictissue estoppelparallel prosecutionstay of proceedingscustoms offencesprevention of corruption
  Summary & questions settled

  Constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were filed seeking to quash parallel criminal proceedings initiated by different agencies against the petitioners before two distinct special courts based on the same set of facts, evidence, and property. The petitioners contended that simultaneous prosecution before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation) and the Special Judge (Central) violated the protection against double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution and Section 26 of the General Clauses Act 1897. The High Court held that to invoke the constitutional bar under Article 13 or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, an accused must demonstrate that a trial before a competent court has concluded in conviction or acquittal. Pending proceedings do not trigger double jeopardy. However, to prevent conflicting findings and serve the interest of justice, the Court ordered that the proceedings pending before the Special Judge (Central) be stayed until the final disposal of the case before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation).

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 bar simultaneous pending prosecutions for offences arising out of the same set of facts before different courts?
  • Is a prior final verdict of conviction or acquittal required to plead double jeopardy under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 or Section 403 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a High Court stay criminal proceedings in one special court to prevent conflicting decisions where parallel prosecutions are pending on identical facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Irshad Hussain vs Mst. Rabia and another1990 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-03Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Murtaza Flour1990 PLD Karachi 420 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-22Read full judgment →
• Indus Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1990 CL. 721 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Inayatullah Khan vs The Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and another1990 PLC 19 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• In re: Mst. Seema Baqai vs Not1990 MLD 323 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-08Read full judgment →
• In re : Petition for Letters of Administration of the Property and1990 MLD 997 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-14Read full judgment →
• Imtiaz Ahmad Chatha vs Kalimullah and another1990 P Cr. L J 643 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-04Read full judgment →
• Imran vs The State1990 MLD 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-13Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1661 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-16Read full judgment →
• Idrees Chanda vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 996 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Hyderabad Municipal Corporation vs Messrs Columbia Enterprises1990 CLC 47 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-31
  arbitration agreementstay of suitarbitration clausecontract cancellationcivil revisionoctroi contractprocedural technicality
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Revision Applications filed by the Hyderabad Municipal Corporation against appellate orders that had refused to stay civil suits initiated by the respondent, Columbia Enterprises. The respondent had filed suits challenging the cancellation of a contract for the collection of Octroi taxes, seeking declarations and injunctions. The Corporation sought a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, citing an arbitration clause in the parties' agreement. The lower appellate courts had denied the stay, primarily on the technical ground that the applications failed to specifically plead the nature of the dispute. The High Court held that the lower courts adopted an overly technical approach. The Court ruled that for a stay under Section 34, it is sufficient to demonstrate the existence of a valid arbitration agreement and that the suit relates to matters covered by said agreement. The Court further held that the unilateral cancellation of a contract does not extinguish the arbitration clause contained therein, which remains operative for disputes arising from the agreement. Consequently, the Revision Applications were allowed, and the civil suits were stayed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the unilateral cancellation of a contract extinguish the arbitration clause contained within it?
  • Is a formal, detailed pleading of the specific dispute required to obtain a stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Can an application for amendment under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be rejected solely because the court previously adjudicated a similar matter differently?
  • What is the primary test for determining whether a suit should be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyder vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
• Hyder vs The State1990 MLD 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bax Shoro and others vs The State1990 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-12Read full judgment →
• Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Deputy Collector of Customs1990 PTD 516 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-10Read full judgment →
• Hoechst Pharmaceutical Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. vs Deputy Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1990 CL. 840 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hatimbhai vs Karimbhai1990 MLD 1700 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Cooperative Society vs Government of Sindh and others1990 MLD 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-21
  cooperative societiesanti-corruption establishmentpublic servantsanction for prosecutionjurisdiction of anti-corruptionmisappropriationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking to declare impugned notices issued by the Anti-Corruption Establishment to the petitioner Cooperative Society as illegal and without lawful authority, and to restrain the respondents from interference and harassment. The core legal question was whether the Anti-Corruption Establishment has the jurisdiction to investigate officers of a cooperative society for corruption and misappropriation without the prior sanction of the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925. The Court held that officers of a cooperative society are deemed to be public servants under the law, and offences of corruption and misappropriation fall under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 rather than being offences 'under this Act' restricted by Section 63(3) of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925. Consequently, prior sanction of the Registrar is not required for investigating or prosecuting such corruption offences. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether officers of a cooperative society are deemed to be public servants under the law?
  • Does the Anti-Corruption Establishment require prior sanction from the Registrar under the Cooperative Societies Act 1925 to investigate cooperative society officers for corruption?
  • Do offences of corruption and misappropriation by cooperative society officers constitute offences 'under this Act' within the meaning of Section 63 of the Cooperative Societies Act 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ziauddin vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-28Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad and others vs Deputy Commissioner, Karachi (East)1990 MLD 923 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Khan and anothers vs Government of Sindh and others1990 MLD 155 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-08
  cattle piri fee contractpublic auctiontemporary injunctionirreparable losssupervisory powers of governmentnewspaper publicationcivil revisionlocal councils contract rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit instituted by the petitioners seeking a declaration and permanent injunction against the reauction of a cattle piri fee contract for 1989-90 by Union Council Ali Wahan. The trial court initially granted an ad-interim status quo order and later confirmed an interim injunction in the petitioners' favour. However, the District Judge vacated the injunction on appeal. The High Court considered whether the auction complied with mandatory statutory publicity requirements, whether the provincial government possessed the supervisory power to direct a reauction, and whether the prerequisites for granting a temporary injunction were satisfied. The High Court dismissed the revision application, holding that publishing an auction notice in a newspaper with limited circulation violated the statutory requirement of effective publicity under the Sindh Councils (Contract) Rules 1980 and Section 45 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979. Furthermore, the provincial government was fully empowered under Sections 53 and 54(1) of the Ordinance to order a reauction to safeguard public revenue. Lastly, the Court ruled that contracts involving monetary rights cannot entail irreparable loss.

  Questions settled

  • Does publication of an auction notice in a newspaper of limited or doubtful circulation satisfy the mandatory publicity requirement under Rule 6(1) of the Sindh Councils (Contract) Rules 1980?
  • Can the Provincial Government invoke its supervisory powers under Sections 53 and 54(1) of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 to direct a reauction of a local council contract in the public interest?
  • Does a breach or cancellation of a contract involving monetary benefits and revenue collection constitute an irreparable loss justifying a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the general controlling provision of Section 45 of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance 1979 prevail over the Municipal Committees Octroi Rules 1964 regarding local council contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim Ishaq Johri vs Commissioner Ofincome Tax (West),Karachi.PTCL 1990 CL 954 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah Khan vs The State1990 MLD 1544 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-09Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdullah Halepota vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1990 MLD 532 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Kasim vs Builders Incorporated and others1990 MLD 712 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-10Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Karim vs S.H.O., P.S. Mithiani and 2 others1990 PLD Karachi 485 · Sindh High Court · 1990-09-04Read full judgment →
• Haider and anothers vs The STATEOpponent1990 MLD 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-28Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Muhammad Hussain vs The State and another1990 P Cr. L J 827 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Luqman vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 988 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-05Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1295 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-25Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Abdul Latif Nasir and 3 others1990 PLD Karachi 212 · Sindh High Court · 1990-02-22Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Dr. Munawar Ali Siddiqui1990 MLD 792 · Sindh High Court · 1989-11-12Read full judgment →
• H. Sheikh Nooruddin & Sons Ltd. through its Director vs Additional1990 MLD 797 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-26Read full judgment →
• H. Sheikh Noor-Ud-Din & Sons Ltd. Through Its Director vs AdditionalPTCL 1990 CL. 806 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmed vs The State1990 P Cr. L J 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-05Read full judgment →
• Gullan vs The State1990 MLD 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-24Read full judgment →
• Gulan alias Gul Muhammad vs The State1990 MLD 1122 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-03Read full judgment →
• Gulam Mustafa vs The State1990 MLD 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1990-03-13Read full judgment →
• Gul Janan vs The State and 5 others1990 P Cr. L J 1699 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan Shah vs The State1990 MLD 1542 · Sindh High Court · 1990-04-15Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan Corpn. and 21990 MLD 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1989-12-21Read full judgment →
• Government of Sindh through the Secretary, Excise & Taxation, Karachi1990 MLD 1672 · Sindh High Court · 1990-01-09Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Petroleum and Natural1990 MLD 1947 · Sindh High Court · 1990-05-31Read full judgment →