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.

• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs Eruch1989 PTD 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone vs S. M. Idris1989 PTD 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-14Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone Ia, Karachi vs Allied1989 PTD 735 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs M.1989 PTD 52 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Osman Textile Mills Ltd.1989 PTD 1088 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Messrs Quality Steel Works Ltd.PTCL1989 CL. 57 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Income-Tax Appellate Tribunal1989 PTD 1240 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-06Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax vs Habib Insurance Co. Ltd.1989 PTD 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Thakur Inder Singh And 2 Others vs The Senior Member, Federal Land1989 MLD 509 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Tariq Bokhara of Pakistan vs Union Bank OF'the Middle East Ltd..1989 MLD 2016 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
• Tanveer Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central1989 PTD 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-03Read full judgment →
• Tabassum Jamil vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 237 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-07Read full judgment →
• Syedul Mukhtiar Siddiqui vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2428 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Zulfiqar Ali Shah vs Member, Federal Land Commission, Federal1989 MLD 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Zahid Hussain vs Hoechst Pakistan Limited and 2 others1989 PLC 309 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Syed Wahid Hussain vs Abdullah Bhatti1989 MLD 581 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Sultan Alam vs Secretary, Sind Public Service Commission and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 783 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Shamim Hussain Kazmi vs Habib Bank Limited1989 PLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Nusrat Ali Shah vs Khawaja Khalid Javid And Another1989 MLD 342 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Niaz Ahmad Naqvi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Hussain vs Ahtisham Muhammad Ali And 2 Other1989 MLD 88 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-29
  civil suitpartnership agreementunregistered firmfraud and misrepresentationcancellation of documentvoidable contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff for the recovery of goods, cancellation of a promissory note, and possession of certain shops based on allegations of fraud, misrepresentation, and an unexecuted partnership agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the agreement of sale and promissory note were vitiated by fraud, whether the suit was maintainable without seeking cancellation of the agreement of sale, and whether the suit was barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act for want of registration of the firm. The court held that a voidable document remains valid until formally set aside and the plaintiff failed to seek its cancellation or properly plead particulars of fraud. Furthermore, the court held that an unregistered partnership that was not dissolved does not attract the exception under Section 69(3)(a), thereby rendering the suit barred under Section 69(1) of the Act. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff can claim relief based on an alleged fraudulent transaction without seeking formal cancellation of the underlying agreement of sale?
  • Does a general allegation of breach of confidence suffice to establish fraud and misrepresentation in the absence of specific pleadings?
  • Whether a suit arising from an unregistered partnership is barred under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 when the firm has not been dissolved?
  • Does Section 69(3)(a) of the Partnership Act 1932 save a suit that does not seek the dissolution of a firm or the realization of its property?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Ali vs Umer Farooq And Another1989 MLD 2808 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamal Shahid vs Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks) and others1989 P Cr. L J 688 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Bachal Shah vs Malik Asad Sikandar and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-02
  nomination papersscrutiny of nominationelectoral rollage qualificationReturning Officer powerselection petitionNational Assembly election
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the acceptance of respondent number one's nomination papers for the National Assembly election on the ground that he did not meet the minimum age requirement of twenty-five years under Article 62(b) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, relying on school certificates and a prior election tribunal decision. The core legal question was whether a Returning Officer possesses the authority during scrutiny to hold an inquiry into the correctness or validity of age entries in the electoral roll or go behind those entries under section 14 of the Representation of the People Act 1976. The Sindh High Court held that under proviso (iii) to section 14 of the said Act, a Returning Officer is explicitly barred from inquiring into the correctness or validity of any entry in the electoral roll, making such entries final for the purposes of scrutiny, while the question of age remains open for challenge before an Election Tribunal. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Returning Officer can inquire into the correctness or validity of an entry in the electoral roll during the scrutiny of nomination papers?
  • Does the Returning Officer have the power to hold a summary enquiry regarding the age of a candidate beyond the entries contained in the electoral roll?
  • Can school certificates be used before a Returning Officer to challenge the age of a candidate stated in the electoral roll?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Allah Yar Shah vs Election Authority Sind And Other1989 MLD 611 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Mehdi vs District Magistrate, Karachi1989 MLD 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Hashimi vs Imam Bukhsh And Another1989 MLD 1890 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed 7Aheer Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 342 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-13Read full judgment →
• Sycd Zeshan Akhtar Zaidi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate General, Sind & Ex-OfficiopublicK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 14 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of. Pakistan vs Board of Trustees1989 PLD Karachi 605 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-24Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Erasmus Osmund Interlinks (Pvt.) Ltd.1989 MLD 3194 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
• State Bank Of Pakistan vs Aim InternationalPTCL 1989 CL. 516 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-23Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Administrator, Abandoned Properties, Cabinet Division1989 MLD 1196 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Star Textile Mills Limited vs Assistant Collector of Customs and 21989 PTD 1 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• St. PAUL's Tobacco Company (City of London) Inc. Limited. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks1989 MLD 983 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
• Sqn Leader Mirza Abdul Matin And Another vs Board of Trustees1989 MLD 4744 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Souvenir Tobacco Company Limited. vs Deputy Collector Etc.PTCL 1989 CL. 522 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sonex Corporation vs Collector of Customs1989 MLD 4595 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-23Read full judgment →
• Sodho vs The State1989 MLD 3188 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-11Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline and French of Pakistan Ltd. vs Spencer & Co. (Pakistan1989 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-05Read full judgment →
• Sirajul Haq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-16Read full judgment →
• Singer Industrial Labour Union vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1989 PLC 929 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Quetta Textile1989 PLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Pakistan National1989 PLC 81 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-07
  social security contributionindependent contractoremployer and employeewelfare legislationliberal interpretationcontract of service
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal arises from an order of the Social Security Court setting aside the Commissioner's order directing the respondent establishment to pay social security contributions for workers engaged through independent contractors. The core legal question is whether an establishment is liable to pay social security contributions under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for workers employed through independent contractors, and whether such workers qualify as 'employees'. The court held that workers employed through a contractor to perform work in or in connection with the establishment's undertaking are employees under the Ordinance, provided they have normally worked for at least twenty-four hours per week, and that the contractor acts as a representative of the employer. However, since the appellant failed to prove that the workers in question met the twenty-four-hour threshold or were enrolled as secured persons, the contribution could not be recovered. The key principle laid down is that welfare statutes like the Social Security Ordinance must be interpreted liberally to advance their purpose, and that workers engaged through independent contractors can be deemed employees of the principal employer if the statutory criteria are satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an establishment is liable to pay social security contributions under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, in respect of workers employed through independent contractors?
  • Do workers engaged through a contractor qualify as 'employees' under section 2(8) of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Is a contractor considered a representative or agent of the employer for the purposes of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • What is the required duration of work per week for a person to be deemed an employee under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 613 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17
  Special Court jurisdictionscheduled offenceconnection with business of a bankforgery for bank employmentvoid ab initioacquiescence to jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment disposes of two criminal appeals filed by the appellant challenging his convictions and four-year rigorous imprisonment sentences under Section 468 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, passed by the Special Court (Offences in Banks) at Karachi. The appellant was convicted for forging orders of the A.D.C. to the Prime Minister of Pakistan to secure employment for individuals in National Bank of Pakistan and United Bank Limited. Although the jurisdiction of the Special Court was not pressed during oral arguments, the High Court examined whether forging an employment order constituted a 'scheduled offence' committed in respect of or in connection with the business of a bank under Section 2(d) of the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984. The High Court held that forging employment orders did not affect or relate to the business of the banks, meaning the link was remote rather than direct. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction, making the proceedings void ab initio. The appeals were allowed, the appellant was acquitted, and the prosecution was given liberty to try him under ordinary law.

  Questions settled

  • Does forging an employment order to secure a job in a bank constitute an offence committed in connection with the business of a bank under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  • Can a Special Court under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984 assume jurisdiction over offences that do not directly affect or relate to the business of a bank?
  • Does omission to raise an objection or consent by a party invest a court with jurisdiction where it lacks statutory jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali Shaikh And Another vs The State1989 MLD 2847 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-04Read full judgment →
• Siddique vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 435 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-28Read full judgment →
• Si Iaheryar Bakhtiar vs The State And 3 Other1989 MLD 1713 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Shujaur Rehman vs Central Board of Revenue And Another1989 MLD 1453 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Sherd. Masih vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 318 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 422 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad alias Shera vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs The State1989 MLD 688 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-31Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1382 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sher Afzal vs The State And Another1989 MLD 4983 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ghulam Hussain vs P&T Coop Housing Society Ltd. And Another1989 MLD 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Majied vs Tayab Ali1989 MLD 793 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-15Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain vs Mst. Rubina and others1989 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18
  constitutional petitiondissolution of marriagetalaq effectivenessMuslim Family Laws OrdinanceObjectives Resolutionfraud by counselrestitution of conjugal rightsIslamic injunctions
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 was filed to challenge a family court judgment and decree that dissolved a marriage, awarded prompt dower, and granted maintenance, while dismissing the husband's suit for restitution of conjugal rights. The petitioner contended that the decree was obtained through fraud and professional misconduct of his advocates, and that an oral pronouncement of talaq was ineffective for want of notice under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961. The court held that the petitioner participated fully in the trial and that allegations against his counsel did not amount to fraud vitiating the decree, which could not be examined under writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that under Islamic injunctions and constitutional provisions including Article 2-A and Article 227, the effectiveness of a validly pronounced talaq cannot be made contingent upon serving notice to the Union Council Chairman. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a family court judgment and decree can be set aside under Article 199 on the ground of alleged professional misconduct or negligence of the litigant's advocates?
  • Does the effectiveness of a validly pronounced talaq under Islamic law depend upon the service of notice to the Chairman of the Union Council under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961?
  • How do Article 2-A and Article 227 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 impact the interpretation and enforcement of existing statutory provisions regarding personal law and talaq?
  • Whether the absence of notice to the Union Council under section 7 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 operates as an implied revocation of a pronouncement of talaq?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 2430 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Shaikh vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sharaf Faridi and 3 others vs The Federation of Islamic Republic of 'Pakistan through Prime Minister of Pakistan and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-24
  separation of judiciaryindependence of judiciaryconstitutional petitionsubordinate judiciaryadministrative controlwrit of mandamustrichotomy of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two constitutional petitions challenging the executive's administrative control over the subordinate judiciary and the failure to implement the separation of the judiciary from the executive as mandated by the Constitution. The core legal questions were whether the judiciary must be separated from the executive under Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, and whether Article 203 grants the High Court exclusive administrative and disciplinary control over the subordinate judiciary. The Court held that the constitutional mandate for the separation of the judiciary is binding and that Article 203 vests the High Court with comprehensive, exclusive administrative control over subordinate courts. Consequently, the Court issued a writ of mandamus directing the provincial and federal governments to initiate necessary legislative and administrative measures to bifurcate the magistracy and transfer administrative control to the High Court within six months. The key principle laid down is that the independence of the judiciary is a fundamental constitutional requirement, and the executive cannot exercise administrative or disciplinary authority over judicial officers, as such control is reserved exclusively for the High Court to ensure the rule of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 175(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 mandate the separation of the judiciary from the executive?
  • Does Article 203 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 grant the High Court exclusive administrative control over the subordinate judiciary?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ of mandamus directing the government to initiate legislative measures to implement constitutional provisions?
  • Is the administrative control of the executive over the subordinate judiciary violative of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin And 3 Others vs Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar And Other1989 MLD 7 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Shamasuddin and 2 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 825 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Shama Enterprises (Private) Ltd vs Malik Ghulam Sarwar And Other1989 MLD 21 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15
  specific performancead-interim injunctionsale agreementbalance of sale considerationintra-court appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an intra-court appeal directed against an order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court dismissing the appellant's application for the grant of an ad-interim injunction in a suit for specific performance of a sale agreement. The core legal question was whether the refusal of the ad-interim injunction was justified when the plaintiff-appellant showed unwillingness to deposit the balance of the sale consideration and instead offered to furnish security. The court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that in a suit for specific performance where an injunction is sought regarding the suit property, the court normally orders the deposit of the balance of the sale consideration to ascertain whether the plaintiff is factually ready and willing to perform their part of the agreement. The key principle laid down is that a plaintiff seeking equitable relief such as an injunction in a specific performance suit must demonstrate readiness and willingness by depositing the balance consideration when so required by the court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff seeking an ad-interim injunction in a suit for specific performance can be required to deposit the balance of the sale consideration?
  • Does the refusal to deposit the balance sale consideration justify the dismissal of an injunction application in a specific performance suit?
  • What is the standard requirement for a plaintiff seeking equitable relief regarding a suit property under a sale agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Ahmad Rashidi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1475 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-30Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Anwar and anothers vs Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Communication, Islamabad and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
• Shahmir and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 478 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Shaheedur Rehman and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-13Read full judgment →
• Shahabuddin. vs Haseena Begum1989 MLD 1852 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 621 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz vs Abdul Razi And Other1989 MLD 2173 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-12Read full judgment →
• Shah Jahan Alamgir Shahanshah, Advocate vs Haji Muhammad Sharif1989 P Cr. L J 374 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
• Shah Baig vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 90 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Ali vs Muhammad Ibrahim and another1989 P Cr. L J 25 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-29Read full judgment →
• Shafoatullah vs The State1989 MLD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shafiq Khan vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 2455 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shadoo alias Shahzado vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1093 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ali Khan vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1989 MLD 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Maghribi Begum And Another1989 MLD 506 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-29Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 4988 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-13Read full judgment →
• Sh. Ehsan Ellahi vs Mehar Elahi1989 MLD 510 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Seemab Academy vs Quaideazam Memorial Fund Board And Other1989 MLD 13 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-04Read full judgment →
• Seabana Enterprises vs The Income-Tax Officer Circle XVII a S T Zone, Karachi and 3 others1989 PTD 687 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
• Sayyed Ali Hussain Shah And Others vs Town Committee And Other1989 MLD 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
• Sarwar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 756 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-29Read full judgment →
• Sarfraz Alam vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 633 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Sarfaraz Ahmed vs Government of Sindh through the HomeK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 30 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sanaullah. Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Begum Safiya Agha And 3 Other1989 MLD 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03Read full judgment →
• Samiuddin And Another vs The State1989 MLD 4985 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-27Read full judgment →
• Salim Ali And Another vs The State And 2 Other1989 MLD 1676 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-26Read full judgment →
• Salim Ahmad Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-04Read full judgment →
• Salfi Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Ramzan and another1989 PLC 124 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Saleem vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sakhawat Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Silk and Rayon Mills vs Assistant Collector of Customs And 21989 MLD 1792 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajjad alias SHAHZADs and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1872 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →