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.

• Saifur Rehman vs Mirza Abdur Rahim Baig1989 MLD 2477 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-31Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin Ghulamali and Sons, Hyderabad vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad1989 PTD 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-31Read full judgment →
• Saifuddin Ghulam Ali & Sons vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Hyderabad Zone1989 PTD 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Said Karim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1558 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
• Sahibzada Muhammad Saeed vs Capt. Mian Khan Malik And Other1989 MLD 1282 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
• Saghir Ahmad Warsi vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 968 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-30Read full judgment →
• Safir Ahmad vs Mst. Yasmeen Begum And 9 Other1989 MLD 566 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Saffar Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 310 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Qadir And Others vs S. Mukhtar Hassan, And Other1989 MLD 4740 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali H. Lakhani vs The Board of Intermediate and Secondary1989 PLC (C.S.) 536 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-31Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Ali Abbas Bhai and Brothers vs Mst. Saifiya Bai And 3 Other1989 MLD 1371 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
• Sadhu And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2662 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
• Sabze Ali Through His Legal Heirs vs Mahmooda Rizvi1989 MLD 1427 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11Read full judgment →
• Sabzal and others vs Bingo and others1989 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ali Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 248 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-01Read full judgment →
• S.M. Rafiq Through Legal Heirs vs Ajaz Ahmad1989 MLD 2157 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• S.J.G. Fazal Elahi Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1989 PTD 579 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12
  provision for gratuityincome tax referenceascertained liabilitycommercial accounting principlesprofit and loss account
  Summary & questions settled

  This income tax reference relates to the assessment years 1972-73 and 1973-74, concerning the disallowance of a provision for gratuity created by the applicant assessee pursuant to the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether the Tribunal was right in disallowing the claim for provision for gratuity. The Sindh High Court held that the amounts set apart for gratuity were intended to provide for ascertained liabilities which accrued in the financial years in question and constituted a proper charge on the profit and loss account based on commercial accounting principles. Consequently, the Court answered the referred question in the negative, ruling in favour of the assessee by following established precedent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provision for gratuity created under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968 is an ascertained liability?
  • Can the amount set apart for gratuity be allowed as a proper charge on the profit and loss account for the assessment years in question?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Mukhtar Ahmed vs Pakistan Telecommunication Union and 4 others1989 PLC 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
• S. Mukhtar Ahmad vs Pakistan Telecommunication1989 MLD 608 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-15Read full judgment →
• S. Maqbool Ahmad and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 96 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• S. Akber Ali vs Government of SINDthrough the Secretary, H.T.P. L.G. &1989 PLC (C.S.) 120 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Royal Exchange Assurance vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi1989 PTD 69 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Royal Book Company vs John Wright & Sons Ltd.1989 MLD 1191 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Rounaq Bi vs Saleeq Khan And Other1989 MLD 1975 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-05Read full judgment →
• Roshan and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22
  post-arrest bailstatutory delaysubsequent bail applicationabsconderreview of bail order
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous matter where the applicants sought post-arrest bail from the Sindh High Court, having previously had their bail application rejected on the ground of being absconders. In the present application, they invoked the statutory right to bail under the third proviso to section 497, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, based on the completion of two years in custody without delay being attributable to them. The core legal question was whether a subsequent bail application on a fresh statutory ground arising after the dismissal of the first application must be heard by the same judge who decided the earlier application, or if doing so is barred by the rule against reviewing prior orders. The court held that the rule requiring subsequent bail applications to be heard by the same judge applies when reconsideration of merits would amount to reviewing the previous order, but does not bar a new judge from entertaining a bail plea founded on a distinct statutory ground of delay that did not exist when the first application was decided. The court granted bail to the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a subsequent bail application must be heard by the same judge who dealt with the previous bail application?
  • Can bail be sought as of right under the third proviso to section 497 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the ground of statutory delay?
  • Does the dismissal of a prior bail application bar a subsequent application based on a ground that did not exist at the time of the first application?
  Read full judgment →
• Raziullah Qureshi vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-13Read full judgment →
• Razak Adamjee and 8 others vs Vith Senior Civil Judge (East), District1989 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
• Raza Khan vs Abdul Salam1989 MLD 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Rashid Textile Mills Ltd. vs Azad Mazdoor Union, Karachi and another1989 PLC 927 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khan vs Karachi Development Authority through Director-1989 PLD Karachi 75 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Rashid Al I Mad vs Government of Sind and others1989 P Cr. L J 801 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-07Read full judgment →
• Rasheed vs The State1989 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-11Read full judgment →
• Rafique vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 642 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Rafiq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 143 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rae Aleem Khan vs The State1989 MLD 861 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-01Read full judgment →
• Qasim vs Commissioner, Sukkur Division and others1989 P Cr. L J 189 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 128 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-25Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 109 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-25
  post-arrest bailcommon intentionprinciple of consistencyfurther inquirymurdertheft
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant sought post-arrest bail in a case involving charges under section 302/379 of the Pakistan Penal Code and section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979, arising from an incident of cattle theft and subsequent fatal shooting during pursuit. The core legal questions were whether the applicant shared a common intention with the co-accused for the murder committed during retreat, and whether the principle of consistency applied given that a co-accused similarly situated had been granted bail. The Sindh High Court held that the primary objective of theft was already achieved when the murder occurred at a distance, the fatal shot was an individual act of the co-accused without active participation or firearm use by the applicant, and the case required further inquiry. The court laid down the principle that individual criminal liability must be assessed separately where common intention for a subsequent distinct act is not prima facie established, and that the rule of consistency applies when co-accused persons face identical allegations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when the primary offence of theft is complete and the fatal shooting is committed by a co-accused during retreat?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply when a co-accused facing identical allegations has already been released on bail?
  • Can a co-accused be held vicariously liable for murder under a shared common intention when the original objective was solely to commit theft?
  Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind And Others vs Vaseem Construction Co.1989 MLD 1869 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• Project Director Ghotki, WAPDA and others vs Commissioner, Workmen's Compensation and Authority and others1989 PLC 894 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-23Read full judgment →
• Prof. Dr. Syed Adil Hussain vs University of Karachi and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 526 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
• Pritamdas vs Senior Member, Federal Land Commission And Other1989 MLD 1416 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Prem Kevalran Shahani vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary Togovernment Ministry of Justice and Parlimentaryaffair, Islamabad and AnotherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 79 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Prem Kevalram Shahani vs Go\ f Rnment of Pakistan through Secretary1989 PLD Karachi 123 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority vs Araech (Pakistan) Ltd.1989 MLD 3273 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• Pir Mumtaz Ali vs Sohail Rashid Qureshi, S.D.M., City Hyderabad and 21989 P Cr. L J 38 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Phassco Hardware Co. vs The Government of Pakistan and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-31
  customs valuationdelegated legislationexcessive delegationconstitutional petitionimport dutyretrospective applicationCustoms Act 1969
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of Section 25-B of the Customs Act, 1969, and a notification issued thereunder, alleging excessive delegation of legislative power and arbitrary valuation of imported goods. The core legal questions were whether Section 25-B, which empowers the Central Board of Revenue to fix customs values, constitutes unconstitutional delegation of legislative authority, and whether such notifications can apply retrospectively. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that Section 25-B is intra vires as it does not delegate essential legislative power but rather executive authority to implement the Act's purposes. The Court established that while notifications under Section 25-B must maintain a nexus with actual market values to avoid being deemed arbitrary or capricious, minor discrepancies do not invalidate them. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that notifications operate prospectively, though factual disputes regarding the timing of goods clearance must be adjudicated by the statutory forums provided under the Customs Act rather than through constitutional jurisdiction. The judgment emphasizes that there is a presumption of validity in favor of such notifications, placing the burden of proving arbitrariness on the challenger.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 25-B of the Customs Act 1969 constitute an unconstitutional delegation of legislative power?
  • Must a notification issued under Section 25-B of the Customs Act 1969 maintain a nexus with the actual market value of goods?
  • Can a notification issued under the Customs Act 1969 be applied retrospectively?
  • Is the burden of proof on the petitioner to demonstrate that a notification under Section 25-B was exercised arbitrarily?
  Read full judgment →
• Patrik and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 373 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
• Paradise Associates Ltd. vs Province of Sind And Other1989 MLD 2480 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Welding Electrodes Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax,1989 PTD 1243 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers' Union and others vs Registrar, Trade Unions and others1989 PLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co.Ltd vs The C.I.T., Central Zone-a, Karachi1989 PTD 826 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tabacco Company Ltd. vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 1996 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Oxygen Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1989 PTD 818 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines through its Chairman, Karachi vs Muhammad Ali and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Gases Co. Ltd. vs Dr. Saleh1989 MLD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing Society Limited vs Secretary1989 MLD 2880 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08Read full judgment →
• Pak Noble Enterprises vs The Central Board of Revenue and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-22Read full judgment →
• Oscar Hendrick vs Abdul Wahid1989 MLD 1800 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
• Omar vs The State1989 MLD 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Nur Jehan Begum and Two Other vs Syed Mujtaba Ali NaqviK.L.R.1989. Civil Cases. 49 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
• Nowsherwan vs S.D.M. Nazimabad and Tribunal, Karachi and others1989 P Cr. L J 802 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Noorul Islam vs Secretary, Regional Transport Authority And Other1989 MLD 2253 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Noorul Hassan vs The StatePTCL 1989 CL. 455 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11Read full judgment →
• Noorul Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 631 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-11
  Customs Actsmugglingmandatory provisionvitiation of trialforeign origin of goodscase propertynon-production of evidencecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction and sentence of an appellant for an offence under Section 156(1)(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, relating to the seizure of betel leaves. The core legal questions revolved around the mandatory compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, the necessity of proving the foreign origin of seized goods for a smuggling charge, and the impact of the non-production of case property during trial. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the conviction. The court held that non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, is a mandatory requirement designed to protect individuals and vitiates the trial, not being curable under Section 537 Cr.P.C. Furthermore, the prosecution must establish the foreign origin of goods to sustain a smuggling charge, and the failure to exhibit case property in court can also vitiate the trial.

  Questions settled

  • Is compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 mandatory?
  • Can non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 be cured under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Is it necessary for the prosecution to prove the foreign origin of seized goods to sustain a conviction for smuggling under the Customs Act?
  • Does the non-production of case property in court vitiate a criminal trial under the Customs Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Noordin vs Savan and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 439 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1989 MLD 4653 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 153 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Khan vs Karachi Port Trust and 3 others1989 PLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Noor Jehan vs Ansar Ahmad1989 MLD 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• Noor Hassan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-30Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin vs Mian Hassanullah And 11 Other1989 MLD 61 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-31Read full judgment →
• Nishat Talkies, Karachi vs The Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle a-1989 PTD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Nishat Talkies, Karachi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 591 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1989 MLD 885 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-05Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Nifasat Ali Khan vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 208 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Nifasat Ali Khan vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 198 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Niazi Grammar School vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 1241 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-19Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain Shah vs Pakistan Steel Mill Corporation Ltd. And Another1989 MLD 514 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Siddiqui And Others vs District Judge (West) Karachi And Other1989 MLD 1873 · Sindh High Court · 1989-10-17Read full judgment →
• Nazeer and 2 others vs The aSTA Te1989 PLD Karachi 466 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07
  murderdeath sentence confirmationpartisan witnesseschance witnessesjoint recoverymotivebenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference from the Sindh High Court arises from the judgment of the IVth Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, convicting appellants Nazeer, Rasheed, and Mukhtar under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and appellant Haji Dildar under section 302/109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing all to death for the murder of Muhammad Din. The core legal question involved the reliability of partisan and chance witnesses, the value of an FIR omitting material accused and witnesses, and the sufficiency of joint weapon recoveries without examining mashirs. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt due to interested witnesses, uncorroborated motive, and defective recoveries. The appeals were accepted, the convictions and sentences set aside, and the death reference rejected. The key principle laid down is that in capital cases resting on enmity, ocular testimony must be unimpeachable or strongly corroborated, and joint recoveries without examining mashirs are legally insufficient to sustain a conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of partisan and chance witnesses with a background of enmity is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital case without strong corroboration?
  • What is the legal effect of omissions in an First Information Report regarding the names of accused persons and alleged eye-witnesses?
  • Can a joint recovery of weapons at the instance of multiple accused persons be relied upon when the mashirs of recovery are not examined during the trial?
  • Is proof of motive alone sufficient to base a conviction for murder when ocular and circumstantial evidence has been discarded?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs Ali a KB Ar1989 PLD Karachi 635 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-11
  inherent powersmesne profitsfurnishing securityattachment before judgmentpaper decreecivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This Inter-Court Appeal arises from an order passed by a Single Judge directing the appellant-defendant to furnish security in a suit for possession and mesne profits. The core legal question was whether a civil court can invoke its inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to direct a defendant to furnish security for potential mesne profits when the defendant has no assets, notwithstanding the specific provisions regarding attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5. The Sindh High Court held that the inherent powers of the court are complementary to the express provisions of the Code and can be exercised to meet the ends of justice or prevent abuse of the process of the court, provided such exercise does not conflict with express statutory provisions. The Court affirmed that Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 does not expressly or by implication preclude the invocation of Section 151 where a defendant lacks assets and a prospective decree risks becoming a paper decree. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the inherent powers of a court under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be invoked to direct a defendant to furnish security when specific provisions like Order XXXVIII Rule 5 exist?
  • Can a court order a defendant to furnish security for prospective mesne profits to prevent a decree from becoming an unexecutable paper decree?
  • Does Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 expressly or by necessary implication exclude the exercise of inherent powers under Section 151?
  Read full judgment →
• Nayaz Ahmad Khan vs Messrs Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Limited1989 PLC 186 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
• National Detergents Limited vs Assistant Registrar of Trade Marksii1989 MLD 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• National Construction Company (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Assistant1989 MLD 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• National Construction Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan1989 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26
  customs dutybonded warehousebill of entryrate of import dutyunauthorized removalpenaltyCustoms Act
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a government-controlled company, challenged a demand for customs duty amounting to Rs. 4,52,02,875 on a consignment of building material imported in 1976 and stored in a licensed pile yard under section 13 of the Customs Act. The core legal question was whether customs duty should be assessed based on the rate prevailing at the time of initial import in 1976, or at the rate prevailing in June 1979 when the bill of entry for home consumption was voluntarily filed after it was discovered that 90% of the goods had been consumed without filing an ex-bond entry. The Sindh High Court held that since the goods were stored in a bonded warehouse and removed without filing an ex-bond entry or paying duty, and the petitioner represented until April 1979 that the goods remained unconsumed before filing a fresh bill of entry in June 1979, the assessment of duty based on the rates prevailing in June 1979 was fully justified and strictly in accordance with section 30 of the Customs Act. The court laid down that for goods stored in a bonded warehouse, duty is determined by the rate applicable upon clearance or actual removal, and the mention of a wrong statutory section for penalty does not vitiate the penalty if jurisdiction to impose it otherwise exists under the statute.

  Questions settled

  • What is the relevant date for determining the rate of import duty for goods cleared from a warehouse under Section 104 of the Customs Act?
  • Whether customs duty on goods stored in a bonded warehouse is payable at the rate prevailing on the date of actual removal or the date of initial import?
  • Does the mention of a wrong section number in an order imposing a penalty vitiate the penalty if the authority otherwise possesses the jurisdiction to impose it under the statute?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Mst. Bilquis Begum1989 MLD 2785 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Madina Dal Mills And 4 Other1989 MLD 337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-11Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Fakir Spinning Mills Ltd. And 4 Other1989 MLD 2979 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• Nasir vs The State1989 MLD 1673 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Nasir Mahmood vs The State And 4 Other1989 MLD 2925 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Nasir Ahmad vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima1989 MLD 2273 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Nasim Company vs Additional Chief Engineer (Army), Okara Cantt. And Other1989 MLD 1203 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Nadir Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2329 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Nabi Bux alias Nabu vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• M/s Mahboob Bakhsh (Private) Limited vs Moinuddin ParachaK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases386 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mustafa vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 543 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Abdul Rashid1989 MLD 1436 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• Munna And Another vs Sharfuddin1989 MLD 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →