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.

• Mst. Najma Rana vs S.M. Maroof, and Another.K.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 68 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Najma Rana vs S.M. Maroof And Another1989 MLD 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24
  specific performancelandlord and tenantpart performanceinterim injunctionejectment proceedingsequitable relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction by a plaintiff seeking to restrain the defendant from evicting her from premises and from transferring the property, pending a suit for specific performance of a contract of sale. The core legal question was whether an existing landlord-tenant relationship is automatically terminated by an agreement to sell the premises, thereby granting the tenant protection against eviction under the doctrine of part performance. The Court held that an agreement to sell does not, by itself, extinguish the landlord-tenant relationship unless explicitly stipulated. The Court found that the plaintiff failed to demonstrate that she was absolved of rent payments or that her possession was solely in part performance of the contract. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that the equitable relief of an injunction requires promptitude, which the plaintiff lacked by waiting until after an ejectment order was passed. Consequently, the Court vacated the status quo order, ruling that the plaintiff did not establish a prima facie case for the protection of Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.

  Questions settled

  • Does an agreement to sell property automatically terminate the existing relationship of landlord and tenant between the parties?
  • Can a tenant in possession claim protection under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 to stay eviction proceedings without proving the termination of the tenancy?
  • Is promptitude a necessary condition for the grant of an equitable relief like an injunction?
  • Does a contract of sale, by itself, create an interest in or charge on the property under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Marriam vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahtoom vs District Magistrate and Deputy Commissioner1989 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-26Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom Bibi vs Syed Hussain Mian1989 MLD 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khair UN Nisa vs Abdul Majeed And Other1989 MLD 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-20Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hawa Bai And Another vs Mst. Rashida Khatoon And Other1989 MLD 601 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ghazala Zakir vs Muhammad Khurshid and 7 others--Defendants1989 PLD Karachi 350 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01
  administration suitappointment of receiverjust and convenientco-sharersestate managementinterlocutory relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an administration suit concerning the estate of a deceased person, specifically a workshop business. The plaintiff sought the appointment of a Receiver for the workshop, which had remained inactive due to ongoing disputes and litigation among the legal heirs. The core legal question was whether the appointment of a Receiver was justified under Order XL, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, given the disputes over title and the alleged exclusion of some heirs from the business. The Court held that in administration suits involving co-sharers or partners, the appointment of a Receiver is appropriate when it is 'just and convenient' to safeguard the estate from waste or dissipation, especially when the property is in limbo. The Court affirmed that the rule against dispossessing a party in possession does not apply where the applicant is a co-sharer or partner entitled to joint possession. The key principle laid down is that the appointment of a Receiver is an equitable remedy to be exercised in aid of justice to prevent the scramble for assets and to preserve the subject matter of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the appointment of a Receiver permissible in an administration suit where the property is currently inactive and subject to competing claims by legal heirs?
  • Does the rule against dispossessing a party in possession apply to an application for a Receiver filed by a co-sharer or partner in an administration suit?
  • What are the primary considerations for a court when determining if an appointment of a Receiver is 'just and convenient' under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a Receiver be appointed in an administration suit even if the title to the property is disputed among the legal heirs?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asif Jehan Begum vs Ghulam Rabani and others1989 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Amina vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 40 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14
  post-arrest bailnarcoticsheroin possessionsuckling childjudicial discretionProhibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinancepublic interest
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, Mst. Amina, sought post-arrest bail in a case involving the possession of 50 grams of heroin, charged under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance, 1979. The applicant argued for bail on the grounds of being a female with a suckling child, relying on precedents where bail was granted to women with nursing infants. The Court examined the evidence, specifically the child's birth certificate, and determined that the child was over two years old, thus not a 'suckling child' under the relevant societal and legal understanding. The Court held that the precedents cited were inapplicable. Furthermore, the Court emphasized the societal menace of drug trafficking, noting that women are increasingly utilized in this illicit trade to evade detection. Given the legislative intent to curb such offenses by enhancing sentences for heroin possession exceeding 12 grams, the Court refused to exercise its discretion to grant bail, prioritizing the public interest. The application was rejected, with liberty granted to re-apply after the examination of the complainant.

  Questions settled

  • Does a child over the age of two years qualify as a 'suckling child' for the purpose of seeking bail?
  • Can a court take judicial notice of the increasing involvement of women in the illicit drug trade?
  • Is bail automatically granted to a female accused solely on the ground of having a child?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Akhtar Bibi vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 831 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Mst. Afroze And 3 Others vs Senior Member, Federal Land Commission1989 MLD 1732 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Afroz Begum And 2 Others vs Qutabuddin1989 MLD 2493 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
• Mst. Abida vs Syed Afroze Ali And Other1989 MLD 943 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. A.B. Aisha vs Sultan Ahmad Tahir And Another1989 MLD 2166 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. a Tiqua Khatoon and 6 others vs Muhammad Taqui1989 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mst . Nasreen vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-08Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shreen G. Kandawala and 14 others vs Federation of Pakistan1989 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamsunnisa Bakhtiar and another vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 2451 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Javed Butt vs III A.D.J. (East) Karachi And Other1989 MLD 4719 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Almas Pirzada vs Messrs United Investment Company And Another1989 MLD 2755 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-07Read full judgment →
• Moulvi Abdul Hamid vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-22Read full judgment →
• Molvi Abdul Aziz and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1566 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-03Read full judgment →
• Moinulislam vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 1260 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Iqbal Khanzada Alias Iqbal Ahmad Khanzada vs The State1989 MLD 4648 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-08Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ibrahim vs The StateK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 574 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-16Read full judgment →
• Miss Nilouffar J. Marker vs The Income-Tax Officer, Circle D-1, Karachi1989 PTD 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-19Read full judgment →
• Misdkeen Illahi Shehzada vs Aziz HussainK.L.R 1989 Criminal Cases 38 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-31Read full judgment →
• Mirzayawarbaig vs Usman Ghani ChippaK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 64 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-16Read full judgment →
• Mirajuddin and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 441 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mir Safdar Ali vs Ali Mardan and another1989 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Mir Sadio Ali vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 528 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-06Read full judgment →
• Mian Muhammad Bashir vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 211 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Wahid vs The State1989 MLD 4731 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mi an Dad GH Anghro vs S.H.O., P.S. Kandhra and others1989 P Cr. L J 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs. Shah Construction Company And Others vs Divisional1989 MLD 2872 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs. Muhammad Yusuf Iqbal Ahmad vs Central Board of Revenue1989 MLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1959-08-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs. Bengal Wool House And Others vs The Eastern Federal Union1989 MLD 1656 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs. A.B. Sons Ltd. vs Messrs Eastern Express Ltd.1989 MLD 956 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Yaseen Sons vs Federation of Pakistan and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09
  Customs dutyRetrospective legislationVested rightsLegislative competenceCurative legislationConstitutional interpretationSection 31-A Customs Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns writ petitions challenging the application of Section 31-A of the Customs Act, 1969, to import consignments where firm commitments were made prior to its enactment. The core legal question was whether the legislature could retrospectively enact Section 31-A to nullify the effect of the Supreme Court’s judgment in Al-Samrez Enterprise v. The Federation of Pakistan, which protected vested rights against duty increases. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the legislature possesses plenary power to enact curative or remedial legislation, even retrospectively, to remove the basis of a court judgment or validate actions previously found invalid, provided it acts within constitutional limits. The Court affirmed that such legislation does not constitute an encroachment upon judicial power. Furthermore, the Court determined that Section 31-A does not violate Articles 18, 23, 24, or 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The key principle established is that while the judiciary interprets the law, the legislature retains the authority to amend the law to render previous judicial decisions ineffective, provided the legislative act itself is constitutionally valid.

  Questions settled

  • Can the legislature enact retrospective legislation to nullify the effect of a Supreme Court judgment?
  • Does the application of Section 31-A of the Customs Act 1969 violate the constitutional right to property or freedom of trade?
  • Is the legislature competent to validate actions previously declared invalid by a court of law?
  • Does the enactment of curative legislation constitute an encroachment upon the judicial power of the courts?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Urdu Academy, Sind vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi1989 PLC 187 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Textile Winding Machinery Co. Ltd. - vs Government of Sind and 2 others1989 PLC 932 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Swiss Air Transport Company Limited vs The Deputy Collector1989 MLD 4896 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Spinzar Snacks vs The Joint Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad And 2 Other1989 MLD 335 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Sharafali Ghulam Hussain Gani vs Government of Pakistan And 3 Other1989 MLD 1440 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sahaf Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. And Others vs Karachi Port Trust1989 MLD 616 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.N.H. Industries Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan Through The Secretary, Ministry Of Finance, Islamabad And 3 Other1989 MLD 1821 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Republic Engineers vs Badruddin Saleh1989 MLD 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs Abdul K14aliq Ghandak Wala1989 MLD 1625 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Containers Employees' Union through its General Secretary1989 PLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Motors Ltd. vs Messrs the Muslim Commercial Bank1989 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Insurance Corporation And Another vs Messrs Blue1989 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Electric Co. of Pakistan And Others vs Central Board1989 MLD 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mian Akbar Trading Corporation vs State Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 2036 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Maratos & Co. vs "Rice Trader" and 2 others1989 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-04
  admiralty jurisdictionaction in remnecessaries supplied to shipssister vesselsbeneficial ownershipcorporate veilpriority of claimsarrest of ship
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed an admiralty suit under the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 for the recovery of money in respect of necessaries supplied and services rendered to various vessels managed by defendant No.2. The core legal question was whether an action in rem could be maintained against defendant No.1 ('Rice Trader') in respect of claims arising from necessaries supplied to other sister vessels under the concept of beneficial ownership and sister-ship arrest. The court held that while the plaintiff's claim against 'Rice Trader' and 'Mimosa Trader' (owned by the same company) was maintainable and proved, claims against other vessels managed by the same company could not be entertained under section 4(4) of the Ordinance because mere management, operation, or chartering does not constitute beneficial ownership of majority shares. The key principle laid down is that 'beneficial owner' under the admiralty jurisdiction connotes an equitable or real ownership interest in the majority shares of a vessel, and mere physical possession, control, or management as an operator or time/demise charterer does not satisfy the requirements for sister-ship arrest.

  Questions settled

  • Can an action in rem be maintained against a sister vessel for claims relating to another vessel under section 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 without establishing beneficial ownership of majority shares?
  • Does a ship manager, operator, or time/demise charterer qualify as a beneficial owner of majority shares of a vessel for the purposes of sister-ship arrest?
  • When can the court pierce the corporate veil to determine the true beneficial ownership of a vessel in admiralty proceedings?
  • What is the relative priority of claims for necessaries supplied to a vessel compared to mortgagees, salvers, and crew wages from the sale proceeds of an arrested ship?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.B. Mana and Company vs The District Judge and others1989 PLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jan Co. Importers vs The Federal Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1999 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Inter Agencies Ltd. vs Habib Bank Ltd.1989 MLD 1912 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Packages (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Joint Registrar, Joint1989 MLD 555 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Trade and Industries Publications Limited1989 MLD 374 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haroon Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory vs Islamic1989 MLD 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1989 PLC 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs Habib Cooperative Credit Society1989 MLD 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs GERRY's Travels (Private) Ltd. vs Muslimcommercial Bank Ltd1989 MLD 610 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gemini Corporation vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 1379 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Duty Free Shops Limited vs Altaf Hussain Awan and 2 others1989 PLC 127 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Century Textile Mills Ltd. vs The State1989 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Car Tunes vs Income-Tax Officer, Circle v, Hyderabad and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13
  additional assessmentreopening of assessmentchange of opinionincome taxconstitutional petitionalternative remedyjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge a notice issued by a successor Income-tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979, which sought to reopen a finalized assessment for the year 1985-86. The petitioner contended that all relevant facts and valuations had been fully disclosed and accepted by the predecessor officer, and that the reopening was based on a mere change of opinion without any new material. The respondent argued that the petition was premature as alternative remedies existed under the Ordinance. The High Court held that once an assessment is finalized, it cannot be reopened under Section 65 of the Ordinance based on a mere change of opinion by a successor officer on the same material. Furthermore, the existence of an alternative statutory remedy does not bar constitutional relief where the impugned action is demonstrably without jurisdiction or unsustainable in law. Consequently, the Court declared the impugned notice to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can a finalized income tax assessment be reopened under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 based on a mere change of opinion by a successor officer?
  • Does the existence of an alternative statutory remedy bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 where the impugned notice lacks jurisdiction?
  • What constitutes 'definite information' or new material sufficient to justify reopening an assessment under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Burjor Ardeshir Industries Limited vs The Employers' Liability1989 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baba Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Province of Sind through Secretary Local Bodies and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Auto Centre vs Central Board of Revenue And Other1989 MLD 1396 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asiatic Optical Co. vs The Chairman, Sind Labour Appellate1989 PLC 486 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ashfaq & Brothers vs Mazhar1989 MLD 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allied Industries Hub (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Messrs China National Metals1989 MLD 2027 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.E.G. Telefunken Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited vs Sind Labour Appellate1989 PLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22
  compulsory retirementsuperannuationtermination of serviceback benefitsretrospective applicationservice regulationsindustrial grievancereinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged orders of the Sind Labour Court and Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which set aside the compulsory retirement of an employee and ordered his reinstatement with full back benefits. The employee had been hired in 1971 when no age of retirement was prescribed in his appointment letter or company regulations. In 1978 and 1979, the employer passed resolutions establishing a retirement age of 60 years, under which the employee was retired in 1985. The High Court considered whether the employee could challenge his retirement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 and whether retirement rules enacted after employment applied retroactively to existing workers. The High Court held that compulsory retirement without a statutory or contractual retirement age constitutes termination of employment, maintainable under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 via Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. Furthermore, regulations affecting substantive rights apply prospectively only and cannot detrimentally alter original service terms without agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Can a worker challenge compulsory retirement under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 where no statutory age of superannuation exists?
  • Does a service regulation fixing an age of retirement apply retrospectively to workers employed before its enactment?
  • Does a general undertaking by an employee to abide by future rules permit an employer to alter original service terms to the employee's detriment?
  Read full judgment →
• Messers Famous Corporation vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 2322 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21
  customs clearancerubber scrapimport consignmentsdry portpublic notice
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners imported consignments of rubber scrap and sought to clear them at the Dry Port Lahore pursuant to a public notice dated 12th June, 1988. The respondents contended that they possessed information that the consignments contravened the law, while the petitioners argued that under the public notice, such information should be conveyed by the Customs House, Karachi to the Dry Port by telex or telephone for appropriate examination and action by the Customs Officer. The Sindh High Court disposed of the constitutional petition by directing the Karachi Customs House to convey the relevant information to the Dry Port authorities so that Customs Officers could examine whether any contravention of customs or other laws had occurred and take lawful action. Furthermore, the court directed that if the consignment had already been examined at Karachi, it should be resealed and forwarded to the Dry Port along with any existing report.

  Questions settled

  • How should information regarding contravention of law concerning import consignments be transmitted between custom houses under the public notice dated 12th June, 1988?
  • What procedure is to be followed by customs authorities when an import consignment has already been examined at one port before being forwarded to a dry port?
  Read full judgment →
• Mercury Industriess vs Messrs M. Asif Brother And Another1989 MLD 1664 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mercantile Fire and General Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer and another1989 PTD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-28
  retrospective operationincome tax arrearsprivate company liabilityshareholder liabilitystatutory interpretationfinance act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a demand by the Income-tax Officer for unrealized tax arrears of a private company for the assessment years 1964-65 and 1965-66, sought to be recovered from the petitioner as a shareholder holding more than 10% of the company's paid-up capital. The demand was based on section 43-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922, as substituted by the Finance Act of 1973. The core legal question was whether the substituted section 43-B of the Income-tax Act, 1922 operates retrospectively to cover tax arrears for periods prior to its enactment. The Sindh High Court held that section 43-B is prospective in its operation and does not apply retrospectively to tax liabilities or periods predating the enforcement of the Finance Act of 1973. The court laid down the principle that statutes creating new obligations or affecting existing rights and liabilities are presumed to be prospective unless a clear retrospective intent is explicitly stated or arises by necessary implication in the statutory language.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 43-B of the Income-tax Act 1922, as substituted by the Finance Act of 1973, is retrospective in its operation?
  • Can tax arrears of a private company for periods prior to the enactment of the Finance Act of 1973 be recovered from a shareholder or director under section 43-B of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Does the expression 'any income of any previous year' in section 43-B of the Income-tax Act 1922 indicate a legislative intent for retrospective application?
  Read full judgment →
• Merajuddin and Muhammad Ashraf, Directors, Pak. Skyland (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1988-07-17Read full judgment →
• Mehran Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 31989 PLD Karachi 627 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mazhar Industries (Private) Ltd. vs The Dem. 'Ty Registrar of Trade1989 M LD 1628 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Masoodul Haq And Another vs Government of Sind Through Secretary1989 MLD 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
• Mashaikuddin Through His Legal Heirs vs Syed Ali Hyder1989 MLD 539 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
• Maseehuddin Siddiqui vs Sind Labour Court No. v and others1989 PLC 483 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-03Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 343 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmed vs The State1989 MLD 4890 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-11Read full judgment →
• Mansur Ali And 13 Others vs Habib Bank Ltd.1989 MLD 1897 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali Khan vs Board of Revenue And 4 Other1989 MLD 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-19Read full judgment →
• Malik Nisar vs The State1989 MLD 856 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Malik Mehboob vs The State1989 MLD 1337 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Khatoon and 5 others vs Adi Shroof1989 PLD Karachi 181 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Macdonald Layton & Company Ltd. vs Messrs Uzin Export Import1989 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-27Read full judgment →
• Ma Soom a LI vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board, Government of Pakistan, Lahore1989 PLD Karachi 633 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-29Read full judgment →
• M.S. Thariani Through Legal Heirs vs Yousuf1989 MLD 1786 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• M.R. Sons vs The Income-Tax Officer and others1989 PTD 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-13
  reopening of assessmentchange of opinionincome taxdefinite informationwrit jurisdictionfiscal rightsfinality of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the validity of a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, by the Income Tax Officer to reopen an assessment for the 1982-83 tax year. The petitioner, a registered partnership firm, had previously disclosed all relevant financial records, which were scrutinized and accepted by the tax authorities, resulting in a finalized assessment. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities could reopen a concluded assessment based solely on a successor officer's "change of opinion" regarding the valuation of assets, absent any new, definite information. The Court held that the notice was issued without lawful authority. Relying on established jurisprudence, the Court ruled that the power to reopen assessments under Section 65 is not a mechanism to revisit settled matters based on subjective suspicion or a mere change of opinion by a successor officer. The key principle laid down is that where an assessee has fully disclosed all material facts and the assessment has been consciously completed, the tax authorities cannot invoke Section 65 to reopen the transaction without new, definite information.

  Questions settled

  • Can an Income Tax Officer reopen a finalized assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, based solely on a change of opinion?
  • Does the expression 'reason to believe' in Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, allow for subjective satisfaction without definite information?
  • Is a writ petition an appropriate remedy to challenge a notice issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, before the assessment proceedings are finalized?
  • What constitutes 'definite information' for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• M.J.A. Gazdar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 832 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• M. J. A. Gazdar vs The State1989 MLD 1694 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• M Uh Amnia D Afzal vs The Home Secretary, Government of Sind and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-03Read full judgment →
• Lt. Col. (Rid.) S.M. Hamdani vs Mrs. S.T. Hassan1989 MLD 1178 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
• LT. Col. (Retd.) M.B. Aazmi vs M/s. Hommee & Jamshed And Other1989 MLD 4691 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →