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.

• Habibullah vs The State1989 MLD 2649 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Habibul Haq vs Liaqat1989 MLD 363 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-29Read full judgment →
• Habibuddin vs Mistri Abdul Sattar1989 MLD 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Habib Insurance Company Ltd vs Income-Tax Officer and others1989 PTD 823 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-12Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Special Court (Offences in Banks), Karachi and 2 others1989 P Cr. L J 417 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Khokhar Engineering Company And Other1989 MLD 2290 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited vs Messrs Wa Heed Textile Mills Limited and 5 others--1989 PLD Karachi 371 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-29
  banking recoveryleave to defendObjectives ResolutionIslamic injunctionsself-executing provisionscontract of guaranteeinterestBanking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for recovery of Rs. 40,97,535.17 was filed by Habib Bank Limited against a textile mill and its guarantors under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The defendants sought leave to defend, raising contentions regarding blank documents, incorrect accounts, improper stamping of guarantees, and the repugnancy of interest-based loans to Islamic Injunctions under Article 2-A of the Constitution. The court addressed whether Article 2-A empowers the judiciary to strike down existing laws as repugnant to the Holy Quran and Sunnah. The court held that Article 2-A is not self-executing and does not authorize courts to invalidate legislation on the touchstone of the Objectives Resolution, as the Constitution provides specific mechanisms, such as the Federal Shariat Court and the Council of Islamic Ideology, for the Islamization of laws. Consequently, the court rejected the defendants' constitutional arguments, decreed the suit against most defendants, but granted defendant No. 2 leave to defend based on a triable issue regarding a prior release agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Does Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 empower courts to strike down existing laws as repugnant to the Injunctions of Islam?
  • Are letters of guarantee to be construed as contracts of indemnity or contracts of guarantee under the Contract Act 1872?
  • Is the Objectives Resolution a self-executing provision of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Can a court grant leave to defend a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 based on a disputed release agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• H.M. Abdullah vs The Income-Tax Officer and 2 others1989 PTD 800 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-30Read full judgment →
• H. Sheikh Nooruddin & Sons Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue1989 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-07Read full judgment →
• H. Mohammad Qasim vs Mst. Ambreen Butt And 2 Other1989 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-28Read full judgment →
• H Us S a in vs Collector of Customs (Preventive) and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 391 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• H Umay UN Niz a Mi vs Government of Sind through its Secretary, Health1989 PLD Karachi 343 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20Read full judgment →
• Gulshan E Usman Social Welfare Association vs Karachi Development1989 MLD 4619 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-29Read full judgment →
• Gullan vs Board of Revenue And Another1989 MLD 2521 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-15Read full judgment →
• Gulfam and anothers vs Ali Muhammad and others1989 PLD Karachi 499 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-30
  power of attorneydelegation of authoritysub-agentdelegatus non potest delegareratificationestoppel by representationmortgage by deposit of title deedscancellation of sale deedprocedural defectinstitution of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arose from two consolidated High Court Appeals concerning a property dispute involving mortgage, delegation of agency, unauthorized sale, and procedural defects in instituting a suit. The co-owners of the property had granted a General Power of Attorney to Qurban Ali, who borrowed money from Gulfam by mortgaging the title deeds and executing a second power of attorney authorizing Gulfam to sell the property upon default. Gulfam subsequently sold the property to Saghir Ahmed without court intervention. Qurban Ali filed a suit for redemption of mortgage and cancellation of the sale deed on behalf of himself and the co-owners, while Saghir filed a suit for possession and mesne profits. The High Court affirmed that under the maxim delegatus non potest delegare and Section 190 of the Contract Act 1872, an agent cannot delegate authority to a sub-agent to sell property unless expressly authorized. Thus, the sale was void. Furthermore, defect of authority in signing and instituting a suit by an agent is a procedural irregularity curable by subsequent ratification under Sections 196 and 197 of the Contract Act 1872.

  Questions settled

  • Can an agent holding a power of attorney lawfully delegate the power of sale to a sub-agent without express authorization from the principal?
  • Whether the failure to properly authorize an agent to sign and institute a plaint renders the suit a nullity or constitutes a curable procedural defect?
  • Does subsequent ratification by a principal validate acts unauthorizedly undertaken on their behalf by an agent at the time of instituting a suit?
  • Does silence or inaction operate as estoppel by representation when the opposing party had full knowledge of the factual and legal position?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Raheem and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2458 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-08Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad vs Rano and others1989 P Cr. L J 82 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Limited, Karachi (M/s.) vs Commissioner Of Sales TaxPTCL 1989 CL. 183 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Giga Patel vs Haji Siddique1989 MLD 1875 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs The State1989 MLD 4646 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs The State1989 MLD 708 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-27Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1098 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool Hyderi vs S.D.M., Tribunal Khairpur1989 P Cr. L J 458 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir Bux vs The State1989 MLD 1726 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa And 2 Others vs The State1989 MLD 2827 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Murtaza vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21
  murderdeath sentenceinterested witnessesindependent corroborationrecovery of weaponbenefit of doubtacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Kandiaro, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and sentencing him to death for the murder of the deceased. The incident allegedly occurred at a hotel where the deceased was attacked with a hatchet. The core legal questions involve the credibility of interested and related eyewitnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration, the reliability of weapon recovery, and the flaws in the police investigation. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt due to the non-production of independent available witnesses, delayed recording of statements, suspicious weapon recovery, and an untrustworthy investigation. The key principle laid down is that uncorroborated evidence of interested or related witnesses cannot form the basis of a murder conviction when independent natural witnesses were readily available but withheld.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of related or interested eyewitnesses when independent witnesses were present and available?
  • Does a delay in recording the statements of key eyewitnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 render their testimony untrustworthy?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a weapon recovery when police remand application precedes the actual pointation and recovery memo?
  • Does the failure of the investigating officer to promptly visit the crime scene and examine independent witnesses create a fatal doubt in the prosecution case?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs Ghulam Rasul And 6 Other1989 MLD 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 618 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shahani vs The State1989 MLD 2657 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Shahani vs The StateK.L.R. 1989 Criminal Cases 369 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-18Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Baluch vs Government of Sind And Other1989 MLD 589 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Farooque and anothers vs The State--Opponent1989 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-11
  post-arrest bailcounter-casesfurther inquirymedical inconsistencyfirearm injuryaggressorcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants sought post-arrest bail in a case registered under sections 307, 147, 148, 149, 323, and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 at Police Station Sinjhoro following a clash between rival political polling agents. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail on grounds of inconsistency between ocular and medical evidence and the existence of counter-cases where both sides sustained injuries. The Sindh High Court held that where a specific firearm attribution is belied by medical reports showing no firearm injury, and where counter-versions exist with injuries on both sides making it uncertain who the aggressor was, the case falls within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court laid down the principle that bail should be granted when the ocular account is prima facie contradicted by medical evidence and in sudden cross-cases involving mutual injuries where the true aggressor cannot be determined with certainty at the pre-trial stage.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contradiction between ocular allegations of firearm injuries and medical reports showing no firearm injuries warrant further inquiry for the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether accused persons in counter-cases where both sides have sustained injuries are entitled to bail on the ground that it is uncertain which party was the aggressor?
  • Is an applicant entitled to post-arrest bail when the specific role attributed to him is belied by the medical evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Fareed vs The State1989 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs Javid and another1989 P Cr. L J 507 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-30
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcivil disputedishonoured chequesmala fide complaintinherent powers of High Courtco-extensive powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application for the quashment of criminal proceedings pending against the applicant under sections 406, 420, and 506 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 before a magistrate. The core legal question involved whether a purely civil business dispute regarding unpaid dues and dishonoured cheques for goods purchased on credit could be prosecuted as criminal breach of trust, cheating, and criminal intimidation, and whether the High Court could directly entertain a quashment petition under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the applicant first approaching the trial court under section 249-A. The court held that the transactions between the parties were entirely of a civil nature involving debit and credit of woollen yarn, lacking any element of entrustment necessary for criminal breach of trust, and that the criminal proceedings were instituted mala fide to harass the accused. The court further held that the powers of the trial court under section 249-A and the High Court under section 561-A are co-extensive and there is no absolute bar stopping the High Court from entertaining a petition directly. The proceedings against the applicant were accordingly quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a commercial dispute arising from goods purchased on credit and subsequent dishonoured cheques constitute a criminal breach of trust under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Are the powers of a trial court under section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 co-extensive with the powers of the High Court under section 561-A?
  • Is a party barred from directly approaching the High Court under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without first moving the trial court under section 249-A?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Abbas vs Federal Government, Ministry of Interior and others1989 P Cr. L J 1936 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ghazanfar Ali and another vs Cherat Cement Co. Ltd.1989 P Cr. L J 352 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-27Read full judgment →
• General Tyre & Rubber Co. Of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Commissioner Of IncomePTCL 1989 CL. 680 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• General Tyre & Rubber Co. of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone, Karachi (Copy)1989 PTD 582 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-30Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Deceased Through Legal Heirs vs Kamal Yusuf And 111989 MLD 1169 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• G.M. Fisheries vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central `A'), Karachi1989 PTD 673 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Five Star Inc. vs M.R. Khan Through His Legal Heirs.1989 MLD 1802 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
• Fida Ahmed And Others vs Amir Masood Khan And Other1989 MLD 920 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-29Read full judgment →
• Fazal Khursheed vs Agha Jawed Raza1989 MLD 346 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Fauji Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Employees' Union and another1989 PLC 218 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Fatehally Chemical Mehnatkash Union (C.Ba.) vs Registrar of Trade1989 PLC 191 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-20Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad vs The Registrar, Trade Unions And Another1989 MLD 584 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
• Farooq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 348 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-25Read full judgment →
• Farookh Hamid Rizvi And 2 Others vs The Managing Director, Pak Arab1989 MLD 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-19Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad vs Mst. Zohra Bai Abdul Hussain1989 CLC 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-27Read full judgment →
• Famous Corporation (M/s.) vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement)PTCL 1989 CL. 312 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Falak Sher vs Sachal and another1989 P Cr. L J 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-09Read full judgment →
• Fakhruddin And Others vs Syed Ali Imam Rizvi And Other1989 MLD 2375 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad And 2 Others vs Ramzanali And 3 Other1989 MLD 2525 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-12Read full judgment →
• Excide Pakistan Limited [M/s] vs Central Board Of Revenue And OtherPTCL 1989 CL. 235 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-31Read full judgment →
• Evacueetrust Property Board vs Peoples Municipality, Hyderabad And Other1989 MLD 2283 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Esso Eastern Inc. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 178 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary Finance, Islamabad and 3 others1989 PTD 42 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-03
  sales taxlegislative competencefiscal statute interpretationlegal fictionmanufactured goodstax exemptionconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, manufacturers of electric bulbs, challenged the levy of sales tax on glass shells used in the manufacturing process of bulbs. The petitioners argued that since glass shells are 'used' rather than 'sold' and the final product (electric bulbs) is exempt from sales tax, the tax on glass shells is ultra vires the Constitution and the Sales Tax Act, 1951. The Court held that the Federal Legislature has the competence to enact provisions, specifically subsections (4) and (6) of section 3 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, which create a legal fiction treating the 'use' of manufactured goods by a manufacturer as a 'sale' for tax purposes. The Court affirmed that when goods are consumed or used in the manufacturing of other goods, they lose their identity, and the legislature may validly tax such intermediate goods if they are not themselves exempt. The principle established is that the legislature may extend the definition of 'sale' to include the internal use of manufactured goods to prevent tax avoidance, and such provisions are within the legislative competence of the Federal Parliament.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Legislature impose sales tax on goods used by a manufacturer in the production of other goods where no actual sale transaction occurs?
  • Does the 'use' of manufactured goods in the production of another item constitute a 'sale' for the purposes of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Does an exemption granted to a final product automatically exempt the intermediate goods used in its manufacture from sales tax?
  • Is the provision in the Sales Tax Act, 1951, treating the internal use of goods as a sale, ultra vires the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Farhat Hussain vs The State and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 320 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-07Read full judgment →
• Edward Louis vs The State1989 MLD 2803 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-18Read full judgment →
• Eddie M. Dinshaw vs The Director-General_Commissioner, Excise and Taxation, Sindh and 2 others1989 PTD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-21Read full judgment →
• Dr.'Major Abdul Ahad Khan through his legal Representativess vs Muhammad Iqbal through his Legal Representativess1989 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-03
  civil revisionexecution of decreesection 47 CPCfresh tenancy agreementadjustment of decreehandwriting expertOrder XXI Rule 2 CPClimitation periodeviction order
  Summary & questions settled

  This Civil Revision Application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 arose from concurrent decisions of the lower courts refusing to execute an eviction order against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The tenant objected under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, asserting that a fresh tenancy agreement had been executed by the landlord, effectively discharging the eviction order. The landlord denied executing the document and alleged forgery. The High Court considered whether a plea of an uncertified agreement discharging an eviction decree could be entertained under Section 47 CPC, and whether the lower courts erred in deciding the genuineness of disputed signatures without expert assistance. The High Court held that an agreement discharging a decree immediately is not a matter for execution under Section 47 CPC and must be adjudicated in a separate suit. Furthermore, uncertified adjustments are barred under Order XXI Rule 2 CPC and Article 174 of the Limitation Act 1908 after 90 days. The Court also held that comparing disputed signatures in chambers without expert guidance constitutes a material irregularity. The revision was allowed and the case remanded for execution.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 entertain an uncertified fresh tenancy agreement that purports to discharge an eviction decree immediately?
  • Does an uncertified adjustment of a decree filed beyond the 90-day period prescribed under Article 174 of the Limitation Act 1908 bar consideration by the executing court under Order XXI Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is it a material irregularity for a court to compare disputed signatures in chambers without expert assistance or input from the parties' counsel?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Niaz Amer and another vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 804 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-20Read full judgment →
• Dr. Nazir A. Shaikh and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-09
  criminal revisionwithdrawal of prosecutionspecial lawcorruptionconsent of courtappropriate governmentacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision arose from the order of the Special Judge (Central), Karachi, which rejected an application filed by the Public Prosecutor to withdraw a corruption case pending against the applicants under Sections 161 and 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The withdrawal had been ordered in writing by the Federal Government pursuant to Section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958. The trial court had dismissed the application by applying the principles of Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, holding that the court's consent was a judicial prerequisite. The High Court, in setting aside the trial court's order, held that the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 is a special law containing its own specific provision for withdrawal under Section 10(4), which does not require the consent or permission of the court. Consequently, the High Court allowed the revisions and acquitted the applicants.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 494 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 regarding court consent apply to the withdrawal of cases under the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
  • Is the consent of the trial court a legal prerequisite for the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958?
  • Does the withdrawal of a prosecution under Section 10(4) of the Pakistan Criminal Law Amendment Act 1958 automatically equate to a withdrawal of the initial sanction for prosecution?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Yusuf Khan vs Messrs Pak American Academy Regd.1989 MLD 2972 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Younis vs Province of Sind and others1989 PLC (C.S.) 8 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Dr. Muhammad Asif Majid vs Mst. Ash Raf Aliya1989 MLD 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-07Read full judgment →
• Dr. Moin Ahmad Qadri vs Vicechairman, Pakistan Railways, Lahore And Other1989 MLD 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
• Dr. Masood Saleem Khan vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• DR. Major Abdul Ahad Khan, and Other vs Muhammad Iqbal and OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases. 86 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Dr. Bushra Ashiq Siddiqui vs Muhammad Aslam1989 MLD 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-08
  quo warrantopublic officesovereign functionsdiscretionary reliefconstitutional petitionmedical appointment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court praying for a writ of quo warranto to challenge the appointment of the respondent to the public office of Associate Professor of Microbiology at the Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre (JPMC). The core legal question considered by the court was whether the position of an Associate Professor at JPMC constitutes a 'public office' under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, making a writ of quo warranto competent, and whether teaching medical subjects involves the exercise of sovereign functions. The court held that the office in question was not created by law and did not involve the exercise of any sovereign power, meaning it is not a public office for the purposes of issuing a writ of quo warranto. Furthermore, the court held that even if it were a public office, the writ of quo warranto is a discretionary remedy that ought to be denied when used by civil servants to settle inter se disputes regarding appointments and promotions. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Does the position of an Associate Professor at the Jinnah Post Graduate Medical Centre constitute a public office under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  • Does teaching a subject like microbiology amount to the exercise of a sovereign function of the government?
  • Can a writ of quo warranto be issued as a discretionary relief to resolve internal promotion or appointment disputes between civil servants?
  Read full judgment →
• Director of School Education And Another vs Muzammil Hussain Khan1989 MLD 2206 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Dilawar Ali vs Senior Superintendent of Police, District East, Karachi1989 P Cr. L J 814 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Dewan Jetharam Dharamdas Trust vs Government of Pakistan And Other1989 MLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
• Dawood Corporation Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 177 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-26Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 115 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-02
  revisional jurisdictionHudood casesFederal Shariat Courtsurety bond penaltyreview in criminal casesconstitutional bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application has been filed against the order of the Additional Sessions Judge imposing a penalty on the applicant as a surety due to the accused's absence in a case under the Hudood Ordinance. The core legal questions involve whether the High Court has revisional jurisdiction over Hudood cases in light of Article 203-DD of the Constitution and whether a second revision application amounts to an impermissible review of an earlier order. The court held that revisional jurisdiction in Hudood cases exclusively vests in the Federal Shariat Court under Article 203-DD, with jurisdiction barred under Article 203-G, and that criminal courts lack the power of review in the absence of statutory provision. The key principles laid down are that the Federal Shariat Court holds exclusive revisional jurisdiction over cases arising out of Hudood laws, and a High Court cannot review its own earlier order or entertain a second revision amounting to a review.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court retain revisional jurisdiction over cases arising out of the Hudood Ordinance in view of Article 203-DD of the Constitution?
  • Whether a second revision application against the same order amounts to an impermissible review of judgment in criminal cases?
  • Does a criminal court have the power of review in the absence of an express conferment by statute?
  Read full judgment →
• Dadi Associates (Pvt.) Limited And Others vs Pakistan Defence Officers1989 MLD 3070 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Dadabhoy Cement Industries Ltd. [M/s.] vs Central Board Of Revenue AndPTCL 1989 CL. 608 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-10Read full judgment →
• Dada Enterprises, Limited vs The Deputy Director Octroi (Admn)1989 MLD 935 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-20Read full judgment →
• Cynamide (Pak) Employees' Union vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal , .1989 PLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs A & B Food1989 PTD 605 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Sales Tax, Central Zone 'A' Karachi vs Messrs PakistanPTCL 1989 CL. 215 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax Central Zone `A', Karachi vs A & B Food1989 PTD 594 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Hercules1989 PTD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone B', Karachi vs Sterling Products1989 PTD 766 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Zone 'B', Karachi vs Sandoz (Pak.) Ltd.1989 PTD (Trib.) 607 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-25Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Wilh1989 PTD 769 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi vs Mustafa1989 PTD 130 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone Karachi vs B.P. (Pakistan)1989 PTD 831 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone (a). Karachi vs Farooq H.1989 PTD 679 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Zakia1989 PTD 135 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-13
  wealth-tax liabilityallowable expensebusiness expenditureincome from other sourcesincome-tax act 1922deduction of taxes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves reference applications filed by the Department under section 66(1) of the repealed Income-tax Act 1922 concerning whether wealth-tax liability is an allowable expense under sections 10 and 12 of the said Act. The core legal question is whether wealth-tax paid by an assessee on income-yielding assets or property held for business or income generation can be deducted as a business expenditure or expense from other sources. The Sindh High Court held that the payment of wealth-tax is a necessary consequence of owning and possessing income-yielding assets, and its payment is essential for the proper maintenance and existence of such assets to prevent their depletion or attachment. Therefore, wealth-tax paid on income-yielding assets or property is deductible as an expense when computing the assessee's income, profit, or gain under section 10 or 12 of the Income-tax Act 1922. The key principle laid down is that taxes statutorily levied on income-yielding assets used for business or profit-making, non-payment of which risks the asset's utility or existence, constitute necessary commercial expenses deductible under standard computation principles where no statutory prohibition exists.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the wealth tax liability is an allowable expense under sections 10 and 12 of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Can wealth tax paid on income-yielding assets or property owned for business be deducted when computing income under section 10 of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  • Is wealth tax considered a necessary expenditure incurred solely for the purpose of making or earning income under section 12 of the Income-tax Act 1922?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Muhammad1989 PTD 764 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Central1989 PTD 128 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'B' vs Standard Insurance1989 PTD 682 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-15Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs International Fisheries Ltd1989 PTD 145 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-04Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone 'A' Karachi vs Premier1989 PTD 1022 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Premier Insurance of Pakistan Ltd.1989 PTD 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-05Read full judgment →