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.

• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pioneer Insurance Co. Ltd. , .1989 PTD 124 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Pfizer Laboratories Ltd. I.T.1989 PTD 612 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21
  income taxnon-resident principalmanipulated profitsnotional profitbusiness connectionpurchasing at higher price
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from tax proceedings where the Assessing Officer invoked section 42(2) of the Income Tax Act against a resident pharmaceutical company for purchasing raw materials from its non-resident parent company at prices higher than the international market rates, thereby reducing its taxable profits. The Appellate Assistant Commissioner and the Tribunal both deleted the addition, holding that purchases could not produce profits and thus section 42(2) was inapplicable. The core legal question was whether section 42(2) applies when a resident entity engages in manipulated transactions with a non-resident affiliate that deplete its normal profits through inflated purchase costs. The High Court answered in the negative, holding that the Tribunal was not justified in its view. The court ruled that section 42(2) targets notional profits and is designed to curb manipulated or arranged business dealings between close associates that reduce a resident entity's profits. The key principle established is that purchasing goods at inflated prices from a non-resident associate depletes the resident company's real profits, attracting the legal fiction under section 42(2) to tax the profits that would have ordinarily accrued in the absence of such manipulation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subsection (2) of section 42 of the Income-tax Act is applicable when a resident company purchases goods from a non-resident principal at prices higher than the international market rate?
  • Can section 42(2) of the Income-tax Act be invoked where business dealings between a resident and a non-resident are arranged to produce less than ordinary profits?
  • Does the purchase of goods at inflated prices from a parent company result in the depletion of profits contemplated under section 42(2) of the Income-tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs New Jubilee Insurance Company I.T.C.1989 PTD 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1989-08-10Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs General Tyre International Co.Ltd.1989 PTD 664 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Eruch Maneckji and others1989 PTD 666 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Eagle Star Insurance Co. Ltd.1989 PTD 825 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs A & B Food Industries Ltd.1989 PTD 770 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax East Zone, Karachi vs Mst. Khatoon Bai1989 PTD 736 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central, Karachi vs Mercantile Fire and Central Insurance Co. Ltd1989 PTD 142 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-12
  income taxinsurance companytaxation reservetrading liabilityallowable expenditurestatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application before the Sindh High Court arose from income tax assessments of an insurance company for the assessment years 1972-73, 1973-74, and 1974-75. The Income Tax Officer had treated outstanding credit balances as taxable income under Section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act and disallowed provisions made for taxation. The Income Tax Appellate Tribunal reversed these decisions, holding that Section 10(2A) was inapplicable to insurance companies in light of Section 10(7) of the Act. The High Court, following established precedent, affirmed the Tribunal's decision. It held that under Section 10(7), the profits and gains of an insurance business must be computed exclusively in accordance with the First Schedule to the Act. Although Rule 6 of the First Schedule permits the exclusion of expenditures not allowable under Section 10, this incorporation is strictly limited to allowable expenditures and does not extend the application of Section 10(2A) to insurance companies.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of Section 10(2A) of the Income Tax Act can be applied to compute the taxable income of an insurance company in light of Section 10(7) of the Act?
  • To what extent are the provisions of Section 10 of the Income Tax Act applicable to non-life insurance businesses under Rule 6 of the First Schedule?
  • Whether a provision for taxation or taxation reserve claimed by an insurance company can be disallowed as inadmissible expenditure under Section 10 of the Income Tax Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone `B' Karachi vs Yousuf H.R.1989 PTD 829 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-18Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone Karachi vs Muhammad1989 PTD 830 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone (a), Karachi vs Razak Ltd.1989 PTD 573 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone (a), Karachi vs Norwitch1989 PTD 683 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'C', Karachi vs Hussain1989 PTD 519 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Western1989 PTD 176 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax, Central Zone 'A', Karachi vs Amin1989 PTD 581 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pioneer Insurance Co.Ltd.PTCL 1989 CL. 334 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Pakistan Fisheries LimitedPTCL 1989 CL. 19 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Mushtaq AhmadPTCL 1989 CL. 301 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-22Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Anwar Textile Mills Ltd1989 PTD 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax Central Zone 'B', Karachi vs Merck Sharp1989 PTD 828 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-01Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Central Zone 'A' Karachi vs M/s. Razzak Ltd.PTCL 1989 CL. 529 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-28Read full judgment →
• Commissioner for Sales Tax, Karachi vs Evans Medical Limited1989 PTD 53 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-17Read full judgment →
• Collector of Customs (Appraisement) vs Abdul Razzaq1989 MLD 1345 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
• Chutto vs Hazar Khan alias Hazaroo and another1989 P Cr. L J 1931 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-10Read full judgment →
• Choudhry Mahboob Mujtaba Yar vs Additional Settlement1989 MLD 618 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-13Read full judgment →
• Chander Mal vs Mst. Zubeda Khatoon1989 MLD 2867 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-16Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax East Zone, Karachi vs Mst. Mariam Bai1989 PTD 576 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-05Read full judgment →
• Chair Marshal (Retd.) Wiqar Azim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-15Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Ashraf vs Government of Sind and 6 others1989 P Cr. L J 273 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Ali Bahadur vs CH. Ghulam Nabi1989 MLD 4747 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-12Read full judgment →
• Central Mechanical Engineering Co. vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev), Central Excise and Land Customs S.I.T.E. Division, Karachi and 3 others1989 PTD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-23Read full judgment →
• Car Tunes vs Income Tax Officer, Circle v, Hyderabad and another1989 PTD 478 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13
  constitutional petitionadditional assessmentescaped incomechange of opinionreopening of assessmentincome tax noticealternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge a notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 for additional assessment. The core legal question was whether an income tax assessment finalized under Section 62 of the Ordinance can be reopened under Section 65 on the basis of the same material due to a mere change of opinion by a successor officer. The Sindh High Court held that an assessment already finalized cannot be reopened on the ground that the Income-tax Officer or a successor has had a second thought or changed their opinion on the factual or legal aspects using the same material previously considered, unless there is definite information of failure by the assessee to disclose true and correct facts leading to escaped income. The court established that a notice issued purely on a change of opinion is without lawful authority, and the availability of alternative remedies under the tax statute does not bar the High Court from exercising its constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 at the notice stage when the action is shown to be patently without jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can an income tax assessment finalized under Section 62 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 be reopened under Section 65 on the basis of a mere change of opinion by a successor Income-tax Officer?
  • Does the availability of alternative remedies under the Income-tax Ordinance 1979 bar the High Court from entertaining a constitutional petition under Article 199 against a notice issued without jurisdiction?
  • What constitutes valid grounds for reopening a finalized tax assessment under Section 65 of the Income-tax Ordinance 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Car Tunes (M/s.) vs Income Tax Officer, Circle v, Hyderabad And AnotherPTCL 1989 CL. 627 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-13Read full judgment →
• Bururrehman and anothers vs Government of Sind and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Buricamal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20
  interim custodysuperdiginamacase propertycriminal revisiontaxi cardacoity investigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arises from an order passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge (South) Karachi, dismissing the applicant's petition under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for the interim custody of his taxi car, which was seized by police during the investigation of a dacoity case. The core legal question was whether a vehicle allegedly used by culprits only to travel to and from the scene of a crime falls within the scope of property 'used for the commission of any offence' under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether its owner, unconnected with the crime, is entitled to interim custody. The court held that utilizing a vehicle merely for transport to or from an incident does not bring it within the mischief of property used for committing the offence, and withholding custody from the true owner who is not implicated in the crime is unjustified. The revision was allowed, setting aside the impugned order and directing the vehicle's release on Superdiginama subject to a surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vehicle used merely for traveling to and from the place of an incident fall within the meaning of property used for the commission of an offence under section 516-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is the true owner of a seized vehicle, who is not connected with the alleged crime, entitled to interim custody of the vehicle pending trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Bundu Khan vs Abdul Majeed1989 MLD 1284 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-29Read full judgment →
• Bundoo Khan And 2 Others vs Karachi Development Authority1989 MLD 2966 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Bliss Industries Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer,1989 PTD 131 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-19Read full judgment →
• Bibi Amna Khatoon vs Mrs. Iffat Masood Through Legal Heirs1989 MLD 4615 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Benazir Bhutto vs Federal Land Commission And Other1989 MLD 1851 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
• Begum Tahira Sultan In Re: vs Not1989 MLD 4701 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-08Read full judgment →
• Bayar Pharma Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Central Zone, Karachi ,1989 PTD 768 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bashir vs Abdul Rasool Through Legal Heirs And Another1989 MLD 576 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ka. Muhammad vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 428 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-20Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Kaneez Fatima1989 MLD 3022 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Farooq And 15 Other1989 MLD 433 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Azizul Haq Nairvi and 6 others1989 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-18Read full judgment →
• Basar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1956 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-13Read full judgment →
• Barkat Khan and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2321 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• Barkat Ali vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 596 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-03Read full judgment →
• Bahawani Shankar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 504 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-01Read full judgment →
• Bahadur vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1939 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-27Read full judgment →
• Badruddin H. Mavani vs Income-Tax Officer Circle XII (East), Karachi1989 PTD 684 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
• B.D. Avari vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 670 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-11Read full judgment →
• B a ZM Es Ala T and others vs Messrs United Bank Ltd.s1989 PLD Karachi 150 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12
  banking recovery suitsummary suitinchoate stamped instrumentpromissory noteletter of guaranteelimitation periodestoppelexecutant death
  Summary & questions settled

  This regular first appeal arose from a suit filed by the respondent Bank under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recovery of bank dues based on a promissory note and letter of guarantee, which was decreed by the Single Judge. The appellants contended that the suit was barred by limitation, that an inchoate promissory note filled after the death of an executant was invalid, and that the letter of guarantee was signed in an official rather than personal capacity. The High Court affirmed the decree and dismissed the appeal. The Court held that under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the holder has authority to fill in blanks of an inchoate stamped instrument within a reasonable time, which exists in addition to the three-year limitation period. Filling blanks within fifteen months was deemed reasonable, especially where the executant's death was concealed. The Court further ruled that while Section 20 does not apply to letters of guarantee, the doctrine of estoppel precludes the signatory from denying liability when execution is admitted and no evidence is produced to rebut personal liability.

  Questions settled

  • Does the holder of an inchoate stamped instrument under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 have the authority to fill in the blanks within a reasonable time in addition to the statutory limitation period?
  • Whether the death of an executant prior to the filling of blanks by the holder invalidates an inchoate stamped instrument if the fact of death was not disclosed to the holder?
  • Can the doctrine of estoppel apply to bind a guarantor who admits signing a printed letter of guarantee but claims to have executed it only in an official capacity without leading evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rehman vs Muhammad Yasin1989 MLD 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
• Awaid Akhtar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 239 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-06Read full judgment →
• Attaullah vs Province of Sind Through Deputy Commissioner, Thatta1989 MLD 3171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Bachal vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 76 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
• Aspi C. Patel vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1207 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-02Read full judgment →
• Asmat Qadri vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 276 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-26Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Mian vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1079 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-20
  forged currencypossession of counterfeit notescriminal appealprocedural illegalityburden of proofmens reaexpert evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 489-C, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the possession of forged American currency notes, which resulted in a five-year rigorous imprisonment sentence. The core legal questions were whether the procedural requirements for recording an accused's statement under Section 364, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, were satisfied, and whether the prosecution successfully established the essential elements of the offence, specifically the forged nature of the currency and the appellant's guilty knowledge or intent. The court held that the trial judge's failure to provide the mandatory certificate under Section 364(3), Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, constituted a fatal illegality. Furthermore, the court found the prosecution failed to prove the notes were forged, as no expert evidence or verification from the issuing authority was provided. The court established that mere possession of currency is insufficient for conviction; the prosecution must prove the accused knew the notes were forged and intended to use them as genuine, neither of which was established here. Consequently, the conviction was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a trial judge to provide the certificate required by Section 364(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 constitute a curable irregularity or a fatal illegality?
  • What are the essential elements that the prosecution must prove to secure a conviction under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Is the mere possession of forged currency notes sufficient to establish an offence under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without proof of knowledge or intent?
  • Can a conviction under Section 489-C of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers regarding the forged nature of currency without expert verification?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 154 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-09Read full judgment →
• Asghar Hussain vs Shoukat Ali1989 MLD 2496 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-05Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Anwarul Haque And 5 Other1989 MLD 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-19Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mehmood vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-10Read full judgment →
• Anwar Jehan Ara Begum And Others vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 MLD 977 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-14Read full judgment →
• Anwar alias Anoo and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali vs Shah Nawaz and others1989 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-02
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MowasibatTalab-e-IshhadShafi-i-Jarcivil revisionremandIslamic lawagricultural land
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter originated as a second appeal under Section 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 concerning a pre-emption suit for agricultural land, which the Court converted into a civil revision due to the suit's valuation. The core legal questions involved whether the presence of a Katcha path between two survey numbers defeats the right of pre-emption based on adjacency (Shafi-i-Jar), and whether the failure to reference the first demand (Talab-e-Mowasibat) during the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad) invalidates a pre-emption claim. The Court held that, under Islamic law, it is mandatory for a pre-emptor to reference the first Talab while making the second Talab; failure to do so is fatal to the claim. Regarding the adjacency issue, the Court determined that the record was insufficient to establish whether the Katcha path separated the lands or formed part of them. Consequently, the Court set aside the appellate judgment and remanded the case for the recording of additional evidence to determine if the lands remained adjoining.

  Questions settled

  • Does the presence of a Katcha path between two survey numbers automatically defeat a claim of pre-emption based on adjacency?
  • Is it mandatory for a pre-emptor to explicitly reference the first demand (Talab-e-Mowasibat) when making the second demand (Talab-e-Ishhad)?
  • Can a second appeal be treated as a civil revision when the subject matter value is below the statutory threshold?
  • Is a Talab-e-Mowasibat made before the registration of a sale deed valid for the purposes of a pre-emption claim?
  Read full judgment →
• Anis Ali Rehmani vs Messrs United Bank Limited1989 PLC 724 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-14Read full judgment →
• Amie Investment Ltd vs Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Finance1989 PTD 844 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-21Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 3 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1959 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-04Read full judgment →
• Amal Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
• Am Sadiq Ali vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1910 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-07
  pre-arrest bailmurdercriminal conspiracymala fidesmotiveparityabsconderbail confirmationtransfer of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought pre-arrest bail for an applicant apprehending arrest in a 1977 murder case under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code, read with Section 120-B. The core legal questions revolved around the grounds for pre-arrest bail, particularly concerning allegations of mala fides, lack of overt act, disbelieved motive, and parity with co-accused who had been acquitted. The court confirmed the interim bail, holding that the applicant's name was not in the initial complaint, the prosecution's motive for the murders was disbelieved by both the trial and High Courts, and no overt act of killing was attributed to him. The court also noted that the case against the applicant was on a better footing than some acquitted co-accused. The key principle laid down is that pre-arrest bail can be granted where there are allegations of mala fides, no direct involvement in the overt act, and where the prosecution's foundational elements like motive have been disbelieved by superior courts, especially when the investigation is complete.

  Questions settled

  • What are the valid grounds for granting pre-arrest bail?
  • Can pre-arrest bail be granted if the applicant's name was not in the initial complaint?
  • Does the discrediting of the prosecution's motive by superior courts constitute a ground for pre-arrest bail?
  • Is an applicant entitled to pre-arrest bail if no overt act is attributed to them and co-accused with similar or stronger allegations have been acquitted?
  • Can a High Court transfer a pending trial to another court while confirming pre-arrest bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Akhtar Ahmad Bijarani vs Sind Public Service Commission and 31989 PLC (C.S.) 213 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-11Read full judgment →
• Altaf & Sons vs Collector of Customs And Other1989 MLD 1451 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
• Allahdino vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 643 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Raichio vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 299 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-22Read full judgment →
• Allah Ditta vs Mst. Najma Akhtar1989 PLD Karachi 78 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Allah Dino vs The State1989 MLD 1704 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-13Read full judgment →
• All Pakistan WOMEN's Association And Another vs Feroze Ahmad Khan1989 MLD 2175 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Shah Zahir Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 448 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1187 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and others vs Member, Board of Revenue and others1989 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-09Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Saeeda Begum1989 MLD 1430 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad Aziz vs Government of Pakistan through President of Pakistan and 30 others1989 PLD Karachi 142 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad And Others vs Federal Land Commissioner And Other1989 MLD 4331 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain and 2 others vs Presiding Officer, Special Court for Offences in Respect of Banks Karachi and 3 others1989 PLD Karachi 157 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21
  scheduled offenceSpecial Court for Offences in Respect of Bankswrit jurisdictionconstitutional petitionquashment of proceedingsjurisdiction of special courtsalternate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two writ petitions challenging the cognizance taken by a Special Court for Offences in Respect of Banks regarding a private criminal complaint involving the sale of pledged shares. The core legal question was whether the alleged acts of conspiracy and fraud constituted 'scheduled offences' under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance, 1984, thereby conferring jurisdiction upon the Special Court. The High Court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction because the complainant alleged personal loss rather than loss to the bank, failing the statutory requirement that the offence be committed in connection with the business of a bank. Consequently, the court declared the proceedings without lawful authority and quashed them. The judgment establishes that a Special Court is a creature of statute and cannot exceed its jurisdiction. It affirms that where proceedings are ex facie without jurisdiction, the High Court may exercise constitutional jurisdiction without requiring the exhaustion of alternate remedies like Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, special statutes must be construed strictly, favoring the accused in cases of ambiguity.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Special Court have jurisdiction over an offence where the alleged harm is personal to the complainant rather than to the bank?
  • Can the High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to quash proceedings that are ex facie without jurisdiction despite the availability of alternate remedies?
  • What are the two essential ingredients required to classify an offence as a 'scheduled offence' under the Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance 1984?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and 6 others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2390 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar Khan vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Anwar Soomro And Another vs The State1989 MLD 666 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ali and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 168 · Sindh High Court · 1988-01-20Read full judgment →
• Al Tradico Enterprises vs Export Promotion Bureau And Other1989 MLD 610 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-23Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Haroon vs Inam Durrani1989 PLD Karachi 304 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-18
  interest prohibitionObjectives ResolutionIslamic injunctionscurrency devaluationnegotiable instrumentspreliminary decreejudicial notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit, filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, concerned a claim for recovery of money based on a Demand Promissory Note, specifically addressing the legality of interest claims. The core legal question was whether interest is recoverable in Pakistan following the insertion of Article 2-A into the Constitution, which makes the Objectives Resolution an operative and enforceable part of the Constitution. The court held that interest is prohibited under the Injunctions of Islam and that statutory provisions allowing interest, specifically Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, Sections 79 and 80 of the Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881, and the Interest Act, 1839, are no longer valid law. However, the court established that to prevent injustice caused by inflation, creditors are entitled to the real worth of the loaned amount in terms of purchasing power. The key principle laid down is that all laws must conform to the Objectives Resolution, and while interest is prohibited, courts may adjust the decretal amount to reflect the intrinsic value of the currency to ensure equitable justice.

  Questions settled

  • Is interest recoverable in Pakistan in light of the Objectives Resolution and Article 2-A of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Are the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 and the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding interest still valid law?
  • Can a court grant a preliminary decree to assess the real worth of a loan to compensate for currency inflation?
  • Does the Objectives Resolution have the status of an enforceable constitutional provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Aided Schools Management Associations vs The Government of Sind1989 MLD 3020 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Maritime Brokers (Pvt.) Ltd. vs The Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1989 CL. 475 · Sindh High Court · 1988-04-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory vs Cotton Trading1989 MLD 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-30Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Ali vs Noor Muhammad And 8 Other1989 MLD 2870 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-12Read full judgment →