Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Afzal Hussain and others vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 471 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-08Read full judgment →
- Aftab Ahmad Shah vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 112 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of five criminal bail applications filed by various accused persons, including Aftab Ahmed Shah Jamote and Mumtaz Ali Bhutto, arising out of cases registered under section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, section 13 of the Prevention of Anti-National Activities Act 1974, and other provisions. The core legal questions involved were whether the joint police reports and DIB summaries lacking individual speech scripts constitute sufficient material to establish reasonable grounds of guilt at the bail stage, whether provisions of sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked alongside the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975, and whether bail should be granted on medical grounds. The court held that the lack of individual material makes the case one of further inquiry, that sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 remain applicable in the absence of explicit statutory bar, and that severe illness justifies bail. The key principles laid down are that courts must conduct a tentative assessment of evidence at the bail stage, joint extra-judicial reports or lack of individual attribution weaken the prosecution's case for pre-trial incarceration, and serious medical conditions warrant the grant of bail even in scheduled offences.
Questions settled- Whether sections 497 and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be invoked in cases triable by Special Courts under the Suppression of Terrorist Activities (Special Courts) Act 1975?
- Does a joint DIB report or police summary lacking individual speech scripts constitute reasonable grounds for believing an accused is guilty of sedition at the bail stage?
- Whether serious illness substantiated by a medical board constitutes a sufficient ground for granting bail in scheduled offenses?
- Whether a court is required to make a tentative assessment of the available evidence when considering a pre-trial bail application?
- Adarah Tamir E Millat And Others vs Government of Sind And Other1989 MLD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-12Read full judgment →
- Adamjee Insurance Company Ltd. vs Assistant Director, Economic1989 P Cr. L J 1921 · Sindh High Court · 1989-05-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This common order disposes of nine constitutional petitions filed by insurance companies challenging notices issued by the Assistant Director of the Federal Investigation Agency requiring them to produce extensive business records, claim files, and insurance cover notes. The core legal questions involved whether the Federal Investigation Agency could initiate an inquiry or investigation without first recording a First Information Report or obtaining a Magistrate's permission, and whether issuing such notices to companies not named in the complaint violated fundamental rights under Articles 13, 14, and 18 of the Constitution. The Sindh High Court held that the receipt and recording of a First Information Report is not a mandatory condition precedent to the commencement of a criminal inquiry or investigation by the Agency. However, the Court ruled that while a roving inquiry is permissible regarding entities specifically named in a complaint with definite allegations, issuing blanket notices to companies against whom no material or information exists constitutes an unwarranted interference with trade and violates Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution. Consequently, petitions concerning companies named in the complaint were dismissed, while petitions regarding unnamed companies were allowed.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Investigation Agency can initiate an inquiry or investigation without first recording a First Information Report?
- Does the issuance of notices for the production of documents during a preliminary inquiry violate the constitutional protection against self-incrimination under Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Whether conducting a roving inquiry against business entities whose names do not figure in the initial complaint violates Articles 14 and 18 of the Constitution of Pakistan?
- Is a constitutional petition under Article 199 competent against a preliminary inquiry or investigation launched by an investigative agency?
- Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs The Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 3 others1989 PTD 1090 · Sindh High Court · 1989-07-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns constitutional petitions filed by various general insurance companies challenging notices issued under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979, which sought to reopen tax assessments. The core legal question was whether income derived from Khas Deposit/Defence Saving Certificates, when included in the annual accounts of general insurance companies, remains exempt under the Second Schedule of the Ordinance, or whether it constitutes taxable 'profits and gains' of the insurance business under Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule. The Court held that the computation of profits for general insurance companies is governed exclusively by the special provisions of Section 26 and the Fourth Schedule of the Ordinance, which override general provisions. Consequently, income from such certificates included in annual accounts submitted to the Controller of Insurance loses its character as 'interest on securities' and becomes part of the unified 'profits and gains' of the insurance business, rendering it taxable. The Court affirmed that the special regime for insurance companies precludes the bifurcation of income into separate heads, and that notices issued based on Central Board of Revenue clarifications regarding this legal position are valid.
Questions settled- Does the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 provide a special, overriding regime for the computation of profits and gains of insurance companies?
- Is income from Khas Deposit Certificates, when included in the annual accounts of a general insurance company, exempt from tax under the Second Schedule of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979?
- Can an Income Tax Officer reopen an assessment under Section 65 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 based on a clarification issued by the Central Board of Revenue?
- Does the existence of an alternative remedy under the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 bar a constitutional petition under Article 199 when the authority has already expressed a final opinion on the matter?
- Adam Foundation vs Income-Tax Officer1989 PTD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1988-05-25Read full judgment →
- Abu Bakar vs The State and another1989 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from a criminal miscellaneous application filed under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of an F.I.R. registered under section 14 of the Offences Against Property (Enforcement of Hudood) Ordinance 1979 at Police Station Baghdadi, Karachi, concerning allegations of theft committed by a Pakistani citizen in Oman. The core legal question was whether an F.I.R. can be registered and investigated in Pakistan for an offence allegedly committed outside the territorial limits of Pakistan without prior compliance with section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application, holding that while section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibits the actual inquiry or trial of an offence committed abroad without the requisite certificate from a Political Agent or the sanction of the Federal Government, it does not bar the mere registration of an F.I.R. or police investigation. The court ruled that the investigation should be postponed until the mandatory certificate or sanction is obtained.
Questions settled- Whether an F.I.R. can be registered in Pakistan for an offence committed beyond the territorial limits of Pakistan without prior procurement of a certificate under section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Does the bar under section 188 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 against inquiring into offences committed outside Pakistan extend to the mere registration of an F.I.R.?
- What is the statutory requirement for inquiring into an offence committed by a citizen of Pakistan outside the country?
- Absar Ahmad Siddiqui And Another vs The State And Another1989 MLD 2644 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
- Abiodun Akanbi vs The State1989 MLD 2796 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-22Read full judgment →
- Abid Hussain vs Board of Trustees And Another1989 MLD 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-05Read full judgment →
- Abid Ali vs The State1989 MLD 2815 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-13Read full judgment →
- Abdur Rehman vs Farooq1989 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-05Read full judgment →
- Abdullah Larik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-21Read full judgment →
- Abdullah And Another vs Board of Revenue, Sind And 2 Other1989 MLD 2760 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Waheed vs Muhammad Ziaul Haq1989 MLD 353 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Shakoor vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 172 · Sindh High Court · 1988-06-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs The State and others1989 P Cr. L J 77 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Income-Tax Officer Circle XV, East Zone, Karachi and another1989 PTD 556 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Karachi and anothers1989 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1989-06-10Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar Shah Zaidi vs University Ot Karachi through its Vice-1989 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sattar And Another vs Lal Bux And 3 Other1989 MLD 2876 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Samad Dadabhoy vs Government of Pakistan and others1989 P Cr. L J 1719 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Sa T T a R vs Income-Tax Officer Circle XV, East Zone, Karachi1989 PLD Karachi 264 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves contempt proceedings initiated against an Income-tax Officer pursuant to a report by a High Court bailiff alleging that the officer misbehaved, refused to accept a court notice, and had the bailiff physically pushed out of his office. The core legal question concerns whether the alleged contempt of court has been established beyond reasonable doubt based on the conflicting testimonies of the bailiff and the alleged contemner, along with the defense witnesses. The court held that while the bailiff's statement is not declared false, the presence of two divergent versions of the incident creates a reasonable doubt regarding the exact sequence of events. Applying the principle that contempt proceedings are quasi-criminal in nature and all doubts must be excluded before recording a conviction, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the alleged contemner. The key legal principle laid down is that in contempt of court cases, where conflicting evidence yields two plausible versions and leaves room for doubt, the benefit of that doubt must be given to the person charged, leading to their acquittal.
Questions settled- Whether contempt of court is established when there are two divergent and conflicting versions of the incident presented by the bailiff and the alleged contemner?
- Does a person charged with contempt of court get the benefit of the doubt where the evidence leaves room for uncertainty?
- Can an unconditional apology submitted along with a denial of charges and presentation of an alternative version still be considered for acquittal when reasonable doubt exists?
- Abdul Razzak vs Shamshad Ali Jafri and 4 others1989 P Cr. L J 27 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-18Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Mst. Pari Jan And Other1989 MLD 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-01Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise and Land Customs, Nazimabad and others1989 PTD 7 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-29Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Deputy Superintendent (Prev.), Central Excise And LandPTCL 1989 CL. 326 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Abdul Razzak vs Amiran Bibi1989 MLD 1926 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-08Read full judgment →
- Abdul Razaq vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 285 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-28Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rashid and anothers vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-13Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim vs Mst. Noor Jehan1989 MLD 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-17Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rahim Baloch vs Amna Bibi and OtherK.L.R 19S9 Criminal Cases 602 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayyum vs Zahir Khan and another1989 P Cr. L J 62 · Sindh High Court · 1987-11-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayum and anothers vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 500 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-24Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayoom vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 2439 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
- Abdul Matin vs The State1989 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-12Read full judgment →
- Abdul Malik vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1120 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid vs The State1989 MLD 4783 · Sindh High Court · 1989-04-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs Usman Ghani1989 MLD 1773 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed and Another vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministryof Health, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad, and 7 OtherK.L.R 1989 Civil Cases 29 · Sindh High Court · 1988-08-15Read full judgment →
- Abdul Khaliq vs Muhammad Yaseen1989 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1989-01-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Karim vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 63 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-02Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hakim K. Khan vs Begum Khanum Jan And Other1989 MLD 1304 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Ghani And Others vs Hyderabad Municipal Corporation1989 MLD 2878 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Fattah And Others vs Ghulam Hussain1989 C L C1191 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-09Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz. vs Ilyas Ahmed1989 MLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 1988-12-20Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz vs Election Appellate Authority And Other1989 MLD 918 · Sindh High Court · 1988-10-27Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz alias Teny alias Chhoto vs The State1989 P Cr. L J 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Aziz Alias Teny Alias Chhote vs The State1989 MLD 687 · Sindh High Court · 1989-02-05Read full judgment →
- Abbot Laboratories Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1989 PTD 602 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This tax reference case from the Sindh High Court addresses whether the extra expenditure incurred by an assessee company in repaying a foreign currency loan due to the devaluation of the Pakistan Rupee is an admissible business deduction under the Income-tax Act. The applicant, a manufacturing company, borrowed US dollars with the permission of the State Bank of Pakistan to be utilized as working capital for importing raw materials. Following the devaluation of the currency, the company had to pay an excess amount in rupees to repatriate the loan and claimed it as a revenue expenditure allowance. The Income-tax authorities and the Tribunal disallowed the claim, treating it as a capital loss. The High Court held that since the loan was utilized for purchasing raw materials and running the business rather than acquiring a capital asset, the additional liability resulting from devaluation constituted a trading loss and a revenue expenditure incurred wholly and exclusively for business purposes. The question referred was answered in the negative, in favor of the assessee.
Questions settled- Whether the excess payment made on the repayment of a foreign currency loan due to the devaluation of the Pakistan Rupee is an admissible deduction under the Income-tax Act?
- Does a loan obtained for working capital and utilized for purchasing raw materials constitute a revenue liability rather than a capital liability?
- Is the conclusion drawn by the Tribunal from undisputed facts and circumstances a question of law that can be challenged under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act?
- A.Ghani Sayeed vs National Bank of PakistanK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 18 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
- A.Ghani Sayeed vs National Bank of Pakistan , the StateK.L.R 1989 Labour and Service Cases 17 · Sindh High Court · 1988-02-03Read full judgment →
- A.F. Ferguson and Company vs Sind Labour Court No. II and others1989 PLC 484 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-21Read full judgment →
- A. Ghani Sayeed vs National Bank of Pakistan1989 PLC (C.S.) 249 · Sindh High Court · 1988-09-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition concerns a service matter where the petitioner challenged his compulsory retirement from the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the application of the National Bank Staff Service Rules, 1980, instead of the 1973 Rules, vitiated the disciplinary proceedings, and whether the failure to supply the inquiry report or issue a second show-cause notice violated principles of natural justice. The Court held that the 1980 Rules did not prejudice the petitioner’s vested rights or impose a disadvantageous procedure compared to the 1973 Rules. Furthermore, the petitioner’s failure to object to the inquiry process or the Inquiry Officer's conduct during the proceedings precluded him from challenging them post-facto. The Court established that the issuance of a second show-cause notice and the supply of an inquiry report are not universal requirements of natural justice unless specifically mandated by the applicable rules. The key principle laid down is that procedural irregularities in disciplinary inquiries do not vitiate proceedings if they do not cause material prejudice to the accused's defense, especially when the accused has participated without objection.
Questions settled- Does the application of revised service rules in a disciplinary inquiry vitiate proceedings if they do not prejudice the employee's vested rights?
- Is the issuance of a second show-cause notice a mandatory requirement of natural justice in disciplinary proceedings where the rules do not explicitly provide for it?
- Can an employee challenge the conduct of an inquiry officer after having participated in the proceedings without raising any objection?
- Does the failure to supply a copy of an inquiry report to an accused employee automatically invalidate a disciplinary order?
- A Bdullah vs S.D.M., Sukkur and others1989 PLD Karachi 219 · Sindh High Court · 1988-11-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner filed a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, seeking to restrain police interference and assert his right to run a commercial business exhibiting motion pictures on VCR and TV. He claimed protection under Article 18 of the Constitution based on commercial TV and VCR apparatus licences held by his family members. The respondents objected to the maintainability of the petition on grounds of prior dismissal of a similar petition, lack of clean hands, non-joinder of licence-holders, expired licences, and showing films at a location other than the premises designated in the licences. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that a licence for possession or commercial trade of TV and VCR apparatus under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 does not authorize public exhibition of films. Public exhibition remains strictly governed by the Cinematograph Act 1918 and the Motion Pictures Ordinance 1979, which require certified films and licensed venues. Freedom of trade under Article 18 is subject to lawful regulatory frameworks.
Questions settled- Does a commercial licence for possessing a TV and VCR apparatus under the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1933 authorize public exhibition of films?
- Is the freedom of trade guaranteed under Article 18 of the Constitution absolute or subject to statutory licensing regulations?
- Can public exhibition of films on VCR be conducted at premises other than those specifically designated in the relevant statutory licences?
- Can a second constitutional petition be maintained on grounds identical to a previously dismissed petition without showing new circumstances?
- A & B Food Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax1989 PTD 562 · Sindh High Court · 1989-03-15Read full judgment →
- (Mst) Shafiqa vs MehmoodunissaK.L.R 1989.Civil Cases 39 · Sindh High Court · 1988-03-06Read full judgment →
- Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1987 MLD 1608 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
- Zubair Ahmed vs Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. and Another1987 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for an interim injunction arose from a suit for declaration and injunction filed by the plaintiff, who was appointed as an agent and dealer to run a petrol pump and service station by the defendants. The plaintiff invested a substantial sum exceeding two lacs in constructing, renovating, and equipping the site with the defendants' consent and authority. The core legal question was whether the dealership agreement constituted an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act, which could not be arbitrarily terminated to the prejudice of that interest, or a mere licence terminable at will under the agreement. The court held that where an agent's stakes are higher and capital has been committed based on assurances, it raises a prima facie case of an agency coupled with an interest, warranting the maintenance of the status quo through an interim injunction until evidence is recorded. The key principle laid down is that while ordinary licences or employments terminable by notice do not ground injunctive relief, exceptions exist for agencies coupled with an interest or licences coupled with a grant where premature termination would inflict irreparable harm on established investments.
Questions settled- Whether a petrol pump dealership agreement involving substantial capital investment by the agent constitutes an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act?
- Under what circumstances can a contract of agency be cancelled or revoked by a principal when the agent has an interest in the subject-matter?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to an interim injunction to restrain the premature termination of a business agency where uprooting from an established business would cause irreparable injury?
- Zonal Chief Muslim Commercial Bank vs Ubedullah And Others1987 PLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- Ziauddin vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 74 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- Zarmash vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Zamir Hasan and another vs Mst. Batul1987 MLD 103 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
- Zamir Ahmad vs Muhammad Zulfiqar And 4 Others1987 P Cr. L J 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- Zakria M. Fazil vs Messrs United Bank Ltd., Karachi1987 CLC 705 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-16Read full judgment →
- Zakir Hussain And 2 Others vs The State1987 P Cr. L J 54 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
- Zainab Bai and 2 Other vs Shafiuddin1987 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- Zaibun Nisa Begum vs Pakistan Coast Guards and another1987 MLD 883 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-04Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ali vs Dr. Haji Abdul Sattar through his Legal Heirs1987 CLC 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
- Zahir Shah And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- Zahir Ahmed Khan vs Mst. Amina Begum1987 MLD 436 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-01Read full judgment →
- Zahid vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1378 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
- Zahid Ali and 2 others vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zahid Ali And 2 Other vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
- Zaheeruddin Babar vs Karachi Development Authority and others1987 MLD 744 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- Zaheer Ahmed vs The State1987 MLD 1471 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
- Zafarullah vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1841 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
- Zafar Alam vs The State1987 MLD 1211 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
- Z Ainab Bai and 2 Others vs Shafiuddin1987 PLD Karachi 116 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-27Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Raza Hussain vs The Ivth Additional District Judge (South), Karachi and others1987 MLD 2989 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Masih vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- Yusuf Habib vs Messrs Sarmad Associates and Another1987 PLD Karachi 139 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Masih vs The State1987 MLD 1032 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- Yousuf Hassan vs Amir Ali1987 MLD 3283 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
- Yousaf Bashir Toor vs The Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hydera Bad and another1987 MLD 297 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Yousaf & Co. vs Oriental Steam Co.1987 CLC 961 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
- Younus Ali vs Mst. Fatima Bai1987 MLD 432 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad through his Legal Heirs and another vs Saleh Muhammad1987 CLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad and another vs Province of Sind and Others1987 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- Yar Muhammad And Another vs Province of Sind And Other1987 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
- Yaqoob vs The StateK.L.R. 1987 Tax & Customs Cases 36 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
- Yaq00b Ali vs Ismail1987 CLC 526 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal arises from an application filed by a tenant under section 10(2) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance seeking the restoration of an amenity alleged to have been closed by the appellant landlord. The core legal question is whether a tenant can be held to have waived or acquiesced their right to claim the restoration of an amenity by remaining silent and inactive for an unreasonable period before bringing an application, particularly when such application is filed as a counterblast to an ejectment proceeding. The Sindh High Court held that the right to claim the restoration of a personal amenity is a private privilege rather than a matter of public policy, and a tenant's unexplained silence and lack of protest for a prolonged period of two years constitutes waiver and acquiescence, disentitling them to discretionary relief under the law. The court laid down the principle that where a party sleeps over their rights regarding a personal statutory benefit without raising a timely objection, their conduct implies waiver and disentitles them to a discretionary remedy.
Questions settled- Whether a tenant's prolonged silence and failure to object to the closure of an amenity for an unreasonable period amounts to waiver and acquiescence?
- Can a tenant claim the restoration of an amenity under Section 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance after a delayed period when the application is filed as a counterblast to ejectment proceedings?
- Is the right to claim the restoration of an amenity under the rent laws a matter of public policy or a personal privilege that can be waived?
- Does Section 10 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance obligate the Rent Controller to order restoration of amenities in every case of closure regardless of the tenant's conduct?
- Wilayat Masih vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal And Others1987 PLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-21Read full judgment →
- Wazir Rind vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1408 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-25Read full judgment →
- Wasim Fatima vs Karachi Development Authority and another1987 MLD 471 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
- Walter Rau Neusser 01 and Fett Ag. vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another1987 MLD 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-30Read full judgment →
- Wa Zir Ali Khan and others vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and others1987 CLC 2324 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
- Volkart (Pakistan) Limited vs Cotton Trading Corporation and 21987 CLC 1770 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- Venu G. Advani and another vs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 6 others1987 CLC 1422 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →