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.
- Subhan Khan vs Labour Court No.1 And Others1987 PLC 460(1) · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Subedar (Retd.) Noor Gul And 2 Others vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
- State through Advocate-General, Sind vs Abdullah Shamim and another1987 MLD 2160 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan- vs S.U. Durrani And Another1987 PLD Karachi 588 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs S.U. Durrani and anothers1987 PLD Karachi 588 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- Star Trading Company and another vs The Pakistan Insurance1987 CLC 61 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These three consolidated civil suits were filed against the Pakistan Insurance Corporation and another to recover claims under the War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971, following the destruction of goods and factory stocks in air raids by Indian warplanes during the 1971 war. The primary legal questions were whether administrative instructions issued under the War Risks (Goods in Transit) Insurance Scheme could override or narrow statutory coverage under Section 2(h)(ii) of the Ordinance, and whether general insurance principles—requiring the existence of subject-matter and payment of premium prior to loss—applied to a compulsory, special statutory war risk scheme. The High Court held that administrative instructions inconsistent with statutory provisions are ultra vires and invalid. Furthermore, as the War Risks Insurance Ordinance, 1971 is a special beneficial law establishing a compulsory risk fund rather than a standard indemnity contract, general insurance doctrines regarding prior loss do not defeat valid statutory coverage where goods were already insured against fire and premiums were accepted. Consequently, the suits were decreed in favour of the plaintiffs.
Questions settled- Can administrative instructions or rules issued under a statute override or narrow the express provisions of the main statute?
- Do general principles of insurance law requiring existence of subject-matter prior to policy issuance apply to compulsory statutory war risk schemes?
- Whether repudiation of a claim under the War Risks Insurance Ordinance 1971 is lawful when administrative instructions conflict with Section 2(h)(ii) of the Ordinance?
- Star Textile-Mills Ltd.,Karachi vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 2 others1987 MLD 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
- Standard Paint House vs Muhammad Amiruddin and another1987 CLC 2333 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
- Standard Insurance Company Ltd. vs Roshan Ali Bhimji1987 MLD 650 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
- Spin Gul and 2 others vs Ikramul Haq and another1987 MLD 2402 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil suit for the recovery of damages under the Fatal Accidents Act filed by the parents and widow of the deceased, who died after being hit by a minibus driven rashly and negligently by the second defendant and owned by the first defendant. The core legal questions involve determining whether the accident resulted from the driver's actionable negligence, whether the owner is vicariously liable as a master, and the appropriate quantum of damages to be awarded to the legal heirs. The court held that the defendants failed to substantiate their plea that the deceased suddenly emerged from behind parked trucks and collided with a slow-moving vehicle; rather, the evidence established that the minibus was driven rashly and negligently under obstructed visibility conditions, rendering the owner vicariously liable. The court laid down principles for assessing the quantum of damages in fatal accident claims involving casual labourers, factoring in the deceased's estimated earning capacity, personal expenses, life expectancy, and the dependency period of the beneficiaries.
Questions settled- Whether the owner of a vehicle is liable to pay damages as a master for the actionable wrong of his driver?
- How is the quantum of damages determined in a fatal accident suit involving a casual labourer with unproven actual income?
- Does the mere presence of parked vehicles obstructing visibility impose a higher standard of care and cautious driving on a motorist?
- What factors are to be considered when assessing the life expectancy and dependency period of beneficiaries in fatal accident claims?
- Spencer & Co. (Pak.) Ltd. vs Abdul Razak1987 MLD 2033 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
- Speciality Traders vs Firdous Textile Mills Ltd.1987 CLC 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a reference made by the Official Liquidator for the consideration and approval of offers received for the sale of movable and immovable assets of a company in liquidation. Secured creditors opposed the offers, arguing they were below market value, while the highest bidder contended that the Court could not reject an offer on the ground of inadequacy of consideration once the bid was submitted, drawing parallels to execution sales under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the High Court is bound to accept the highest offer received through an official liquidator's advertisement and whether such sales are governed by the rules applicable to execution auction sales under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that the invitation of offers by the Official Liquidator was subject to explicit conditions requiring High Court confirmation and did not constitute an auction under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court laid down that it is not bound to accept the highest offer and retains full competence to reject offers and invite fresh bids on grounds of inadequacy of consideration to protect the value of assets in liquidation.
Questions settled- Whether the sale of assets of a company in liquidation by an Official Liquidator is governed by the rules applicable to execution sales under Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can the High Court refuse to confirm or accept the highest offer received for assets in liquidation on the sole ground of inadequacy of consideration?
- Does a prospective purchaser acquire a vested right to automatic confirmation of an offer merely by submitting the highest bid in response to an Official Liquidator's sale notice?
- Soomar vs The State1987 MLD 3185 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-24Read full judgment →
- Smith Kline and French of Pakistan Ltd. vs A. Rashid Pai And Another1987 PLC 400 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
- Sind High Court, Karachi vs Commissioner of Sales Tax.PTCL 1987 CL. 343 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sind Employment Social Security Institution vs Consolidated Sugar1987 PLC 439 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
- Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Prestige Fabrics Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
- Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Messrs Pakistan Steel1987 PLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
- Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Messrs Golden Industries1987 PLC 226 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
- Sind Employees Social Security Institution vs Prestige Fabrics LimitedK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 69 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-23Read full judgment →
- Sind Beverages Ltd. vs Haji Ghulam Muhammad through his Legal Heirs1987 MLD 3279 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Shujauddin and others vs Amir and others1987 MLD 998 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
- Shri Mahant Manobhagir vs Evacuee Trust Property Board, Karachi1987 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
- Shoukat Ali and others vs Syed Israr Ahmed1987 CLC 574 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sher Muhammad vs Haji Sohbat Khan1987 MLD 543 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
- Sher Afzal vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 752 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Mahmood Ahmad vs Dr. Ghaith Pharaon and 3 others1987 CLC 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-09Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from an application filed by the plaintiff under Order XII, Rule 6 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a partial judgment and decree for Rs. 1,66,207 based on an alleged admission of liability by defendants Nos. 1 and 2 in their separate application submitting a cross-cheque for that amount. The core legal question is whether an admission made outside the formal written statement, coupled with a condition of full and final settlement, can form the basis of a judgment on admission under Order XII, Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Sindh High Court held that the admissions need not be restricted to pleadings alone, as the phrase 'or otherwise' in Rule 6 permits admissions made at any stage and in other documents, and that conditional or partial settlement offers do not negate clear acknowledgments of liability. The court concluded that the plaintiff was entitled to a partial judgment to the extent of the admitted amount without prejudice to pursuing the balance claim.
Questions settled- Can a judgment on admission under Order XII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be passed on an admission made outside the pleadings?
- Whether an admission accompanied by a condition of full settlement can serve as a valid basis for a partial decree?
- Is a plaintiff entitled to obtain judgment on an admitted sum and still pursue the remaining balance of the claim?
- Sheikh Haneefur Rehman vs Muhammad Jalaluddin1987 MLD 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Qadir vs J.D. Qureshi and another1987 MLD 3257 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-30Read full judgment →
- Sheikh Abdul Majid vs Tayab Ali1987 MLD 684 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Hayat vs Government of Sind and another1987 MLD 2783 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Shaukat Ali vs Manzoor Hussain1987 CLC 560 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
- Sharafat Hussain vs Aminuddin1987 MLD 2043 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-07Read full judgment →
- Shanisher Ali Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal And 2 Others1987 PLC 23 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-07Read full judgment →
- Shamsul Haq and another vs The State1987 MLD 1552 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-11Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin vs The State1987 MLD 1480 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
- Shamsuddin Hussain Ajami vs Kaikhusro Merwan Mondi1987 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-04Read full judgment →
- Shakar vs The State1987 MLD 2049 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-22Read full judgment →
- Shakal and 3 others vs The State1987 MLD 1577 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
- Shajar Ali Hoti vs Esmail Sob Ani1987 CLC 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerns a dispute over a property transaction. The plaintiff alleged that a receipt dated 22-5-1978, acknowledging a payment of Rs. 25,000 as earnest money, constituted a binding agreement for the sale of a plot for Rs. 4,00,000. The defendant contended that no concluded agreement existed, arguing the payment was merely a deposit for future negotiations and that the parties had not reached consensus on the sale price, which he claimed was Rs. 8,00,000. The core legal question was whether the receipt, which omitted the sale consideration and other essential terms, created a binding contract. The Court held that the suit must be dismissed, finding that the parties were not ad idem regarding essential terms, particularly the sale consideration. The Court established that for a document to constitute a binding agreement of sale, it must contain all material terms, including the sale price. As the document in question lacked this essential term and the parties disputed the price, no enforceable contract was formed.
Questions settled- Does a receipt for earnest money constitute a binding agreement of sale if it omits the sale consideration?
- Is a document that contemplates the execution of a future agreement enforceable as a contract if it lacks essential terms?
- Can a court grant specific performance when the parties are not in agreement regarding the sale price?
- Shaikh Mushtaq Ali, Advocate vs Shafqat Ali Khan and another1987 CLC 753 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-28Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Haneef-Ur-Rehman vs Muhammad Jalaluddin1987 MLD 3059 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-01Read full judgment →
- Shahzada Mian and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 934 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
- Shahid Moid vs Mst.Kehkashan Mumtaz Warsi and another1987 MLD 492 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-12Read full judgment →
- Shahid Hussain vs Senior Superintendent of Police, District East, Karachi and other1987 MLD 1155 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-03Read full judgment →
- Shah Zareen Khan vs Farooq Mazhar1987 MLD 121 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Others1987 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shah Muhammad vs Federation of Pakistan And 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
- Shafqat Hussain and another vs United Bank Ltd.1987 MLD 3070 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
- Shafiullah vs The State1987 MLD 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmed vs Abdul Rehman1987 MLD 3265 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmad vs Abdul Rehman1987 MLD 2243 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-20Read full judgment →
- Shafique Ahmad Qazi vs Syed Ghous Ali Shah1987 MLD 2035(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
- Shafi Atam and another vs The State1987 MLD 3239 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-24Read full judgment →
- Shabbir Hussain and others vs Government of Pakistan and others1987 CLC 1806 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- Shabbir and 2 others vs Mst. Ghulam Fatima1987 CLC 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arises from five first rent appeals filed by tenants against the orders of the XIIth Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller decreeing the landlord's rent cases on the ground of default in payment of rent. The core legal question is whether recording evidence in one rent case and copying or placing verbatim copies of depositions onto the record of other connected cases is legally sustainable and compliant with principles of natural justice. The court held that such a procedure is illegal and contrary to law, even if consented to by the parties, as it vitiates the evidentiary value of the proceedings. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the cases back to the Rent Controller for fresh recording of evidence and decision on merits within three months.
Questions settled- Is it legal for a Rent Controller to record evidence in one case and copy the depositions into other connected cases?
- Does the consent of parties validate the practice of using depositions from one case in multiple other cases?
- What is the consequence on the evidentiary value of witness testimony when cross-examination is not properly conducted and signed in separate cases?
- Shabbir Ahmed vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2010 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-29Read full judgment →
- Shaban vs The State--Opponent1987 P Cr. L J 1371 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
- Shababuddin vs The State1987 MLD 1551 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
- Sh.Muhammad Matin vs Mrs.Sughra Bai and others1987 MLD 3249 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
- Seven Up Company vs Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another1987 MLD 91 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment of the Sindh High Court arises from appeals filed against the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks' decision allowing the registration of the trade mark '7-UP' to respondent No. 2 for sweet scented supari in Class 30. The appellant, the renowned international manufacturer of soft drinks under the trade mark 'SEVEN-UP' and '7-UP', opposed the applications under sections 8 and 10 of the Trade Marks Act. The core legal questions involved whether the registration of an identical trade mark for different goods is likely to deceive or cause confusion among the public, and whether the respondent established honest concurrent user. The court held that Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act primarily protects public interest against deception and confusion, and is not restricted to identical goods or established trade connections. Finding that '7-UP' is an invented expression with universal reputation and that the respondent failed to prove honest adoption or user, the court set aside the impugned order and allowed the appeals, laying down that registration must be refused where there is a real tangible danger of public deception or exploitation of another's goodwill.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of Section 8 of the Trade Marks Act are designed to protect public interest against deception and confusion regardless of whether the competing goods belong to the same description?
- Does an applicant seeking to register a trade mark identical or similar to a well-known registered mark bear the burden of proving honesty of adoption and user?
- Can a trade mark be registered where the use of an invented expression by a subsequent party is likely to lead the public to believe that the goods originate from a common source?
- Sarfraz alias Teddi and Another vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 110 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-16Read full judgment →
- Suleman vs Alkarim Printers1987 CLC 770 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-21Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ally vs Abdul Ghani and 5 Others1987 PLD Karachi 58 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- Sardar Ally vs Abdul Gani and 5 Other1987 PLD Karachi 58 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-08Read full judgment →
- Sanjeda Bano vs Muhammad Saeed Jehangir1987 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- Sanjeda Bano vs Jehangtr1987 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- Sange Ali Alias Ghulam Sarwar vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1610 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
- Sandoz Limited and another vs Pakistan Pharmaceutical Products1987 CLC 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 read with the Patents and Designs Act 1911, seeking to restrain the defendant from infringing the plaintiffs' registered patents for the drug "KETOTIFEN" sold under the trade name "ZADITEN". The core legal question concerns whether the defendant's marketing and sale of a competing drug under the name "KATIFEN" with similar descriptions and chemical representations constitutes an actionable patent infringement and passing off, justifying interlocutory injunctive relief. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case of patent infringement and imitation, as the defendant's packaging created a false impression of containing the plaintiffs' patented compound without plausible explanation, and registration under the Drugs Act does not immunize against patent claims. The court concluded that the balance of convenience favoured suppressing potential piracy and health hazards, thereby granting the injunction to restrain the defendant from using the disputed name or formula.
Questions settled- Whether registration of a pharmaceutical product under the Drugs Act immunizes a party against patent infringement claims under the Patents and Designs Act 1911?
- Can an interim injunction be granted under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a patent infringement suit where imitation is established?
- Whether photostat copies of documents appended to a plaint or affidavit can be relied upon at the interlocutory stage when no specific objection to their authenticity is raised?
- Does marketing a drug with a similar description and chemical representation of a patented compound constitute actionable imitation under patent law?
- Salim Sabir vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 61 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-25Read full judgment →
- Saleem vs Saeeda Begun and another1987 MLD 461 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
- Saleem Khan vs Hakeem Jamil Ahmad Siddiqui and another1987 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
- Saleem Akhtar vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation, Karachi1987 CLC 408 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-24Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad Alias Kaka vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- Saleem Ahmad alias Kaka vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
- Salamat Jan vs Chotey Khan1987 MLD 2971 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-10Read full judgment →
- Salamat Ali And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-13Read full judgment →
- Salahuddin Khan Lodhi vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 2086 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
- Salahud Din vs Muhammad Hanif and another1987 MLD 707 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Siddiqui vs The State1987 MLD 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Mahmood and Another vs The Presiding Officer and F. C. M. of Sind Labour Court No. v, Muslimabad Karachi and 3 Others1987 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Mahmood and Another vs The Presiding Officer and F. C. M. of Karachi and 3 Other1987 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-22Read full judgment →
- Saindad vs The State1987 MLD 1225 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
- Said Ahmed vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1143 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
- Sahibzada Muhammad Idrees vs Mst. Mehtab Mahmood and another1987 MLD 253 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
- Saheerunissa vs United Bank Limited1987 MLD 2590 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
- Saeeduddin vs The State1987 MLD 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-13Read full judgment →
- Sadruddeen And 4 Other vs The State And Another1987 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
- Sadiq Hussain vs Begum Laila Sarfaraz1987 MLD 1423(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-29Read full judgment →
- Sadhan and another vs The State1987 MLD 853 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
- Sabir Mirza vs The State1987 MLD 2207 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
- Saadat Hassan vs Abdul Hakeem And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-09Read full judgment →
- S.S. A. Moeed and another vs Messrs Ebrahim Alibhai Charitable Trust1987 MLD 308 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
- S.M.Yusuf and another vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner (CC)/1987 MLD 524 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-11Read full judgment →
- S.M. Yaqoob vs Talat Hussain and 3 others1987 P Cr. L J 1624 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-11Read full judgment →
- S.M. Saeed vs Ali Hosain1987 CLC 621 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
- S.M. S a Yeed vs Mst. Rashida Khatoon and another1987 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-03Read full judgment →
- S. Waris Ali vs Sh. Ghulam Mustafa and others1987 P Cr. L J 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-02Read full judgment →
- S. Mohsin Imam vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation1987 PLC (C.S.) 427 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →