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.

• S. Hifazat Hussain vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• S Ay Eed Uddin vs University of Karachi and another1987 CLC 381 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Rolex Montres vs Khyber Tobacco Company Limited and another1987 MLD 2433 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-20Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Rasib and Anothers1987 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Muhammad Rasib and Another1987 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Rehnemannian Cancer Relief Society Pakistan and 2 others vs National1987 CLC 740 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1409 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ellahi vs Messrs Hoyu Kabushiki Kaisha1987 MLD 577 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Rehman vs Hussain Bux1987 CLC 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-24Read full judgment →
• Registrar, Supreme Court of Pakistan vs Hassan Akbar1987 P Cr. L J 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Rasul Kausar vs The State1987 MLD 1543 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Rasool Zada vs The State1987 MLD 2251 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
• Rasheeduddin vs Muhammad Hussain Siddiqui1987 MLD 676 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• Rasheed Alam vs Ewaz Yar Khan1987 MLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Rasheed A. Razvi, Advocate, Karachi vs The Province of Sind1987 MLD 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
• Rana Faryad Ahmad Khan vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 31987 CLC 2126 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-30Read full judgment →
• Ramz Ali Sangi vs Kamal Ahmed Nomani1987 CLC 563 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ralli Brothers & Coney Ltd. vs Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd.1987 CLC 83 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-06
  foreign awardenforcement of foreign awardstamp dutyarbitration agreementLiverpool Cotton Associationreciprocal arrangementsappointment of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed suits to enforce three foreign arbitral awards rendered in England under the bye-laws of the Liverpool Cotton Association Ltd. arising from contracts for the sale of cotton. The defendants filed objections, asserting inter alia that there was no concluded written contract containing an arbitration agreement signed by them, that the foreign award was invalid for lack of proper stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1899, that the appointment of an arbitrator on their behalf by an ex-President of the Association was improper, and that the award was not a valid foreign award due to a lack of reciprocal arrangements between Pakistan and the United Kingdom under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937.

  The High Court of Sindh rejected all objections. It held that a foreign award is not chargeable with stamp duty as it is not listed in the schedule to the Stamp Act 1899. It affirmed that an arbitration agreement need not be signed by both parties, provided it is in writing and consensus is established, and that incorporation of associate membership in an association whose articles mandate arbitration creates a binding arbitration agreement. The Court further ruled that appointment procedures under association rules are valid contractual terms and that the award constitutes an enforceable foreign award in Pakistan under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 as amended by Ordinance LIII of 1962.

  Questions settled

  • Is a foreign arbitral award chargeable with stamp duty under the Stamp Act 1899 when brought into Pakistan for enforcement?
  • Is it mandatory for an arbitration agreement to be signed by all parties to be legally valid and enforceable?
  • Does membership in a trade association whose rules provide for compulsory arbitration create a binding arbitration agreement between members?
  • Is an arbitral award rendered in the United Kingdom enforceable in Pakistan as a foreign award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• Rajkumar and another vs The State1987 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rahimullah vs Messrs Alamgir Weaving Factory And Others1987 PLC 554 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• Rafiullah Khan vs Iqbal Hussain1987 PLD Karachi 608 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
• Rafiud Din vs Mst.Yasmeen Begum and 9 others1987 MLD 682 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Ahmed vs Messrs Joint Venture, Basrah International Air Port1987 PLD Karachi 552 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1987 PLD Karachi 175 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• R.K. Malik and 2 others vs Lahore Diocesan Trust Association, Lahore1987 CLC 222 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-04Read full judgment →
• Qurban vs The State1987 MLD 2248 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-19Read full judgment →
• Qasim Shah vs The State1987 MLD 1516 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-31Read full judgment →
• Qambar Ali Baloch and 8 others vs Principal, Dawood College of Engineering and Technology and another1987 CLC 371 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-04Read full judgment →
• Qamar Niaz vs Rizwan Ghani and others1987 MLD 2976 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• Qalander Khan vs Bind Labour Court And Another1987 PLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-19Read full judgment →
• Qaiser Khan vs Government of Sind1987 MLD 743 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
• Punhoon vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 321 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind through the Deputy Commissioner, Thatta and 3 others1987 CLC 668 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind and others vs Muhammad Hussain1987 MLD 2858 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd., Kotri vs Sind Labour Court N0. VI And Another1987 PLC 14 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
• Premier Tobacco Industries Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks and others1987 MLD 2752 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-16Read full judgment →
• Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Seiwa Shipping Co.1987 CLC 173 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority vs Commissioner for Workmens' Compensation1987 PLC 690 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-23Read full judgment →
• Pir Syed Sadruddin Shah vs Muhammad Bux and 3 others1987 MLD 2957 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-09Read full judgment →
• Pir Bahauddin Sirhindi vs The Mayor, Hyderabad Municipal1987 MLD 2090 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-14Read full judgment →
• Petitioner: The Commissioner of Income Tax (Central Zone, Karachi). vsPTCL 1987 CL. 267 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pervez Alam vs Registrar Trade Marks and another1987 CLC 647 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Pervaiz Samad vs Konkar Union Council and another1987 MLD 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-03Read full judgment →
• Peer B Ak HS H vs Muhammad Moosa and 4 others1987 CLC 708 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-11Read full judgment →
• Parwaiz Ahmed vs District Judge, West Karachi and 2 others1987 CLC 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24
  family suitmaintenance decreeexecution of decreemoney decreeattachment of salaryarrears of land revenueFamily Court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from an execution proceeding of a family court money decree for maintenance. The Family Court had ordered attachment of 50% of the petitioner's salary under Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, an order subsequently upheld by the District Judge on appeal on the ground that the phrase 'if the Court so directs' conferred wide discretion upon the court to adopt any mode of execution. The core legal question was whether a Family Court executing a money decree has discretion to execute it through attachment of salary under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 or must execute it exclusively by recovering the decretal amount as arrears of land revenue. The High Court allowed the petition and set aside the lower courts' orders, holding that Section 13(3) provides a special procedure for executing money decrees. The Court ruled that the phrase 'if the Court so directs' does not grant discretion regarding the mode of execution, but only allows discretion on incidental matters such as granting time or postponing recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Family Court have the discretion under Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 to execute a money decree by attaching the judgment-debtor's salary?
  • Does the statutory phrase 'if the Court so directs' in Section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 grant discretion over the mode of execution or only incidental matters?
  • Must money decrees passed by a Family Court be executed exclusively through recovery as arrears of land revenue?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Industries Islamabad and another1987 MLD 2062 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Through Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railways, Karachi1987 PLC 653 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. vs Burmah Oil Public Limited Company1987 CLC 272 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Syed Muhammad Iqbal And Others1987 PLC 460(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Khurshid Ali And Others1987 PLC 454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways Employees Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Government of Sind and 2 others1987 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-31Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Navy through Commanding Officer vs Khalilullah Baig1987 CLC 615 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Messrs Crescent Star1987 MLD 2130 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Messrs Alpha Insurance1987 MLD 578 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Adamjee Insurance1987 CLC 1376 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Pakistan National Insurance Corporation vs Pakistan National1987 MLD 698 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-17Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mineral Corporation vs Salim Industries Ltd.1987 CLC 1941 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Machine Tool Factory Liberal Union vs Messers PakistanK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 3 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Registrar of Trade1987 CLC 966 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Messrs Sarhad1987 MLD 2147 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs Grindlays Bank Ltd. and 3 others1987 CLC 2164 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25
  summary suitleave to defendlimitation periodbanking recoveryexport credits guarantee schemeprincipal and agent liabilityservice of summons
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment and decree by the Special Court (Banking) which dismissed the Pakistan Insurance Corporation's application for leave to defend a suit and decreed the claim against it. The core legal questions concerned whether the application for leave to defend was time-barred, whether the Corporation acted as an agent of the Federal Government or as a principal under the Export Credits Guarantee Scheme, and whether the alleged breaches of policy terms justified granting leave. The Court held that the application was time-barred as service by publication was valid. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Corporation operated the Scheme as a principal, not an agent, rendering it liable for claims. Finally, the Court found the allegations regarding breaches of policy terms to be vague and insufficient to warrant leave to defend. The key principle laid down is that an entity managing a government scheme can be held liable as a principal if the scheme's rules establish it as such, and that vague assertions of breach are insufficient to secure leave to defend in summary proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Is an entity managing a government-backed scheme liable as a principal if the scheme's rules establish it as such?
  • Can a court examine the question of limitation at the appellate stage even if it was not raised before the trial court?
  • Does service of summons by publication constitute valid service in a suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Are vague allegations of breach of contract sufficient grounds to grant leave to defend in a summary suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Central1987 MLD 505 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-10Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Chemical and Sodium Silicate Industries vs Lever Brothers1987 MLD 1276 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Karachi. vs The Deputy Collector, Central Excise and three othersPTCL 1987 CL. 407 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ourangzeb alias Rangoo vs The State1987 MLD 1231 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rab Nawaz vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Other1987 PLD Karachi 175 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Noor Ur Rehman vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 2171 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-29Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1842 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Hafiz Inayatur Rehman1987 MLD 2814 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Civil Aviation Authority and another1987 CLC 393 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28
  mandatory injunctionstatus quo antelease vs licenseforcible dispossessioninterlocutory applicationexclusive possessionbalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for declaration and permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff regarding a shop at Karachi Airport. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff, having been forcibly dispossessed by the defendants after the service of notice of the injunction application, was entitled to restoration of possession, and whether the underlying agreement between the parties constituted a lease or a license. The court held that where a defendant, with notice of a pending suit seeking an injunction, performs the very act sought to be restrained, they act at their own peril. Consequently, the court ordered the restoration of the status quo ante, directing the restoration of possession to the plaintiff pending the final determination of the suit. The court established the principle that a court possesses the inherent power to restore the status quo ante in such circumstances to prevent a party from benefiting from their own wrongful conduct, irrespective of the ultimate merits of the case, which remain to be decided at trial.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant a mandatory injunction on an interlocutory application to restore the status quo ante after a defendant has forcibly dispossessed the plaintiff with notice of the suit?
  • What are the distinguishing features between a lease and a license under Pakistani law?
  • Does the reservation of a right of access by a grantor automatically negate the grantee's right to exclusive possession?
  • Is the substance of an agreement or its nomenclature the determining factor in deciding whether a transaction is a lease or a license?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad alias Noora and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Elahi vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• Nizar Ali vs Noorabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd And Other1987 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
• Niz Ar Ali vs Noorabad Cooperative Housing Society Ltd and Others1987 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-28Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmed vs The State1987 MLD 2246 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• Nisar Ahmad Khawaja vs Edoo Begum1987 MLD 3200 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Niazu vs The State1987 MLD 3233 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-21Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad Qureshi and others vs Messrs Sadiq Traders Ltd. and others1987 MLD 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-11Read full judgment →
• Nazir Rafat vs The State1987 MLD 1219 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Karachi Development Authority1987 MLD 628 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed Jagirani Balouch vs Province of Sind and another1987 CLC 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-21
  civil revisioninterim injunctionpre-presentation noticeinterlocutory appealmandatory provisionjurisdictional defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from a suit filed by a Deputy Superintendent of Police challenging departmental tests required for his reinstatement. The trial court granted an ad-interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff. The respondents appealed this interlocutory order to the District Judge, who suspended the trial court's injunction. However, the respondents failed to give notice of the appeal to the plaintiff prior to its presentation, as required by Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court of Sindh considered whether compliance with the pre-presentation notice requirement is mandatory for entertaining an appeal against an interlocutory order. Relying on Supreme Court precedent, the High Court held that the provision of Order XLIII Rule 3 is mandatory and serves as a condition precedent for the exercise of jurisdiction by the appellate court. Consequently, the appellate court's judgment was declared to suffer from an incurable illegality, and the revision application was allowed, setting aside the appellate court's decision.

  Questions settled

  • Is the requirement of giving notice to the respondent before presenting an appeal under Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory?
  • Does the failure to comply with Order XLIII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 divest the appellate court of jurisdiction to entertain the appeal?
  • Can an appellate order suspending a trial court's interim injunction be sustained if the appellant failed to provide notice of the appeal to the respondent prior to its presentation?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad Shah and another vs Agha Syed Bashir Ahmad1987 CLC 430 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-21Read full judgment →
• Nazaz Ali And 2 Others vs Brig. Shahid Aziz, Directorgeneral, Pakistan1987 P Cr. L J 1435 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain vs Mst.Aziza Khatoon1987 MLD 530 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-26Read full judgment →
• Nazar Hussain And 5 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-25Read full judgment →
• Nazar Ahmed and 2 others vs Abdul Haq1987 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Nawab vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
• Nawab Khan vs Muhammad Suleman1987 MLD 3271 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-27Read full judgment →
• Nawab Ali Lorali and Another vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-12
  fugitive from justiceconfirmation of death sentencejail breakabatement of appealmurder referenceright of audienceabscondencepostponement of reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a joint criminal appeal and murder reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 following the conviction and death sentences awarded to two brothers under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. During the pendency of proceedings, one appellant was killed during a jail break, while the other escaped and became a fugitive from justice. The core legal questions pertained to the effect of an appellant's death on pending appeal and fine, and the procedural effect of a convict's abscondence on the pending appeal and death confirmation reference. The Sindh High Court held that the deceased appellant's appeal abated under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 and set aside his fine. Regarding the absconding appellant, the Court dismissed his appeal, ruling that a fugitive from justice forfeits the right of audience. However, the murder reference remains independent, requiring scrutiny on merits, and the Court exercised its inherent powers under Section 561-A to postpone the confirmation reference until the absconder's arrest, issuing non-bailable warrants.

  Questions settled

  • Does a criminal appeal abate upon the death of the appellant under Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Whether an absconding convict who becomes a fugitive from justice forfeits the right of audience in a pending criminal appeal?
  • Can the High Court hear or confirm a death reference under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in the absence of an absconding convict?
  • Does the High Court have inherent power under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to postpone the hearing of a death reference until an absconding convict is arrested?
  Read full judgment →
• Naubat And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1877 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• National Development Finance Corporation vs Trade and Industry1987 MLD 434 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• National Detergents Ltd. vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks1987 MLD 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-12Read full judgment →
• National Detergents Ltd. vs Hen Kel Kommandit Gesells Chaft Auf1987 MLD 2864 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Umer & Brothers and 3 others1987 MLD 594 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Sadruddin K.Hooda1987 MLD 629 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-10Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Nabi Bux Khan Bhurgari1987 MLD 3288 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-10Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs A.B.C. Chinese Restaurant1987 MLD 625 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-21Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan and another vs Messrs Film Exhibitors Ltd.1987 CLC 1547 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Nasiruddin Qureshi And Other vs Sind Labour Courtkarachi1987 PLC 633 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Nasim Ahmed Bhatti vs Riazuddin Ahmed and another1987 MLD 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-25Read full judgment →