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.

• Messrs Popular Clearing Services vs Director Octroi, K.M.C. and another1987 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Insurance Corporation vs Ceylon Shipping Lines1987 MLD 2767 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Oriental Shippings Co. Ltd. vs Messrs Habib Insurance Co. Ltd.1987 CLC 2194 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Niazi Institute of Science Organization vs Mst. Anwar Zamani1987 CLC 1804 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nagina Films Ltd. vs Usman Hussain and others1987 CLC 2263 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-25
  winding upjust and equitable clausequasi-partnershippiercing the corporate veiloppression of minorityexclusion from managementprivate limited companyremoval of director
  Summary & questions settled

  These two connected High Court Appeals arose from company petitions seeking the winding up of private limited companies under Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913. In both cases, minority shareholders holding 20% equity were systematically ousted from directorship and excluded from management by the majority groups, violating foundational family agreements and understandings upon which the companies were incorporated and operated as quasi-partnerships. The Company Judge ordered winding up on the 'just and equitable' ground. The appellants challenged these orders, contending that dissolution principles of partnership firms should not apply to companies with unequal shareholding, and that alternative remedies under the law should have been pursued. The Sindh High Court dismissed both appeals, affirming that the corporate veil may be pierced to discern the true nature of a private limited company. Where a company is founded on mutual trust and an understanding of shared management participation, an unjustified breach through the exclusion or removal of a founding member justifies winding up on just and equitable grounds under Section 162(vi).

  Questions settled

  • Can the principles governing the dissolution of a partnership firm be applied to wind up a private limited company under the just and equitable clause of Section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913?
  • Whether the exclusion of a minority shareholder-director from management in breach of a foundational understanding or mutual trust justifies the winding up of a private limited company?
  • Can the court pierce the veil of incorporation to determine whether a private limited company is in reality being run as a partnership?
  • Is a petition for rectification of the share register inconsistent with a simultaneously filed petition for winding up of a company?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muslim Trading Company vs Messrs Nazir Cotton Trading1987 MLD 2866 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd.- vs Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd.1987 MLD 2417 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 225 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Middelburg Steel and Alloys (PTV.) Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi and 3 others1987 MLD 2827 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Metalock vs Messrs Duker's Met a Lock Company1987 MLD 303 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mehran Shoes vs Muhammad Ismail and 3 others1987 CLC 148 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-12
  landlord and tenantrelationship of landlord and tenantrent controller jurisdictiondenial of tenancyagreement of exchangeejectment petitionsummary jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal addresses whether the Rent Controller correctly determined the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship where the occupant denied tenancy and claimed possession under an agreement of exchange. The core legal question is whether a Rent Controller can resolve complicated disputes regarding title or disputed tenancy without regular trial and evidence. The court held that the Rent Controller erred in finding a tenancy relationship based merely on the bare, uncorroborated allegations of the landlord and inadmissible counterfoils, without proper proof of tenancy. The ratio is that when a bona fide dispute concerning the relationship of landlord and tenant arises and involves intricate questions of fact or title—such as an agreement of exchange—the Rent Controller should refrain from deciding complex issues and direct the parties to approach a regular civil court. The key principle laid down is that the Rent Controller exercises limited summary jurisdiction and lacks the means or mandate to conduct deep investigations into disputed ownership or complex contractual breaches.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller can decide complex questions of title and disputed tenancy?
  • Does the denial of the relationship of landlord and tenant oust the summary jurisdiction of the Rent Controller?
  • Can a Rent Controller establish tenancy based solely on the bare allegations of the landlord without corroborative evidence?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a bona fide dispute regarding ownership or exchange of property is raised?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mascot Industrial Corporation vs Sind Employees' Social1987 PLC 785 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.Y. Khan and Company and another vs Director-General, Marine Fisheries Department and another1987 MLD 2581 · Sindh High Court · 1887-02-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.Y. Industries, Karachi And 4 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 26 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.A. Agencies vs Messrs Zam Zam Ltd. and another1987 CLC 720 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kohinoor Trading (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Mangrani Trading Co. and 21987 CLC 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-20
  irrevocable letter of creditinterim injunctioncommercial lawbank guaranteebreach of contractbanking practiceprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for an interim injunction to restrain a bank from honoring an irrevocable letter of credit (L/C). The appellants, having purchased goods under an L/C, alleged that the supplied goods were defective and not in accordance with the contract description, seeking to prevent the bank from remitting payment to the foreign beneficiary. The core legal question was whether a court should grant an injunction restraining a bank from honoring an irrevocable L/C based on an underlying dispute regarding the quality of goods between the buyer and seller. The Court held that an irrevocable L/C constitutes an independent, autonomous commercial obligation. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal, ruling that courts should not interfere with a bank's obligation to honor an L/C unless there is clear evidence of fraud or a fundamental challenge to the validity of the L/C itself. The principle established is that mere allegations of breach of contract regarding the quality of goods do not constitute sufficient grounds to disrupt the sanctity and commercial reliability of irrevocable letters of credit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an injunction to restrain a bank from honoring an irrevocable letter of credit based on an alleged breach of contract regarding the quality of goods?
  • Under what circumstances may a court interfere with a bank's obligation to honor an irrevocable letter of credit?
  • Does an allegation of defective goods constitute a sufficient ground to stop payment under an irrevocable letter of credit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Khawaja Trading Company vs Deputy Collector of Customs1987 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jomalina SDN.BHD. vs Messrs Solvex (Pakistan) Ltd.1987 MLD 317 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Intra Co. Ltd. and 3 others vs Banque Indosuez1987 MLD 2843 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ihsan Sons Ltd. vs Abdul Razak Habib And 2 Others1987 PLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-20
  workman definitionsupervisory capacityindustrial disputeback benefitsseparate establishmentslabour lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging an appellate tribunal's order regarding the reinstatement of an accountant. The core legal questions were whether the respondent qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the petitioner's head office and factory constituted separate establishments. The Court held that the respondent was not a "workman" because his duties were supervisory and administrative, and his salary exceeded the statutory threshold. The Court further ruled that the head office and factory were distinct entities for the purposes of labor legislation. Consequently, the employer's petition was accepted, and the employee's petition for back benefits was dismissed as infructuous. The judgment establishes that the determination of "workman" status rests on the nature of duties performed rather than designation, and that an employee in a supervisory capacity with managerial powers is excluded from the definition of a workman. Additionally, separate business locations may be treated as distinct establishments under the relevant labor statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accountant performing supervisory duties and earning above the statutory threshold qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can a company's head office and factory be considered separate and distinct establishments for the purposes of labor legislation?
  • Is the designation of an employee conclusive in determining their status as a 'workman' under labor laws?
  • Does a supervisor who manages a specific section of an establishment fall within the definition of a person employed in a 'supervisory capacity'?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hyesons Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs The Trustees of the Karachi Port Trust1987 MLD 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hyesons Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd. vs The Trustees of Karachi Port Trust1987 CLC 591 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-05
  lease renewalmutual agreementholding overtenant by sufferanceKarachi Port Trustejectmentenhanced rent
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, the Trustees of Karachi Port Trust, from recovering an enhanced rent and taking eviction steps following the expiry of a 25-year lease-deed. The core legal question was whether the defendants could unilaterally impose an enhanced rent and security deposit for lease renewal, despite a clause requiring renewal terms to be 'mutually agreed upon,' and whether the plaintiffs became statutory tenants or unauthorised occupants upon lease expiry. The Sindh High Court held that since the parties failed to reach a mutual agreement on the renewal terms, the lease did not stand renewed, and the plaintiffs' continued possession without accepting the landlord's conditions did not constitute holding over with consent under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The court laid down that a renewal clause requiring mutual agreement necessitates consensus on terms, and a landlord's protest against unauthorized occupation combined with a conditional demand for rent does not imply assent to holding over, entitling the port authority to seek ejectment upon lease expiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lease requiring renewal on terms to be mutually agreed upon can be enforced when the parties fail to reach a consensus on the enhanced rent?
  • Does the filing of a suit for recovery of rent by a landlord after the expiry of a lease amount to an assent for holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • What is the legal status of a tenant who remains in possession after the expiry of a lease without the landlord's consent?
  • Can a party be compelled to refer a dispute to the court as a special case under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without mutual agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hyderi Industries Ltd. vs Messrs Hashwani Sales and Services Ltd.1987 MLD 239 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hussain Textile Mills Ltd. vs Authority under the Payment of Wages Act And Others1987 PLC 636 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs House Building Finance Corporation vs Syed Siraj Ahmed1987 CLC 742 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hilal-E-Pakistan Publishers vs Sind Labour Court No,1, Karachi1987 MLD 730 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haji Muhammad Yusuf and sons vs Cotton Trading1987 CLC 722 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ha Bib Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Makers and Co. and 5 others1987 MLD 725 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs H.Nizam & Sons vs Commissioner for WORKMEN's Compensation1987 PLC 536 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Goodwill International vs The Collector of Customs and others1987 CLC 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs F.C.L. Ltd. vs m.v. Brooklyn and others1987 CLC 1808(2) · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eastern General Insurance Company Limited vs Syed Mahmood1987 CLC 772 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dada Soap Factory Ltd. vs Messrs Crescent Pak Industries Ltd.1987 MLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cosmopolitan Development Company vs Messrs So Di. Me. -S'.P .1987 MLD 2832 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-29
  arbitration actstay of proceedingsincorporation clauseforeign arbitrationperformance bondsuit for declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 by the defendant for the stay of legal proceedings and referral of the dispute to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in an agreement dated 16-5-1985. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and injunction regarding disputes arising from subsequent supply contracts for sugarcane blackstrap molasses. The core legal questions examined were whether the application sufficiently stated the disputes and whether a general incorporation clause in a subsequent agreement effectively incorporated the arbitration clause from the previous agreement. The court held that the defendant failed to specify the disputes, that a general reference to terms of a previous agreement does not automatically incorporate an arbitration clause without explicit language, and that even if an arbitration agreement existed, the balance of convenience and availability of evidence in Pakistan rendered foreign arbitration inappropriate. Consequently, the application for stay of proceedings was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must specifically state the disputes that have arisen between the parties?
  • Does a general reference clause in a fresh agreement automatically incorporate an arbitration clause contained in a previous agreement?
  • Can a dispute be referred to foreign arbitration when the contract's performance and evidence are situated in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Consolidated Exports Ltd. vs Messrs Dyer Textile and Printing1987 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Commodities Trading International Corporation vs Trading1987 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-13
  arbitration agreementperformance bondbank guaranteemaintainabilityinterim injunctionarbitration proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed by the plaintiff under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to file an arbitration agreement, obtain an order of reference, and restrain the defendants from encashing a performance bond bank guarantee, along with an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable when a party has already invoked Chapter II of the Act by appointing its arbitrator, and whether an application for interim relief under section 41 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable when no arbitration proceedings are yet pending before an arbitrator. The Sindh High Court held that a party cannot simultaneously pursue the remedy of appointing an arbitrator under Chapter II and filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and further held that interim relief under section 41 is not maintainable in the absence of pending arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator. The court established the principle that statutory options for arbitration procedures are mutually exclusive at a given time, and interim powers under section 41 require an active, pending proceeding before an arbitrator or court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable after a party has already invoked Chapter II of the Act by appointing its arbitrator?
  • Can a party simultaneously adopt the procedure provided under Chapter II of the Arbitration Act and apply to the court for filing the agreement under section 20?
  • Whether an application for interim relief under section 41 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable when no arbitration proceedings are pending before an arbitrator?
  • What constitutes the commencement of arbitration proceedings for the purpose of invoking the powers of the court under section 41 of the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Buckwell Co. Ltd vs Spencer and Co. (Pak.) Ltd.1987 MLD 681 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bawany Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Karachi Trading Agency1987 MLD 3036 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Banqu E Indozues vs Messrs Rahman' Brothers and 4 others1987 CLC 465 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Banqu E Indosue vs Brigadier (Retd.) Iftikhar Ahmed Khan and 31987 MLD 692 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bank of Oman Ltd.- (B) Islamic Jurisprudence-- --- Interpretation1987 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bank of Oman Ltd. vs Messrs East Trading Co. Ltd. and Others1987 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bank of Oman Limited vs Messrs East Asia Trading Co. Ltd. and 41987 CLC 288 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18
  leave to defendcontinuing guaranteeblank documentsbanking recoverynegotiable instrumentsconditional leavedoctrine of indoor management
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil miscellaneous applications filed by defendants No. 3 and No. 5 under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking leave to appear and defend a recovery suit instituted by the plaintiff bank under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions pertained to whether signing printed guarantee documents while blank as to dates and amounts, and allegedly while out of the country, constitutes a valid defense, and whether the doctrine of indoor management or principles regarding inchoate instruments apply. The Sindh High Court held that the defendants failed to disclose a plausible or bona fide defense warranting unconditional leave, as the signing of printed documents with spaces left blank for dates and amounts impliedly authorized the bank to complete them for a continuing guarantee, and the defendants did not dispute the underlying consideration or the receipt of the loan facilities. Consequently, the court granted the defendants conditional leave to defend upon furnishing security for the outstanding balance within one month, laying down principles regarding the objective construction of continuing guarantees and the distinction between signing blank papers and pre-printed documents with blank spaces.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the signing of a printed letter of guarantee with blank spaces for the amount and date constitutes a valid defense in a suit for recovery?
  • Does the filling in of blank spaces in a continuing guarantee by a creditor amount to an unauthorized alteration or does it imply authority given by the guarantor?
  • Whether the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 regarding inchoate instruments apply to a non-negotiable contract of guarantee governed by the Contract Act 1872?
  • Under what circumstances should a court grant conditional versus unconditional leave to appear and defend in summary suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Baltistan Boutique through its Proprietor vs District and Sessions Judge, Karachi and 2 others1987 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azmi Education Society vs Government of Sind and another1987 MLD 3011 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Atlas Battery Ltd.- vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Atlas Battery Ltd. vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd.1987 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Assad Brothers vs Ibadat Yar Khan1987 MLD 915 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asia Steel Industries Aid Ltd vs Messrs Iftikiiar & Co. Ltd. and others1987 CLC 984 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asghar Ali & Bros vs United Bank Ltd.1987 CLC 504 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22
  civil appealrecovery suitclearing agentsinsolvencyproduction of documentssettlement of liabilitybank loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the II-nd Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, which decreed the plaintiff-bank's suit for recovery against the defendant. The core legal question involved whether the defendant-appellant remained liable for payments made to an insolvent first clearing agent, or if a settlement between the parties had absolved the appellant of that specific liability, capping their responsibility at a fixed amount. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in excluding crucial documentary evidence produced by the defendant to prove the settlement and absolvement of liability. The appellate court established that a bank letter clearly demonstrated that the disputed sum stuck with the insolvent clearing agent was the bank's responsibility and the appellant was not concerned with it. Consequently, the High Court modified the trial court's decree, limiting the recovery to the final admitted unpaid instalment. The key principle laid down is that contemporaneous written correspondence between parties acknowledging a settlement and shifting liability for third-party defaults must be considered by courts, and technical objections regarding the late production of documents should not override their established authenticity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court refuse to consider authentic documentary evidence produced by a defendant during cross-examination on technical grounds of delayed production?
  • Whether a bank can recover payments made to an insolvent clearing agent from a customer contrary to an express written settlement absolving the customer of that liability?
  • Does the bar against producing documents without leave of the court under Order VII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply equally to defendants?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ascons Engineers and Contractor vs Messrs Pak Steel Mills1987 MLD 3001 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Asbestos Cement Industries Ltd. vs Messrs M. Wasiullah & Co.1987 CLC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asad Brothers vs Mr.Ibadat Yar Khan and another1987 MLD 556 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Altameer Corporation vs Karachi Development Authority and others1987 MLD 739 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Jan Muhammad Bros.1987 MLD 3008 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Al-Anis Laboratories through its 4 Partners vs Messrs Al-Chemist1987 MLD 2823 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Brothers vs Pheroj Ali M.Hirani and another1987 MLD 2589 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Afghan Carpets (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others vs Tajamul Hussain and 31987 MLD 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aeg Telefunken Pakistan Ltd. vs Monopoly Control Authority1987 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs P & 0 (Peninsular1987 MLD 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs a .B . M. Engineering, Karachi vs Mst. Zeenat Zubair Siddiqui and 21987 CLC 2318 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• Messers Krudsons Limited, S.I.T.E., Karachi Versus Commissioner of I_71bd5aa8K.L.R. 1987 Tax & Custom Cases 43 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Merchant Navy SEAMEN's Union vs Sind Labour Tribunal And 3 Others1987 PLC 444 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Meiji Milk Products Co. Ltd. vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Government of Pakistan1987 MLD 702 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Mehrullah Khan vs Abdul Sattar and 6 Others1987 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mehrullah Khan vs Abdul Sattar And 6 Other1987 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Mcmtaz Ahmed Silk Mills Ltd. vs Director, Sind Employees Social1987 CLC 2531 · Sindh High Court · 1987-10-01
  social security contributionultra vires regulationcondition precedentrecovery of dues as arrears of land revenuestatutory machinery
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the impugned notices and assessment orders issued by the Director, Sindh Employees Social Security, demanding social security contributions and initiating recovery proceedings as arrears of land revenue. The core legal questions involved whether a regulation requiring the deposit of twenty-five percent of the disputed amount as a condition precedent for entertaining a complaint under Section 57 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965, was ultra vires, and whether recovery as arrears of land revenue could proceed without a judicial determination by a civil court. The Sindh High Court held that in the absence of enabling provisions in the parent statute, the rule-making authority lacked the power to impose a twenty-five percent deposit condition, rendering Regulation No.5 ultra vires. The Court further held that while recovery as arrears of land revenue is permissible upon determination of liability through the statutory machinery of the Ordinance, prior resort to a civil court is not required. The petition was allowed accordingly, setting aside the pre-deposit requirement and restraining land revenue recovery pending the statutory decision.

  Questions settled

  • Whether subordinate legislation can impose a mandatory deposit of a percentage of the disputed amount as a condition precedent to entertaining a complaint when the parent statute contains no such provision?
  • Does the recovery of social security contributions as arrears of land revenue require prior adjudication and establishment of liability by a civil court?
  • Whether the failure of an employer to maintain or produce account books empowers the Social Security Institution to assess contributions and treat them as recoverable dues?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazari vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Maymar Housing Services (Private) Limited: In re vs Not1987 MLD 307 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Maurice Jean Rene Ducros vs The State1987 P Cr. L J 41 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Maulana Mushtaq Ahmad vs Mubarak Ahmed and others1987 MLD 2577 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mat. Fatima Begum vs Kamran Industries Ltd. and 12 others1987 CLC 2047 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Master Nizamuddin vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 342 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-25Read full judgment →
• Masrur Ahmed and 3 others vs The State and another1987 MLD 1584 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-08Read full judgment →
• Masroor Ahsan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
• Masood vs The State1987 MLD 1602 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-17Read full judgment →
• Masjid Maiz Bin Jabal and Madarsa Binoria Qasmi Aloom vs Sadiq Ali1987 CLC 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
• Mashooque and 2 others vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
• Mashooque And 2 Other vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-02Read full judgment →
• Marines Limited vs Aegus Shipping Co. Ltd and 4 others1987 CLC 1299 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17
  foreign awardarbitrationunenforceabilitydeclaratory reliefjurisdictionarbitration agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940, read with Sections 2 and 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, seeking a declaration that a foreign arbitration award made in London was unenforceable and that no valid arbitration agreement existed. The petitioner admitted that the award constituted a 'foreign award' under Section 2(1) of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937. The High Court of Sindh considered whether a party can independently petition for a declaration of unenforceability of a foreign award when the beneficiary of the award has not yet initiated enforcement proceedings. The Court held that the Arbitration Act 1940 is excluded in matters of foreign awards, which are governed solely by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937. Unlike Section 33 of the 1940 Act, the 1937 Act contains no provision for an independent challenge to an award prior to enforcement proceedings. Consequently, the Court ruled that objections under Section 7 of the 1937 Act can only be raised defensively once enforcement proceedings are initiated under Section 5. The petition was dismissed as premature.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Arbitration Act 1940 apply to the challenge or enforcement of a foreign award governed by the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
  • Can a party file an independent petition for a declaration that a foreign award is unenforceable before any enforcement proceedings have been initiated under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
  • At what stage can a party raise objections to the validity or enforceability of a foreign award under Section 7 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmed and another vs Munna Y Mian1987 CLC 171 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-13Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ali vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 404 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Karim vs The State1987 MLD 1536 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-20Read full judgment →
• Maniar Industries Ltd. vs Mobin Plastic Industries, Karachi and another1987 CLC 135 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• Malir Mujahid Sports vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another1987 MLD 733 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-11Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Iqbal vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 247 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-06
  falsification of accountsintent to defraudmens reahandwriting expertbank fraudcriminal evidencecross-examination
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns three consolidated appeals against the conviction of a bank officer under Section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for falsifying bank ledgers and creating fictitious entries, which facilitated unauthorized withdrawals and caused financial loss to the National Bank of Pakistan. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution was mandatorily required to produce a handwriting expert to prove the falsification, and whether the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the requisite mens rea of 'intent to defraud' without direct testimony on the accused's subjective intent. The Court held that the conviction was sound, ruling that the prosecution is not legally obligated to examine a handwriting expert if other reliable evidence, such as testimony from colleagues familiar with the accused's handwriting and initials, is available. Furthermore, the Court held that 'intent to defraud' and 'mens rea' can be inferred from the facts and circumstances of the case, particularly the actual financial loss caused by the accused's actions. The judgment reaffirms that when evidence in examination-in-chief remains unchallenged during cross-examination, it is deemed accepted.

  Questions settled

  • Is it mandatory for the prosecution to produce a handwriting expert to prove disputed signatures or handwriting in a criminal trial?
  • Can the 'intent to defraud' required for a conviction under Section 477-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be inferred from the circumstances of the case?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to cross-examine a witness on specific facts deposed during their examination-in-chief?
  • Does the definition of 'fraudulently' under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 require proof of actual deprivation of property?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Avian vs Khawaja Abdul Aziz through his Legal Heir1987 CLC 425 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• Malik Asadullah vs Government of Sind and 3 others1987 MLD 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-30Read full judgment →
• Malik Ahmed Nawaz and another vs 1ST Senior Civil Judge (South), Karachi and 3 others1987 MLD 2991 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Jalil vs Mst. B Irjis1987 CLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-18Read full judgment →
• Makki Masjid Mohajir Colony vs Muhammad Karam Illahi1987 CLC 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-10Read full judgment →
• Major (Retd.) Jamshed Khudadad Irani vs Abdul Rehman1987 CLC 1988 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17
  First Rent Appealeviction applicationpersonal bona fide requirementlandlord and tenantsufficiency of accommodationSindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal was filed by the tenant against the order of the Rent Controller allowing the respondent landlord's eviction application on the ground of personal requirement in good faith. The landlord sought eviction of the tenant from the first-floor premises, claiming he and his ailing wife needed additional accommodation to accommodate their married daughter and son-in-law to care for them and to isolate due to illness. The High Court examined the evidence and found significant contradictions in the landlord's statements, including admissions in cross-examination that his illness was not dangerous, that he did not intend to live in isolation, and that his ground-floor accommodation already contained three bedrooms, a drawing room, and a dining room. The High Court held that the Rent Controller erred by ordering eviction without properly ascertaining the extent and sufficiency of existing accommodation. Holding that the existing accommodation was ample and that the landlord failed to prove bona fide requirement under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, the High Court set aside the eviction order and dismissed the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Can an eviction order under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 be sustained without first ascertaining the extent and sufficiency of the accommodation already occupied by the landlord?
  • Whether contradictory statements by a landlord regarding illness and isolation negate a claim of bona fide personal requirement?
  • Does a landlord discharge the burden of proving bona fide requirement for a married daughter and son-in-law when the existing premises in his possession already contain sufficient vacant bedrooms to accommodate them?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Shah vs Karachi Transport Corporation and another1987 MLD 2380 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Alam vs Shahid Zaman and others1987 CLC 1791 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-17Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Abdullah vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 33 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Khan and anothers vs Badar Hussain1987 MLD 1334 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-25Read full judgment →
• Magic Chef and another vs Alnoor Industries and another1987 CLC 972 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• M.Rafi Shafqat vs Government of Pakistan and 2 others1987 MLD 1328 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →