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.

• Canno N Rubber Limited vs S. Muhammad Saeed and another1987 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Bux Ali and 2 others vs The State1987 MLD 1002 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Boolch and vs Qazi Muhammad Bachal1987 CLC 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-06
  rent controllerpersona designatatransfer of proceedingscivil courtself-contained statutejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under section 24(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 raised the question whether a proceeding pending before a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 can be transferred by invoking section 24(1) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Sindh High Court held that a Rent Controller appointed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 acts in a quasi-judicial capacity as persona designata and not as a civil court, and therefore proceedings before them cannot be transferred under section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court established that where a self-contained special enactment provides a specific mechanism and remedy for the transfer of cases—such as section 4(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 empowering the District Judge or Deputy Commissioner to transfer proceedings—parties must exhaust remedies within that statute, rendering section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 inapplicable. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller appointed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is a court or persona designata?
  • Can proceedings pending before a Rent Controller be transferred by invoking section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does a self-contained special enactment oust the general application of section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 regarding transfer of cases?
  Read full judgment →
• Board of Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Punjab Industrial1987 CLC 218 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• BNS Air Services (Pvt.) Ltd. vs Anwar Ali and another1987 MLD 3009 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• Black Sea Shipping Company and another vs Polskie Linie Oceaniczne1987 CLC 2314 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• Bismillah Begum vs Messrs the Pak Construction Co. Ltd.1987 MLD 648 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-03Read full judgment →
• Billand vs Muhammad Din And Another1987 P Cr. L J 2340 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04Read full judgment →
• Bilawal and another vs Abdul Razzak1987 CLC 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• Bhai Azizur Rehman and 5 others vs Messrs Ghafur Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi and 19 others1987 CLC 577 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12
  company petitionmaintainabilitywinding-upshare capital qualificationCompanies Act 1913Companies Ordinance 1984
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a constitutional or company law petition filed by Bhai Azizur Rehman and others against Messrs Ghafur Textile Mills Ltd. and others before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a petition filed under sections 235 to 237 of the Companies Act, 1913, in the absence of any pending winding-up proceedings or prayer for winding up, and whether the petition could be converted or treated as an application under section 290 or a complaint under section 493 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. The Court held that sections 235 to 237 of the old Act were not attracted without a winding-up petition, that the petition could not be treated as one under section 290 of the new Ordinance since the prerequisite 20 percent shareholding qualification was neither pleaded nor established, and that section 493 of the new Ordinance was inapplicable as the proceedings were not akin to criminal proceedings nor pending at the enforcement of the new Ordinance. The petition was consequently dismissed as not maintainable, with the clarification that the dismissal would not bar available remedies under the new Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Are sections 235 to 237 of the Companies Act, 1913 attracted when no winding-up petition is pending or prayed for?
  • Can a petition filed under the old Companies Act be treated as an application under section 290 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 without pleading the requisite 20 percent shareholding qualification?
  • Can proceedings under the Companies Act, 1913 be converted into a complaint under section 493 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 if they were not pending as criminal-like proceedings upon the enforcement of the new Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Bengal Fibre Industries Ltd. vs Lawrencepur Woollen and Textile Mills1987 MLD 509 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
• Begum Zarin Azam Jan vs Masood Khan and 2 others1987 MLD 3073 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
• Begum a Tiya Hashimi and 3 others vs Mst. a Amee and 8 others1987 MLD 305 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-05Read full judgment →
• Before SaZeem Akhtar, Barkatullah Khan vs Mirza Muhammad Hassan1987 CLC 572 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Before Mamoon Kazi, International General Insurance Company of Pakistan Limited vs British India Steam Navigation Co. Ltd. and another1987 CLC 152 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Beejal Mal vs Punaji1987 CLC 1134 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-31
  landlord and tenant relationshiprent controller jurisdictionevacuee propertyburden of proofrent appealstatutory tenancy
  Summary & questions settled

  These rent appeals challenge an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellants. The respondent, having purchased evacuee property in an auction, sought the appellants' eviction on grounds of non-payment of rent and unauthorized construction. The appellants denied the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship, claiming they were in occupation since before the establishment of Pakistan and that the respondent purchased the property on behalf of the occupants. The core legal question was whether the respondent successfully established the relationship of landlord and tenant. The Court held that the respondent failed to prove such a relationship. It noted that there was no documentary evidence of tenancy, and the oral evidence provided by the respondent was riddled with material contradictions regarding the commencement of the tenancy and the terms thereof. Furthermore, the respondent's unexplained delay in taking action after the alleged default rendered his case improbable. The Court affirmed that where the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established, the Rent Controller lacks jurisdiction, and the parties must seek redress in a civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere ownership of premises by a landlord ipso facto create a relationship of landlord and tenant with the occupant?
  • Can a Rent Controller exercise jurisdiction if the relationship of landlord and tenant is not established?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant when no written agreement exists?
  • Does the failure to prove a landlord-tenant relationship necessitate the dismissal of an eviction application?
  Read full judgment →
• Beecham Group and another vs Ahmad Ismail and another1987 PLD Karachi 356 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-10
  trade marksrectification of registergoods of same descriptiondeceptive resemblancetrademark infringementwell-known marktoothbrushes and toothpaste
  Summary & questions settled

  This case arose from an application under Section 46 and Section 72 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 and Chapter 7-E, Volume V of the High Court Rules, seeking the removal of respondent No. 1's registered trade mark 'MAC-LEANS' in Class 21 for toothbrushes, other brushes, and combs. The applicants, registered proprietors of the internationally renowned trade mark 'MAC-LEANS' for toothpaste and dental hygiene preparations, argued that toothbrushes were goods of the same description as toothpaste, causing likelihood of deception and confusion among the public. Respondent No. 1 contended that toothbrushes were distinct goods from toothpaste and that registration was bona fide. The legal issue was whether toothbrushes and toothpaste constitute goods of the same description under Section 10(1) of the Act. The High Court held that toothpaste and toothbrushes belong to the same description of dental hygiene products, making public confusion highly probable, and found respondent No. 1's appropriation improper. Consequently, the High Court allowed the application in part, directing rectification of the register by expunging respondent No. 1's trade mark in respect of toothbrushes.

  Questions settled

  • Are toothbrushes and toothpaste considered goods of the same description under Section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1940?
  • Can a High Court order the removal or rectification of a trade mark entry under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 where a mark causes likelihood of deception or confusion?
  • Does foreign registration and international reputation of a trade mark constitute a relevant factor when evaluating likelihood of confusion in domestic trade mark registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs The State1987 MLD 1521 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-16Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Syed Muhammad Iqbal1987 MLD 3274 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Muhammad Hassan1987 MLD 2993 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Islam and 3 others1987 CLC 1976 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 353 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs The State--Complainant1987 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Ashfaq Ahmad1987 MLD 223(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 750 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-28Read full judgment →
• Barkat Bhatti And 5 Others vs The State and 4 others1987 P C r. L J 281 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
• Baqar Ali vs The State1987 MLD 2188 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
• Banqu E Indosuez vs Manno 0 and Moti Ltd. and 5 others1987 MLD 228 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Bannu Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan Industrial Development1987 MLD 1359 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-05Read full judgment →
• Bank of Credit and Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. and 21987 MLD 669 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-14Read full judgment →
• Bank of Credit & Commerce, International (Overseas) Limited vs Permanent Trading Company Limited and others1987 MLD 50 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Banison Industries vs Central Board of Revenue and others1987 MLD 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• Bani Son Industries vs CBR & OtherKLR 1987 Tax and Customs 22 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• Banhoon And 3 Others vs The State1987 P Cr. L J 419 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-28Read full judgment →
• Bakar Hussain vs The Director of Procurement (Navy), Ministry of Defence and others1987 MLD 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-10Read full judgment →
• Baheedullah vs Government of Sind and Another1987 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Bahaud Din vs Shahid Hussain Malik1987 MLD 284 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-26Read full judgment →
• Bago vs Naraindas and others1987 MLD 285 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-23Read full judgment →
• Bago Alias Abbas And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1322 · Sindh High Court · 1987-12-16Read full judgment →
• Badshah Khan vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 335 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Badal and another vs The State1987 MLD 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-04Read full judgment →
• Bachhan Khan vs Fasahat Ali and another1987 MLD 727 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-25Read full judgment →
• Bachal vs The State and another-1987 P Cr. L J 2070 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-23Read full judgment →
• Babar Ali vs The State1987 MLD 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-20Read full judgment →
• Azizur Rahman alias Ajjo Qal-Ai-Gar vs Mst.Sarwat Jehan and 5 others1987 MLD 2950 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-26Read full judgment →
• Aziz-Ur-Rehman vs Syed Wadood Ahmed Jilani and another1987 MLD 3286 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-26Read full judgment →
• Aziz Khan vs The State1987 MLD 3023 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-14Read full judgment →
• Aziz Kashigar vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 882(2) · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui vs Malik Muhammad Zafar Nawab1987 MLD 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-04Read full judgment →
• Azher Wali and others vs Bell Hellicopter Textran Inc. and others1987 MLD 1336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Azam vs Pir Bakhsh1987 P Cr. L J 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Azadar Hussain Zaidi vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1987 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-29
  master and servantwrongful dismissalbreach of contractservice rulesshow-cause noticedamagesrevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged the concurrent judgments of the lower courts which dismissed the petitioner's suit for declaration and damages regarding his dismissal from service by the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. The core legal question was whether an employee, whose employment is governed by the master-servant principle, can claim damages for wrongful dismissal when the employer fails to adhere to mandatory internal service rules, despite the unavailability of reinstatement. The Court held that while the master-servant doctrine correctly precludes the remedy of reinstatement, it does not absolve the employer from liability for breach of contract. The Court affirmed that where an employer initiates dismissal proceedings based on misconduct, they are strictly bound by the procedural requirements stipulated in their own service rules. Consequently, the failure to issue a mandatory second show-cause notice constitutes a breach of contract, entitling the aggrieved employee to seek damages. The case was remanded to the trial court to determine the claim for salary and damages based on this breach of procedural compliance.

  Questions settled

  • Can an employee governed by the master and servant principle claim damages for wrongful dismissal if the employer fails to follow mandatory service rules?
  • Does the failure to issue a mandatory second show-cause notice in a misconduct inquiry constitute a breach of contract?
  • Is an employee entitled to damages for wrongful dismissal even if reinstatement is not a permissible remedy under the master and servant doctrine?
  Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad Alias Attur And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 331 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Associated Treading Co. Limited vs The Central Board of Revenue, Government of Pakistan and 2 othersPTCL 1987 CL. 115 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Associated Trading Co. Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue1987 PLD Karachi 63 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Associated Trading Co. Ltd. vs The Central Board of Revenue1987 PLD Karachi 63 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-11Read full judgment →
• Associated Constructors Ltd. vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1987 CLC 383 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-07
  arbitration awardobjections to awardsufficiency of reasonsassessment of damageslegal misconductescalation chargeslump sum contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two connected suits (Suit No. 504 of 1984 and Suit No. 505 of 1984) arising from disputes over construction contracts for the Abasi Shaheed Hospital awarded to the plaintiff by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. The core legal questions involved whether the defendant's objections to the arbitrator's awards were barred by time, whether the arbitrator provided sufficient reasons pursuant to section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940, and whether the arbitrator committed legal misconduct by assessing damages based on external government/KDA escalation policies not incorporated into the contract. The court held that the objections were filed within time and that the arbitrator did provide sufficient reasons in compliance with section 26-A. However, the court held that assessing damages by simply applying an external government decision not part of the contract constituted legal misconduct apparent on the face of the award. Consequently, the court set aside the awards in both suits and remitted them back to the arbitrator for fresh determination of damages based on evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constructive notice of the filing of an arbitration award can be presumed when no fixed date for filing has been given by the Court?
  • What constitutes reasons in sufficient detail by an arbitrator under Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does an arbitrator commit legal misconduct by assessing damages based on external government or authority rules not incorporated into the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Asrar Ahmed Saifie vs Country Manager, Pakistan-- Saudi Airlines And Another1987 PLC 873 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
• Asif Mowjee vs Mst. Fatema A. Mowjee and Another1987 PLD Karachi 239 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18
  custody of minorhabeas corpusHizanatguardian and wardsjurisdiction of family courtordinary residencenatural guardian
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition moved under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 by the father seeking physical custody of his minor son from the respondent-wife, who removed the child and stayed back in Pakistan. The core legal questions involve the maintainability of a habeas corpus petition under section 491, Cr.P.C. when a custody dispute exists between parents, the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 and the Guardians and Wards Act 1890, and the determination of the ordinary residence of the minor for jurisdictional purposes. The High Court held that an application under section 491 is not maintainable where the child is in the custody of a parent and such custody is neither illegal nor improper, and the proper remedy is to approach the Family Court/Guardian Judge. The court laid down that a dispute regarding custody between parents does not amount to illegal detention or kidnapping unless the removal is forcible or deceitful, and matters concerning the welfare of the minor and Hizanat must be settled through regular proceedings before the Family Court rather than summary habeas corpus.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is maintainable for the custody of a minor when a dispute exists between the parents?
  • Does the Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to entertain matters relating to the custody of children and guardianship under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • What constitutes the 'ordinary residence' of a minor under section 9 of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890 for determining territorial jurisdiction?
  • Whether a mother refusing to return the custody of a minor after the expiry of the period of Hizanat can be deemed guilty of illegal detention or kidnapping?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain vs S. Abdullah Qureshi1987 CLC 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-17Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Hussain vs Messrs Amin International Ltd. and 2 others1987 MLD 520 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed vs Mst. Fahmida Bano1987 MLD 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-02Read full judgment →
• Asghar Ali vs Messrs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and another1987 CLC 855 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• Asad Zaheeruddin and 3 othersPertitioners vs The Subregistrar "T"1987 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18
  registration of conveyance deedcapital gains taxno-objection certificateexecutive instructionsmartial law ordersconstitutional petitionregistering authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court by the purchasers of a property challenging the refusal of the Sub-Registrar to register a conveyance deed presented for registration under section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908. The Sub-Registrar had adjourned the registration, demanding a no-objection or clearance certificate regarding the payment of capital gains tax from the Excise and Taxation Officer pursuant to executive instructions issued following the concurrence of the Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C". The core legal question was whether a registering authority could refuse registration of a conveyance deed for non-production of a capital gains tax clearance certificate in the absence of a statutory requirement under the relevant statutes and rules, and whether such executive instructions were protected under Article 270-A of the Constitution. The court held that neither the Registration Act, 1908, the West Pakistan Finance Act, 1963, nor the West Pakistan Capital Gains Tax Rules, 1964 required such a certificate as a precondition for registration, and that executive instructions could not override statutory provisions or claim immunity under Article 270-A(2) of the Constitution. The petition was allowed, directing the registering authority to register the conveyance deed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a registering authority refuse to register a conveyance deed on the ground that a capital gains tax clearance certificate has not been produced?
  • Do executive instructions requiring the recovery of capital gains tax prior to registration override the provisions of the Registration Act, 1908?
  • Are executive instructions issued pursuant to a summary approved by a Martial Law Administrator protected under Article 270-A(2) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Ark Navigation Company of Pakistan Ltd. and another vs Esso1987 PLD Karachi 660 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
• Arafat Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle E-1, KarachiPTCL 1987 CL. 427 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Anwar Rafi vs Noor Muhammad and 2 others1987 MLD 2787 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-12Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali Khan vs National Bank of Pakistan1987 MLD 2594 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-09Read full judgment →
• Anjumanefalaheabadkaran vs Chief Administrator Auqaf, Government of Sind and 2 others1987 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Anjum Hameed and another vs Mrs. Bilquis1987 MLD 687 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Amman Vill vs The State1987 MLD 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-02Read full judgment →
• Amir Muhammad Khan vs The State-1987 P C r. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-21Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-17Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali and 2 others vs Jan & Company1987 CLC 442 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-22Read full judgment →
• Amir Ahmad Khan vs The State and 3 others1987 MLD 1494 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-08Read full judgment →
• Amin Hayat Corporation Ltd. vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi and 2 others1987 MLD 564 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-10Read full judgment →
• Amil Ahmad vs Mrs. Sultan Jehan Begum1987 CLC 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Amiir Muhammad Khan vs Board of Revenue and another1987 CLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-30Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Qureshi vs Shaikh Umar Din Chawla1987 MLD 2803 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Amanullah And Another vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1991 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Aman Ullah vs The State1987 MLD 2172 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-28Read full judgment →
• Altaf Chaudhary and 2 others vs The State and another1987 MLD 1511 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-13Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Syed Ijaz Hussain1987 MLD 3313 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-19Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Noor Muhammad Awan1987 CLC 724 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Tahir Traders and others1987 MLD 147 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-21Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Sainjee Restaurant and Motel1987 MLD 622 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Kassam Corporation and another1987 MLD 742 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-08Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Maqbool Co. Ltd. and others1987 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• Alley Hadi vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2503 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs The State1987 MLD 1564 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-06Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs Mst. Sarwari Begum1987 CLC 1714 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• Allah Bakhsh vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-27Read full judgment →
• Alimuddin vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 73 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-21Read full judgment →
• Alidino and Other vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1373 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs Muhammad Murad1987 MLD 2596 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad. Usman vs Saeeda Bano1987 MLD 462 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-04Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Syed Ahsan Ali1987 MLD 926 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-01Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and another vs The State1987 MLD 1493 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Mohtaram Naqvi vs Habib Bank Ltd. and 7 others1987 CLC 1139 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →