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.

• Ali Khan vs Mst.Hameeda and others1987 MLD 1423(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Dino and Others vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad vs The State1987 MLD 1001 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-11Read full judgment →
• Alasaw Gardba Ali and 6 others vs The State1987 MLD 2247 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Alamdar Hussain vs Emmanual Victor K. and 2 others1987 MLD 2240 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Alam And 3 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1495 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• Al-Mehran Builders vs Karachi Development Authority and others1987 MLD 454 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-13Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Zaman vs The State1987 MLD 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-19Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Muhammad vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2423 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24
  post-arrest bailbail cancellationsuo motu revisionpolice remandidentification testprinciple of consistencyrobbery
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a criminal bail application and a suo motu revision regarding the cancellation of bail in a robbery case. The core legal questions involve whether bail granted to co-accused on the technical ground of unlawful police detention without remand should be cancelled, whether the principle of consistency applies to an accused whose detention was lawful, and whether delay in holding an identification parade and defects in its supervision warrant the grant of bail. The court held that the sessions judge properly exercised discretion in granting bail to the co-accused due to the lack of judicial remand, and thus discharged the suo motu notices. However, the court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant Akhtar Muhammad on merits, finding that an unexplained seven-day delay in holding the identification test while in police custody, coupled with the fact that the identification mashirnama was signed by the investigating officer rather than being properly supervised, made his complicity one requiring further inquiry under the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail granted to an accused on the technical ground of unlawful detention without a proper order of remand is liable to be cancelled?
  • Does the principle of consistency apply to grant bail to an accused whose police detention was lawful when co-accused were released solely due to lack of judicial remand?
  • Whether an unexplained delay in holding an identification test after an accused's arrest creates sufficient doubt to warrant further inquiry and the grant of bail?
  • Does the preparation of an identification test mashirnama by the investigating officer vitiate the validity of the identification parade?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs Shah Bux and others1987 P Cr. L J 2337 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-12Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan and others vs The State1987 MLD 857 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali Shah vs K.A. Farooqi1987 MLD 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-16Read full judgment →
• Ajab Khan And 3 Others vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1996-11-18Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Mahmood vs Shaikh Muhammad Jamil and anothers1987 PLD Karachi 546 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Mahmood vs Shaikh Muhammad Jamil And Another1987 PLD Karachi 546 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain vs Mst.Safia Begum and others1987 MLD 2994 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1363 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Tanveer vs Hakim Bakers and Confectioners1987 MLD 2092 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-14Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Khan And 2 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Fahim. Tariq vs The District and Sessions Judge Karachi and others1987 MLD 3006 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ahmed and 2 others vs Pakistah through the Secretary, Ministry of Production, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad and 2 others1987 MLD 572 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-25Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali vs Noor Muhammad and 8 others1987 CLC 1575 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmadulhaq Siddiqui vs Bashir Ahmed1987 CLC 2536 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Nasir Khan vs Khalifa Fateh Muhammad1987 MLD 244 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Khan Langhah and another vs Mst. Hufza Begum by L.Rs.1987 MLD 259 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ahmad And Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 884 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-23Read full judgment →
• Afzal Khan and 6 others vs United Bank Limited1987 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-13Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmad Shaikh, Advocate vs The Deputy Director, Electricity, WAPDA and 2 others1987 CLC 643 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-22Read full judgment →
• Adil Muhammad Khan vs Government of Sind and 3 others1987 MLD 483 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-07Read full judgment →
• Adam Limited vs Messrs Gulf Trading Co.1987 MLD 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-17Read full judgment →
• Adam And 3 Others vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 422 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-27Read full judgment →
• Abubakar Saley Mayet vs Abbot Laboratories and another1987 CLC 367 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01
  institution of suitcorporation pleadingauthorizationpower of attorneysubsequent ratificationrecovery suitburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, which decreed a recovery suit in favor of the plaintiff against the defendants jointly and severally. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was validly instituted by a competent person on behalf of the corporate plaintiff under Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, whether a company can orally authorize a person to institute a suit, and whether the plaintiff successfully established the delivery of goods and liability against the appellant. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was instituted by a person lacking valid authorization, as Order XXIX only governs the signing and verification of pleadings rather than the institution of suits, verbal authorization by directors is insufficient without backing from the Articles of Association, and subsequent ratification cannot cure an initial lack of authority or revive a time-barred action. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to prove on merits that goods were delivered to the appellant or that any business relationship existed between the defendants. The court laid down the principle that a suit instituted by an unauthorized person is a nullity, and an agent must possess valid, formally conferred authority in accordance with the company's constitutional documents at the time of institution.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XXIX Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 empower a person to institute a suit on behalf of a corporation or is it strictly limited to signing and verifying pleadings?
  • Can a company validly authorize a person orally or through verbal instructions of directors to institute legal proceedings?
  • Does a subsequent ratification by a company cure the initial illegality of a suit instituted by an unauthorized person?
  • Is a suit instituted by a person lacking proper legal authority considered a nullity in the eye of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 674 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abu Bak Ar vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 674 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abrar Hussain Qureshi vs Mst. Irshad Begum1987 MLD 3014 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abrar Ahmad vs Mst. Shah Jehan Begum and 4 others1987 MLD 262 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-08Read full judgment →
• Abm and others vs Heer Bai1987 CLC 692 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdus Samad and another vs Collector, Customs, and others1987 MLD 858 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1987 MLD 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Highway Goods Transport1987 CLC 144 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-01Read full judgment →
• Abdullah vs Abdur Razak1987 MLD 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Saeed vs Canno N Rubber Limited and another1987 MLD 2583(2) · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-01Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Khan through his L.Rs. vs Member Judicial, Board of Revenue1987 CLC 994 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdullah alias Haji Ishaque vs The State1987 MLD 1232 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 344 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad vs Chairman, District Council and, another1987 MLD 3204 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1987 MLD 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property Board and others1987 CLC 2220 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and 2 others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and 3 Others1987 PLD Karachi 350 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq And 2 Other vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad And 3 Other1987 PLD Karachi 350 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. and 7 others1987 MLD 1420 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq Tahir vs Muhammad Sabir Butt And 2 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2276 · Sindh High Court · 1987-07-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1355(1) · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Mst.Afsari Begum1987 MLD 2966 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1987 MLD 849 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khalid and others vs Province of Sind and another1987 PLD Karachi 394 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khalid And Other vs Province of Sind And Another1987 PLD Karachi 394 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid And 2 Others vs The State and another1987 P Cr. L J 1380 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-26
  quashment of proceedingscivil nature of disputecheatingcriminal breach of trustmala fide complaintrecovery of moneyinherent powers of High Court
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against the applicants under Sections 420, 406, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the applicants purchased buffaloes, paid only a fraction of the agreed price, and subsequently admitted they had no intention of paying the balance. The core legal question was whether a dispute arising from a sale transaction involving non-payment of price constitutes a criminal offence of cheating or misappropriation, or if it is purely a civil liability. The Court held that the dispute was essentially of a civil nature, noting the absence of criminal intent at the inception of the transaction and the mala fide nature of the complaint, which was filed after significant delay and appeared to be motivated by ulterior motives. Consequently, the Court quashed the criminal proceedings, ruling that the appropriate remedy for the recovery of the outstanding balance was a civil suit rather than criminal prosecution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere failure to pay the balance price in a sale transaction constitute the offence of cheating under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Is a complaint alleging criminal intent at the inception of a contract maintainable when the transaction is purely commercial and lacks evidence of initial dishonesty?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahman vs Messrs Essoeastern Incorporation And 2 Others1987 PLC 386 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1344 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs S . a . S Alim1987 CLC 359 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Messrs. General Marine Service and 2 others1987 MLD 2935 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Meharban Ali1987 MLD 657 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qudoos vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum- vs The State Opponent1987 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayyum vs The State1987 PLD Karachi 384 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2271 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir and another vs Khan Muhammad1987 MLD 2100 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadeer vs S. Azeemuddin Ahmad1987 CLC 2347 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-06
  first rent appealpersonal requirementbona fide needeviction of tenantsuppression of material factslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, allowing the respondent landlord's eviction application against the appellant tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The appellant challenged the eviction order, contending that the respondent failed to establish his bona fide requirement and had suppressed material facts regarding the ownership of other properties. The core legal questions revolved around whether the landlord successfully proved his personal requirement and whether alleged suppression of material facts vitiated the eviction proceedings. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord's oath regarding his personal requirement, supported by consistent pleadings and unshakeable cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide. The court laid down the principle that a landlord's assertion on oath for personal requirement is accepted if consistent and unshaken, and mere ownership of other property in the same urban area does not automatically disentitle a landlord from seeking eviction on personal grounds unless lack of bona fides is affirmatively established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's unshakeable statement on oath regarding personal requirement is sufficient to establish bona fide need?
  • Does mere ownership of property in the same urban area bar a landlord from seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement?
  • What is the legal effect of the suppression of a material fact in an eviction application based on personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen vs Dr.Gul Bano and others1987 MLD 870 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2002 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed represented by Legal Heirs vs Lutfi Siddiqui and 2 others1987 CLC 455 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul M Ajeed vs M.T. Romana and others1987 CLC 2352 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1987 MLD 1033 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Munir Ahmad1987 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs Munir Ahmad Opponent1987 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Messrs. Shahid Muneer Factory1987 MLD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1987 MLD 1596 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 44 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Muhammad Fahim Azhar1987 MLD 667 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hussain Khan Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Muhammad1987 CLC 499 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haque and another vs Pakistan Railway Telecommunication1987 MLD 898 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim vs Umran Khan1987 MLD 2378 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hai vs Mst. Haseena Khatoon and 2 others1987 CLC 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hafeez Pirzada vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 2415 · Sindh High Court · 1987-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Begum Parveen Iqbal1987 CLC 1670 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani Kashmiri vs Abdullah Jan1987 MLD 456 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State-1987 P Cr. L J 1146 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor Khan vs Shakeel Ahmed Siddiqui and 9 others1987 MLD 662 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and another vs The State1987 MLD 1455 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Noor Jahan Malik1987 CLC 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-04
  fair rent fixationrent controllerSind Rented Premises Ordinancelandlord-tenant disputeevidentiary value of rent agreementssimilar premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller fixing the fair rent of residential premises in Karachi. The central legal question was whether the Rent Controller could rely upon rent agreements of other premises located within the same building to determine the fair rent of the disputed premises under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court dismissed the tenant's appeal, affirming the Rent Controller's decision to fix the rent at Rs. 900 per month. The Court held that evidence of rent for similar premises situated within the same building constitutes the most reliable and evidentiary factor for determining fair rent. Such evidence is superior to comparisons with premises in different buildings, as the same building inherently satisfies the requirement of being in the same locality and circumstances. The Court clarified that the Rent Controller is not restricted from considering such internal evidence when applying the statutory criteria for rent fixation.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller consider rent agreements of other premises located within the same building when fixing fair rent?
  • Does the term 'similar premises' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, exclude premises situated within the same building?
  • Is evidence of rent for other units in the same building superior to evidence from adjoining localities for the purpose of fair rent fixation?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. And Others1987 PLC 697 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16
  workman definitionindustrial relationssupervisory dutiesmanual labourskilled workgrievance petitionlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had overturned a Labour Court's decision reinstating the petitioner, an Assistant Foreman, after his dismissal. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, despite holding a supervisory position, qualified as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, thereby entitling him to seek redress for grievance under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court held that the petitioner was indeed a 'workman.' The court reasoned that the definition of 'workman' in the 1968 Ordinance does not exclude employees solely because they perform supervisory functions. Instead, the determination rests on whether the employee performs skilled or manual work. Finding that the petitioner’s duties as an Assistant Foreman required both technical skill and manual labor to guide subordinates, the court concluded he fell within the statutory definition. The principle established is that supervisory status does not preclude 'workman' status if the nature of the duties involves substantial skilled or manual labor.

  Questions settled

  • Does the performance of supervisory duties automatically exclude an employee from the definition of 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Which statutory definition of 'workman' applies when seeking redress for dismissal under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Is an Assistant Foreman who performs technical guidance and manual work considered a 'workman' for the purposes of labour laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Hussain Bux and another1987 PLD Karachi 694 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Khan vs Ikhtiar Ahmed Ghaznavi1987 CLC 1399 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar Abdul Rehman vs Messrs Volkart Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others1987 MLD 2085 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1987 MLD 1465 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State and another1987 MLD 3187 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Syed Shamim Ahmad1987 CLC 2527 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Noor Muhammad and others1987 MLD 2343 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Tayeb vs Jawaid Garments Industries1987 CLC 2282 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →