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.

• Mst. Nasim Alias Shamoo vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 229 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Nasera Begum vs Vith Additional District Judge, Karachi and 21986 MLD 1491 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Naseem Akhtar vs Murad Ali And Others1986 P Cr. L J 1824 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Musarrat Fatima vs District Magistrate, Hyderabad And 2 Others1986 P Cr. L J 2436 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mukhtar Begum vs Ismail1986 MLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Momin Bai vs Mst. Ayeshabai and 3 others1986 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-25Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mariam vs Maulana Ismail and another1986 MLD 2027 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahrukh Jahan Begum vs Yawar Hussain1986 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mst. Mahmooda Begum vs Amiruddin And Another1986 P Cr. L J 1701 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kulsoom vs Habib Public School and 2 others1986 MLD 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mst. Kubri Bibi vs Mst. Habiba1986 MLD 332 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khursheed vs Abdul Aziz1986 MLD 933 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jaina Hajiani and 3 others vs Mst. Amina Bai-1986 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-24Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husna Petitioner vs Mushtaq Ali1986 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mst. Haleema Sultana vs The Rent Controller and another1986 MLD 2018 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajiani Khatija Bai and 11 others vs Estate Officer, Government of Sind, Karachi and 2 others1986 MLD 2960 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mst. Faridunnisa vs Mian Abdul Hafeez1986 MLD 843 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farah Shahwar vs Nayyar Khan1986 MLD 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Faiyazi Begum And Others vs Zakiuddin1986 C L C1280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bilqees Fatima vs Abdul Razzaq1986 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-05
  summary suitleave to appear and defenddishonoured chequesordinary summonsmandatory provisionswritten statementCode of Civil Procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a summary suit under Order XXXVII, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for the recovery of Rs. 1,30,000 based on dishonoured cheques. However, due to the plaintiff's failure to supply the proper draft form, ordinary summons under Order V of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were issued to the defendant instead of the special summary procedure summons. The core legal question was whether a defendant can be required to file an application for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII, Rule 3 when ordinary summons were erroneously issued. The court held that since the summary procedure summons requirement is mandatory and penal in nature, its strict compliance is a prerequisite; therefore, where ordinary summons are issued, the defendant cannot be required to seek leave to defend, and the written statement filed by the defendant shall be accepted on record. The key principle laid down is that the mandatory provisions regarding the issuance of specific summary procedure summons must be strictly fulfilled before a defendant can be penalized or required to seek leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant be required to seek leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 when ordinary summons were issued instead of the prescribed summary form?
  • Is the requirement of issuing a special form of summons under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 mandatory?
  • What are the legal consequences when a plaintiff fails to supply the proper draft form of summons for a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bibi Shamim Fatima vs Abdul Ghafoor and 4 others1986 MLD 1609 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwari Begum vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum1986 MLD 1169 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Anwar Fatima and 5 Others vs Muhammad Ali Mutlaq1986 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-30Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ameer Fatima vs Karachi Cantonment Board and 5 others1986 MLD 1431 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mst. Aisha Bai through Legal Heirs vs Mst. Mobin Khatoon1986 MLD 992 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-03Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sher Bano and 6 others vs Kelli Patel and 2 others1986 MLD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Nargis Khan vs The District Magistrate, Karachi East and 2 others1986 MLD 2553 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Hamida Habib Patel vs Mrs. Ayesha Islam1986 MLD 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Aqila Rafique vs The Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd., Karachi And 3 Others1986 PLC 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-24Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux And Others vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Moosa Khan vs Mrs. Khairunnisa Yaqoob and 2 others1986 MLD 290 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-02Read full judgment →
• Moosa and another vs The State1986 MLD 1080 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 1158 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-15Read full judgment →
• Mohabat Khan vs Muhammad Ashraf and 5 others1986 MLD 1909 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-01Read full judgment →
• Moghal Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Collector of Customs1986 MLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-28
  customs valuationimport valuedeclared valueprinciples of natural justiceremandCustoms Act 1969
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a cigarette manufacturer, imported a second-hand reconditioned cigarette machine and declared its import value as Rs. 3,73,136. The Customs Authorities rejected this valuation and arbitrarily assessed the import value at Rs. 10,00,000, an assessment upheld by the Collector of Customs on appeal without citing supporting evidence. The petitioner challenged this order through a constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court. The core legal question was whether the customs valuation could be arbitrarily fixed at a higher amount without disclosing or relying upon tangible evidence, and without affording the aggrieved party an opportunity of rebuttal. The Court held that the impugned valuation order was passed without any proper basis or documentary material, in violation of the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate order, remanded the matter back to the Collector of Customs for a fresh decision after providing a fair hearing and access to any material relied upon, and laid down the principle that any enhancement of declared import value by customs authorities must be grounded in disclosed evidence and subject to the right of rebuttal by the importer.

  Questions settled

  • Can customs authorities arbitrarily fix the import value of machinery without relying on tangible evidence?
  • Does an order enhancing the declared import value violate natural justice if the material used against the importer is not disclosed?
  • Whether an appellate customs order that fails to specify the basis for valuation is sustainable in law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mobinul Haq Siddiqui and another vs Mrs. Hajra Farooqui and 3 others1986 MLD 1920 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mobinul Haq Siddiqi and Another vs MRS. Hajra Farooqi and 3 Others1986 PLD Karachi 358 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-23Read full judgment →
• Miyoon And Others vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate1986 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
• Miss Farah Deedar vs Ch. Airman P.R.C. Appellate Committee and others1986 MLD 2429 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-14Read full judgment →
• Mirza Shah Nawaz Agha vs Iqbal Aziz Khan and 3 others1986 MLD 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-24Read full judgment →
• Mirza Saleem Baig vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-10Read full judgment →
• Mirza Abdul Aziz vs Mushtaq Ahmad Sheikh1986 MLD 741 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mir Sobh an and 3 others vs Syed Ishrat Hussain Shah and another1986 MLD 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Mir Ajab Khan vs The State-1986 P Cr. L J 780 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs. S. Khalid Ebrahim & Co. vs Collector Of Customs (Appraise-Ment)PTCL 1986 CL. 45 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs. Abdul Ghaffar Kasam vs Messrs Adamjee Insurance Company1986 MLD 1392 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Yousuf Re-Rolling Mills vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi And AnotherPTCL 1986 CL. 253 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Wurttembergische Parfumerie GMBH vs The Assistant1986 PLD Karachi 371 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs World Wide Trading Co. vs Sanyo Electic Trading Co. Ltd. and Anothers1986 PLD Karachi 234 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-22
  temporary injunctionagency agreementagency coupled with interestrevocation of agencyexclusive distributorshipbalance of convenienceirreparable loss
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the plaintiff to suspend the operation of notices terminating its exclusive agency and distributorship agreements and to restrain the defendants from giving effect to them or appointing alternative agents. The core legal questions concerned whether the arrangement constituted an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, whether the agency was revocable, and whether the plaintiff made out a prima facie case for the grant of an interim injunction. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff was primarily a sole purchaser rather than an agent under Section 182 of the Contract Act 1872, that the contract was not an agency coupled with an interest, and that the balance of convenience and potential damages rendered interim relief inappropriate. The court laid down that mere exclusive purchasing rights and commercial investments do not constitute an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202, and that interlocutory injunctions will not be granted to maintain commercial supply contracts where damages provide an adequate remedy.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an exclusive distributorship agreement where the distributor purchases goods for resale constitutes an agency under Section 182 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Under what circumstances can an agency be classified as an agency coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a temporary injunction be granted to restrain the unilateral termination of a commercial agency or distributorship contract that is revocable under its terms?
  • Whether the provisions of the Contract Act 1872 relating to the law of agency are exhaustive of all commercial arrangements?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waseem Traders vs Government Of PakistanPTCL 1986 CL. 76 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd.s vs Messrs Mujahid Transport and 5 Others1986 PLD Karachi 107 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs The Executive Committee, Jamia Masjid Falah, Gizri, Karachi and another1986 MLD 294 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs President, Bazm-E-Salat and Another1986 PLD Katachi 464 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-28
  inchoate instrumentpromissory notereasonable timelimitationpersonal guaranteerecovery suitmaterial alterationtime-barred debt
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns the recovery of money by a bank based on a promissory note and a letter of guarantee executed by the defendants. The defendants contested the suit, arguing it was time-barred, that the promissory note was a forgery due to unauthorized completion of blank spaces, and that the guarantee was invalid. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff could complete an inchoate promissory note after the death of an executant, whether such completion was within a reasonable time, and whether the guarantee remained enforceable. The court held that the suit was within time. It ruled that under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, the holder of an inchoate instrument has statutory authority to complete it within a reasonable time, which was satisfied here. Furthermore, the court affirmed that a time-barred debt can constitute valid consideration for a new promise under Section 25 of the Contract Act 1872. The court concluded that the defendants were jointly and severally liable for the debt, rejecting the defense of material alteration and uncertainty.

  Questions settled

  • Does the death of an executant invalidate the authority of the holder to complete an inchoate promissory note under Section 20 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • What constitutes a reasonable time for completing an inchoate negotiable instrument?
  • Can a time-barred debt serve as valid consideration for a new promise under Section 25 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does the filling in of blank spaces in a promissory note by the creditor constitute a material alteration that vitiates the instrument?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Bombay Frontier Old Tyre Co. and another1986 MLD 1613 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Ali Vehicles and 2 others1986 MLD 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Haji Hasham1986 MLD 54 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs the Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Eastern Plywood1986 MLD 1339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Mahal Hotels Ltd. vs Karachi Water and Sewerage Board1986 MLD 1277 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Singer Sewing Machine Co. vs Abdulla Hjan1986 MLD 1404 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sikandar and Brothers vs Government of Pakistan through Member (Judicial) Central Board of Revenue and Another1986 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28
  customs misdeclarationshow-cause noticeseizure of goodsmens rea in custom offencesillegal importconfiscation of goodsProvisional Constitution Order
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981 sought to challenge the orders of the Customs authorities and the Central Board of Revenue confiscating imported goods and imposing a personal penalty for misdeclaration and illegal import of unlicenced items. The core legal questions involved whether a show-cause notice under section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 is invalid if not issued within the sixty-day period specified in section 168(2) of the said Act, and whether proof of mens rea or guilty knowledge is an essential prerequisite for establishing an offence under section 32 and section 156 of the Customs Act 1969. The Sindh High Court held that the sixty-day limitation period under section 168(2) applies only to the seizure of goods and does not curtail or govern the time limit for issuing a show-cause notice under section 180, which prescribes no specific time limit. The Court further held that mens rea or guilty knowledge is not a necessary ingredient for contravention of section 32 read with section 156 of the Customs Act 1969, as the statutory scheme imposes absolute liability for misdeclaration and evasion of import controls. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a show-cause notice issued under section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 is rendered illegal if it is issued beyond the sixty-day period prescribed for the seizure of goods under section 168(2) of the said Act?
  • Does section 180 of the Customs Act 1969 prescribe any strict time limit for the issuance of a show-cause notice for the confiscation of goods or imposition of a penalty?
  • Whether proof of mens rea or guilty knowledge is a necessary legal requirement for establishing an offence under section 32 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the statutory scheme of section 156 of the Customs Act 1969 create an absolute liability for the importation of unlicenced or misdeclared goods independent of the importer's intention?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Salim Industries Ltd. vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 31986 MLD 118 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs S.M. Sadiq vs Collector Of Customs And OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 30 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Riaz Enterprises Ltd. vs National Shipping Corporation and others1986 MLD 635 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Razzak Industries Employees Union (C.B.a) vs Second Sind1986 PLC 109 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Raleigh Investment Co. Limited vs Commissioner of Income TaxPTCL 1986 CL. 194 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Pak International Goods Transport Co. (Regd.) vs Messrs Adam1986 MLD 1258 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs New Snow-White Dry Cleaners vs The Commissioner Of Income-PTCL 1986 CL. 123 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs National Insurance Corporation vs Messrs Pakistan National1986 MLD 1885 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Cement Industries Limited vs National Industrial1986 PLC 105 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-14
  constitutional petitiontransfer orderinterim stayunfair labour practicejurisdictiontrade union
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the employer, Messrs National Cement Industries Limited, challenging an ad interim order of the National Industrial Relations Commission (N.I.R.C.) which suspended the transfer order of an employee. The employer contended that the N.I.R.C. lacked jurisdiction because the interim order was passed without prior notice, the transfer had already been implemented, and there was no case of unfair labour practice to attract Regulation 32 of the N.I.R.C. Regulations. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the N.I.R.C. possessed the requisite jurisdiction to entertain the application and grant interim relief. The Court observed that prior notice is not mandatory for ad interim orders, the employer failed to prove that the employee had actually been relieved of his charge before approaching the Commission, and the timing of the transfer (two days after the employee's election as Union President) prima facie indicated a case of unfair labour practice. The Court ruled that where jurisdiction exists, any grievance against an interim order must be agitated before the Full Bench of the Commission under Section 22-D of the Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the National Industrial Relations Commission have jurisdiction to pass an ad interim stay order without prior notice to the employer?
  • Can an employer challenge an interim order of a Single Bench of the N.I.R.C. directly in constitutional jurisdiction without exhausting the statutory remedy of appeal before the Full Bench under Section 22-D of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Whether a transfer order issued immediately after an employee's election to a trade union office constitutes sufficient material to invoke the N.I.R.C.'s jurisdiction regarding unfair labour practices.
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Bank of Credit and Commerce1986 MLD 45 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Bakhsh & Sons Ltd. and another vs Azhar Wali1986 MLD 1870 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-09
  appointment of receivertemporary injunctionfiduciary relationshipdirector's liabilitypassing offcorporate veilprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves applications for temporary injunctions and the appointment of a Receiver in a suit instituted by a private limited company and its majority shareholder against former directors and a newly incorporated competing entity. The core legal questions concern whether a prima facie case of fraud, breach of fiduciary duty, and misappropriation warrants the appointment of a receiver over a corporate entity and the issuance of interim injunctions against passing off and conducting competing business. The Sindh High Court held that directors occupy a fiduciary position akin to trustees regarding company assets and funds, and where serious allegations of clandestine transfer of business and assets are established at the interlocutory stage, the court possesses ample power under the Companies Act and Companies Ordinance to appoint a receiver and restrain unfair trade practices. The court laid down the principle that courts will pierce the corporate veil to prevent a company from being used as a device to mask business operations in violation of agreements or fiduciary duties, and that a registered company can be restrained from using a deceptively similar name to pass off its business as that of another.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a court has the jurisdiction under the Companies Act and Companies Ordinance to appoint a receiver over a subsequently incorporated company pending the final decision of a suit?
  • What is the nature of the fiduciary relationship between the directors and a company regarding its assets, funds, and business opportunities?
  • Can a company be restrained from carrying on business under a name that is deceptively similar or nearly identical to that of an existing registered company?
  • On what grounds will a court pierce the corporate veil to treat a newly incorporated company as a mere device or mask for a former employee or director?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Aqil & Sons vs Mushtaq Ahmed Allahwala and 31986 MLD 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mack Industries vs Haji Abdul Karim and 9 others1986 MLD 1595 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs L.P.G. Marketing Company Ltd. vs Messrs Indus Gas Company Ltd.1986 MLD 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kundi Services Ltd. vs The United Bank Ltd.1986 MLD 2661 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kohinoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Gharo Textile Mills Ltd.PLD 1986 Karachi 157(2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Textile Dyeing and Printing Works vs Abdul Majeed And 2 Others1986 PLC 714 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Port Trust vs Messrs Golden Plastics Ltd.1986 MLD 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs International Development Associates Ltd. vs Shaheen1986 MLD 1753 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hussain Corporation Ltd. vs Messrs H Abib Bank Ltd.1986 MLD 344 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Plaza International vs Pakistan Television Corporation1986 PLD Karachi 432 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hassan Brothers & Company vs Messrs Maqbool Cotton1986 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Javed vs The State1986 MLD 1206 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hafiz Textile Mills. Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan1986 MLD 206 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gum International Ltd vs Collector Of Customs, Karachi And 2 OtherPTCL 1986 CL. 88 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Farrukh Chemical Indus-Tries Limited vs The Commissioner Of Income Tax (South Zone), KarachiPTCL 1986 CL. 224 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Eastern Express Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Tariq Hameed1986 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1985-10-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delhi Fine Art Press vs Mst. Salama Begum1986 MLD 368 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dada Sons. vs Commissioner Of Income TaxPTCL 1986 CL. 339 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Buckwell Co. Ltd. vs Spencer & Co.(Pakistan) Ltd.1986 MLD 2964 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bhabha Ltd. vs Messrs United Oriental Steamship Co.1986 MLD 1350 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Awami Autos Ltd vs Assistant Collector Of CustomsPTCL 1986 CL. 35 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Associated Wine Merchants vs Messrs Hotel Metropole Ltd.1986 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Anno R Textile Mills Ltd. vs Messrs SH. Ishfaq and 2 others1986 MLD 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Tahir Traders and 81986 PLD Karachi 369 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-12
  banking suitrecovery of loanservice of summonslimitationcondonation of delaysubstituted serviceleave to defend
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 by defendants seeking condonation of delay in filing an application for leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The plaintiff, a banking company, had filed a recovery suit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. Summonses were issued simultaneously through three modes under Rule 8 of the Rules framed under the Ordinance: publication, bailiff, and registered post. The publication occurred on November 29, 1985, while personal service via the bailiff was effected on January 4, 1986. The defendants filed their leave application on January 11, 1986. The High Court of Sindh held that where summonses are served on different dates through multiple modes, the period of limitation under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 must be computed from the latest date of service. Consequently, the application was within time from the date of bailiff service, rendering the condonation application an act of abundant caution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere publication of summons under Rule 8 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules constitutes proper service if other modes are not successfully executed?
  • How should the period of limitation for filing a leave to defend application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be computed when service of summons is effected on different dates through multiple modes?
  • Does the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 completely exclude the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the service of summons?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abaseen International Ltd. vs Additional Controller of Rent, Clifton Cantonment, Karachi 'and Another1986 PLD Karachi 365 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
• MESERs Sterling Engineering Corporation vs The Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1986 PLD Karachi 211 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-14
  regulatory dutycustoms dutytaxing statuteinterpretation of statutesFirst Schedulead valoremprotective dutiesfiscal law
  Summary & questions settled

  This full bench of the Sindh High Court was constituted to resolve a conflict of decisions regarding the interpretation of section 18(2) of the Customs Act, 1969, specifically whether the Federal Government is empowered under the second part of the subsection to impose a regulatory duty at a rate not exceeding 100% of the value of articles on all or any articles specified in the First Schedule, even if a rate is already specified therein. The core legal question revolved around whether the two parts of section 18(2) are disjunctive and give the Federal Government an independent option to levy regulatory duty under either part, or if the second part is restricted only to items where no rate is specified in the schedule. The court held that the Federal Government has the discretion to levy regulatory duty either under the first part (up to 50% of the specified rate read with protective duties) or under the second part (up to 100% of the value under section 25) for any articles specified in the First Schedule. The key principles laid down are that taxing statutes must be strictly construed according to the letter of the law and plain language, that the word "or" in section 18(2) has an alternative and disjunctive significance, and that the word "such" refers back to the articles mentioned in the preceding part without restricting the government's fiscal powers.

  Questions settled

  • Whether under subsection (2) of section 18 of the Customs Act 1969, the Federal Government can impose a regulatory duty at a rate exceeding 50% of the rate specified in the First Schedule?
  • Does the second part of section 18(2) of the Customs Act 1969 empower the Federal Government to levy a regulatory duty up to 100% of the value of articles determined under section 25 independently of whether a rate is already specified in the First Schedule?
  • How should the word "or" appearing in section 18(2) of the Customs Act 1969 be construed with respect to the powers of the Federal Government?
  • What are the established principles for interpreting taxing and fiscal statutes regarding the strict construction of the letter of the law?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehran Construction Company vs Federal Construction1986 MLD 1408 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-28Read full judgment →
• Mehmood vs The State1986 P Cr. L J 360 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-12Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Habibullah vs Khawaja Samiul Hassan and another1986 MLD 1450 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →