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.

• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and ANOTHERs vs Zamir Ahmed1985 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Fishermen's Cooperative Society Ltd., Karachi vs The Zakaria Corporation, Karachi1985 CLC 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Fishermen's Cooperative Society Ltd. vs The Zakaria1985 CLC 1463 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• The Karachi Fishermen's Cooperative Society Limited vs The Zakaria1985 CLC 2410 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Wealth Tax, Karachi (East) vs K.R. Byramji1985 PTD 24 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Sales Tax/Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi. vsPTCL 1985 (CL.) 460 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax/Imcome-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi1985 PTD 312 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax,Karachi (West). Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 198 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, West Zone, Karachi vs Messrs Sind1985 PTD 515 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Messrs Mazhir &1985 PTD 144 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Fazal1985 PTD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West Zone), Karachi vs Faqir Muhammad1985 PTD 28 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, East Zone, Karachi vs Atta1985 PTD 874 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, (West Zone), Karachi vs Abdullah1985 PTD 188 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Smith Kline & French of Pakistan Ltd1985 PTD 297 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Reckitt & Colman of Pakistan Ltd1985 PTD 298 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Pakistan Progressive1985 PTD 359 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax Sales Tax, East Zone, Karachi vs Messrs 0. K. Motors1985 PTD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West Zone), Karachi vs A. J.1985 PTD 508 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income-Tax (Investigation), Lahore. vs Soli M.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 467 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Investigation), Lahore vs Soli M.1985 PTD 401 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-19Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (East Zone) Karachi and Another vs Messrs Muhammadi Re-Rolling Mills, Old Haji Camp, Karachi, .(1985 PTD 767 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 509 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 662 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 653 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-25Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax. vs M/s. Smith Kline & French Of PakistanPTCL 1985 (CL) 60 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Fazal PeeraPTCL 1985 (CL.) 208 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi (West Zone), Karachi. vs FaqirPTCL 1985 (CL.) 154 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of 1Ncome-Tax vs Messrs Ciba (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi1985 PTD 651 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-10Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of .Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi vs Messrs1985 PTD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
• The Commisioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Ismail Adamjee1985 PTD 157 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
• Tauqir Alam and 9 others vs The State1985 MLD 604 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Tauqeer Hyder vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 927 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-11Read full judgment →
• Tariq Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 996 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Tanzeem-E-Nau Brotheran-E-Quraish vs Martin Fialho through his1985 MLD 332 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tanveer Husain alias Bhaiya and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 266 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-27Read full judgment →
• Talib vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2025 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-05Read full judgment →
• Tahir Shaikh vs Ahmad A. Dama1985 CLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• T.M. Mullick vs Sultana Begum1985 CLC 2001 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• T Aju Ddin vs Haji Mushtaque and another1985 CLC 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05
  interim injunctiondesign infringementregistered designnoveltypatents and designscopyright in design
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved an application for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from infringing the plaintiff's registered design for bronze coffee pots under the Patents and Designs Act, 1911. The core legal question was whether an interlocutory injunction should be granted in an infringement action where the defendants bona fide challenge the validity and novelty of a recently registered design obtained ex parte without prior notice. The Sindh High Court dismissed the application for injunction, holding that where the validity of a recent design registration is seriously and bona fide contested on grounds that it is neither new nor original nor previously unpublished, the ex parte registration loses its initial evidentiary impact, and an interlocutory injunction ought not to be issued. The court reasoned that balancing the injury, the plaintiff could be adequately compensated through accounts of profits if the suit succeeded, whereas the defendants would suffer irreparable injury if a monopoly were wrongly enforced pendente lite. The key principle laid down is that courts will refuse temporary injunctions in design infringement suits involving recent, ex parte registrations when the defendant raises a credible challenge to the novelty and validity of the design.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an interlocutory injunction can be granted in an action for the infringement of a design when the defendant bona fide challenges the validity and novelty of a recent registration?
  • Does an ex parte registration of a design under the Patents and Designs Act create an absolute prima facie right to an interim injunction regardless of a challenge to its validity?
  • What is the effect of a challenge to the novelty or prior publication of a design on the evidentiary value of its registration at the interim stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Zamin Hussain Abidi vs Mst. Mubarak Bano and 2 others1985 CLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Zakir Hussain Mashhadi and 9 others vs Settlement Commissioner1985 MLD 1112 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Tasneem Hussain vs The Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1985 PLC 529 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Qamar Raza vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Noor Nabi Shah vs Vice-Chairman (Watch & Ward,P.W. Railway)1985 PLC (C.S.) 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Noor Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2563 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Mujtaba Hussain Abidi vs Ferozuddin Zakai1985 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-31Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Maqsood vs Naeem Ali Muhammad1985 CLC 3015 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17
  trademark infringementpassing offinterim injunctionprior userregistered proprietorintellectual propertylikelihood of confusion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order granting an interim injunction in a suit for trademark infringement and passing off. The appellant challenged the restraint on using a trade mark similar to the respondent's registered marks. The core legal question was whether the respondent, as the registered proprietor, was entitled to an interim injunction and whether the appellant had established a superior claim through prior user. The court held that the respondent, being the registered proprietor, established a prima facie case of infringement. The court found that the appellant’s evidence of prior user—consisting merely of two calendars—was insufficient to rebut the respondent's claim. Furthermore, the court observed that the similarities in calligraphy, get-up, and colour scheme were likely to cause confusion and deception in the mind of an unwary purchaser. Consequently, the court upheld the interim injunction, affirming that the registered proprietor's rights prevail absent compelling evidence of prior user by the defendant. The court also directed the trial court to expedite the disposal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can an interim injunction be granted in a trademark infringement suit where the plaintiff is the registered proprietor?
  • Does the production of minimal evidence, such as two calendars, suffice to establish prior user of a trademark against a registered proprietor?
  • Is a device common to the trade sufficient to defeat an infringement claim if the overall get-up and design cause confusion?
  • Can an appellate court maintain an interim injunction if the appellant fails to provide prima facie evidence of prior user?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Haider Rizvi vs The Province of Sind through Chief1985 CLC 2050 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffar Nizam vs Mrs. Munir Shafiuddin1985 CLC 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Ikramuddin Hyder vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2559 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Gulzar Hussain vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs The State and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 1572 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Razi Haider Naqvi and another vs Wasi Ali1985 CLC 2330 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshed Hussain and 7 others vs Settlement Commissioner (Land), Khairpur Division, Sukkur and 3 others1985 CLC 1692 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Ansar Hussain vs Syed Risalat Hussain and 10 others1985 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Anisijr Rahman vs Mst. Sara Bai1985 PLD Karachi 714 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30
  First Rent Appealpersonal bona fide requirementgood faithevictionlandlord and tenantburden of proofmala fides
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 was filed against the Rent Controller's order directing the tenant's eviction. The landlady sought eviction on the ground of personal bona fide requirement, claiming her son needed the shop to start an independent business. The tenant resisted, alleging that the application was a mala fide attempt to coerce a rent increase and seize a running business. The High Court analyzed the statutory requirement of "requires in good faith" under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance. It held that a mere vague assertion of intent to start a business, without specifying the nature of the business, financial means, or prior experience in the pleadings, is insufficient to establish bona fides. The Court emphasized that "good faith" must be evaluated objectively based on human probabilities and surrounding circumstances, rather than the landlord's mere ipse dixit. Finding the landlady's claim lacked genuine details and credibility, the Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's mere assertion of a desire to start a business for their child is sufficient to establish a "requirement in good faith" under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • How should a Rent Controller evaluate the credibility and bona fides of a landlord's claim for personal use when the pleadings lack specific details about the proposed business?
  • Does the failure of a landlord to specify the nature, experience, and financial means for a proposed business in an eviction application affect the genuineness of the claim of good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Altaf Shah vs Government of Sind through Chief Secretary and 51985 CLC 1624 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Altaf Hussain vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation1985 CLC 914 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Alimuddin Ahmad vs The State through the Federal Investigation1985 PLD Karachi 660 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Abu Jafer vs Shaikh Karim Bux-1985 CLC 1952 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdus Salam Zaidi vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 294 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
• Sultan vs Daryakhan and 5 others1985 MLD 177 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Press Ltd. vs Muhammad Hasan1985 PLD Karachi 624 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-01
  First Rent Appealpersonal requirementgood faitheviction applicationlandlord and tenantburden of proofSindh Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal under Section 21 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller granting an eviction application filed by the respondent landlord against the appellant tenant on the ground of personal bona fide requirement. The respondent sought possession of non-residential premises to open a motor training school. The High Court analyzed the legal requirements of Section 15(2)(vii) of the Ordinance, emphasizing that the burden lies on the landlord to prove that he requires the premises in good faith for his own reasonable need. The court observed that a landlord's mere ipse dixit or wish is insufficient; specific, consistent details and valid reasons must be presented. Upon reviewing the record, the High Court found contradictions in the landlord's evidence, failure to justify the prior sale of another property, and prolonged delay in seeking eviction. Consequently, the High Court held that the landlord failed to prove personal requirement in good faith, set aside the Rent Controller's order, and dismissed the eviction application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's mere ipse dixit is sufficient to prove personal requirement in good faith under Section 15(2)(vii) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • What details must a landlord place on record to satisfy the Rent Controller that his requirement for non-residential premises is bona fide?
  • Does shifting or contradictory evidence regarding personal use negate the landlord's claim of requiring premises in good faith?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Muhammad vs Syed Muhammad Ismail1985 MLD 1249 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Sultan and another vs Chat Anmal and 3 others1985 MLD 526 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad and 21 others vs Controller of Estate Duty and 9 others1985 CLC 565 · Sindh High Court · 1989-09-09Read full judgment →
• Tikam Das vs Saghair Ahmad Baig1985 MLD 947 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• State vs Khaliq Dad and ANOTHERs1985 PLD Karachi 4 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Wali Muhammad1985 CLC 2865 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Director of Labour, Sind and 5 others1985 CLC 945 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• St. John Ambulance Association (Pakistan) vs Pakistan Red-Cross1985 CLC 2146 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05
  amendment of written statementOrder VI Rule 17adverse possessionalternative pleasinconsistent pleasdelay and lachespleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This order disposes of a miscellaneous application filed by Defendant No. 2 under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to amend its written statement in a suit for ejectment and possession initiated by the plaintiff. The plaintiff claimed absolute ownership under a 1941 gift deed, while Defendant No. 2 originally defended as a co-beneficiary under the deed. Defendant No. 2 sought to add an alternative plea of adverse possession at an advanced stage after evidence had closed. The plaintiff resisted the amendment on grounds of inordinate delay, lateness, and inconsistency with the original defense.

  The Sindh High Court allowed the amendment, holding that inconsistent legal pleas based on non-contradictory factual allegations are permissible as alternative defenses. Inconsistency exists only where factual allegations are mutually destructive, not in alternative legal deductions drawn from the single factual state of continuous possession. Inordinate delay alone does not bar an amendment aimed at deciding real controversies, provided it can be compensated with costs.

  The court permitted the amendment subject to payment of Rs. 1,000 as costs within ten days.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant raise an alternative plea of adverse possession by amending the written statement after alleging title under a gift deed?
  • Does inordinate delay alone bar an application for amendment of pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What constitutes mutually destructive or inconsistent pleas in civil pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sohail Ahmad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2374 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-15Read full judgment →
• Sofia Wahab and others vs Mst. Zainab Begum1985 MLD 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Sofia Wahab and 4 others vs The Home Insurance Company Ltd. and 31985 CLC 1859 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Smt. Beena Kumari and 3 others vs Mahraj Saligram1985 CLC 2000 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
• Siraju Ddin vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2050 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees Social Security Institution vs Messrs Cowasjee & Sons1985 CLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Silver Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax,(West), Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL) 262 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Raees vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2709 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan vs Province of Sind and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 80 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad and others vs The Settlement Commissioner of Sind1985 MLD 533 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
• Sher Khan vs Regional Transport Authority and 4 Others1985 PLD Karachi 614 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1644 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-29Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Yousuf Zaman and 2 other1985 MLD 855 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-23Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Haider vs Abdur Rahim1985 CLC 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Shamim Siddiqui vs Government of Pakistan and others1985 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed Khan vs The State1985 MLD 851 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
• Shaman and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Shaman alias Ghulam Rasool and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 583 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
• Shakil Ahmed vs A. Aziz1985 MLD 589 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
• Shakil Ahmad vs The State1985 MLD 1403 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shakeel Abbas vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Department of Health,Karachi and 2 others1985 CLC 2407 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-14Read full judgment →
• Shajar Ali Hoti vs Esmail Sobhani1985 CLC 342 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04
  specific performanceagreement of saleconcluded contractessential termssale considerationearnest moneyad idem
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit for the specific performance of an alleged agreement of sale concerning immovable property. The core legal question is whether a receipt acknowledging the payment of earnest money, which omits essential terms such as the sale consideration and completion timeline, constitutes a binding and concluded agreement of sale, and whether parties were ad idem. The Sindh High Court held that the document relied upon by the plaintiff was merely a receipt and did not constitute a concluded contract because it lacked the essential term of sale consideration, and the parties were not of one mind. The court established the key principle that sale consideration is an essential term of a contract of sale, and in its absence, no binding agreement of sale can legally come into existence, nor can a subsequent unilateral offer by a plaintiff to pay a higher amount cure the initial lack of consensus.

  Questions settled

  • Does a receipt for earnest money that omits the sale consideration constitute a binding agreement of sale?
  • Can a suit for specific performance be decreed when the parties were not ad idem on the essential terms of the contract?
  • Can a plaintiff's belated offer during trial to pay the defendant'cure the absence of a settled sale consideration in the initial agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Ismail vs Mst. Mahboob Bi1985 MLD 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-05Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Haji Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Yousuf Zaman and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 694 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-24Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Haji Ali Muhammad vs Muhammad Yousif Zaman and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 657 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Malik vs Muhammad Ashfaq and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-01Read full judgment →
• Shahriyar Ali Patudi and 3 OTHERs vs Messrs Decora Furnishers1985 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentbona fide personal usewaivergift under Muslim Lawdelivery of possessionnotice of change of ownership
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the appellants against the respondent tenant in respect of a commercial building in Karachi on the grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal use for a partnership business. The Rent Controller dismissed the application, holding that no default occurred, no bona fide need was established, and a statutory notice under section 13-A was required. The core legal questions involved the necessity of a section 13-A notice where the property was gifted prior to tenancy, whether the tenant could challenge the gift's delivery of possession, the validity of lump-sum rent payments, and whether the landlord waived any default by withdrawing deposited rent and remaining silent. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, holding that a pre-tenancy gift requires no section 13-A notice, a third-party tenant cannot challenge the delivery of possession in a valid oral gift, delayed rent payments do not establish a legal practice contrary to statute, and an unreasonable delay by the landlord in taking action after withdrawing deposited rent constitutes an implied waiver of that specific default. However, the appellants successfully established their bona fide personal requirement for the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a notice under section 13-A of the Rent Restriction Ordinance is necessary when the transfer of ownership by way of gift occurs prior to the commencement of the tenancy?
  • Can a tenant, being a third party to a gift, legally challenge the factum of the delivery of possession under Muslim Law?
  • Does a landlord's acceptance of accumulated or lump-sum rent over a period amount to a variation of statutory payment obligations or establish a legally binding practice?
  • Does a landlord's unreasonable delay in taking action after withdrawing rent deposited by the tenant constitute an implied waiver of a rent default?
  Read full judgment →