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.

• Shahabuddin vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 609 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• Shah Muhammad Qureshi vs Settlement Commissioner and another1985 CLC 2448 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
• Shah Behram Irani vs Pakistan through Secretay, Ministry of Communication, Islamabad1985 CLC 674 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-20Read full judgment →
• Shabbir vs Dr. Miss Shahnaz Somjee1985 CLC 2841 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs Mst. Shamim Khatoon1985 MLD 124 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-25Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ali Khan vs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1985 MLD 1155 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-25Read full judgment →
• Sh.Muhammad Ali vs Messrs China Silk House and another1985 CLC 679 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-23
  execution of decreelimitation periodvested rightsretrospective operationprocedural lawLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972surety bond
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court appeal concerns the limitation period applicable to the execution of decrees passed prior to the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether the amendment to Section 48, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which reduced the execution limitation period from 12 years to 6 years, applied retrospectively to decrees passed before the Ordinance's promulgation. The Court held that the amendment did not apply retrospectively. It reasoned that the right to execute a decree is a vested, substantive right, not merely a matter of procedure. Consequently, the legislature's reduction of the limitation period could not impair existing rights to execute decrees obtained under the previous law without explicit legislative intent. The Court established the principle that while procedural law changes are generally retrospective, they cannot be applied retroactively if they affect substantive vested rights or cause injustice. The appeals were allowed, and the matters were remanded to the Single Judge for decision on the merits, as the execution applications were found to be within the 12-year limitation period.

  Questions settled

  • Does the amendment to Section 48 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 apply retrospectively to decrees passed before its enactment?
  • Is the right to execute a decree a vested right that cannot be impaired by subsequent changes in procedural law?
  • Does a default clause in an installment decree trigger the limitation period for the entire decretal amount from the date of the first default?
  Read full judgment →
• Sh.Jamilur Rahman vs Akbar Hasan1985 CLC 922 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Seven Seas Services Limited vs World Marine Services Ltd.1985 MLD 916 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• SAZUDDINAppellaht vs Amir Bux1985 CLC 30 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
• Sayeda Binte Asghar vs Ali Ghazanfar and another1985 MLD 1163 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• Sattar Muhammad Raja vs Anwarullah Khan1985 CLC 1550 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1142 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-30Read full judgment →
• Sami Pharmaceuticals Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 31985 PLC 754 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06
  suo motu revisional jurisdictionLabour Appellate Tribunaldismissal in defaultprocedural reviewindustrial disputeconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal setting aside a Labour Court's order and remanding the matter for decision on merits. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal's suo motu revisional powers under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, specifically whether such powers can be invoked to examine an order when an appeal against it was dismissed as time-barred, and whether a Labour Court is competent to restore an application dismissed in default. The Sindh High Court held that since the prior appeals were incompetent in law, they did not acquire finality under Section 37(3), and thus the Tribunal validly exercised its suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) to rectify a miscarriage of justice. The Court further laid down the principle that a Labour Court possesses the inherent competence to set aside an ex parte order or a dismissal in default upon sufficient cause being shown, as it constitutes a procedural review rather than a review on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal can exercise suo motu revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, when an appeal filed against the impugned order was dismissed as time-barred?
  • Does a Labour Court have the competence to set aside an order of dismissal of an application in default if sufficient cause is shown by a party?
  • Can the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal entertain information from a party to trigger its suo motu revisional powers under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Whether the dismissal of an appeal on the ground of limitation constitutes a decision that acquires finality under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 so as to bar revisional review?
  Read full judgment →
• Sami Ahmed vs Mrs. Rehana Zaidi1985 CLC 540 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
• Salim Uddin vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 594 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-08
  post-arrest bailunsound mindmedical groundsquashing of orderinquiry into lunacy
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant Salimuddin sought bail on the ground of sickness and unsoundness of mind while facing trial for offences under the Prohibition (Enforcement of Hadd) Order, 1979. Although the trial court previously rejected bail and declared the applicant fit, a medical specialist summoned by the court confirmed the applicant was of unsound mind and required treatment. With no objection from the Additional Advocate-General, the High Court granted bail under section 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 subject to surety. Furthermore, the applicant challenged the trial court's order declaring him fit to defend himself. Finding the trial court's order contrary to sections 464, 465, and 466 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the High Court, in exercise of its powers under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, set aside the impugned order and directed that the medical officer be examined and the accused given an opportunity to cross-examine him before deciding how the trial should proceed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail can be granted on the ground of unsoundness of mind of the accused?
  • Can an order of the trial court regarding the fitness of an accused to stand trial be set aside under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is it necessary to examine and cross-examine a medical expert regarding the mental state of an accused claimed to be of unsound mind?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Choudhry vs National Bank of Pakistan and another1985 CLC 355 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Saleh Shah vs S.I.T.E. and others1985 CLC 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad and 4 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 292 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Saleem J. Mufty vs Ghulam Sarwar Dawoodi1985 MLD 992 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-20Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Province1985 CLC 1558 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-24Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akhtar, .1 Abdul Rahim vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad and 131985 CLC 2059 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-23Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali Khan through 6 Legal Representatives vs Pervez Mirza1985 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-03Read full judgment →
• Safdar Ahmed and 5 Others vs Mst. Farukh Nisa1985 PLD Karachi 633 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-30
  statutory tenantdefault in rentejectment applicationdeath of tenantlegal heirsrent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenges an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application against the appellants on the ground of default in rent payment following the death of the original tenant. The core legal questions concern whether legal heirs, upon becoming statutory tenants after the death of the original tenant, can be held in default for rent accruing prior to the creation of the statutory tenancy, and how default is calculated when no written agreement exists. The Sindh High Court held that while legal representatives succeed to the liabilities of the deceased under ordinary law, they cannot be considered tenants in default for the period prior to the inception of their statutory tenancy on the death of the original tenant. The court laid down the principle that arrears of rent predating the statutory tenancy cannot form the basis of an eviction order under special rent legislation, as statutory tenants are only liable for obligations arising from their own tenure.

  Questions settled

  • Are legal heirs of a deceased tenant liable to eviction for default in rent accrued prior to the death of the original tenant?
  • Does the statutory tenancy of legal heirs commence from the date of the original tenant's death?
  • Can arrears of rent predating the statutory tenancy be recovered through rent eviction proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • When does rent for a month become due in the absence of a written tenancy agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Sa DR U Ddin vs The Member (Land Utilization), Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad and 2 others1985 CLC 962 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
• S.Moinul Hassan vs A.H.Junaid1985 CLC 882 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-11
  ejectmentpersonal useretired employeerelationship of landlord and tenantestoppel of tenantvoluntary retirementownership dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The respondent, a retired employee of Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited, sought possession of his house for personal use. The appellant/tenant contested the application, raising inconsistent pleas regarding the respondent's ownership due to intra-family oral gifts and K.D.A. record discrepancies, and argued that the respondent's voluntary retirement constituted a resignation rather than a retirement under Section 14. The High Court held that a tenant is bound by the initial tenancy agreement and cannot challenge the landlord's title on the basis of minor record discrepancies. It further ruled that the term 'landlord' in Section 14 refers to the actual owner of the premises, and that voluntary retirement qualifies as retirement under the section. Finding that the respondent was living in rented premises and genuinely required the house, the Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant challenge the title of the landlord who inducted him into the premises based on discrepancies in administrative property records?
  • Does the term 'landlord' as used in Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply strictly to the owner of the premises rather than a mere rent collector or agent?
  • Does a voluntary retirement from service qualify as retirement for the purposes of seeking ejectment under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Is a landlord precluded from seeking ejectment under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 if he owns another property but is not in actual physical occupation of it?
  Read full judgment →
• S.Mahmood Alam Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 289 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• S.M. Wajahat Ali Shah vs Habib Ahmad1985 CLC 2302 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-08Read full judgment →
• S.M. Naqi vs Unimpex1985 MLD 513 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-06Read full judgment →
• S.M. Naqi vs Messrs Pakistan Inspection Corporation and 2 others1985 MLD 407 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24Read full judgment →
• S.M. Bin Sultan vs Muhammad Anis through his attorney Syed Hassan1985 MLD 409 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• S. Waris Mujtaba vs Government of Pakistan Department of Civil1985 MLD 973 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Noeem Hashmi vs Muhammad Rrfi1985 CLC 2133 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Alam vs Mst. Aqeela Begum1985 CLC 2791 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• S. Muhammad Ahsan vs Mst. Razia and another1985 MLD 983 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• S. Mahmood Hyder vs Messrs Alliance Enterprises1985 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
• S. M. Anis vs Amir Wahidiwala1985 CLC 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-19Read full judgment →
• S. Ghous Mohiuddin vs Mehboob Ali Khan1985 CLC 2098 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• S. A. Abbasi vs Chairman, District Council Gulshaneiqbal, Karachi1985 PLD Karachi 400 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-26
  interim mandatory injunctiontemporary injunctionbalance of convenienceprima facie caseirreparable lossutility disconnectionpoultry farm water supply
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit against the Chairman, District Council, Gulshan-e-Iqbal, Karachi, seeking a declaration that the disconnection of water supply to his poultry farm was illegal and mala fide, alongside a permanent mandatory injunction for its restoration. Concurrently, the plaintiff moved an interim application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking interim mandatory restoration of the water supply. The core legal question concerned whether a court can grant an interim mandatory injunction to restore a disrupted utility supply pending the disposal of the main suit. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, a balance of convenience in his favour, and potential irreparable loss, thereby warranting the grant of an interim mandatory injunction. The court laid down the principle that while interim mandatory injunctions are granted rarely and only in special circumstances, courts possess the inherent and procedural power under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 to issue such orders to prevent grave injury and insufferable inconvenience, provided the standard conditions for temporary injunctions are met.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an interim mandatory injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore a disrupted utility supply?
  • What are the essential conditions required for the grant of a temporary injunction in civil proceedings?
  • Does the issuance of an interim injunction to a public department improperly interfere with its working under Section 56 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustom F. Cowasjee and 2 ormas vs Central Board of Revenue and 21985 PTD 529 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10
  additional taxdelayed paymentretrospective operationfiscal statute interpretationincome tax arrearspenalty provisionprospective application
  Summary & questions settled

  This Full Bench reference before the Sindh High Court was convened to resolve the proper construction of section 45-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922, specifically whether it could be applied to non-payment of tax that became due and payable under assessment orders and demand notices issued prior to its enactment on July 1, 1963. The core legal question centered on whether section 45-A operates prospectively or retrospectively regarding past tax arrears, and how to interpret the statutory phrase 'from the date on or before which it was originally made payable'. The court held by majority that the provisions of section 45-A apply prospectively from July 1, 1963, restricting the imposition of additional tax to the period on or after that date for pre-existing arrears, or applying it to demands created after the provision was enacted. The key legal principles established are that fiscal statutes and penalty provisions must be construed strictly against the state, retrospective operation requires clear and unambiguous language or necessary implication, and in the absence of express retroactive intent, ambiguous taxing provisions must be interpreted in favour of the taxpayer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 45-A of the Income-tax Act, 1922 applies retrospectively to tax demands created prior to July 1, 1963?
  • Can additional tax for delayed payment under section 45-A be levied in respect of assessment orders passed before the enactment of the section?
  • How should ambiguous fiscal provisions imposing pecuniary burdens or penalties be construed?
  • Does the phrase 'from the date on or before which it was originally made payable' in section 45-A manifest an intention for retrospective operation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ross' Umrigar vs Mrs. Jacintha D'Sa and others1985 CLC 2979 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• Roshan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
• Riyaz Hussain vs Mst. Jamila Khatoon and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 2087 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-23Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin vs Haji Muhammad Aslam Represented Evy Legal Heirs and 21985 PLD Karachi 411 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-13
  tentative rent orderstriking off defensewilful defaultjurisdictionlandlord and tenantsecond appealWest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns seven second appeals challenging a judgment that upheld the striking off of the appellants' defense in rent proceedings for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction because the subject matter was an "open plot" rather than a "building" or "rented land" under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, and whether the Rent Controller was required to explicitly find a default "wilful" before striking off the defense. The court held that because the tenants had constructed residential structures on the plot, the premises constituted a "building" or "rented land" subject to the Ordinance. Furthermore, the court ruled that a jurisdictional plea regarding the nature of the property could not be raised for the first time in second appeal after fifteen years of litigation. Finally, the court established that when a Rent Controller rejects a tenant's explanation for failing to deposit rent, it implicitly constitutes a finding of wilful default, satisfying the statutory requirements for striking off a defense.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plea regarding the jurisdiction of a Rent Controller be raised for the first time in a second appeal after prolonged litigation?
  • Does the construction of a building on an open plot of land bring the premises within the definition of 'building' or 'rented land' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to explicitly state that a default in depositing rent was 'wilful' before striking off a tenant's defense?
  • Does the rejection of a tenant's explanation for failing to comply with a tentative rent order constitute an implied finding of wilful default?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehman Corporation, Hyderabad vs The Income-Tax Officer, Mirpurkhas and Another1985 PTD 787 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07
  constitutional petitionincome taxadvance tax collectionpublic auctionexport tax contractretroactive legislationdeclaratory statuteproperty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 9 of the Provisional Constitution Order, 1981, challenged a demand notice issued by the Income-tax Officer under section 92 read with section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979, requiring a deduction of tax from the petitioner who held an Export Tax Contract awarded by a District Council. The core legal question was whether the auction of the right to collect export tax constituted a 'sale' of 'property' under subsection (7-A) of section 50 of the Ordinance, and whether the subsequent Explanation added by the Finance Act, 1984—explicitly including leases and rights to collect octroi duties within the definition of sales—applied retrospectively. The Sindh High Court held that the right to collect export tax is property and that the Explanation added to section 50(7-A) is declaratory in nature, designed to clarify the law and remove doubts, and therefore operates retrospectively to cover pending matters. Consequently, the court dismissed the petition, ruling that the revenue's demand for advance tax collection via the lease of collection rights was valid and unexceptionable.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right to collect export tax or octroi constitutes 'property' under the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does the Explanation added to section 50(7-A) of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 by the Finance Act, 1984 operate retrospectively?
  • Can an Income-tax Officer issue a notice under section 92 of the Income-tax Ordinance, 1979 for the recovery of advance tax on the awarding of a lease for collecting export taxes?
  • What is the distinction between a declaratory statute and a penal or charging statute regarding retrospective application?
  Read full judgment →
• Rehana Khatoon vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1402 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• Ranomall vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
• Rana Shamsul Haque vs WAPDA through its General-Manager (T & G)1985 PLC (C.S.) 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Rana Shamsul Haque vs WAPDA and others1985 PLC (C.S.) 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-01Read full judgment →
• Raja Waheeduzaman vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-15Read full judgment →
• Raja Azhar Mahmood vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 709 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
• Rahimuddin vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others1985 CLC 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-10Read full judgment →
• Rahim Dad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Rahil Javeed and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1614 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-26Read full judgment →
• Rafiuddin vs Mst. Noor Jehan1985 MLD 324 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Quality Steel Works Ltd . vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan Ministry cif Commerce, Islamabad and 3 others1985 CLC 300 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-07Read full judgment →
• Qazi Mairajuddin vs Badruddin and another1985 MLD 531 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-04Read full judgment →
• Qadeeruz Zaman vs MRs Basheeri Huzoor Soofi1985 MLD 278 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Printing Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Department of Excise & Taxation and 3 others1985 CLC 1486 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-21Read full judgment →
• Piyaro vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Piru and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 276 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
• Piru And Another vs The StatePTCL 1985 (CL.) 40 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
• Pir Ghulam Sidik Jan vs Pir Muhammad Saeed Jan and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 931 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-13Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux vs Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad and others1985 MLD 1470 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• Parvez Samad and another vs Secretary to Government of Sind, Local1985 MLD 1087 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-14Read full judgment →
• Parpio and another vs Haji Suleman (deceased) through Legal1985 CLC 2299 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tyres and Rubber Company Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi1985 PTD 195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Full Bench of the National1985 PLC 884 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Services Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and,3 others1985 CLC 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Services Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 3 othersPTCL 1985 (CL.) 449 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Security Printing Corporation vs Ahmad Ali Khan and 31985 P Cr. L J 2018 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Karachi1985 PTD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Petroleum Limited. vs Commissioner Of Income Tax (CentralPTCL 1985 (CL) 69 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan P.V.C. Ltd. vs General Employees' Union and 2 others1985 PLC 307 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central Zone), Karachi1985 PTD 500 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-25Read full judgment →
• Oriental Fashions Ltd. and 4 Others vs National Bank of Pakistan1985 PLD Karachi 178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-24
  constitutional petitionleave to defendconditional leavebanking companies recoverypersona designatawrit jurisdictioninterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an interlocutory order passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court in the exercise of original civil jurisdiction under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, granting conditional leave to defend a recovery suit upon furnishing security. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a constitutional writ petition against an order of a Single Judge of the same High Court acting under the Ordinance, and whether conditional leave to defend was rightly granted where triable issues were raised. The court held that a Single Judge exercising original civil jurisdiction under the Ordinance acts as the High Court and not as a persona designata or an inferior tribunal, and is therefore excluded from the constitutional writ jurisdiction of the High Court. Furthermore, the court held that mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction or a wrong decision by a competent court does not attract constitutional jurisdiction, particularly where an appeal against an interlocutory order is expressly barred by statute. The key principles laid down are that High Court judges acting in original civil jurisdiction under special statutes are not amenable to writ jurisdiction of the same court, and that the grant of conditional or unconditional leave to defend under summary procedures is a matter of judicial discretion not open to constitutional interference absent a total lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional writ petition is maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge of the High Court exercising original civil jurisdiction under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a Single Judge of the High Court acting under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, act as a persona designata or as the High Court itself?
  • Can constitutional jurisdiction be invoked merely because a statute expressly bars an appeal against an interlocutory order?
  • Does a mere erroneous decision or improper exercise of discretion by a court having initial jurisdiction render its order liable to interference in constitutional jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Sher Muhammad vs Punoon and others1985 CLC 2611 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
• Orient Straw Board and Paper Mills Ltd., Karachi vs The Assistant1985 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-25
  excise dutymanufacturestraw boarddouble taxationrefund of dutyCentral Excises and Salt Actmarketable product
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners challenged the imposition of excise duty on straw board that had already suffered duty at their manufacturing plant. After transporting the goods to Karachi for pasting and cutting, authorities levied excise duty a second time, claiming these processes constituted "manufacture" under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether these specific processes amounted to "manufacture" warranting a second levy. The Court held that the levy was unlawful, reasoning that "manufacture" under the Act requires the creation of a new, distinct, and marketable product. Since pasting and cutting did not transform the straw board into a different marketable item, the second levy was unjustified. Furthermore, the Court held that Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, which bars refund claims after one year, was inapplicable because the petitioners paid the duty under protest rather than through inadvertence or error. The Court directed the refund of the illegally collected duty, establishing that excise duty cannot be levied twice on the same goods unless a new marketable product is created.

  Questions settled

  • Does the process of pasting and cutting straw board constitute 'manufacture' under Section 2(f) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Is excise duty leviable a second time on goods that have already suffered duty if the subsequent processing does not create a new marketable product?
  • Does Rule 11 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944, apply to refund claims where the duty was paid under protest?
  Read full judgment →
• Orient Straw Board And Paper Mills Limited, 49-Napier Road, Karachi vs Assistant Collector Of Central Excise And Land Customs Division No.II, Karachi And Two OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
• Olympia Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise1985 MLD 987 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Iqbal Ahmed1985 CLC 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-19
  rented premiseswilful defaultbona fide personal requirementejectmentchange of ownershiplandlord and tenantgood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against a tenant on grounds of wilful default in rent payment and the landlord's bona fide personal requirement for business. The core legal questions were whether the tenant's continued deposit of rent in a pre-existing court proceeding, following a change in property ownership, constituted wilful default, and whether a landlord's bare assertion of personal need satisfies the "good faith" requirement under the relevant rent legislation. The High Court held that the tenant’s conduct in continuing to deposit rent in the established court proceeding, despite the transfer of property, lacked dishonest intent and did not constitute wilful default. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord’s mere statement of personal requirement is insufficient to establish "good faith" under the statute; the landlord must provide tangible evidence to support such a claim. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment order, establishing the principle that technical non-compliance without dishonest intent does not constitute wilful default, and that "good faith" for personal requirement requires objective evidence beyond a mere assertion.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's continued deposit of rent in a pre-existing court proceeding after a change in ownership constitute wilful default?
  • Is a landlord's bare statement sufficient to establish the 'good faith' requirement for personal use of rented premises?
  • Does technical non-payment of rent to a new owner constitute wilful default in the absence of dishonest intent?
  Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs . Settlement Commissioner, Sind at Karachi and 51985 MLD 167 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and another vs Mst. Hajira and :6 others1985 CLC 2085 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-18
  landlord and tenant relationshiprent restrictiondisputed titleeviction applicationburden of proofrent controller jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an eviction application filed under the Sindh Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, by the legal heirs of a deceased landlord against the appellants, who were alleged tenants. The core legal question was whether the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties, particularly when the appellants disputed the landlord's title and claimed ownership themselves. The Rent Controller had initially ordered eviction, finding the relationship established. However, the High Court set aside this order. The Court held that the respondents failed to prove the existence of a tenancy, noting that their evidence was contradictory and inconsistent with their own pre-litigation legal notices. Furthermore, the Court applied the principle that where the determination of the landlord-tenant relationship depends solely on a disputed question of title, the Rent Controller cannot decide the issue against the alleged tenant without reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the proper course is to dismiss the eviction application and direct the landlord to establish title before a competent civil court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller decide an eviction application when the relationship of landlord and tenant depends solely on a disputed question of title?
  • What is the appropriate course of action for a Rent Controller when a landlord fails to establish their title to the property beyond reasonable doubt?
  • Does a pre-litigation legal notice that contradicts the subsequent pleadings of a landlord undermine the credibility of their claim regarding the existence of a tenancy?
  Read full judgment →
• Noman Bhai vs M.V.F. Hameer1985 MLD 189 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
• Nishat Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1985 CLC 2754 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmad Khan vs Tahir Hussain1985 MLD 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-13Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Company Limited vs Messrs Ulbricht's (Pakistan)1985 MLD 411 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Neku vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1787 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-02Read full judgment →
• Nazir Hussain vs Hanifa Begum1985 CLC 1352 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ali vs Ikramuddin1985 MLD 390 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-08Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad vs Holaram1985 CLC 41 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09
  tentative rent orderdefault in rent depositstriking off defenceejectmentmandatory provisioncondonation of delayrent controller discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed against the appellant-tenant by the Rent Controller under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for failing to deposit the monthly rent for April 1983 by the stipulated date of the 10th, resulting in a two-day delay. The appellant offered an explanation of serious illness supported by a medical certificate. The core legal question is whether the Rent Controller has the power to condone a delay in complying with a tentative rent order and whether the provisions regarding default are mandatory. The court held that the provisions of Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 (and its predecessor Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959) are mandatory, and the Rent Controller has no discretion to condone delays in deposit unless the default stems from a bona fide mistake or misinterpretation by counsel. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, reaffirming that strict compliance with tentative rent orders is a condition precedent for a tenant to enjoy statutory protection.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions relating to the deposit of rent under a tentative rent order are mandatory or directory?
  • Does the Rent Controller have the power to condone a delay by a tenant in depositing monthly rent pursuant to a tentative rent order?
  • Can a tenant's default in complying with a tentative rent order be excused on the ground of personal illness without establishing a bona fide counsel's mistake?
  Read full judgment →
• Nawab Moin Nawaz Jung and another vs Deputy Settlement1985 CLC 2453 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-11Read full judgment →
• Nighat Riaz vs Manzoor Hussain-1985 MLD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
• Nawab Haji Muhammad Dawood Khan and others vs Muhammad Usman1985 CLC 2309 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-19
  specific reliefpossessory suitforcible dispossessiondue process of lawrevisional jurisdictionlessee holding oversummary remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision concerns a challenge to a decree passed under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, which ordered the restoration of possession of agricultural land to the respondents after they were forcibly dispossessed by the applicants. The core legal questions were whether a suit under Section 9 is maintainable by a lessee whose lease has expired or is disputed, whether such a suit requires proof of juridical possession versus mere physical possession, and the scope of the High Court's revisional jurisdiction under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The Court held that Section 9 provides a summary remedy to protect possession against forcible dispossession without due process of law, regardless of the nature of the plaintiff's title or the expiration of a lease. The Court affirmed that the High Court's revisional power is limited to jurisdictional errors and cannot be used to re-appreciate evidence unless findings are perverse or based on no evidence. The key principle laid down is that a person in settled possession, even a lessee holding over after lease expiry, cannot be evicted except through due process of law, and a summary suit for possession under Section 9 is the appropriate remedy for such unlawful dispossession.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person in possession of land, even after the expiry of a lease, maintain a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 if dispossessed without due process of law?
  • Does the High Court have the authority under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 to interfere with findings of fact in a suit decided under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  • Is a landlord legally entitled to forcibly re-enter property upon the expiry of a lease without resorting to the due process of law?
  • Does the consent obtained by deceit or misrepresentation constitute valid consent for the purposes of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• National Refinery Ltd. vs Collector of Sea Customs and 2 others1985 CLC 291 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-06Read full judgment →
• National Insurance Corporation vs Pakistan National Shipping1985 CLC 360 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05
  limitationnon-delivery of goodscarrier liabilityshort landing certificaterejection of plaintletter of subrogation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff insurance company, holding a letter of subrogation, against the defendant carrier for the recovery of compensation for the non-delivery of two cases of defense stores out of a consignment shipped from France to Karachi. The core legal question was whether the suit, filed on 10th September 1983, was barred by limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act, and specifically when the period of limitation commences under the expression 'when the goods ought to be delivered'. The court held that the starting point of limitation under Article 31 is the date on which the consignee has notice that delivery cannot be given or that the carrier expresses its inability to deliver. The court found that the consignee had definitive notice of non-delivery upon the issuance of the short landing certificate by the Karachi Port Trust on 1st August 1982, and subsequent negotiations or partial claim acceptances by the carrier did not extend or revive the limitation period. Consequently, the suit instituted more than one year after 1st August 1982 was time-barred, and the plaint was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • When does the period of limitation start to run under Article 31 of the Limitation Act for a suit against a carrier for non-delivery of goods?
  • Does the subsequent partial acceptance of a claim by a carrier extend or revive the period of limitation under Article 31 of the Limitation Act?
  • What constitutes notice to the consignee that the goods cannot be delivered for the purpose of computing limitation in a short-landing case?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Wadhu Mal through his Legal Heirs and 21985 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-04
  default in payment of rentpersonal bona fide needejectment applicationtender of rentlandlord and tenantburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent landlords against the appellant National Bank of Pakistan concerning a rented shop and residential first floor. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant committed a default in rent payments and whether the landlords established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant did not commit default, as it had regularly tendered rent via pay orders which were repeatedly and deliberately refused by the landlords. Furthermore, the court held that the landlords failed to prove good faith and bona fide personal need, noting the vague pleadings and inconsistencies in evidence regarding their large joint family housing. Consequently, the court allowed the appeal, set aside the Rent Controller's ejectment order, and laid down the principle that a tenant fulfilling the obligation to tender rent cannot be deemed a defaulter due to the landlord's refusal, and that a plea of personal need under special rent laws requires concrete proof of good faith rather than a mere desire.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be considered a defaulter when rent pay orders are regularly dispatched but consistently refused by the landlord?
  • What constitutes sufficient proof of good faith and bona fide personal requirement by a landlord seeking ejectment?
  • Does a landlord's refusal to accept tendered rent through pay orders create a valid ground for an ejectment application based on default?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Shamsur Rehman and 3 others1985 MLD 231 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Mst. Hajra Bai and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 431 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13
  pardanashin ladyilliterate womanbank guaranteepromissory noteequitable mortgageburden of prooffraudulent executiontitle deeds
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two high court appeals filed by National Bank of Pakistan arising from two connected suits regarding recovery of bank dues and return of property title deeds. The bank sought to enforce liabilities under bank guarantees, hypothecation agreements, a promissory note, and an equitable mortgage against the wife and mother of a debtor who had purchase truck chassis. The ladies contended that they were illiterate/pardanashin women, that their signatures were fraudulently obtained on blank papers without their knowledge or consent, and that they had refused to register the mortgage deed before the Registrar. The High Court affirmed the Single Judge's decision, holding that the burden lies heavily on a party taking advantage under a document executed by an illiterate or pardanashin woman to prove affirmatively that she fully understood its contents. Because the bank failed to show that the English documents were translated or explained to the ladies, who signed in Gujarati, the court dismissed the bank's claims against them and ordered the return of their title deeds.

  Questions settled

  • What is the standard of proof required to establish that a document executed by an illiterate or pardanashin woman was signed with full knowledge and understanding?
  • Does the protective rule governing contracts by pardanashin ladies apply equally to illiterate women who do not strictly observe parda?
  • Can a party adduce evidence on factual points that were not set up or raised in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →