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.

• Moin Nawaz Jang and ANOTHERs vs Riaz Ahmed through Legal Heirs1985 PLD Karachi 530 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Modern Traders vs Province of Sind, through Secretary Works and Communication Sind Sectt. Building, Karachi and 2 others1985 MLD 402 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-16Read full judgment →
• Miss Naushaba Jabeen vs The Administrator, Abandoned Properties1985 CLC 2137 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• Miss Kashfa vs Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education, Hyderabad and others1985 CLC 2549 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-05Read full judgment →
• Miss Durreshehwar vs Dr. Siraj-Ul-Haq and 11 others1985 CLC 2401 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Mirza Naseer Baig vs Azam Khan1985 MLD 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-11Read full judgment →
• Mirza Jawad Baig vs Pakistan State Oil Co.Ltd.1985 MLD 536 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-24Read full judgment →
• Miran alias Mir Muhammad vs Ghulam Hussain1985 PLD Karachi 674 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-04
  specific performancelimitation periodrefusal to performagreement to sellpart performanceappellate judgmentrent proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected civil revision petitions arose from a dispute regarding agricultural land over which the applicant had entered into agreements of purchase with the respondents. The respondents subsequently filed rent ejectment proceedings against the applicant, which were dismissed, leading to protracted litigation culminating in a second appeal decided by the High Court. Thereafter, the applicant filed suits for specific performance of the contracts of sale, which the trial court decreed. The first appellate court, however, allowed the respondents' appeals and dismissed the suits as time-barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act, treating the filing of the earlier rent application as notice of refusal to perform. On revision, the Sindh High Court examined whether the provisions of Article 113 had been correctly interpreted and whether filing a rent application constituted an unequivocal refusal to perform a contract of sale. The High Court held that limitation is a regulatory statute that cannot extinguish vested rights without strict compliance, and the mere filing of a rent application without mentioning the agreement of sale did not amount to a deliberate, intentional, and unambiguous refusal to perform the contract. Furthermore, the first appellate court committed a serious illegality by reversing findings on other issues without giving reasons, in violation of Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure. Consequently, the High Court set aside the appellate judgment and restored the judgment and decree of the trial court.

  Questions settled

  • Does the filing of a rent ejectment application amount to a refusal to perform an agreement of sale for the purpose of starting the limitation period under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • What constitutes a valid and sufficient notice of refusal under the second part of Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 for a suit for specific performance?
  • Can an appellate court reverse findings on merits without assigning reasons while disposing of an appeal on a preliminary point of limitation under Order XLI Rule 31 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • How should the starting point of limitation be determined under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 when no specific date for performance is fixed in the contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Mir Qadir Bux & Bros & Other vs Pakistan Through Secretary To Government, Ministry Offinance, Islamabad And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 224 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
• Mir Ghulam Hyder Khan vs Abdul Qayum1985 CLC 2741 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs. S. Khalid Ebrahim & Co. vs Collector of Customs (Appraising)1985 CLC 2655 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs, Ghaffar Textile Mills vs Messrs, V. K. Textile Depot1985 MLD 394 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waseem Traders vs Government of Pakistan1985 CLC 2796 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Waseem Traders vs Government of Pakistan through Central1985 MLD 484 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Volkervam (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Sind Employees' Social Security1985 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Vaseem Construction Company vs Province of Sind and 41985 MLD 397 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Universal Brushes Ltd. vs The Superintendent, Central Excise &1985 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31
  sales tax exemptionstatutory interpretationfiscal statuteshand toolsPakistan Customs Tariffexpressio unius est exclusio alterius
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notice issued by the Central Excise Department demanding sales tax on brushes manufactured by the petitioner. The petitioner argued that brushes qualified as "hand tools" under the Pakistan Customs Tariff and were therefore exempt from sales tax under the exemption Notification SRO 666(1)/81, dated 25-6-1981, which granted exemptions for certain items falling under Chapter 82. The core legal question was whether brushes, which were previously treated as exempt, fell within the scope of the new exemption notification by implication as "hand tools" under Chapter 82. The Court held that the exemption notification did not cover brushes. It reasoned that the Pakistan Customs Tariff contains a specific entry (96.01) for brushes, distinct from the "hand tools" category in Chapter 82. Applying the principle of "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" (expressum facit cessare tacitum), the Court determined that since brushes were not expressly mentioned in the exemption notification, they could not be included by implication. Consequently, the Court dismissed the petition, upholding the legality of the tax demand.

  Questions settled

  • Does the exemption for "hand tools" under Chapter 82 of the Pakistan Customs Tariff include brushes by implication?
  • Can an item be included in a tax exemption notification by implication when a specific entry for that item exists elsewhere in the statute?
  • Does the principle of expressio unius est exclusio alterius apply to the interpretation of fiscal exemption notifications?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Oriental Steamship Co. and 2 others vs National Shipping1985 CLC 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Space Advertisers and another1985 CLC 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sterling Engineering Corporation vs The Collector Of CustomsandPTCL 1985 (CL.) 297 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shams! Industries Ltd., Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-1985 PTD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs S. Ill. Sadiq vs Collector of Customs and others1985 CLC 2710 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rice Corporation of Pakistan vs Ivth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 others1985 PLC (C.S.) 340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rafi Associates Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Food & Agriculture, Directorate-General of Food, Karachi1985 CLC 721 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pre-Load Construction vs Ahmed Tamizuddin Khan1985 MLD 1082 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Phillips Electrical Industries of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Superintendent, Central Excise & Land Cus roms, 'Karachi 4ND Another1985 PTD 777 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Pipe and Construction Co. Ltd. vs Sikandar Ali and 21985 MLD 1180 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Oil Mills Ltd., Hydera Bad vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi1985 PTD 320 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan International Airlines vs Messrs National Bank of Pakistan and another1985 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pak Army Furnishing Stores vs Syed Ali Akbar Rizvi and 3PLD L 985 Karachi 201 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Novitas International vs Income-Tax Officer (Film Circle) and Others ,1985 PTD 411 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs New Snow-White Dry Cleaners vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax East, Karachi1985 PTD 315 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Bank of Pakistan vs Mst. Perveen Akhtar1985 PLD Karachi 60 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Bashir vs Pakistan International Airlines1985 CLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Amin Muhammad Bashir Ltd. vs Messrs Khairpur1985 CLC 1398 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moonlite (Pak) Ltd. vs Federation of Pakistan and 4 others1985 CLC 1901 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Millwala Sons Ltd. vs The Government of Sind through Secretary, Housing Town, Planning Local Government, Karachi and another1985 MLD 573 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Maqbool Company Limited vs Abdul Ghaffar and others1985 CLC 2635 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Maqbool & Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central), Karachi1985 PTD 36 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mackinno N Mackenzie and Company vs The Commissioner of1985 PTD 199 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs M. E. J. Hazari and Sons vs The Com Missionf.P of Income-Tax, Karachi1985 PTD 516 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kamleem Cloth Market and 11 others vs Gool Bai Shorabji S.1985 CLC 2423 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs International Expert Tra Ders vs Government of Pakistan1985 MLD 322 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Mining Enterprises, Karachi and another vs Industrial Mineral Corporation Ltd1985 MLD 181 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Humayun Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance1985 CLC 304 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ho Suleman Gowawala & Sons Ltd. vs Usman and 13 others1985 CLC 132 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hand Tools Ltd. (Saadat Industries Ltd.) vs Karachi1985 CLC 529 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haji Usman Tayab & Sons vs The Commissioner of 1Ncome-Tax1985 PTD 32 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gul Ahmad Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Sales1985 PTD 211 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04
  sales taxpartly manufactured goodsintegrated manufacturing processcotton yarnmazari clothcharging sectionexemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Sindh High Court upon an application filed under section 17(2) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, by the applicants challenging the levy of sales tax on cotton yarn manufactured and consumed within the mill in the integrated production of 'Mazari' cloth, which was subsequently exported and thus exempted from sales tax. The core legal question is whether partly manufactured goods, such as cotton yarn, incorporated into an exempted end-product by the manufacturer are subject to sales tax under section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, as goods used by the manufacturer and not for sale. The Full Bench of the High Court held that section 3(6)(d) operates as a charging provision for partly manufactured goods consumed in the production of an article that is exempt from sales tax, following the binding precedent of the Supreme Court in Noorani Cotton Corporation. The court concluded that the Sales Tax Officer was legally justified in levying sales tax on the value of the yarn contained in the exported cloth, and answered the referred question in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 acts as a charging provision for partly manufactured goods consumed by the manufacturer in the production of another article?
  • Is cotton yarn produced and incorporated into the manufacture of Mazari cloth liable to sales tax when the finished cloth is exempted from sales tax?
  • Does the term 'use' in section 3(6)(d) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 cover goods assimilated or incorporated into another product during an integrated manufacturing process?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax1985 PTD 329 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gilani Timber Mart vs Messrs Fateh Timber Mart1985 CLC 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Firdous Textile Mills vs Ehsan Elahi1985 MLD 979 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Farooq International vs The Chief Controller of Imports and Exports and 4 others1985 CLC 1781 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07
  natural justicecustoms valuationimport licenseconfiscation of goodsconstitutional petitionadministrative adjudicationSection 25 Customs Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the confiscation of imported cloth by Customs authorities, who alleged the goods were unsuitable for the licensed purpose of manufacturing neckties and were undervalued. The core legal questions concerned whether Customs authorities could rely on evidence, specifically an opinion from the Ministry of Commerce, obtained behind the importer's back, and whether the valuation and classification of the goods were lawful. The Court held that the impugned orders were passed without lawful authority and were of no legal effect. The ratio decidendi established that administrative proceedings are vitiated when they rely on evidence obtained behind a party's back without providing an opportunity for rebuttal, violating principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the Court clarified that under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969, the valuation of imported goods must be based on the actual price paid by the importer in the country of purchase, rather than local market prices. Additionally, findings of license contravention based on mere conjecture regarding the suitability of goods for a specific manufacturing purpose are legally insufficient.

  Questions settled

  • Can Customs authorities rely on evidence obtained behind the back of an importer to justify the confiscation of goods?
  • How should the normal price of imported goods be determined under Section 25 of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Does the filing of a bill of entry for home-consumption preclude an importer from claiming the goods were intended for re-export under a bank guarantee?
  • Is a finding of license contravention valid if based on conjecture regarding the suitability of imported material for a specific manufacturing purpose?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fa Khri Traders vs Mst. Batool Fida Hussain Sheikh and 4 others1985 CLC 283 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi and another1985 MLD 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs East and West Corporation vs S. M Youn Us and 2 others1985 CLC 241 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dhanrajmal Manumal & Sons vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1985 PTD 433 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Dawood Limited vs Pakistan Industrial Credit & Investment1985 CLC 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Daily Azad, Dacca and others vs Muhammad Qamaruddin and others1985 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cox and Kings (Agents) Ltd. vs The Commissioner for Workmen Compensation, Central Division, Karachi and Another1985 PLC 880 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Carstairs & Cumming Ltd. through Mr. Mushtaq M. Memon, Advocate vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Defence (Navy), Rawalpindi1985 CLC 2161 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Capri Cinema' vs Government of Sind through its Chief1985 CLC 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-21
  cinema licensingcantonment boardstatutory interpretationGeneral Clauses ActMotion Pictures Ordinancelicensing authorityconstitutional petitionlocus standi
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the authority competent to issue cinema licenses for premises situated within cantonment limits. The petitioners, owners of cinemas in the Karachi Cantonment area, challenged the Provincial Government's demand for licenses, asserting that the Cantonment Board holds this authority under the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979. The respondents contended that the subsequent Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, designated the Provincial Government as the licensing authority, thereby superseding the Order. The Court held that both the Order and the Ordinance constitute valid legislative acts. Applying Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, the Court determined that the reference in the Order to the repealed Cinematograph Act, 1918, must be construed as a reference to the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Cantonment Board remains the competent authority to issue licenses for cinemas within its jurisdiction, rejecting the Provincial Government's claim to licensing authority. The principle established is that where a new enactment repeals a former one, references in existing instruments to the repealed law are construed as references to the re-enacted law, absent contrary intention.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Cantonment Board or the Provincial Government the competent authority to issue cinema licenses for premises located within cantonment limits?
  • Does the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, repeal the authority of the Cantonment Board to issue cinema licenses granted under the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979?
  • Does Section 8 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, apply to construe references to the repealed Cinematograph Act, 1918, as references to the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979?
  • Are the Cantonments (Urban Immovable Property Tax and Entertainments Duty) Order, 1979, and the Motion Pictures Ordinance, 1979, considered legislative acts of equal standing?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Burhan Engineering Co. Ltd. vs The Income-Tax Officer, Companies Circle II, Karachi and Another1985 PTD 465 · Sindh High Court
  income tax assessmentre-opening of assessmentreason to believewrit jurisdictionincome escaping assessmentdisclosure of materialstatutory notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged notices issued by the Income-tax Officer under Section 34(1-A) of the Income-tax Act, 1922, to reopen assessments for the years 1971-72 to 1975-76. The petitioner contended that the notices were issued without jurisdiction as the respondents failed to disclose the material justifying the "reason to believe" that income had escaped assessment. The core legal question was whether the Income-tax Officer must disclose the underlying material at the notice stage and whether the court could review the sufficiency of such material. The Court held that while the "reason to believe" is justiciable and the court may inspect the record to ensure the belief is based on reasonable grounds rather than mere suspicion or rumor, the Income-tax Officer is not required to disclose the material to the assessee at the initial notice stage. The assessee is only entitled to be confronted with the material once the department decides to proceed with re-assessment. Consequently, the petition was dismissed as premature, as the department had committed to confronting the petitioner with the material during the investigation.

  Questions settled

  • Is the 'reason to believe' requirement under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 justiciable by the High Court?
  • Must an Income-tax Officer disclose the material forming the basis of a notice under Section 34 of the Income-tax Act 1922 to the assessee at the time of issuance?
  • Can a court review the sufficiency of the material relied upon by an Income-tax Officer to form a 'reason to believe' for re-opening an assessment?
  • At what stage of the proceedings must an Income-tax Officer confront an assessee with the material used to justify re-opening an assessment?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azam Instruments Ltd. vs Islamia Education Society and 2 others1985 CLC 351 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs Awami Autos Ltd. vs Assistant Collector of Customs1985 CLC 2714 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Aslo Marines Ltd.s vs M. T. Magda and Another1985 PLD Karachi 745 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-07
  admiralty jurisdictionstay of proceedingsarbitration clausestep in the proceedingsforeign jurisdiction clausearrest of vesselshort-landing of cargojudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This admiralty suit concerns a claim for damages by Messrs Aslo Marines Ltd. against the vessel 'M. T. Magda' and its owners for the short-landing of oil cargo. The defendants filed an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to stay the proceedings in favor of arbitration or foreign jurisdiction as per the charter party agreement. The High Court dismissed the application. The court held that the defendants had already taken 'steps in the proceedings' by filing a counter-affidavit that contested the merits of the claim and sought leave to file a written statement, thereby acquiescing to the court's jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court exercised its discretion to refuse a stay because the plaintiffs would be deprived of the security obtained through the arrest of the vessel, and the balance of convenience favored the local forum. The court affirmed that the burden of proof lies on the party seeking to alter the court's jurisdiction, and that foreign jurisdiction clauses are subject to the court's discretion, particularly when a stay would result in injustice or loss of security.

  Questions settled

  • Does filing a counter-affidavit that contests the merits of a claim constitute a 'step in the proceedings' under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a court refuse to stay proceedings in favor of arbitration if doing so would deprive the plaintiff of security obtained through the arrest of a vessel?
  • Is the burden of proof on the party seeking to stay a suit in favor of a foreign jurisdiction clause?
  • Does a foreign jurisdiction clause in a contract automatically oust the jurisdiction of the local court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Arag Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax (West), Karachi and another1985 PTD 190 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Anchor Lines Limited vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1985 PTD 183 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alexander G. Tsavliris & Sons vs m.v. Rice Traders and others1985 CLC 1355 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alba Industries vs Haroon and others1985 CLC 2622 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abid & Sons Ltd.And Other vs Excise & Taxation Officer And 3 OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 363 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abid & Sons Ltd. and Others vs Excise & Taxation Officer Ant) 31985 PLD Karachi 546 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• Messers Muhammad Hanif Muhammad Shafi vs Commissioner of Sales1985 PTD 204 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mehtabur Rehman vs The Controller. No.XVI, Karachi and 3 others1985 CLC 536 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-03Read full judgment →
• Mehtabur Rehman vs Mst. Sarwar Begum1985 MLD 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Mehmood Hussain alias Pervaiz vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 273 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Meher Elahi vs Muhammad Qamaruddin1985 CLC 2094 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mehboob Shah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2688 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mehar Shah and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali vs Muhammad Aqil1985 MLD 571 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mayfair Consultancy Services Overseas Employ- Ment Promoters vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mateen Ul-Hassan Khan and Another vs The Secretary, Finance1985 PLC (C.S.) 681 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mat. Fatima Begum vs Muhammad Anwar Khan Ghori and another1985 MLD 430 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
• Master Mukarram Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 20 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
• Maqsooda Begum vs MRs, Homai Jal Vania and 5 other1985 MLD 427 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-23Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Ahmad Khawaja and another vs Asmat Begum1985 CLC 1945 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Manzoor and 4 others vs Mst. Sabira Begum and others1985 CLC 2101 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-11Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali Bandla LI vs Marine Food Industries Ltd. and others1985 CLC 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22
  winding-upjust and equitablequasi-partnershipexclusion from managementrectification of registerprivate limited companypiercing the corporate veil
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two petitions, J.M. No. 41 of 1979 and J.M. No. 43 of 1979, filed by a minority shareholder against Marine Food Industries Limited and his four brothers. In J.M. No. 41 of 1979, the petitioner sought the winding-up of the company under the 'just and equitable' clause of Section 162 of the Companies Act 1913, alleging physical and legal exclusion from management, diversion of funds, and loss of confidence. In J.M. No. 43 of 1979, he sought rectification of the share register under Section 38 of the Companies Act 1913 pursuant to an alleged oral agreement for the transfer of shares.

  The High Court held that where a private limited company is in reality a quasi-partnership between family members, the equitable principles governing partnership dissolution apply. Unlawful physical and legal exclusion of a founder-director from management justifies winding up under the 'just and equitable' clause, and subsequent events reflecting such exclusion may be considered. Finding the alleged oral agreement unproven, the Court dismissed J.M. No. 43 of 1979, but granted J.M. No. 41 of 1979, ordering the company to be wound up.

  Questions settled

  • Can a private limited company formed by family members be treated as a quasi-partnership for the purpose of a winding-up petition under the 'just and equitable' clause?
  • Does the physical and legal exclusion of a director from management constitute a sufficient ground to order the winding-up of a company?
  • Can a court take into account events that occurred after the filing of a winding-up petition to determine if a petitioner was excluded from management?
  Read full judgment →
• Manju vs Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar and another1985 MLD 329 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-24Read full judgment →
• Manager Auqaf and another vs Mazhar Ali1985 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-27Read full judgment →
• Mamoor Khan vs Nasiruddin alias Nasir Muhammad and 5 others1985 CLC 130 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-18
  ex parte ejectment orderrejecting plaintalternative remedySpecific Relief ActSind Rented Premises Ordinancecivil revisionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges the concurrent findings of the lower courts rejecting a plaint and dismissing an appeal filed by tenants against an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal question was whether a civil suit is maintainable to challenge an ex parte rent order allegedly obtained by fraud when alternative remedies under the law existed. The Sindh High Court held that the civil suit was barred under Section 56(i) of the Specific Relief Act because an equally efficacious remedy was available by way of an appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and further noted that provisions like Section 12(2) and Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure could also be availed of in rent proceedings. The revision application was accordingly dismissed in limine, upholding the maintainability bar and the dismissal of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil suit to declare an ex parte rent order void is barred when an appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 is available?
  • Can the provisions of Section 12(2) and Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure be availed of by parties litigating before a Rent Controller?
  • Does Section 56(i) of the Specific Relief Act bar an injunction when an equally efficacious relief can be obtained through another usual mode of proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Ibrahim vs The State and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 929 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09
  criminal acquittal appealprivate complaintSection 249-A Cr.P.C.prima facie casecross-examinationaffidavit as evidenceremand of case
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged an order of acquittal passed by a Magistrate under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in a private complaint case involving allegations of cheating under Section 420/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The appellant alleged that the respondents had fraudulently obtained possession of a bus he had purchased. The trial court had acquitted all respondents, including those not yet served with process, based on an application filed by only two respondents. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate is justified in acquitting all accused under Section 249-A, Cr.P.C. at an early stage without further evidence, and whether an affidavit filed by a third party, without opportunity for cross-examination, constitutes sufficient evidence for such acquittal. The High Court held that the trial court was not justified in passing the acquittal order, noting that the complaint disclosed a prima facie case and that the affidavit could not be treated as evidence without cross-examination. The court set aside the acquittal and remanded the case for trial, allowing respondents to re-apply under Section 249-A after evidence is recorded.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate acquit all accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when some accused have not been served with process?
  • Does an affidavit filed in court constitute sufficient evidence to warrant acquittal under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without the deponent being subjected to cross-examination?
  • Is a Magistrate justified in passing an order under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 after having already issued process upon finding a prima facie case, without recording further evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Malik Muhammad Asadullah vs Mst. Tasneem Fatimah and 2 others1985 MLD 229 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-04Read full judgment →
• Malik Abdul Hafeez vs Allahdino and another1985 MLD 474 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Elahi Farooqi vs Ibrahim Abdul Latif1985 MLD 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ahmed (Muhammad Ahmed) vs Tribunal_S. D. M. City, Hyderabad1985 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-24
  constitutional petitionquashment of proceedingshabitual offendernon-bailable warrantmala fide proceedingsSind Crimes Control Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, sought the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before the Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Hyderabad, under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved whether the mandatory provisions regarding the issuance of non-bailable warrants and supply of copies under sections 5 and 6 were complied with, whether isolated or vague allegations could qualify a person as a habitual offender under section 14, and whether the initiation of proceedings was mala fide. The High Court held that the issuance of a non-bailable warrant without recording reasons or showing immediate necessity, the failure to supply a copy of the police report, and the reliance on vague, unverified allegations regarding isolated instances without showing the accused to be a habitual offender rendered the proceedings illegal and without lawful authority. Furthermore, uncontroverted allegations of personal enmity established that the initiation of proceedings was mala fide. The petition was accepted and the proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Tribunal can issue a non-bailable warrant of arrest in the first instance under section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, without recording reasons demonstrating immediate necessity?
  • Does the failure to supply a copy of the police report along with the warrant violate the mandatory provisions of section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Can vague allegations and isolated incidents unsupported by registered cases or FIRs justify initiating proceedings against a person as a habitual offender under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • What is the legal effect of uncontroverted allegations of mala fides and personal enmity regarding the initiation of proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Alam and another vs Mst. Kalsoom Hadi1985 MLD 116 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mackinno N Mackenzie & Co. vs The Secretary to the Government of1985 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-09Read full judgment →
• M.S.Khan vs S . M . Sir Aju D Din1985 CLC 562 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11
  First Rent Appealejectmentpersonal needbona fide requirementmala fidesenhancement of rentsuppression of factsKarachi Rent Controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal filed by the tenant challenged the order of the XVII Senior Civil Judge and Rent Controller, Karachi, which granted ejectment on the ground of personal need. The landlord sought eviction of four adjoining shops for use as a site office, while dropping the ground of default during arguments. The tenant contended that the landlord's requirement was mala fide and intended merely to coerce an enhancement of rent from Rs. 120 to Rs. 150 per month. The High Court analyzed the burden of proof, noting that while the landlord must show good faith, the tenant can establish mala fides. Upon examining the documentary evidence, including rent receipts and notices revealing undisclosed rent enhancement demands and subsequent concealment of these material facts by the landlord, the Court held that the tenant successfully proved bad faith. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a landlord's suppression of prior demands for enhanced rent establish mala fides in an application for eviction based on personal need?
  • Can a landlord seek eviction for personal requirement after previously letting out the same premises that were once used for the same purpose?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie to establish mala fides when challenging a landlord's personal need requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• M.G. Gazdar (deceased) through his 4 Legal Heirs vs Manzoor Hussain1985 CLC 2438 · Sindh High Court · 1955-05-04
  Section 12(2) CPCfraud and collusionlimitationrent restrictionexecution of decreeremand
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant filed an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside certain orders on the grounds of fraud and collusion, which was dismissed by the Senior Civil Judge on the grounds of limitation and maintainability. The core legal question was whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in rent proceedings and how the question of limitation should be determined when fraud is alleged by a person not a party to the original proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions and principles of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to rent proceedings, that Section 12(2) is applicable particularly when decrees are executed by civil courts, and that the question of limitation cannot be resolved without recording evidence when fraud is alleged by a non-party. The court set aside the impugned order and remanded the matter for framing issues and deciding the application on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable in proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  • Can the question of limitation regarding an application under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided without recording evidence when fraud is alleged by a non-party?
  • Are the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings under the Rent Restriction Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →