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.

• Commissioner Of Income Tax vs Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 436 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax Karachi (West) Karachi vs MuhammadPTCL 1985 (CL.) 231 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-09Read full judgment →
• Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone), Karachi. vs M/s. ShahnawazPTCL 1985 (CL.) 337 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Coke and Oil Products Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Islamabad and 2 others1985 MLD 576 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-26Read full judgment →
• Civil and Military Press Ltd. and 3 others vs Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and others1985 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-10
  central excise dutypaper boardcorrugated boardtaxing statutestrict constructionwords of artdouble taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, manufacturers of box cartons made from corrugated board, challenged notices issued by the Central Excise & Land Customs authorities attempting to levy central excise duty on corrugated board under Item 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The respondents contended that corrugated board fell within the definition of 'paper board, all sorts' under Item 37. The High Court of Sindh examined the technical differences, physical properties, and trade classifications of paper board versus corrugated board. The Court observed that in taxing statutes, words of art must be construed in accordance with their technical trade meanings rather than their popular sense, and any ambiguity must be resolved in favor of the subject. It held that corrugated board is a distinct product from paper board and does not fall within the scope of Item 37. Consequently, the Court declared the levy of central excise duty on corrugated board illegal and without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether corrugated board falls within the definition of 'paper board, all sorts' under Item 37 of the First Schedule to the Central Excises and Salt Act 1944?
  • How should words of art and technical terms be interpreted in a taxing statute when they have a specific meaning in trade and commerce?
  • Does a consistent past departmental practice of not levying a tax create an absolute estoppel against a taxing statute passed in the public interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Civil And Military Press Limited And 3 Other vs Pakistan And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL) 252 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ciba (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi.PTCL 1985 (CL.) 491 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-09Read full judgment →
• Chugtai Mirza Jamiluddin and another vs The Seventh Additional1985 MLD 161 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Zahida Begum1985 CLC 3018 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
• Chaudhry Abdul Aziz vs Government of Sind and 4 others1985 CLC 2260 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
• Chandoo alias Chand Muhammad vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chairman, WAPDA vs Habib Ahmad Hashmi1985 MLD 1539 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Bashir vs The State and 3 others1985 P Cr. L J 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-04Read full judgment →
• Ch. Muhammad Amin vs Mst. Zahida Begum1985 MLD 340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
• Central Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1985 PLC 511 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →
• Capt. I.T. Mukadam vs M.V.F. Hamoor1985 MLD 439 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-07Read full judgment →
• Canno N Products Ltd. vs Incometax Officer, Companies Circle,1985 PLD Karachi 572 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-21
  Self-Assessment Schemeincome taxdetailed scrutinyrevised returndepreciationultra viresconstitutional petitionCentral Board of Revenue
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of six writ petitions involving the interpretation and application of the Self-Assessment Scheme for income tax for the year 1983-84, contained in Circular Nos. 8, 11, and 14 of 1983 issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979. The core legal questions revolved around the maintainability of constitutional petitions in tax matters, whether comparisons of income under the scheme should be made before or after depreciation and super-tax adjustments, the admissibility of revised returns under the scheme, whether assessed income or declared income of preceding years forms the basis for comparison, the status of taxpayers not assessed for over four years, the treatment of losses, and whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983 granting arbitrary power to the Board to select individual cases for scrutiny is ultra vires. The court held that while High Courts will not interfere with factual determinations of tax authorities, they can intervene when actions are without jurisdiction or contrary to the scheme. The court decided several procedural and substantive issues regarding income comparisons and revised returns, and ultimately held that paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983, purporting to empower the Board to select individual cases for detailed scrutiny without conditions, is ultra vires the powers of the Board.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can entertain a constitutional petition against actions of tax authorities that are beyond the purview of the Self-Assessment Scheme?
  • Whether the figure of income for comparison under the Self-Assessment Scheme should be taken before or after the adjustment of depreciation and super-tax?
  • Whether an assessee is entitled to file a revised return under section 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979 for availing of the Self-Assessment Scheme before the assessment is made?
  • Whether for the purpose of comparing income under the Self-Assessment Scheme, the assessed income of preceding years is to be taken as the basis or the declared income?
  • Whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983 empowering the Central Board of Revenue to select individual cases for detailed scrutiny is ultra vires of its powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Canno N Products Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies Circle,1985 PTD 549 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-21
  Self-assessment Schemeincome taxdetailed scrutinyrevised returnultra viresconstitutional petitiondepreciationassessed income
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment disposes of six constitutional petitions involving the interpretation and application of the Self-Assessment Scheme for the assessment year 1983-84, contained in Circulars Nos. 8, 11, and 14 of 1983 issued by the Central Board of Revenue under the Income Tax Ordinance. The core legal questions relate to the maintainability of writ petitions against tax authorities, whether income comparisons under the scheme should be made before or after depreciation and super-tax adjustments, the admissibility of revised returns prior to assessment or scrutiny, whether assessed income or declared income from preceding years forms the proper baseline for comparison, the treatment of assessed losses, and whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983—empowering the Board to select individual cases for scrutiny arbitrarily—is ultra vires. The Sindh High Court held that while the High Court will not interfere with factual determinations of tribunals in writ jurisdiction, it may intervene if an action is without jurisdiction or contrary to law. The court held that income comparisons are to be made before depreciation adjustments, that a revised return can be validly filed under section 57 before assessment, that assessed taxable income (not declared income) forms the comparative baseline, that assessed losses count as income under section 2(24), and that paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983 is ultra vires the powers of the Board as it permits arbitrary selection of individual cases. Three petitions were dismissed and three were allowed accordingly.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the figure of income for the Self-Assessment Scheme should be calculated before or after the adjustment of depreciation and super-tax?
  • Can an assessee file a revised return under section 57 of the Income Tax Ordinance 1979 to avail of the Self-Assessment Scheme before an assessment order is passed?
  • Whether the assessed income or the declared income of preceding years should be taken as the basis for comparison under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
  • Whether paragraph 6 of Circular No. 14 of 1983, empowering the Central Board of Revenue to select individual cases for detailed scrutiny, is ultra vires its powers?
  • Whether an assessed loss can be taken into consideration as income for the purpose of comparing income under the Self-Assessment Scheme?
  Read full judgment →
• Cannon Products Limited, Karachi And Two Other vs Income Tax Officer, Companies Circle-a-8 Central Zone-a, Karachi And OtherPTCL 1985 (CL.) 178 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
• Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Karachi , . (1985 PTD 659 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
• Calmic Ltd. and another vs Registrar of Trade Marks and another1985 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
• Burhanuddin Shaikh and 9 others vs National Bank of Pakistan and 581985 CLC 2003 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-14
  constitutional petitionservice rulesstatutory statuspromotionseniority vs meritmaster and servantsubordinate legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court challenging the promotions of respondents from Grade III to Senior Vice-President made by the National Bank of Pakistan, on the grounds that they were made in violation of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules and Government promotion policy, and in contravention of Article 4 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The core legal questions involved the statutory nature of the National Bank of Pakistan Staff Service Rules and whether employees could claim promotions as a matter of right based on seniority and qualifications. The Court held that the rules framed under the bye-laws of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance 1949 have the force of law, giving the bank's employees a statutory status, and that promotions to selection posts must be based on merit rather than seniority alone. The Court concluded that the petitioners failed to establish that the promotions were arbitrary or actuated by collateral considerations, and consequently dismissed the petition.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service rules framed under the bye-laws of the National Bank of Pakistan Ordinance have the force of law?
  • Can bank employees of a statutory body invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court regarding terms and conditions of service?
  • Whether promotion to higher grades can be claimed as a matter of right based on seniority alone?
  • Are selection posts subject to considerations of merit and suitability rather than length of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Bunyad Ahmed Khan vs Municipal Committee, Mirpurkhas1985 MLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Bundu Khan vs Abdul Majeed1985 CLC 2435 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
• Budho through Legal Representatives vs Karim Bux and 5 others1985 CLC 1037 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02
  pre-emptionTalab-e-MawasibatTalab-e-IshhadIslamic lawwaiver of rightco-sharercivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal, converted into a civil revision, concerned a claim of pre-emption over agricultural land. The core legal questions were whether the plaintiff had waived his right of pre-emption through conduct and whether the mandatory legal demands (Talab-e-Mawasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad) were properly performed. The trial and appellate courts had dismissed the suit, finding the plaintiff failed to prove the second demand. The High Court reversed these findings, holding that the plaintiff had not waived his right, noting that the defendant’s act of registering the sale deed at a distant location evidenced an attempt to conceal the transaction. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that Talab-e-Ishhad is not a separate, mandatory requirement if the Talab-e-Mawasibat is made in the presence of the vendor or vendee, as the two demands can be combined in a single act. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower courts' judgments and decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff, affirming his right to pre-empt the land.

  Questions settled

  • Is a separate Talab-e-Ishhad necessary if the Talab-e-Mawasibat is made in the presence of the vendor or vendee?
  • Can a second appeal be converted into a civil revision when the valuation of the suit is low?
  • Does the registration of a sale deed at a distant location, instead of the local sub-registrar, support an inference of concealment to avoid pre-emption?
  Read full judgment →
• British India Steam Navigation Company Ltd., London and others vs National Security Insurance Company Ltd1985 CLC 1720 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• British India Navigation Company and another vs National Security1985 CLC 1799 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Boota vs The State and 4 others1985 P Cr. L J 2564 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-27Read full judgment →
• Bibi Abida vs The Sin.D Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Before Saleem Akhtar, State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Wali Muhammad Akbarji and others1985 CLC 2870 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-28Read full judgment →
• Before Saleem Akhtar, Mst. Fatima Noor vs Shabbir and others1985 CLC 2632 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
• Before Saeeduzzaman Siddiqui, Muhammad Hussain vs Messrs Zafar1985 CLC 2295 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-18Read full judgment →
• Before Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mst. Sitan and others vs Siraj Ahmad Khan1985 CLC 2475 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
• Before Nasir Aslam Zahid, Mst. Ahmadi Begum vs Israr Ali and another1985 CLC 2335 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-29Read full judgment →
• Before Muhammad Zahoorul Haq, Qazi Sher Muhammad and others vs Nazar Ali Shah and others1985 CLC 2883 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-14Read full judgment →
• Before Muhammad Zahoorul Hach J Ghulam Hussain and another vs Haji1985 CLC 2836 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-02Read full judgment →
• Before Haider Ali Pirsada, Muhammad Miskeen vs Bukhtiar Ahmed Khan1985 CLC 2722 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
• Bashiruddin Qureshi vs Major (Rtd.) Aminullah Khawaja1985 CLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04
  ex parte ejectmentsubstituted servicedefault in rent paymentrent controllerprocedural irregularitytenant's obligation
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order dismissing an application under Order IX, Rule 13, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to set aside an ex parte ejectment order passed by a Rent Controller. The core legal questions were whether the substituted service of notice upon the tenant was validly effected under Order V, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the tenant was in default of rent payment. The Court held that the Rent Controller failed to properly apply his mind to the requirements for substituted service, as there was no evidence the tenant was avoiding service, rendering the ex parte order procedurally flawed. However, upon examining the merits of the ejectment case itself, the Court found the tenant admitted to failing to pay rent in the manner prescribed by law, specifically failing to tender rent via money order or deposit it with the Rent Controller after the landlord's attorney became unavailable. Consequently, while the procedural irregularity was acknowledged, the Court upheld the ejectment on the grounds of admitted default in rent payment, emphasizing that a tenant's obligation to pay rent is strict.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to record a specific finding that a tenant is avoiding service before ordering substituted service under Order V, Rule 20, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure of a tenant to pay rent because the landlord's agent stopped collecting it constitute a valid defense against an ejectment application?
  • Can an appellate court decide a matter on its merits rather than remanding it to the Rent Controller after setting aside an ex parte order?
  • Does the bar in Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 against rescinding an ex parte order apply where the tenant was never properly served?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed Siddiqui vs Najeebuddin1985 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-19Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Saudagar Khan1985 MLD 569 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-09Read full judgment →
• Baseer Ahmed Siddiqui vs Shama Afroze1985 CLC 1711 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-27
  specific performanceagreement of salememo of appealcopy of decreeprocedural lapsecivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises out of a suit for specific performance of an agreement of sale concerning an open plot of land. The trial court dismissed the suit, holding that the buyer failed to prove she was vigilant and that the seller had validly repudiated the contract. In the first appeal, the appellate court reversed the trial court's judgment, finding that the seller was in breach of contract and had failed to prove that he fulfilled conditions precedent or notified the buyer of the same. The petitioner-seller challenged this appellate decision through a revision, raising a technical objection that the first appeal was incompetent under Order XLI, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 because a copy of the decree was not appended to the memo of appeal. The High Court held that procedural rules should serve as stepping stones rather than stumbling blocks, that there was substantial compliance with the law since the original decree-sheet formed part of the summoned record, and that the appellant was not at fault where the decree had not been prepared at the time of filing. The revision petition was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal filed without a copy of the decree-sheet is inherently incompetent under Order XLI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does the failure to append a certified copy of the decree-sheet to the memorandum of appeal warrant automatic dismissal of the appeal when the delay is attributable to the court's failure to draw up the decree?
  • Whether substantial compliance with procedural requirements is sufficient to sustain an appeal where the original decree forms part of the record before the appellate court hears the matter?
  Read full judgment →
• Basarat Noor Khan vs Shaukat Ali Ansari1985 MLD 436 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-05Read full judgment →
• Bank of Oman Ltd. vs Messrs Fasaka Industries Ltd. and 4 others1985 MLD 435 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-17Read full judgment →
• Bakht Rawan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1985 PLC 942 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-16Read full judgment →
• Badiul Hasan vs Munawwar Hussain1985 MLD 1530 · Sindh High Court · 1985-09-18Read full judgment →
• Bacho (deceased) through legal heirs and 17 others vs Barkat Ali1985 MLD 1104 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• Azizul Aleem vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2797 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs Altaf Hussain Qureshi and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 1011 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• Avari Hotels Ltd vs Hilton International Company1985 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09
  arbitration stayallegations of fraudmanagement agreementmanaging agencyadditional evidence on appealinterim injunctionhotel management
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment by the Sindh High Court arises from two consolidated High Court Appeals challenging an interlocutory order passed in a civil suit concerning the management of the Hilton Hotel in Lahore. The plaintiff, Avari Hotels Limited, had invested substantially in the hotel and entered into a management agreement with Hilton International Company. Avari subsequently rescinded the agreement, alleging fraud, misrepresentation, and violation of the Companies (Managing Agency and Election of Directors) Order 1972, and filed a suit seeking permanent injunctions, accounts, and damages. The trial court had stayed the suit under section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 based on the agreement's arbitration clause. Upon appeal, the High Court held that the arbitration clause governed by International Chamber of Commerce rules fell outside the Arbitration Act 1940, and that serious allegations of fraud and the presence of complex legal and constitutional questions rendered arbitration inappropriate. Consequently, the appellate court set aside the stay of the suit, left the issue of the agreement's validity under the Presidential Order for trial, and modified the interim injunctions to safeguard the owner's financial interests while permitting Hilton to continue operating the hotel.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions of the Arbitration Act 1940 apply to an arbitration agreement providing for arbitration under the rules of the International Chamber of Commerce?
  • Does an allegation of fraud or misrepresentation vitiating the inception of a contract displace the application of section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court permit the production of additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in an appeal from an interlocutory order?
  • Whether a management agreement conferring wide operational discretion constitutes a prohibited managing agency under the Companies (Managing Agency and Election of Directors) Order 1972?
  Read full judgment →
• Au Shah, Haji Abdus Sattar vs Mst. Shirin Bai and others1985 CLC 2489 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-04Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Khan vs Muhammad Akram and 5 others1985 P Cr. L J 2409 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-21
  quashment of proceedingsinherent jurisdictionrevisional jurisdictionremoval of nuisanceconcurrent jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of proceedings under Section 133 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Nazimabad Sub-Division, Karachi. The core legal question is whether an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is competent when the aggrieved party has already invoked and exhausted the concurrent revisional jurisdiction before the Sessions Court under Section 439-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and whether Section 561-A applies to proceedings that have already concluded with a final order. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition as not maintainable, holding that the inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A cannot be utilized as an additional or alternative remedy after exhausting the revisional jurisdiction, particularly when the proceedings have already terminated in a final order rather than remaining pending.

  Questions settled

  • Is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 competent after exhausting revisional jurisdiction before the Sessions Court?
  • Can the inherent jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used as an additional or alternative remedy?
  • Does Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to proceedings that have already concluded with a final order rather than remaining pending?
  Read full judgment →
• Atoomal vs Allah Bux1985 PLD Karachi 650 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-27
  rent restrictionpersonal bona fide requirementejectmentreconstructionlandlord and tenantsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the District Judge directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant on grounds of personal requirement and reconstruction. The core legal questions were whether the landlord’s simultaneous filing of multiple ejectment applications against different tenants for personal requirement negated his bona fide intent, and whether the ground of reconstruction remained sustainable when linked to a failed claim of personal requirement. The High Court held that the landlord failed to establish personal requirement, noting that filing multiple applications and subsequently compromising one by increasing rent cast doubt on his bona fide intent, especially given the landlord's age and the lack of evidence regarding his specific business needs. Furthermore, the Court held that while reconstruction is an independent ground, it must be proven bona fide. Mere possession of a reconstruction sanction is insufficient; the landlord must demonstrate that the requirement to rebuild is reasonable and bona fide. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment orders, ruling that the landlord failed to substantiate either ground.

  Questions settled

  • Does the simultaneous filing of multiple ejectment applications against different tenants for personal requirement adversely affect the bona fide of the landlord?
  • Can a landlord maintain an ejectment application for reconstruction if the accompanying claim for personal requirement is found to be lacking in bona fides?
  • Is the mere production of a sanction for reconstruction from a competent authority sufficient to prove the bona fide requirement for reconstruction under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Associated Sales Agencies, Karachi vs The Standard Insurance1985 CLC 2419 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-27
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementlandlord and tenantvariance in pleading and proofsublettingrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the grounds of default, subletting, and bona fide personal requirement. The Rent Controller had ordered ejectment solely on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. On appeal, the High Court of Sindh examined whether the respondent had established a genuine need. The respondent's pleadings stated that the premises were required to accommodate their expanding Head Office, which was operating from rented premises. However, the respondent's witness testified that the premises were needed to cluster and accommodate several branch offices currently located in different parts of the city. The High Court held that there was a material variance between the pleadings and the proof. It observed that clustering branch offices in one building defeats the purpose of having branches, and no evidence of expansion of the Head Office was produced. Consequently, the court ruled that bona fide requirement was not established and allowed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord obtain an ejectment order on the ground of personal requirement if there is a material variance between the pleadings in the application and the evidence produced on oath?
  • Does the mere fact that a landlord occupies rented premises automatically entitle them to eject a tenant from their own property without proving bona fide requirement?
  • Does the presence of signboards of sister concerns on the leased premises, used solely for receiving mail without physical occupation or rent payment, constitute subletting?
  Read full judgment →
• Asian Traders vs Messrs Lakhany Brothers1985 CLC 21 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Masih and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-25Read full judgment →
• Ashraf Butt vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1467 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-15Read full judgment →
• Asgharali vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 661 · Sindh High Court · 1985-07-24Read full judgment →
• Applicant: Mustafa R.C.C. Pipe Works vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax.PTCL 1985 (CL) 98 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Anwar Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and others1985 CLC 2798 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Anwar Textile Mills Limited. vs Central Board Of Revenue, Etc.PTCL 1985 (CL) 149 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-26Read full judgment →
• Anwar and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1626 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-13Read full judgment →
• Amjad Ali alias Kaloo vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 428 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12
  juvenile offenderdeath sentenceage determinationSind Children Actmedical board reportjurisdiction of sessions courtcriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arguing he was a juvenile at the time of the offense and thus protected under the Sind Children Act, 1955. The core legal questions concerned the determination of the appellant's age and the legality of his trial and sentencing under the general criminal law. The Court held that, based on the principle that the interpretation most favorable to the accused must be adopted, the Medical Board's report indicating the appellant was fifteen years old at the time of the incident should prevail over conflicting medical evidence. While the Court affirmed that the Sessions Court had jurisdiction to try the case, it ruled that the death sentence violated the express prohibition in Section 68(1) of the Sind Children Act, 1955. Consequently, the Court set aside the death sentence and referred the matter to the Provincial Government under Section 68(2) of the Act for appropriate orders, directing the appellant be held in the Juvenile Offenders' Jail pending such determination.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court prefer a medical report favorable to the accused when conflicting medical evidence regarding age exists?
  • Does the Sind Children Act, 1955 prohibit a Sessions Court from trying a juvenile offender for a murder charge?
  • Is a death sentence passed against a juvenile offender legal under the Sind Children Act, 1955?
  • Does an error in the mode of trial regarding juvenile status necessarily vitiate the entire proceedings under Section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Husain vs Muhammad Rafique and 2 others1985 P Cr. L J 108 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-27Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs Nawab Mukhtar Ahmed1985 CLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2323 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-09Read full judgment →
• Amir Bukhsh vs The Secretarygeneral, Ministry of Interior1985 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-28Read full judgment →
• Amir Ali vs Gul Shaker and 10 Others1985 PLD Karachi 365 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22
  high court appealadministration suitislamic law of inheritancesectarian beliefpersonal lawresiduariesremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 challenged the judgment of a learned Single Judge dismissing an administration suit involving the estate of late Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah. The primary dispute concerned whether the deceased adhered to the Sunni/Hanafi or Shia/Asna Ashri sect of Islam, which dictated the applicable personal law of inheritance. The appellants contended that she followed Sunni law or Quranic principles under which agnates inherit as residuaries, while respondents claimed she was governed by Shia law as an Asna Ashri Shia. The High Court analyzed oral declarations, conduct, and evidence regarding her public and private life. The court held that where a Muslim declares adherence to Islam without alignment with any specific sect, their personal law cannot be presumed to be strictly Shia or Sunni based merely on scattered circumstantial evidence. Setting aside the Single Judge's finding, the High Court held that the estate ought to be governed by general Quranic principles of Islamic law and remanded the suit for determination of remaining issues.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Muslim who rejects sectarian divisions is governed by general Quranic principles of inheritance rather than a specific sectarian law?
  • Does the mere attendance of private religious gatherings or rituals establish conversion or adherence to a specific sect for inheritance purposes?
  • Can a presumption of sectarian faith be drawn solely from the mode of funeral prayers conducted for a deceased person?
  Read full judgment →
• Amin Fabrics Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1985 PLC 764 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-19Read full judgment →
• Amanullah Khan vs Hafiz Abdul Ghaffar1985 PLD Karachi 7 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-06
  ejectmentbona fide personal needres judicatacomparative hardshiplandlord and tenantrestoration of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need for the landlord and his son to restart their ancestral shoe-making business. The core legal questions involved whether a previous dismissal of an ejectment application operates as res judicata to bar a subsequent application under changed circumstances, whether the landlord successfully proved bona fide personal need, and how comparative hardship between the landlord and tenant should be evaluated. The court held that changed circumstances, such as the landlord's son coming of age and completing his education to join the family business, remove the bar of res judicata, and that the landlord sufficiently established his bona fide requirement. Furthermore, the court held that both parties must adduce evidence regarding relative hardship, and the landlord's long deprivation of his property outweighed the tenant's continued occupation. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a two-month grace period granted to the tenant to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Does the dismissal of a previous ejectment application operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent ejectment application filed under changed circumstances?
  • What constitutes sufficient cause for the restoration of an appeal dismissed for default of appearance?
  • How should the relative hardship of the landlord and tenant be weighed when deciding an ejectment application on the ground of personal requirement?
  • Is the unshakeable oral testimony of a landlord regarding personal requirement sufficient to prove bona fide need if consistent with pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Altafur Rehman vs Mst. Nusrat Rashid and 3 others1985 MLD 225 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Sainji Restaurant and Hotel and 2 others1985 CLC 2131 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-30Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Sainjees Restaurant and Hotel1985 CLC 391 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30
  equitable mortgagedocument of titlerecovery of loanmortgage decreeproperty register extractbanking law
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff bank filed a suit against the defendants for the recovery of Rs. 10,33,450, representing an outstanding balance on an overdraft facility, and sought a mortgage decree against properties allegedly encumbered by an equitable mortgage. The core legal question was whether the documents deposited by the defendants—specifically extracts from the Property Register—constituted valid documents of title sufficient to create an equitable mortgage under the law. The Court held that while the plaintiff successfully proved the debt and was entitled to a money decree, it could not grant a mortgage decree. The Court reasoned that extracts from the Property Register, Jamabandi, and similar fiscal or revenue records are not documents of title, as they are merely presumptive evidence and do not confer property rights upon transfer. Consequently, the deposit of such documents does not satisfy the requirements for creating an equitable mortgage. The key principle laid down is that for the creation of a valid equitable mortgage, the documents deposited must be genuine documents of title, and mere extracts from government revenue or fiscal records are insufficient for this purpose.

  Questions settled

  • Can an equitable mortgage be created by depositing extracts from a Property Register?
  • Are revenue or fiscal records, such as Jamabandi or Property Register extracts, considered documents of title for the purpose of creating an equitable mortgage?
  • Is a decree under Order XXXIV, Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable if the underlying mortgage is found to be invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs Abdul Majeed (Deceased) through his1985 CLC 1518 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-24
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needlandlord and tenantcross-examinationdefault in payment of rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against his tenant bank seeking possession of a shop on the ground of personal bona fide need to establish his unemployed son in a laundry business, alongside an allegation of rent default. The Rent Controller framed issues regarding default and personal need, answering the former in the negative and the latter in the affirmative, which led to cross-appeals by both parties. The core legal question concerned whether the landlord's bona fide personal need was disproved by an isolated inadvertent utterance of the word residential during cross-examination. The court dismissed the tenant's appeal, holding that a single stray expression by an uneducated litigant cannot override the consistent, detailed pleadings and evidence establishing a genuine personal requirement. The key principle laid down is that a landlord's assertion on oath regarding personal need should be accepted as bona fide when consistent with pleadings and not genuinely shaken, and an accidental slip of the tongue during cross-examination must be evaluated in the context of the entire evidence rather than read to the landlord's prejudice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an accidental or inadvertent slip of the tongue by a landlord during cross-examination can negate a consistent and detailed claim of personal bona fide need?
  • Should the assertion on oath by a landlord that he requires the premises for his own or his son's use be accepted as bona fide when consistent with his averments?
  • Can a solitary word uttered by an uneducated litigant under cross-examination be treated as a positive admission against his entire pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd vs Syed Wahid Husain1985 MLD 594 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 724 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-20Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhio vs The State1985 MLD 862 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-17Read full judgment →
• Allah Dina vs Khair Muhammad and others1985 CLC 1377 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-21Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1758 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-07Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo and 6 others vs The Federal Land Commission and 31985 MLD 238 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
• Alimuddin and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2711 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2555 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-08Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 589 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Wali Muhammad and 4 others1985 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1948 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Khalil Ahmed Allahwala and 2 others1985 CLC 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-10
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in payment of rentdeposit of rent in courtrent appealinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a First Rent Appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1970 challenging an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence and directing eviction for non-compliance with a tentative rent order. The core legal questions involve whether a tenant who has regularly deposited rent in court pursuant to section 10 of the Ordinance can be held in default for arrears, and whether non-compliance with an illegal or without-jurisdiction tentative rent order warrants striking off defence and eviction. The Sindh High Court held that since the tenant had duly deposited the rent in court after the landlord refused to accept it, no arrears were due at the time the ejectment application was filed, rendering the tentative rent order bad in law. The Court established the principle that a tenant is not liable to be evicted for non-compliance with a defective or illegal tentative rent order, and an interlocutory order can be challenged in an appeal against the final order. The appeal was allowed and the case remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant can be considered in default of rent when rent has been regularly deposited in court under section 10 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 following refusal by the landlord?
  • Can a tenant challenge the legality of a tentative rent order in an appeal against the final order when no appeal lies against the interlocutory order itself?
  • Does non-compliance with an illegal or without-jurisdiction tentative rent order passed under section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 legally warrant striking off the tenant's defence?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and another1985 CLC 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-17
  municipal contractvoid agreementrestitutionquantum meruitstatutory formalitiescompensationcontract actlocal government
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a registered contractor, filed a suit against the Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (K.M.C.) for the recovery of money for materials supplied and services rendered for the erection of a stage and railing for a public meeting at Nishtar Park upon the instructions of K.M.C. officials. The defendants resisted the suit, contending that the claim was barred under section 42 of the Sind Local Government Ordinance, 1972 and rule 5 of the Municipal Committee (Contract) Rules, 1960 as there was no validly executed contract. The core legal questions involved whether a contract not complying with statutory execution formalities is binding, and whether compensation can be awarded under sections 65 and 70 of the Contract Act for benefits received under a void agreement. The court held that the statutory requirements for contracts are mandatory and non-compliance renders the agreement void and unenforceable, precluding a claim on the contract itself. However, the court established that under section 65 of the Contract Act, a party who has received a tangible advantage or appropriated goods under a void agreement is bound to restore them or make compensation. The court decreed the suit in part, awarding compensation solely for the value of the materials actually appropriated by the Corporation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the provisions regarding the execution of contracts under the Sind Local Government Ordinance and Municipal Committee Rules are mandatory or directory?
  • Can a contractor recover dues based on a contract with a municipal corporation that failed to comply with mandatory statutory formalities?
  • Does section 65 of the Contract Act apply to agreements that are void ab initio due to non-compliance with statutory execution requirements?
  • Is a municipal corporation liable to pay compensation under section 65 of the Contract Act for goods and materials appropriated by it under an unenforceable agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Jan vs Shujauddin1985 PLD Karachi 698 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-18
  striking off defencerent arrearsfuture renttentative rent orderdefaultejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller striking off the tenant's defence under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance for non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The Controller had directed the tenant to deposit arrears of rent after adjusting amounts previously deposited in a miscellaneous application, leaving the final calculation to the tenant, and also directed the regular deposit of future monthly rent. The High Court observed that an order for arrears must approximately determine the amount and not leave calculations to the parties; leaving the determination of arrears to the tenant was illegal and non-compliance with that specific direction could not entail eviction. However, the Court held that the directions for arrears and future rent are independent and separate. Since the direction for future rent was valid and the tenant defaulted on it, the tenant remained liable to eviction. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Rent Controller's order leaving the calculation and adjustment of rent arrears to the tenant is legally valid?
  • Does a defect in the Rent Controller's direction to deposit arrears of rent invalidate an independent direction in the same order to deposit future monthly rent?
  • Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a direction to deposit future rent if the accompanying direction for arrears of rent is legally defective?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Bux vs Kifayat Ali1985 MLD 175 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-25Read full judgment →
• Ali Bux and others vs The State1985 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-09Read full judgment →
• Alhaj Ali Hussain vs Messrs Eastern Film Studio Limited1985 MLD 1505 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Alam vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1985 PLC 570 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-03
  misconductstanding ordersact subversive of disciplinelabour lawgrievance petitionindustrial relationsdismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged the dismissal of his grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, which had been upheld by the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The petitioner, a technical assistant, was dismissed for misconduct after delivering an inflammatory speech criticizing the employer and the government during a lunch event attended by foreign delegates. The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s conduct constituted "misconduct" under clause (h) of paragraph 3 of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, specifically whether the phrase "riotous or disorderly behaviour" and "any act subversive of discipline" should be read conjunctively or disjunctively. The Court held that the term "or" is disjunctive, meaning an act subversive of discipline need not be riotous or disorderly. Furthermore, the Court determined that the incident occurred during working hours at the establishment. The petition was dismissed, affirming that the petitioner's conduct was subversive of discipline and justified dismissal, regardless of the absence of a verbatim transcript of the speech.

  Questions settled

  • Does the term 'or' in clause (h) of paragraph 3 of Standing Order 15 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 create a disjunctive list of misconduct categories?
  • Must an 'act subversive of discipline' necessarily involve riotous or disorderly behaviour to constitute misconduct under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does a lunch break during a work event constitute 'working hours at the establishment' for the purpose of defining misconduct?
  • Is a verbatim transcript of an employee's speech required to prove an act of misconduct involving subversive speech?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2695 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• Akbar and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and 9 Others vs Assandas and 2 Others1985 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Aim International vs Assistant Collector of Customs Appraisement-I, Customs House, Karachi and 4 others1985 MLD 473 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Aijaz Muhammad vs Mohsin Ali1985 MLD 1098 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-19Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Bhatti and another vs Haji Bagh Ali and 9 others1985 CLC 261 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-22
  temporary injunctionsub-tenantejectmentprivity of contractspecific reliefexecution of decreerent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order XXXIX, rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for a temporary injunction filed by the plaintiffs, who claimed to be sub-tenants of the premises in suit, seeking to restrain the landlords from disposing of or utilizing the property to their adverse interest. The core legal questions involve whether a sub-tenant is a necessary party in an ejectment action against the main tenant, whether a sub-tenant can be evicted in execution of a writ obtained against the principal tenant, and whether a dispossessed sub-tenant can maintain a possessory action under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The court held that a sub-tenant has no privity of contract with the superior landlord, is not a necessary party to an ejectment proceeding, and is lawfully liable to be evicted in execution of an eviction order passed against the main tenant. Furthermore, dispossession through the execution of such a rent order does not constitute dispossession otherwise than in due course of law under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The application for temporary injunction was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a sub-tenant is a necessary party to an ejectment application filed by a landlord against the principal tenant?
  • Can a sub-tenant be lawfully evicted in execution of a writ of possession issued pursuant to an ejectment order obtained against the main tenant?
  • Does the dispossession of a sub-tenant in execution of an eviction order against the principal tenant constitute dispossession otherwise than in due course of law under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  • Can an ad interim temporary injunction be granted in a suit where no perpetual injunction has been claimed in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Ali vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Abdul Rahim vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1639 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-13Read full judgment →