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.

• Ahmad Karachi Halwa Merchant vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, Karachi ,1985 PTD 272 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and 2 others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 928 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
• Agha Mahboob Shah vs Zarina Khwaja1985 CLC 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-17Read full judgment →
• Aeg Telefunken Pakistan Ltd. vs Electric Concern Corporation1985 CLC 155 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20
  patent infringementtemporary injunctionrevocation of patentcounter-claimprior publicationintellectual property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for a temporary injunction in a patent infringement suit, where the plaintiff sought to restrain the defendant from importing and selling a product allegedly infringing the plaintiff's patent. The core legal question was whether a defendant in an infringement suit must file a formal counter-claim for revocation to rely on the grounds for revocation specified in Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911, or if such grounds can be raised as a defense independently. The Court held that Section 29(2) of the Act allows a defendant to raise any ground for revocation under Section 26 as a defense in an infringement suit, regardless of whether a formal counter-claim is filed. The proviso to Section 29(1) merely provides a procedural mechanism for transferring cases to the High Court when a counter-claim is filed, but it does not restrict the substantive right of defense. Furthermore, the Court denied the injunction due to evidence of prior publication and sale of the invention by the plaintiff, and significant delay in bringing the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant in a patent infringement suit raise grounds for revocation under Section 26 of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 as a defense without filing a formal counter-claim?
  • Does the proviso to Section 29(1) of the Patents and Designs Act 1911 control or restrict the availability of revocation grounds as a defense under Section 29(2)?
  • Does the prior sale or advertisement of an invention by the patentee before the grant of a patent disentitle the patentee to a temporary injunction in an infringement suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Administratorgeneral of Auqaf, Islamabad vs Federal Land1985 CLC 700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdullah vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• Abdullah and 14 others vs Ghulam Rasool and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 103 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Waheed vs Aman Ulla H1985 CLC 2304 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Ali Ahmed1985 CLC 25 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20
  ex parte ejectment orderservice of summonslimitation perioddate of knowledgedefault in rent depositstriking off defencetechnical defaultremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a tenant's appeal against an ex parte order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller. The respondent landlord had filed a rent application alleging default in payment of rent and non-compliance with a notice under section 18 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The appellant tenant challenged the ex parte order, contending that he was never served with notices and that the endorsement of service was fraudulent. The High Court examined the limitation issue and held that if an ex parte order is passed without proper service, the limitation period for filing an appeal runs from the date of knowledge rather than the date of the order, thereby rendering the appeal within time. The respondent also sought to strike off the appellant's defence for a shortfall in depositing arrears of rent ordered by the court. The High Court found that the shortfall was a bona fide mathematical miscalculation and technical default attributable to the court clerk, which could be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the ex parte order was set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller for a decision on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing a rent appeal run from the date of the ex parte order or the date of knowledge when the order is passed without proper service?
  • Does a failure to comply strictly with a rent deposit order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance necessarily entail striking off the tenant's defence?
  • Can a technical or mathematical miscalculation in depositing rent arrears be condoned to avoid penal consequences?
  • Is an appeal maintainable against an ex parte ejectment order when the appellant denies service of summons and alleges fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad and others vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2803(2) · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razak and 5 others vs Mst. Yasmeen Khanum and 4 others1985 CLC 1048 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1828 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-12Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Khan vs The State1985 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid and others vs Mehmood Elahi Farooqi1985 CLC 968 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rashid Abdullah vs Ra Heemu Ddin1985 MLD 393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rahim vs Muhammad Salim alias Chottan1985 CLC 2834 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qayum vs The State1985 MLD 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Mateen and 3 Others vs Yusuf Bilal and 4 Others1985 PLD Karachi 422 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-23
  arbitration actreference to arbitrationparties interestedminornext friendleave of courtcivil procedureex parte proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, by the plaintiffs—including a minor—and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 in a pending civil suit, seeking to refer matters in dispute to arbitration without joining defendant No. 5. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a reference under sections 21 and 24 of the Arbitration Act when all interested parties had not joined, and whether an agreement to refer disputes to arbitration is valid when made on behalf of a minor without obtaining the prior leave of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that under section 21, all interested parties must join in the application, and defendant No. 5, against whom substantial relief was claimed, remained an interested party despite being proceeded against ex parte. Furthermore, the court held that the mandatory provisions of Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, require the express leave of the court to be obtained for entering into an arbitration agreement on behalf of a minor, and failure to do so renders the agreement void or voidable at the instance of the minor. Consequently, the application for reference to arbitration was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a valid reference to arbitration can be made under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, when all interested parties to the suit have not joined the application?
  • Does a defendant against whom substantial relief has been claimed cease to be an interested party under section 21 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, merely because proceedings against them are taking place ex parte?
  • Whether an agreement to refer matters in dispute to arbitration on behalf of a minor without obtaining the express leave of the court under Order XXXII Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, is valid?
  • Can a partial reference to arbitration under section 24 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, be sustained when the matters in dispute cannot be separated from the rest of the subject-matter of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Malik vs Mst.Saeeda Khatoon1985 CLC 839 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Khan vs Azizuddin and 6 others1985 P Cr. L J 2368 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed Bawany and 6 others vs The Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sind at Karachi and 2 others1985 MLD 489 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-25Read full judgment →
• Abdul M a Lik vs Haji Eja Z a Hma D1985 CLC 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Manzoor Ahmad and anothers1985 MLD 1621 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Janejo vs Mahfooz Ahmed through 5 Legal Heirs1985 CLC 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadar Mussawir and another vs MRs, Fatima Bib' and 12 others1985 MLD 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1985-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Siddiqui vs Returning Officer, Hyderabad Municipal1985 PLD Karachi 339 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan vs Mst. Aisha Khatoon1985 MLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1985-04-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and anothers vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1992 · Sindh High Court
  criminal appealocular evidencefalsely implicatedindependent corroborationinjured eye-witnessappreciation of evidencemurder conviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and sentences imposed by the trial court for murder and assault under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the testimony of eye-witnesses, who were found to have falsely implicated two co-accused, could sustain the conviction of the remaining appellants without independent corroborative evidence. The Sindh High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences. The Court held that because the eye-witnesses were found to have falsely implicated the acquitted co-accused, their testimony regarding the appellants was rendered unreliable absent strong, independent corroboration. The judgment reaffirms the principle that where eye-witnesses are found to have falsely implicated some accused persons in an occurrence, their testimony regarding the involvement of other accused is irretrievably shaken. Consequently, such testimony cannot form the basis of a conviction unless supported by strong, independent corroborative evidence. The mere fact that eye-witnesses sustained injuries does not automatically validate their testimony if they are otherwise found unreliable or inimical.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of eye-witnesses be relied upon to convict an accused if the same witnesses have been found to have falsely implicated other co-accused in the same occurrence?
  • Does the fact that an eye-witness sustained injuries during an incident automatically validate their testimony against all accused persons?
  • Is independent corroborative evidence required when eye-witnesses are found to have falsely implicated some accused in a criminal case?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid and 8 others vs Shamsuddin and 3 others1985 MLD 470 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1985 PLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hai vs The Administrator, Hyderabad Municipal Corporation, Hayderabad and ANOTHERs1935 PLD Karachi 319 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Ha@ and another vs Syed Basharat Ali1985 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-22
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentpersonal requirementbona fide needcross-objectionsexercise of discretionsecond rent appealwilful default
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves two separate rent appeals under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. In the first appeal, the landlord sought eviction on grounds of default and personal requirement. The tenant had tendered the rent within the statutory sixty-day grace period. The High Court held that since the rent was tendered within sixty days of becoming due, there was no default, making the ejectment application premature. On the question of personal requirement, the Court held that the Rent Controller must objectively assess the genuineness and good faith of the landlord's claim, including the availability of personnel to run the proposed business; since the landlord's son was studying in another city, the plea lacked bona fides. In the second appeal, the landlord challenged the concurrent refusal of lower courts to evict a tenant who defaulted by only ten days for a single month after thirty years of unblemished tenancy. The High Court held that Section 13(2)(i) of the Ordinance does not make eviction mandatory upon default; the Rent Controller retains discretion to refuse eviction if the default is not wilful or deliberate, which will not be disturbed in second appeal unless arbitrary or perverse.

  Questions settled

  • Can a successful landlord who obtained an eviction order on one ground file cross-objections or a cross-appeal to challenge adverse findings on other grounds?
  • Is a landlord permitted to agitate grounds decided against him by the Rent Controller during the tenant's appeal without filing cross-objections?
  • Does a ten-day delay in tendering rent for a single month by a long-term tenant automatically require the Rent Controller to order eviction?
  • What factors must a Rent Controller consider when evaluating a landlord's claim of personal requirement for business purposes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Hafiz Jalaluddin1985 MLD 1145 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and others vs Rehmani Masjid and others1985 MLD 1259 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 1615 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12
  quashment of proceedingsSection 145 CrPCdispute over possessionlandlord and tenant disputeinherent powers of High Courtbreach of peacecriminal trespass
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before an Assistant Commissioner and Sub-Divisional Magistrate. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 145, Cr.P.C. could be utilized to resolve a property dispute between a landlord and tenant where civil litigation and other criminal complaints were already pending, and whether such proceedings were procedurally valid. The High Court held that the Magistrate acted illegally by treating the dispute as a criminal matter under Section 145, Cr.P.C. to secure possession of the premises, noting that the parties had existing rent disputes and other criminal litigation. The Court emphasized that Section 145, Cr.P.C. is not a substitute for civil ejectment proceedings or criminal trespass complaints under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings, ordered the shop to be unsealed, and directed that possession be restored to the party from whom it was originally taken.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be used to resolve a landlord-tenant dispute where civil remedies are available?
  • Does the High Court have the power under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to entertain a petition for quashment if a revision application has already been dismissed by the Sessions Judge?
  • Is a Magistrate authorized to conduct a preliminary inquiry under Section 202, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in proceedings initiated under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Mst. Khatija1985 MLD 233 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Urfi vs S.G. Jeelani and 5 others1985 CLC 2415 · Sindh High Court · 1985-02-01Read full judgment →
• Abbas vs The State1985 P Cr. L J 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Tando Allahyar and anothers1985 P Cr. L J 2837 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-20Read full judgment →
• Abbas Ali Shah and another vs Naeem Ahmad and 2 others1985 MLD 172 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-05Read full judgment →
• Aba Hussain vs Mst. Mehrunnissa Begum1985 CLC 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-20Read full judgment →
• A. Masood Ali vs Quresha Sultana1985 MLD 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1985-06-15Read full judgment →
• A. Ghani vs Mst. Rasool Bibi and 7 others1985 CLC 2066 · Sindh High Court · 1985-01-26Read full judgment →
• A Bdullah vs Hasan Abbas1985 CLC 892 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-21
  ejectment applicationbona fide requirementtender of rentdefault in rentsublettingstatutory fictiontender under protest
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant on grounds of default in rent payment, bona fide personal requirement, and unauthorized subletting. The core legal questions concern whether rent deposited in court under the Controller's order constitutes a valid tender despite the tenant's dispute regarding the rent amount, and whether the landlord sufficiently established bona fide requirement for the premises. The Court held that depositing rent in court under the Controller's order is a valid tender, even if done "under protest" or subject to a dispute, as it complies with the statutory mechanism of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. Regarding bona fide requirement, the Court ruled that a landlord already occupying commercial premises must provide specific evidence explaining why existing space is insufficient to justify the need for additional premises; a mere assertion of desire is insufficient. Furthermore, the allegation of subletting remained unproven. Consequently, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming that the tenant was not in default and the landlord failed to substantiate the grounds for eviction.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deposit of rent in the office of the Controller under the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 constitute a valid tender even if the tenant disputes the rent amount?
  • Is a tender of rent made 'under protest' or subject to a dispute invalid?
  • What must a landlord prove to establish a bona fide requirement for additional business premises when they are already in occupation of other commercial premises?
  • Does the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 require a dispute between the parties as a condition precedent for a tenant to deposit rent with the Controller?
  Read full judgment →
• A .Ghafoor vs Mst.Amina Fatima1985 CLC 1801 · Sindh High Court · 1985-03-06Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3167 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-19Read full judgment →
• Zulfiqar 0 Pappo vs The State1984 MLD 1412 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• Zohra Begum vs Pakistan Burmahshell Ltd.1984 CLC 2769 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-07
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentlandlord and tenantterritorial jurisdictiondeposit of rentactus curiae neminem gravabitrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two appeals arising from a rent dispute between a landlady and a corporate tenant regarding a plot in Karachi. The core legal questions were whether a landlord who unjustifiably refuses rent can subsequently claim default, and whether a tenant is liable for default if rent is deposited in a court later found to lack territorial jurisdiction. The Court held that the landlady’s refusal to accept the rent cheque was unjustified, and she could not take advantage of her own wrong to claim default. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the tenant could not be penalized for depositing rent in a court that had accepted the deposit, invoking the maxim actus curiae neminem gravabit (an act of the court shall prejudice no man). The Court affirmed that the tenant’s actions were not wilful and that the deposit, even if irregular, did not constitute default. The appeals were dismissed, upholding the Rent Controller’s decision to reject the ejectment application based on the alleged default.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord who unjustifiably refuses to accept rent subsequently sue the tenant for default in payment of rent?
  • Does a tenant commit default if they deposit rent in a court that is later found to lack territorial jurisdiction but had initially accepted the deposit?
  • Is a tenant liable for default when the landlord fails to move the Rent Controller for a tentative rent deposit order during the pendency of a rent case?
  Read full judgment →
• Zamir Ltd. vs Collector Of Customs And 3 OtherPTCL 1984 (CL.) 236 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Zair Hussain vs S.Ghulam Sibtain Naqvi and 3 others1984 CLC 2560 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Shah and Another vs The State Opponent1984 P Cr. L J 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-12Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs S. Arshad Hussain1984 MLD 738 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmad vs Gul Sher and 6 others1984 P Cr. L J 2839 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs Haji Abdul Karim1984 MLD 275 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Income-Tax Officer and Others1984 PTD 167 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali vs Income Tax Officer Etc.PTCL 1984 (CL) 168 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ali Khan vs Settlement Commissioner (Land), Hyderabad and Others1984 CLC 664 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
• Za M Ir Ltd. vs Collector of Customs and 3 Others1984 CLC 530 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
• Z. C. Valiani, Mujibur Rahman Alvi and 8 others vs Alvia Tabligh Trust1984 CLC 2936 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-18Read full judgment →
• Yusuf vs Zubeda and others1984 MLD 590 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
• Yusuf vs Fazal Karim1984 CLC 911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• Yusuf Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2905 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-18Read full judgment →
• Yousuf vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
• Yousif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1982 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• Yousif and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1562 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Yaseen vs Muhammad Idrees and 2 others1984 CLC 2472 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Yar Muhammad vs Mst. Janna T1984 CLC 2328 · Sindh High Court · 1993-12-03Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob and 3 others vs Haji Muhammad Yousaf1984 MLD 637 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• Yan Loong Wu vs Sultan Jehan and 9 Others1984 CLC 2369 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
• Yakoob Timber Mart vs Collector, Customs, Karachi and 2 Others1984 CLC 490 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Yakoob Timber Market. vs Collector Of Customs,Karachi And Two OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 220 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
• Y a B vs Hakeem Muhammad Fazal Haque1984 MLD 252 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-31Read full judgment →
• William C. R. Martin vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
• Wasi Haider vs Qamar Muhammad Khan1984 CLC 1755 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-10Read full judgment →
• Warayo and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2815 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2813 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Shafi Muhammad1984 CLC 2883 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Deputy Commissioner/Appellate Authrority,1984 CLC 2929 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-02Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Abdul Karim1984 CLC 2554 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Wahiduddin vs Abid Hussain and another1984 CLC 2932 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux vs Election Authority, Province of Sind through Deputy1984 CLC 1294 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13
  writ petitionelection petitionmaintainabilityballot paper invalidationofficial markpresiding officer initialSind Local Council Election Rules 1979administrative instructions
  Summary & questions settled

  A constitutional petition was filed before the High Court of Sindh challenging an order of the Returning Officer (Respondent No. 2), who had invalidated all ballot papers cast in an election for a Union Council on the ground that, although stamped with the official mark, they lacked the Presiding Officer's initials as required by administrative instructions in the election manual. The respondents raised a preliminary objection regarding maintainability, contending that an election petition before the Election Tribunal was the sole adequate remedy.

  The High Court held that while writ jurisdiction in election matters is exercised sparingly, a writ petition is maintainable where no disputed factual questions exist and the issue turns on statutory interpretation or legal principles. On the merits, interpreting Rules 35 and 40 of the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules 1979, the Court ruled that the law explicitly mandated rejection only for lack of an official mark, not for absence of the Presiding Officer's initial. Administrative instructions cannot override or expand statutory grounds of invalidity. Re-counting was accordingly ordered.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a writ petition under constitutional jurisdiction is maintainable in election matters where no disputed questions of fact are involved and the issue concerns pure interpretation of election rules?
  • Whether administrative instructions issued for election guidance can alter or override statutory rules regarding the rejection of ballot papers?
  • Does the absence of the Presiding Officer's initial on a ballot paper render it invalid under Rules 35 and 40 of the Sind Local Council (Election) Rules 1979 when it bears the official mark?
  Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bakhsh alias Soomar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3208 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
• Wadero Fateh Ali vs Razikdino and 3 Others1984 CLC 3126 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-13Read full judgment →
• Usman vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1797 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-15
  murderdeath sentencemitigating circumstancesjudicial confessionprivate arrestchemical examiner reportprovocation
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sanghar, convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Mst. Gullan and sentencing him to death. The core legal questions involved the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the voluntariness of a judicial confession, the effect of delay in dispatching recovered items to the Chemical Examiner, the legality of an arrest by a private person under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, and the quantum of sentence in light of mitigating circumstances and provocation. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution proved its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts, a voluntary judicial confession, and corroborated recoveries, and that private arrest based on immediate hue and cry is lawful under Section 59. However, considering the appellant's young age and the element of provocation arising from a domestic dispute, the court substituted the death sentence with life imprisonment, rejecting the reference for confirmation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private person is legally authorized under Section 59 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to arrest a suspect upon hearing an immediate outcry and pursuit of the offender?
  • Does a delay in the dispatch of recovered blood-stained articles to the Chemical Examiner render the Chemical Analyser's Report inadmissible or fatal to the prosecution case?
  • Whether the existence of a prior illicit relationship and sudden refusal by the deceased constitutes grave and sudden provocation sufficient to bring a murder case within Exception I to Section 300 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether a judicial confession recorded within twenty-four hours of apprehension is per se involuntary?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2908 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Usman vs Labour Appellate Tribunal and another1984 CLC 2782 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-09
  domestic enquirynatural justicemisconductreduction in rankburden of proofconstitutional petitionlabour appellate tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 challenged an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal arising from a service dispute. The petitioner, employed by Karachi Port Trust, was suspended and charge-sheeted for misconduct, leading to a domestic enquiry and subsequent reduction in rank. The core legal question was whether a domestic enquiry conducted by examining the accused employee first before producing evidence in support of the charges violates the principles of natural justice and mandatory service rules. The Sindh High Court held that conducting a domestic enquiry by examining the accused in the first instance without first adducing evidence by the employer and denying the right to cross-examine constitutes a grave infirmity and a violation of both the principles of natural justice and sub-rule (3) of rule 6-A of the K.P.T. Officers and Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1969. The Court laid down that in domestic enquiries, the burden of proof rests on the employer to substantiate allegations by producing evidence first, allowing the employee to cross-examine, and providing adequate opportunity to defend.

  Questions settled

  • Does examining an accused employee at the very commencement of a domestic enquiry violate the principles of natural justice?
  • Whether an order of reduction in rank based on a void domestic enquiry report is sustainable in law?
  • What is the procedure required for conducting a valid domestic enquiry under labour laws?
  • Can the High Court interfere with findings of fact in writ jurisdiction when proceedings are in violation of law or established principles?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman Ahmad Ansari vs Messrs Union Steel Mills Ltd.--Defendant1984 MLD 983 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-05Read full judgment →
• Usma N vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2906 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Uris and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2229 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• United Glass Marbles Industries vs Ghulam Hussain Rajwany1984 MLD 292 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., Sukkur vs Munir Ahmad and 2 Others1984 PLC 276 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Umardraz vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Umar and Another vs The Sate1984 P Cr. L J 310 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-31Read full judgment →
• Tufail Muhammad and 3 Others vs Karachi Development Authority1984 CLC 1716 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-27Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Es'1'ate of Late Mar. Sherin Bai C. Dubash vs Tm1984 PTD 202 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• Trustees of Port of Karachi vs Haji Gul Hassan and 4 Others1984 CLC 1721 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-11Read full judgment →
• Town Committee.Pithoro and anothers vs Union Council Araro and 31984 CLC 2822 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• Toti Gul Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner, Hyderabad and 2 Others1984 CLC 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-17Read full judgment →
• Tne Commissioner of Income Tax (Centralzone), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 166 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-08Read full judgment →