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.

• Syed Jaffar Hussain vs The Controller of Estate Duty1984 CLC 2570 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• Syed Irshad Ahmad vs The Returning Officer, K. M. C. Unit No, 123 and 281984 CLC 3259 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasshmi vs Musheeruddin Siddiqui and 2 Others1984 CLC 82 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Hashim Ali Shah vs President, Summary Military Court, Karachi1984 P Cr. L J 1379 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-03
  Military CourtConstitutional JurisdictionUndertrial DetentionSentence ReductionOuster of JurisdictionMartial Law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed a constitutional petition seeking to have his pre-trial detention period counted towards his one-year sentence of rigorous imprisonment imposed by a Summary Military Court, and to set aside a fine of Rs. 2,00,000. The petitioner argued that under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, the period spent in custody as an undertrial prisoner should be deducted from the substantive sentence. The Sindh High Court examined whether this provision applied to sentences awarded by Military Courts. The Court held that the Army Act establishes a separate and independent scheme for trials and punishments, rendering the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 inapplicable to Military Court proceedings. Furthermore, the Court determined that, pursuant to the recent amendment to Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to interfere with decisions or sentences imposed by a Military Court. Consequently, the petition was dismissed in limine, affirming that the judiciary cannot grant relief regarding sentences passed by Military Courts.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to sentences awarded by Military Courts?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to interfere with sentences imposed by a Military Court?
  • Is the Army Act a self-contained scheme for trials and punishments distinct from the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasan vs Nasim Najmi and another1984 MLD 839 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-20Read full judgment →
• Syed Hasan Nawaz vs Moosa and others1984 MLD 199 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Hadi Masood vs Begum Hameeda Salam--Defendant1984 MLD 1102 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Shah vs Mrt. Hawa Bai and 5 Others1984 CLC 190 · Sindh High Court · 1993-10-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs The Deputy Commissioner & 1Ncharge, Settlement Cell, San 3 Ar and 2 Others1984 CLC 1729 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-18
  mutationrecord-of-rightsnatural justiceaudi alteram partemalternative remedyfraudconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed to challenge two orders of the Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar, which directed the cancellation of mutations in the record-of-rights regarding disputed survey numbers. The petitioner claimed to have purchased the land via registered sale-deeds from an allottee, whereas the respondents contended that the original allotment was obtained through bogus documents. The core legal questions were whether the Revenue Authorities could cancel mutations without issuing notice to the affected parties, and whether the availability of an alternative remedy barred the constitutional petition. The High Court held that even if an allotment is allegedly fraudulent, the resulting mutations cannot be cancelled without giving notice to the affected parties, as doing so violates the principles of natural justice. Furthermore, the existence of an alternative remedy does not bar writ jurisdiction when the impugned order is attacked as being wholly without lawful authority. The Court set aside the impugned orders but remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner to conduct a fresh inquiry after providing proper notice to all affected parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can mutations in the record-of-rights be cancelled by revenue authorities on allegations of fraud without giving notice to the affected parties?
  • Does the availability of an alternative remedy under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 bar a constitutional petition if the impugned order is challenged as being without lawful authority and in violation of natural justice?
  • Do revenue authorities retain the power to investigate allegations of fraud and correct mutations under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act 1967 after the repeal of evacuee laws?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Bashir Ali vs Swami Narain Temple Estate Trust through the Receiver Appointed by High Court of Sind1984 CLC 1949 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Bahauddin vs Mst. Afsar Saeed1984 CLC 1998 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Azha'r Imam Rizvi vs Mst. Salma Khatoon1984 MLD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashraf and 3 others vs Mukhtar Ahmad Khan and 5 others1984 MLD 991 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashraf Ali vs Abdul Rashid1984 CLC 2632 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Asadullah Shah vs Ram Chand1984 CLC 1910 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Muhammad and another vs Bashiruddin1984 MLD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Imam Rizvi vs Asghar Ali and 3 others1984 MLD 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-11Read full judgment →
• Syed Akbar Shah and5 others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1984 MLD 406 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Hussain vs Azimullah1984 CLC 2908 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24
  second rent appealrelationship of landlord and tenantstriking off defencetentative rent orderremand orderdisputed titleejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This second rent appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellant on grounds of default, personal requirement, nuisance, and damage. The appellant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant, asserting his own ownership of the property. The Rent Controller initially held that such a relationship existed and ordered ejectment. On first appeal, the matter was remanded to pass a tentative rent order, frame issues, and record evidence. Upon remand, the appellant failed to deposit rent pursuant to the tentative order, leading the Rent Controller to strike off his defence and order ejectment, which was affirmed in first appeal. The High Court considered whether the finding on the relationship had attained finality and whether the relationship was proved. The High Court held that the remand order was favorable to the appellant and not appealable, meaning the preliminary finding on tenancy had not attained finality. Furthermore, uncorroborated, contradictory oral testimony without any documentary evidence could not establish tenancy where title was disputed. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment orders were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order of the First Appellate Authority remanding an ejectment case after setting aside a final ejectment order can be appealed under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 by a party in whose favour the appeal was allowed?
  • Does a preliminary finding by a Rent Controller regarding the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship attain finality if the first appellate court remands the matter for fresh adjudication on merits without recording a contrary finding?
  • Can the relationship of landlord and tenant be legally established solely through conflicting and uncorroborated oral testimony in the absence of any written tenancy agreement, rent receipts, or documentary evidence, particularly where title is disputed?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmad Sayeed Jaffery vs Qamaruzzaman Khan1984 MLD 1151 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Abuul Latif vs Mrs. Shakila Yaqob1984 CLC 2645 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Abrar Saeed vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1984 PLC 1715 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Rashid vs Muhammad Fazlur Rehman1984 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court · 1968-04-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Qadeem vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 774 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-08Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Hameed Shah vs Deputy Commissioner, Tharparkar and 61984 MLD 300 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-10Read full judgment →
• Sultan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax Karachi. West, KarachiPTCL 1984 (CL) 270 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sultan Textile Mills Karachi Ltd., vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (West), Karachi1984 PTD 298 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
• Sultan Safdar Khan vs Syed Muhammad Raza1984 CLC 2340 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ali and 22 others vs Karachi Building Control Authority1984 MLD 917 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-28Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs The VTH Senior Clivil Judge/Assistant Sessions1984 CLC 101 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-25
  Rent ControllerEjectment applicationDismissal for defaultRestoration of applicationInterlocutory orderWrit jurisdictionFragmentary litigation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order by the Rent Controller restoring an ejectment application that had previously been dismissed for default. The petitioner argued that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to restore the application under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and that the dismissal was on merits, precluding restoration. The Court held that the initial dismissal for default was not a decision on merits. Regarding the Rent Controller's power to restore, the Court affirmed that while Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, does not strictly apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller, its principles may be invoked in the interest of justice. Crucially, the Court determined that the petition was not maintainable because the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance provides no appeal against interlocutory orders, aiming to prevent delays caused by fragmentary litigation. The Court ruled that the petitioner must wait for a final order in the ejectment proceedings, at which point they may challenge both the final order and the impugned interlocutory order in a single appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller restore an ejectment application dismissed for default by applying the principles of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Is an interlocutory order passed by a Rent Controller appealable under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a dismissal of an ejectment application due to the non-appearance of the applicant constitute a decision on merits?
  Read full judgment →
• Sulleman vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2484 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
• Suleman Motala vs Turab Ali1984 CLC 2469 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• Suleman Ghazi vs Ghulam Hyder and Another1984 CLC 2213 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-07
  personal requirementejectmenttenant evictionbona fide needrent appealsocial status accommodation
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under section 21(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant's ejectment from the demised bungalow on the grounds of default in rent and bona fide personal requirement by the respondent-landlords. The core legal question concerned whether the landlords established a genuine, good-faith personal requirement for the premises, considering their social status, family circumstances, and the tenant's objections regarding the size of the house and the landlords' ownership of other properties. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlords successfully proved their bona fide personal requirement, which withstood cross-examination, and that a tenant cannot dictate the standard of living or required accommodation of a landlord. The court reaffirmed that a demand for higher rent or ownership of other properties does not negate a genuine personal need, and statutory safeguards adequately protect tenants against misuse of eviction orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's demand for higher rent by itself casts doubt on the bona fide personal requirement of the premises?
  • Can a tenant dictate or prescribe the amount of accommodation suitable for the landlord's needs?
  • Does the mere ownership of other property in the same urban area serve as a ground to refuse eviction for personal requirement?
  • Is a landlord residing in a property belonging to their father considered to be in possession of a suitable building owned by them for the purposes of avoiding eviction claims?
  Read full judgment →
• State vs Murad Ali1984 P Cr. L J 828 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-21Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Rafeeque1984 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-24Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Hanif1984 P Cr. L J 2617 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
• State vs Messrs General Tractor Machinery & Co. Ltd.1984 P Cr. L J 858 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• State vs Islamuddin alias Changha1984 P Cr. L J 273 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• State through Assistant Advocategeneral and Exofficio Public1984 P Cr. L J 621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-26Read full judgment →
• State through Advocategeneral, Sind, Karachi vs Abdul Rahim and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• State through Advocategeneral, Sind and Ex Offico Public1984 P Cr. L J 226 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurancecorporation of Pakistan vs Nasim Ahmad and Another1984 CLC 159 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation vs Mst. Rashida Begum alias Nasim1984 CLC 1046 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Abdul Latif1984 CLC 155 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Jehangir Rustom Kakalia1984 MLD 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-10Read full judgment →
• Standard Finis Oil Company and Others vs National Detergents Ltd.1984 CLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13
  trade markrectification proceedingsstay of proceedingsconclusive validityinterim injunctionRegistrar of Trade Marksseven year ruleTrade Marks Act 1940
  Summary & questions settled

  This order of the High Court of Sindh concerns an application for interim injunction filed under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit filed by Standard Finis Oil Company against National Detergents Ltd. and others. The plaintiffs sought to restrain the defendants from prosecuting 34 rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar of Trade Marks (defendant No. 3) to expunge the trade mark 'Finis'. The plaintiffs contended that the registered marks enjoyed conclusive validity under Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 as seven years had elapsed, that the marks were registered after prior opposition proceedings, and that under Section 72 of the Act, pending proceedings before the High Court barred the Registrar from proceeding. The High Court granted an interim stay of the rectification proceedings pending before the Registrar, holding that the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case regarding the unmaintainability of the rectification proceedings, while the balance of convenience and irreparable injury also weighed in their favour.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 24 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 protect a registered trade mark from rectification proceedings after seven years from the date of original registration except on grounds of fraud or violation of Section 8?
  • Whether the pendency of a civil suit before a High Court concerning a trade mark acts as a bar to the Registrar of Trade Marks entertaining or proceeding with rectification applications under Section 72 of the Trade Marks Act 1940?
  • Can a party seek rectification of a trade mark under Section 46 of the Trade Marks Act 1940 on grounds that were already adjudicated and rejected during opposition proceedings at the time of registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Smt. Kemat Bai and another vs Suresh Kumar and 2 others1984 MLD 1195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-28Read full judgment →
• Sitaldas and 2 Others vs Haji Muhammad SAFFAR/Opponent1984 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• Sirafi Trading Establishment vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1984 CLC 381 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23
  bank guaranteeperformance bondinjunctionconfirmed letter of creditunconditional paymentfraud exceptioncontractual disputeencashment of guaranteeinterim injunction
  Summary & questions settled

  This application sought an injunction to restrain the defendants from encashing bank guarantees/performance bonds furnished by the plaintiffs for the supply of edible oil. The plaintiffs argued that time was not of the essence, and delays were caused by the defendants, thus the guarantees should not be encashed. The defendants contended that the guarantees were unconditional and akin to confirmed letters of credit. The Court held that bank guarantees are governed by the same principles as confirmed letters of credit, imposing an absolute obligation on the issuing bank to pay on demand, irrespective of disputes between the contracting parties. The only exception to this rule is clear and obvious fraud to the knowledge of the bank. Finding no prima facie case of such fraud, the Court discharged the interim injunction, directing the encashment of the bank guarantees and investment of the proceeds for the benefit of the ultimately successful party.

  Questions settled

  • Are bank guarantees and performance bonds governed by the same principles of law as confirmed letters of credit?
  • Does a bank issuing a performance guarantee have an absolute obligation to pay according to its terms, irrespective of disputes between the contracting parties?
  • What is the sole exception to a bank's obligation to honor a performance guarantee or confirmed letter of credit?
  • Can an injunction be granted to restrain the encashment of an unconditional bank guarantee in the absence of clear and obvious fraud?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution `Aiwane-Mehnatkash' vs Fatehally Chemical Ltd1984 PLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Kohinoor Chemical Co., Tibet Centre, Karachi1984 PLC 663 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-05Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan and 6 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1265 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-24Read full judgment →
• Sijawar vs Hafiz Muhammad Umer and 3 others1984 CLC 2637 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sijawal and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
• Shujauddin and 15 otherss vs The Assistant Collector of Customs, Karachi and 3 others1984 CLC 2616 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shujauddin And 15 Other, Customs, Karachi And 3 Other vs AssistantPTCL 1984 (CL) 370 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shitab and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2874 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Shiromik Industries Ltd. vs Collector, Central Excise and 2 others1984 MLD 562 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-30Read full judgment →
• Shero vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1298 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Sherdil and 4 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1555 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Sheral and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3053 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Muhammad Sa Diq and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 3126 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-23Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhamm Ad vs Amir Bux and 3 Others1984 P Cr. L J 198 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
• Sher Au vs Mst. Mariam Bai1984 CLC 1893(2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shell International Petroleum Company Ltd. and another vs Indus Gas1984 MLD 334 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Anwar vs Sheikh Muhammad Iqbal and Another1984 CLC 103 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-20
  temporary injunctionappointment of receiverprima facie casepartnership dissolutionseparate legal entityinterlocutory reliefbenami transaction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns High Court appeals against an order of a Single Judge dismissing the appellant's applications for temporary injunction and the appointment of a receiver in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts. The appellant alleged that the respondent diverted partnership funds to establish various companies and purchase vessels, asserting that these companies were benami entities for the respondent. The core legal question was whether the appellant established a prima facie case to warrant the requested interlocutory relief. The Court held that the appellant failed to provide sufficient material to substantiate the allegations of fund diversion or to demonstrate that the companies were mere fronts for the respondent. The Court affirmed that a company maintains a separate legal entity from its promoters or shareholders, and mere allegations of fund diversion without supporting evidence do not constitute a prima facie case. Consequently, the Court upheld the trial court's exercise of discretion in refusing the injunction and receiver, emphasizing that appellate courts should not interfere with such discretion unless it was exercised on incorrect principles or ignored relevant material.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere promotion of a company by an individual lead to the legal conclusion that the individual is the owner of that company?
  • Is a party entitled to an injunction or the appointment of a receiver based solely on bare allegations of fund diversion without prima facie evidence?
  • Under what circumstances will an appellate court interfere with the trial court's exercise of discretion in granting or refusing interlocutory relief?
  • Can a court remove a person from the possession or custody of property if the party to the suit has no present right to remove them?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Anwar vs Abdul Majeed1984 CLC 110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ataur Rahman and Another vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 2007 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ali Daraz Ahmad Siddiqui vs With Senior Civil Judge, Karachi1984 CLC 2634 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Majied vs Tayab Ali1984 MLD 793 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-14Read full judgment →
• Sheedu vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 864 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Hussain Khan through his legal representatives vs Anwar and another1984 MLD 799 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs Abdul Hassan alias Noor Hassan alias Hannan and Another1984 P Cr. L J 2086 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-02Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali Khan Lodhi (represented by his 9 Legal Heirs) vs Settlement1984 MLD 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-02Read full judgment →
• Shauk at vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3136 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-03Read full judgment →
• Sharfuddin vs Mst. Kishwar Jehan1984 CLC 1133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Sharafat Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1730 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Shan Illahi vs Mst. Mahmooda Begum1984 CLC 931 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-02
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencerent controllerejectmentcondonation of delayburden of proofrent arrears
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant's defence and ordering ejectment due to failure to comply with a tentative rent order. The appellant, a tenant, was ordered to deposit arrears of rent by a specific deadline but failed to do so until several days later. The core legal questions were whether the Rent Controller was required to conduct a detailed inquiry into alleged prior payments before passing a tentative rent order, and whether the delay in depositing rent could be condoned based on the appellant's illness. The Court held that a tentative rent order is passed based on available material without a final determination of liability, and thus, the Controller was not obligated to hold a full inquiry into disputed payment claims at that stage. Furthermore, the Court found that the appellant failed to discharge the burden of proving that illness rendered timely payment impossible. Consequently, the Court upheld the striking off of the defence, affirming that the Rent Controller's procedural actions were legal and competent despite minor mislabeling of the application's statutory basis.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Rent Controller required to conduct a full inquiry into disputed rent payments before passing a tentative rent order?
  • Does the mislabeling of a rent application under the wrong section of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 invalidate the proceedings if the Rent Controller treated it under the correct section?
  • What is the burden of proof on a tenant seeking condonation of delay in depositing rent due to illness?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin (through His Legal Heirs) vs Nisar Ahmad1984 CLC 1016 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Awan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 303 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
• Shamsher Ali vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and 2 others1984 CLC 2742 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shamshao Ali vs Karachi Development Authority and another1984 CLC 2485 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed vs The District Judge, Karachi and 2 others1984 MLD 609 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed vs Arshad Jamil and 3 others1984 MLD 1189 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-11Read full judgment →
• Shakir Jameel vs Zaheer Akhtar1984 MLD 400 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
• Shakir Hussain Chishty vs E. A. Breganza1984 PLD Karachi 141 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21
  ejectmentpersonal requirementlandlord and tenantbona fide needdisclosure of accommodationrent controllersecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a landlord's application for the ejectment of a tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority both rejected the application, finding that the landlord's existing accommodation was sufficient for his family. The core legal question was whether the landlord had established a bona fide personal requirement for the premises, particularly given his failure to disclose the ownership of an additional flat in the same urban area. The High Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower tribunals, noting that the landlord failed to disclose the existence of the additional flat in his application or evidence. The court held that where a landlord seeks ejectment based on personal need, he is legally obligated to disclose all available accommodation within the same urban area and demonstrate why such premises are unsuitable or unavailable. By failing to disclose the additional flat and prove its inadequacy, the landlord failed to satisfy the statutory requirements for ejectment under the relevant rent legislation. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Is a landlord required to disclose other properties owned in the same urban area when seeking ejectment on the ground of personal requirement?
  • Does the failure to disclose additional available accommodation invalidate an application for ejectment based on personal need?
  • Can a court interfere with concurrent findings of fact regarding the sufficiency of accommodation in a rent appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Shakir Ali Jafferi and 6 Others vs Land Acquisition Officer L. B. 0.1984 CLC 2353 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Hanif vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 741 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Israr Ahmad vs The Collector of Customs and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 975 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Shahzada Ahmed Shah vs M.M.A.Siddiqui1984 MLD 287 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Shahza Da Sultan Humayun vs Nasiruddin1984 CLC 3090 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-14
  transfer of civil suitconflicting decisionscommon questions of fact and lawforum of appealinterest of justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil application sought the transfer of a suit pending before a Civil Judge at Karachi to the High Court to be tried together with another subsequent suit between the same parties involving common questions of fact and law. The core legal question was whether a suit should be transferred to the High Court to avoid conflicting decisions, notwithstanding the respondent's contention that such transfer would deprive him of a first appeal forum before the District Judge. The court held that the transfer is justified in the interest of justice to avoid contradictory decisions, and that the grievance of losing a lower appellate forum is illusory when replaced by a superior forum. The key principle laid down is that where two suits involving common questions of law and fact are pending in different courts between the same parties, transfer of the case to avoid conflicting decisions outweighs any theoretical prejudice regarding the loss of a first appeal forum.

  Questions settled

  • Can a civil suit be transferred from a subordinate court to the High Court to be tried alongside another suit pending in the High Court?
  • Whether the transfer of a suit from a Civil Judge to the High Court deprives a party of a valid right regarding the forum of appeal?
  • Is the avoidance of conflicting decisions a sufficient ground for the transfer of a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahu vs Muhammad Ismail and 7 Others1984 PLD Karachi 173 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09Read full judgment →
• Shahim Nasir Khan vs Ghalib Imam and 4 others1984 P Cr. L J 2872 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2899 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-25Read full judgment →
• Shahid Mahmood vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1371 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Shahid Ahmad vs The State1984 MLD 1413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-17Read full judgment →
• Shahenshah Humayun Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. and 2 Others1984 PLD Karachi 426 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-27
  compound interestwaiver of statutory rightsmortgage deedloan agreementstatutory interpretationpendente lite interestHouse Building Finance Corporation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns fifteen consolidated appeals arising from a judgment regarding loan repayments by five Cooperative Housing Societies to the House Building Finance Corporation (HBFC). The core legal question was whether the HBFC was entitled to charge compound interest with monthly rests under Regulation 11 of the HBFC Regulations, 1954, despite the original loan agreements specifying simple interest. The Court held that the HBFC was not entitled to charge compound interest. It determined that the HBFC’s long-standing practice of not charging monthly rests demonstrated that Regulation 11 was directory rather than mandatory, and that the Corporation had waived its right to enforce compound interest. The Court further ruled that the original loan sanction letters and mortgage deeds, which stipulated simple interest, constituted the primary contract, and that the HBFC could not unilaterally alter these terms through oblique references to its regulations. The key principle laid down is that a statutory provision not rooted in public interest, but rather for the benefit of a private entity, may be waived by that entity through its conduct.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory regulation be waived by an entity if it is not in the public interest?
  • Does a mortgage deed override the terms of an original loan sanction letter regarding the calculation of interest?
  • Is the House Building Finance Corporation entitled to charge compound interest under Regulation 11 of the HBFC Regulations, 1954, if it has historically accepted simple interest?
  • Are the provisions of Section 34 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to proceedings under Section 30 of the House Building Finance Corporation Act, 1952?
  Read full judgment →
• Shahdad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2490 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Shahbaz Gul vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• Shah Na Sir Rizvi vs Begum Sultana Ahmed1984 CLC 3098 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →