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.

• Peeru and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1465 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• Parke,Davis 8 Company vs The Deputy Registrar of Trade1984 CLC 2623 · Sindh High Court
  trade mark registrationinvented wordcharacter or quality of goodsrefusal of registrationTrade Marks Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal filed under the Trade Marks Act, 1940 against the decision of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks refusing the registration of the trade mark "Bardase" for medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations. The Deputy Registrar had rejected the application under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act on the ground that the mark was close to the word "Bardash" and had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods. The core legal question was whether the trade mark "Bardase" had a direct reference to the character or quality of the goods or was otherwise unregistrable under the Act. The court held that the word "Bardase" is an invented word having no direct reference to the character or quality of the pharmaceutical preparations, nor is it descriptive in the sense understood by the ordinary person in Pakistan. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the decision of the Deputy Registrar was set aside, and the Deputy Registrar was directed to proceed with the registration of the mark.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trade mark "Bardase" has a direct reference to the character or quality of medicinal and pharmaceutical preparations under section 6(1)(d) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • Can a trade mark be refused registration merely on the ground that it resembles an obscure foreign dictionary word when it is an invented word with no such ordinary meaning in Pakistan?
  • Whether the discretion of the Registrar of Trade Marks in refusing registration must be exercised upon judicial principles without being affected by caprice or overcaution?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Salary Circle1984 PTD 255 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways through Divisional Superintendent vs Sind Labour1984 PLC 178 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd. vs Secretary, Federal Ministry of Finance and Another1984 CLC 2456 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-01
  half-yearly accountswilful defaultextension of timeSecurities and Exchange Ordinanceimposition of penaltyconstitutional petitionjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by a public limited company challenging orders issued under Section 22 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969, imposing penalties for failure to submit half-yearly accounts for the period ending 31st December 1973, as well as orders refusing an extension of time and dismissing a revision petition. The petitioner contended that the delay was due to chaotic affairs following management changes, rendering the default non-wilful and beyond control. The respondents maintained that the prescribed timeframe was sufficient and the failure constituted a wilful default.

  The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned orders were neither perverse, arbitrary, nor passed without jurisdiction. The Court refused to re-examine factual matters, noting that the inability of the petitioner's accountants to prepare accounts in time did not constitute a circumstance beyond control. It laid down the principle that high courts in constitutional jurisdiction will not interfere with factual determinations of administrative authorities absent perversity, arbitrariness, or lack of jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of accountants to prepare financial statements in time constitutes a ground beyond the control of a company so as to negate wilful default?
  • Can the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction re-evaluate purely factual findings of administrative authorities under the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969?
  • Under what circumstances will an order imposing penalties under Section 22 of the Securities and Exchange Ordinance 1969 be declared to be without lawful authority?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Mutual Insurance Company Ltd. vs Mst. Ayeshabi and 2 others1984 CLC 2941 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance Islamabad and Another1984 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-09
  income tax assessmentfree reservesconstitutional petitionultra vireswithdrawal of petitionres judicatalegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged income-tax assessment orders levied on the "free reserves" of the Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation. The petitioner contended that the legislation taxing these reserves was ultra vires the Constitution of 1962, arguing that "free reserves" did not fall within the constitutional definition of "income." The Court addressed preliminary objections regarding laches, the maintainability of the petition due to a pending reference, and the effect of withdrawing a previous petition. The Court held that the legislation taxing "free reserves" was intra vires, as the term "income" in a constitutional context must be construed liberally to encompass any profit or gain actually received, including unappropriated profits retained as reserves. Furthermore, the Court established that the withdrawal of a petition under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without an express order refusing permission to file a fresh petition, does not bar a subsequent constitutional petition on the same cause of action. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the withdrawal of a petition under Order XXIII, Rule 1(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without an express refusal of permission, bar a subsequent petition on the same cause of action?
  • Can the legislature validly impose income tax on the "free reserves" of a corporation under the Constitution of 1962?
  • Does the pendency of a reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 bar a constitutional petition challenging the vires of the taxing legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Mahboob Industries Ltd. and 10 Others1984 PLD Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22
  foreign currency loanrate of exchangenull and voiddecree preparationstatutory interpretationretrospective effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the preparation of a decree following a judgment in a suit for the recovery of a foreign currency loan. The core legal question was whether a decree should be signed and prepared when the underlying judgment, which determined the applicable rate of exchange for loan repayment, had been rendered null and void by the subsequent promulgation of the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982. The court held that the decree could not be prepared or signed. The ratio of the decision is that because Clause 4(2) of the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982 explicitly declares any judgment or decree inconsistent with the Order to be null and void, the judgment in question lost its legal existence upon the commencement of the Order. Consequently, a decree cannot be drawn up based on a non-existent judgment. The key principle laid down is that where a statutory provision renders a judgment null and void, the court is precluded from preparing or signing a decree based on that judgment, regardless of procedural rules requiring decrees to follow judgments.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court prepare and sign a decree based on a judgment that has been rendered null and void by a subsequent legislative order?
  • Does the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982 apply to judgments passed before its commencement?
  • What is the effect of an inconsistency between a court judgment and the Foreign Currency Loans (Rate of Exchange) Order 1982?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit And Investment Corp. Ltd. vs Mahboob IndustriesPTCL 1984 (CL) 181 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Electrical and Mechanical Constructors Ltd. vs Chairman, National Industrial Relations Commission and Another1984 PLC (C. S.) 325 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Central Homoepathic Medical College and Hospital Board, Karachi vs Syed Ashfaq Kazmi and 4 Others1984 CLC 2117 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Beverage Ltd. vs The Deputy Director (Food) and another1984 CLC 2687 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-27Read full judgment →
• Pahlaj Rai and 5 others vs Mst. Mjmtiazi Begum1984 MLD 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-27Read full judgment →
• Osman vs Abdul Haq1984 MLD 619 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• Omar vs Sanjar (Represented by His Heirs)1984 CLC 2675 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin Hussain and Anothers vs Diamond Vacuum Bottle1984 CLC 1549 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31Read full judgment →
• Noor Zaman vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2468 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• Noor Silk Mills Ltd. vs Investment Corporation of Pakistan and Another1984 CLC 2048 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-01Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Shakeeluddin Ahmed and another1984 P Cr. L J 2161 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Shah Muhammad and 8 Others1984 CLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Settlement Commissioner and 5 Others1984 CLC 177 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Khalil Ahmad Quresui1984 MLD 748 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and Another vs Muhammad Bhai1984 CLC 2443 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad and 6 others vs Government of Sind and 6 others1984 MLD 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23Read full judgment →
• Noor Armed and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• Noor Ali and another vs Noor Hussain1984 MLD 1100 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-30Read full judgment →
• Nizam and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2610 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Nikhat Riaz vs Manzoor Hassan Azmi1984 MLD 214 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• Niazul Haq vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1273 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad vs The State and another1984 P Cr. L J 2676 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad alias Niazoo and 3 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2550 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Nazir and 4 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 728 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmed vs Seth K a Rim1984 CLC 1118 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Nazir Ahmad--Applicant/Petitioner vs Chutto alias Dado1984 MLD 783 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• Nazim Ali Zaidi vs Kareem Jee Ibrahim Jee & Sons, Karachi and another1984 MLD 773 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-25Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2683 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-27Read full judgment →
• Nazeer Ahmad and 5 others vs Ghulam Mehdi and 9 others1984 MLD 849 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
• Nawazish Khan Khanzada vs Province of Sind and 3 Others1984 CLC 2037 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-04Read full judgment →
• Nawab Karim vs Moeena Akhlaque1984 CLC 3154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• National Construction Ltd. vs Standard Insurance Co. Ltd.1984 CLC 286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-04
  joinder of partiesnecessary partyco-extensive liabilitysurety and principal debtorbank guaranteemobilisation advanceOrder I Rule 10 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, moved by the defendant guarantor in a suit for recovery based on a bank guarantee. The plaintiff instituted the suit against the defendant surety without joining the principal debtor, Integrated Construction Services, claiming that the surety's liability is co-extensive. The core legal question was whether the principal debtor is a necessary or proper party to the suit when the liability itself is contested and premised on the alleged breach of the principal contract. The court held that while a surety's liability is co-extensive, a right of action against the surety only arises once a default by the principal debtor is established or adjudicated. Because the underlying liability is genuinely contested and the acts of the principal debtor form the very foundation of the claim, the principal debtor is a necessary party to avoid multiplicity of suits and conflicting judgments. The court accordingly allowed the application to implead the principal debtor as a defendant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the principal debtor is a necessary party in a suit against a surety where the underlying liability is seriously contested?
  • Does a cause of action against a surety arise before the default of the principal debtor is established or adjudicated?
  • Can a court order the impleadment of a party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 despite the plaintiff's opposition as dominus litis?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Syed Ishrat Ali1984 CLC 1907 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Qazi Khan Muhammad and 2 Others1984 PLC 1335 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Mst. Suhail Bi and Another1984 CLC 1936 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Mian Abdul Majid and 2 others1984 CLC 2893 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Asifoo Enterprises and 4 others1984 MLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Master Rubber & Tyre Co. Ltd. and 41984 CLC 3497 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-13Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Mahboob Oil Mills and 4 Others1984 CLC 1853 · Sindh High Court · 1993-08-06Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Humayun Sultan Mufti1984 CLC 1401 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15
  banking suitreturn of plaintpecuniary jurisdictiontransferred suitleave to defendacknowledgment of liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the order of the Judge Special Court (Banking) returning a plaint for presentation in the proper court due to lack of pecuniary jurisdiction, after determining that the principal amount claimed was below the threshold of one lakh rupees. The core legal question was whether the Special Court correctly exercised its power under Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to return the plaint upon recalculation of interest and whether the suit was properly valued at the time of its initial institution. The Sindh High Court held that Order VII, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 was inapplicable because the suit was not originally instituted in the Special Court, but rather transferred to it from the High Court where its institution was competent and lawful. Furthermore, the court held that the Special Court erred in determining the jurisdictional value without framing preliminary issues, recording evidence, or considering the specific acknowledgments of liability pleaded in the plaint. The appeal was accepted, the impugned order set aside, and the case remanded for further proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order VII Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to a suit that was originally instituted competently in one court and subsequently transferred to a Special Court?
  • Can a Special Court return a plaint for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction based solely on a freshly requested statement of account without framing issues or recording evidence?
  • Whether the valuation of a suit for jurisdictional purposes must account for written acknowledgments of liability pleaded in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Baby Afshan and 3 others1984 MLD 722 · Sindh High Court · 1984-07-04Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Az1zullah Hassan and 2 others1984 MLD 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-04Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Amin Ahmed--Defendant1984 MLD 682 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan vs Abdul Hanif through his Legal Heirs1984 MLD 645 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
• National and Grindlays Bank Ltd.Decree Holder vs N. P. Miranda and 21984 CLC 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-06
  execution of decreebanking recovery of loansspecial court jurisdictiondefinition of loanborrowerfraud and conspiracy
  Summary & questions settled

  This execution application was filed by a banking company to execute a decree passed against its employees and another person who had defrauded the bank through a conspiracy, resulting in a joint and several liability to compensate the bank. A question arose regarding the maintainability of the execution application before the High Court in view of the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, which transferred execution proceedings of decrees to Special Courts. The court held that the Special Court lacked jurisdiction because the liability of the defendants arose from fraud and conspiracy rather than a commercial transaction of a 'loan' or a relationship of lender and borrower as contemplated under the Ordinance. Consequently, the High Court ruled that it retained the competence and jurisdiction to execute the decree under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The key principle laid down is that liabilities arising out of tortious acts like fraud and criminal conspiracy do not constitute a 'loan' or create a 'borrower' status under the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979.

  Questions settled

  • Does a liability arising from fraud and conspiracy constitute a loan under the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a Special Court established under the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 have jurisdiction to execute a decree founded on a tortious act rather than a commercial loan transaction?
  • Can employees who defraud a bank be classified as borrowers within the meaning of the Banking (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasir Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1123 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
• Nasim Hassan and 14 others vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 others1984 CLC 2896 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
• Naseer Hyder vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-06Read full judgment →
• Naseer Ahmed vs Hafiz Muhammad Ahmed and 17 Others1984 CLC 340 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14
  Temporary injunctionRestrictive covenantNuisanceEasement rightsPrivacyPrima facie caseCommercial use of residential propertyBreach of covenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal, filed under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980, challenged an interim injunction granted by a single judge of the Sindh High Court. The original suit sought a declaration that plots in Malir Township were for residential use, a permanent injunction against commercial use, and damages. The appellant, an allottee, was restrained from operating a washing factory on his residential plots. The High Court, on appeal, set aside the temporary injunction. It held that a breach of restrictive covenants in a lease primarily creates a cause of action for the lessor (Karachi Development Authority in this case), not adjoining lessees, unless their rights are tangibly infringed. Furthermore, allegations of apprehended nuisance, infringement of easements of light and air, or violation of privacy require specific facts and evidence to establish a prima facie case for an interim prohibitive order. The court found that the facts alleged did not make out a prima facie case to prohibit a lawful trade by ad interim injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Who has a cause of action to resist the breach of a restrictive covenant in a lease deed?
  • What is required to establish a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction based on apprehended nuisance?
  • What is required to establish a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction based on infringement of easement rights?
  • What is required to establish a prima facie case for an ad interim injunction based on violation of privacy?
  • Can an ad interim injunction be granted to prohibit a lawful trade without a clear prima facie case?
  Read full judgment →
• Nanhey Khan and Another vs Mst. Amjadi Begum1984 CLC 1950 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
• Najmuddin vs Mst. Mahetalat and Others1984 CLC 657 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Naimuddin vs ZiauddinPLD 1984 Karachi .441 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• Naim Uddin vs Mst. Mahetalat and 2 Others1984 CLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Naim Metal & Plastic Works and Another vs Mst. Azra Vaqar1984 CLC 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22
  ejectmentbona fide personal requirementresidential buildingcommercial purposeSind Rented Premises Ordinancedefault in rentalteration of premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 arose from an order of the Rent Controller allowing an ejectment application filed by the respondent against the appellants in respect of a residential house. The core legal questions involved whether the premises were let out for commercial or residential purposes, whether alterations made by the appellants impaired the utility or value of the building, and whether the respondent established a bona fide personal requirement. The Sindh High Court held that the premises, described as a house in the sale deed and situated in a residential area, were used partly for business and partly for residence, thus qualifying as a residential building rather than a non-residential building. The Court further held that the landlord proved bona fide personal requirement through unrebutted evidence and that the Rent Controller's finding on material impairment was based on no evidence. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed, upholding the ejectment order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a building let out for composite purposes, partly for business and partly for residence, constitutes a non-residential building under the rent laws?
  • Can a residential building be converted to commercial use without the written consent of the landlord and permission of the Rent Controller?
  • Is an ejectment order sustainable when the finding of material impairment of the building is based on no evidence?
  • Whether the landlord has established a bona fide personal requirement for the residential premises when the evidence regarding living as a licensee and revocation of licence remains unrebutted?
  Read full judgment →
• Nafees Baig Mirza vs Covernment of Sind through Food and Co-1984 MLD 810 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-31Read full judgment →
• Naeem Wahid vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1984 PLC 352 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03
  workmanStanding Orders Ordinanceindustrial relationsdismissalgrievance petitionFood InspectorAssistant Analyserconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge orders passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' appeals regarding their dismissal from service by the Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Limited. The petitioners were employed as Assistant Analysers and Food Inspectors and had filed grievance petitions under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, which were initially allowed by the Labour Court but subsequently dismissed by the Appellate Tribunal on the ground that the petitioners were not 'workmen' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal question was whether Assistant Analysers and Food Inspectors fall within the definition of 'workman' under the Ordinance of 1968. The Sindh High Court held that the primary and substantial duties performed by the petitioners—such as inspection, check weighment, sampling of stocks, and acting as sole representatives for rice procurement—did not involve manual or clerical work requiring routine physical exertion, but rather supervisory and decision-making responsibilities. Consequently, the court held that the petitioners were not workmen, dismissing the constitutional petitions and laying down the principle that the true nature of duties—specifically looking to the direct, immediate, and substantial part of the work—determines employee status under the Standing Orders Ordinance rather than sundry incidental tasks.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an Assistant Analyser or Food Inspector employed by the Rice Export Corporation falls within the definition of a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • What is the true test for determining whether an employee is a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Does the performance of incidental manual or clerical duties make an employee a 'workman' when their primary and substantial duties are supervisory in nature?
  Read full judgment →
• Naeem Hasan vs Fourth Sind Labour Court and 2 Others1984 PLC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• Nadir Khan vs Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 21984 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nadeemuzzafar vs Mst. Salima Begum1984 CLC 2272 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• Naboo and another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2810 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• N. K Irfan vs Amanullah and ohters1984 P Cr. L J 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
• N. K Irani vs Amanullah and ohters1984 P Cr. L J 2306 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
• M/s. Plasticrafters Ltd. vs Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary,PTCL 1984 CL 322 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Mir Qadir Bux And Bros, And Other vs Pakistan Through Secretary ToPTCL 1984 (CL) 268 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s. Chaman Shoe Co vs Controller Of Imports & Exports Karachi AndPTCL 1984 (CL) 162 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s Pakistan Welding Electrodes Ltd., Karachi. vs Commissioner Of SalesPTCL 1984 (CL) 13 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M/s International Industries Ltd., Karachi. vs Commissioner Of Sales Tax,PTCL 1984 (CL) 149 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazar Ahmed vs Nazar Muhammad and Another1984 P Cr. L J 867 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• M/s Dada Soap Factory Ltd., Karachi. vs Pakistan Through Seeretary Govt.PTCL 1984 (CL) 377 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mustoo alias Ghulam Mustafa vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
• Mustafa Hussain Siddiqui vs Malik Islam Akbar1984 CLC 2869 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. vs Interice Ltd . and 9 others1984 MLD 391 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-29Read full judgment →
• Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. and others--Decree-holders vs Mst. Amna1984 MLD 710 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad vs Abdul Sattar1984 MLD 1 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
• Mushtaq Ahmad Khan vs Khawaja Mustafaulhasan1984 CLC 3093 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-05
  personal bona fide requirementejectment of tenantlandlord and tenantburden of proofattorney as witnessrent enhancementinsufficient accommodation
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from ejectment proceedings initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant under Section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, seeking vacation of the ground floor premises on the grounds of personal bona fide requirement due to insufficient accommodation on the first floor and health issues, specifically arthritic pain preventing him from climbing stairs. The Rent Controller allowed the application, directing the tenant to vacate. The appellant challenged the order, contending mala fides aimed at rent enhancement, lack of personal examination of the landlord, and failure to prove genuine need. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the landlord's large family of twelve members residing in cramped conditions established a pressing and reasonable need, that examination of the landlord's attorney was legally sufficient, that the demand for higher rent does not negate bona fide need when independently proved, and that the term 'need' must not be unduly stretched to defeat statutory eviction grounds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a landlord to examine himself as a witness is fatal to an ejectment application where his attorney has testified?
  • Does a demand for higher rent by itself negate the landlord's bona fide personal requirement of the rented premises?
  • What is the distinction between desire and need in the context of a landlord's personal requirement for eviction under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a landlord's assertion of personal requirement on oath sufficient if it remains consistent and is not shaken in cross-examination or disproved in rebuttal?
  Read full judgment →
• Murad Ali and ANOTHERs vs Ahmad Khan1984 CLC 683 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• Munshi Khan vs Chhaitoo Khan and 6 others1984 MLD 174 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• Munna (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Cap. Muhammad Murtaza alias1984 MLD 226 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad vs Mst. Salma Begum1984 MLD 1058 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-09Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali vs Abdullah and 2 others1984 CLC 2920 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-15Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ali and another vs Noor Ahmed M. Toorawa1984 CLC 2578 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Munawar Ahmed Malik vs Abdul Qadeer Suharwardy1984 CLC 2556 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-09Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz Hassan Khan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others ,1984 PLC 1353 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-12
  workman definitionindustrial relationssales representativeStanding Orders Ordinancelabour lawdismissal from serviceincidental duties
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a marketing representative, challenged his dismissal by the respondent company and the subsequent findings of the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that he did not qualify as a "workman." The core legal question was whether the petitioner’s duties, primarily involving sales promotion, satisfied the definition of "workman" under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The High Court dismissed the petition, affirming the lower forums' findings. The Court held that the definition of "workman" under the Standing Orders Ordinance requires that an employee be engaged in manual or clerical work. Where an employee's primary responsibility is sales promotion, any manual or clerical tasks performed are merely incidental to that main function and do not satisfy the statutory requirement. The Court further established that an employer’s prior treatment of an employee as a workman does not legally alter the employee's actual statutory status if their duties do not meet the legal definition of a workman.

  Questions settled

  • Does an employee whose primary duty is sales promotion qualify as a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Are manual or clerical tasks performed incidentally to a primary non-manual job sufficient to classify an employee as a 'workman'?
  • Does an employer's prior treatment of an employee as a workman legally estop the employer from later asserting the employee is not a workman?
  Read full judgment →
• Mumtaz alias Mangta and 2 otherss vs Nizamuddin1984 CLC 2826 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15
  land reformssubsistence holdingalienation of landPardahnashin ladyburden of proofvoid ab initiorevision application
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged concurrent judgments decreeing a suit for declaration of ownership of agricultural land. The respondent claimed half-ownership of a survey number based on an alleged sale agreement executed by the widow of the original allottee. The core legal questions concerned the validity of the alleged alienation under land reform laws and the evidentiary requirements for proving documents executed by an illiterate Pardahnashin lady. The High Court held that the purported sale was ab initio void, as it violated Paragraph 25(4) of the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959, which prohibits the alienation of any part of a holding that is less than a subsistence holding. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the lower courts misapplied the law regarding the burden of proof; the burden lies squarely on the party relying on a document executed by a Pardahnashin lady to prove its due execution, which the respondent failed to satisfy. Consequently, the revision was allowed, and the lower courts' judgments were set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does the alienation of a part of a holding that is less than a subsistence holding violate the West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulations, 1959?
  • Upon whom does the burden of proof lie when a document is executed by an illiterate Pardahnashin lady?
  • Can a sale agreement be enforced if it violates the statutory prohibition against alienating parts of a subsistence holding?
  Read full judgment →
• Mulla Abdullah Bhai vs Mst. Husaina Bai and another1984 CLC 3525 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-24Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2740 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-04Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmad vs Member (Relief and Settlement) Board of Revenue, Hyderabad and 4 Others1984 CLC 1724 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtiar Ahmad vs Deputy Commissioner, Badin and others1984 MLD 306 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Hussain vs The State1984 MLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-11Read full judgment →
• Mukhtar Ahmad Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 512 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Muhammmad Jehangir vs Ch. Muhammad Niazuddin and Another1984 CLC 2114 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammadi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (East)1984 PTD 239 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →