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.

• Mst. Akhtar Begum vs Second Additional District Judge and 2 others1984 MLD 690 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mst Mariam vs Mst. Rukhsan a1984 MLD 304 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• MRS. Raju vs Muhammad Latif Khan and 2 Others1984 CLC 2411 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Rafiqa Iqbal Ahmad and another vs Muhammad Ali Hyder1984 CLC 2886 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-23
  civil revisionwithdrawal of suitfresh suitnatural justicenotice to defendantprocedural defect
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition was filed by the defendants against an order of the Second Senior Civil Judge, Karachi, which allowed the plaintiff to withdraw his suit with liberty to file a fresh suit. The defendants contended that the trial court passed the order on the plaintiff's application under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in their absence and without serving any notice. The High Court examined the scope of Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, noting that because certain rights flow from an order permitting withdrawal with liberty to file a fresh suit, and because the court must be satisfied of specific statutory conditions, the defendant is entitled to a hearing. The High Court held that passing such an order without notice to the opposite party violates the principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, restored the suit, and remanded the application to the trial court for a fresh decision after providing notice to both parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court permit a plaintiff to withdraw a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit without giving notice of the application to the defendant?
  • Does the principle of natural justice apply to applications filed under Order XXIII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What is the legal consequence if an order allowing withdrawal of a suit with liberty to file a fresh suit is passed in the absence of the defendant?
  Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Noor Jehan Kirmani vs Mian Bashir Raider1984 MLD 15 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• MRS. Naseem Sadique vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1984 PLC 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14
  workman statuscivil servantindustrial relationsgrievance petitionhospital employeesretrospective application of lawrailway servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which held that the petitioner, a nurse at the Railway Hassan Hospital, was a "civil servant" rather than a "workman" and thus barred from filing a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions were whether the petitioner qualified as a "workman" under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, and whether the subsequent amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, excluding hospital employees, rendered her petition non-maintainable. The Court held that the petitioner was a "workman" because her employment in a hospital did not constitute working in an "administrative, district or sub-divisional office" of the Railways, distinguishing her status from that of a civil servant. However, the Court ultimately ruled against the petitioner, holding that because she filed her grievance petition after the 1979 amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, came into force, the forum under that Ordinance was no longer available. The principle established is that while a hospital employee may qualify as a "workman," the right to invoke labour law remedies is governed by the law in force at the time of filing.

  Questions settled

  • Is a nurse employed in a railway hospital a 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923?
  • Does the amendment to the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, excluding hospital employees, apply to a grievance petition filed after the amendment came into force?
  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Workmen's Compensation Act, 1923, require the performance of outdoor duties for all railway servants?
  • Can a civil servant maintain a grievance petition under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• MRS. Mariana Amin vs Muhammad Siddiq Ahmed1984 CLC 1848 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
• MRS. Kaiser Jehan Begum vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (East), Karachi1984 PTD 438 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-16Read full judgment →
• MRS. Jolly Shapur Pardiv Al and 4 Others vs Syedurrehman and 31984 CLC 212 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-09Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Farkhunda vs Dost Mohammad1984 CLC 2725 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Dephne DeCRUZE vs Malik Muhammad Yusuf1984 MLD 19 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• MRs, Sughra Begum and 6 others vs Jalaluddin1984 MLD 178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
• MRs, S Aeed a vs MRs, Khalida Rehman1984 MLD 143 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-12Read full judgment →
• MRs, Nadira Benazir Begum vs Building Control Authority and 2 others1984 MLD 1020 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-03Read full judgment →
• MRs, a Hsan Ulla H Reh Ma N I and 4 others vs Moulana Muhammad Iqbal1984 MLD 216 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-15Read full judgment →
• Moosa vs Haroon1984 MLD 704 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Moosa Bha! (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Yousuf and Another1984 CLC 3241 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
• Moinuddin Siddiqui vs Saleem Siddiqui1984 CLC 2568 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-10Read full judgment →
• Mohiudd in vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1523 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Mohibulla H vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2744 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hussain vs Mst. Hatuk1984 CLC 2682 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-25Read full judgment →
• Mogul Tobacco Company Ltd. vs Pakistan Tabacco Board and 31984 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Miss Wendy Elaine Vinn vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 248 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• Miss Shama Ahsan vs Province of Sind and 6 Others1984 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05Read full judgment →
• Miss Saman and Anothers vs Wali Muhammad and 3 Others1984 CLC 2362 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
• Miss Rahila Mumtaz vs The Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another1984 CLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-19Read full judgment →
• Miss Mahmooda Sultana vs Chairman, Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education and Another1984 CLC 481 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Miss Gul Jessa vs Mst. Jainah Bai1984 CLC 497 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-07Read full judgment →
• Miss Afifa vs M. A. Saleem Khan and Another1984 CLC 1995 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-20Read full judgment →
• Misri and 3 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2832 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-26Read full judgment →
• Miskeen Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2861 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
• Mirza Tahir Ali Baig vs S.K. Surki1984 MLD 936 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-27Read full judgment →
• Mirza Nazar Ali Baig vs Syed Hamid Rehmani and 3 others1984 MLD 961 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-19Read full judgment →
• Mirza Jaleel Ahmad vs The State and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 339 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
• Mirza Hashim Baig vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner and 3 Others1984 CLC 1587 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• Mirza Hafeez Ahmad vs Dad Muhammad and Another1984 CLC 3207 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Mirza Farrukh Beg vs Subdivisional Magistrate, Central, Karachi and Others1984 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-03Read full judgment →
• Mir Rasool Bux Talpur vs The Officeronspecial Duty, Federal Land1984 PLD Karachi 153 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad Hassan (Minor) and another vs The Officer on Special1984 MLD 393(2) · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad and 4 others vs Custodian, E.P. Sind and 6 others1984 MLD 615 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• Mir Jan Muhammad Talpur vs The Settlement Commissioner,Hyderabad1984 CLC 617 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mir Dost vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-03Read full judgment →
• Mir Baluch Khan vs Government of Sind and another1984 MLD 583 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-17Read full judgment →
• Mir Allah Bachayo and 4 Others vs 0. S. D., Federal Land Commission1984 CLC 2045 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-03Read full judgment →
• Millat Sultan vs The District Magistrate, Sanghar and 2 Others1984 CLC 1862 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
• Mijhammad Ashraf vs Mst. Noor Jehan1984 CLC 1938 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• Mian Abdul Hafeez vs Mst. Faridun Nisa1984 CLC 1917 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
• MFSSRS Atiq Silk Mills vs Tar Muhammad1984 CLC 997 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-11Read full judgment →
• Metro Garment Industries vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21984 PLC 241 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrssaifee Development Corporation Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Company Circle C-5,1984 PTD 104 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zimran Enterprises vs The Special Director/Collector, Excise &1984 MLD 262 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Valika Woollen Mills Ltd. vs Op (Army) Karachi1984 CLC 2515 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Qazi Amir Ali1984 CLC 2509 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Textile Accessories (Pakistan) Ltd.1984 CLC 3189 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Transimpex (Pakistan), Karachi vs Excise and Taxation Officer, Karachi1984 CLC 1911 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Tar Muhammad Jan00 & Company vs Taher Ali and 2 others1984 MLD 719 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Syed Brothers vs Messrs Film Exhibitors Ltd. and 10 Others1984 CLC 3434 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sun Line Agencies Ltd. vs Vessel M. v. "Psiloritis" and 2 Others1984 CLC 1553 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-31
  admiralty jurisdictionaction in rembeneficial ownershiptime charterership arrestmaritime lienAdmiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance 1980
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application for the arrest of the vessel "Psiloritis" under the admiralty jurisdiction of the Sindh High Court. The plaintiff sought to arrest the ship to recover dues owed by the ship's time charterer, arguing that the charterer was the "beneficial owner" of the vessel under section 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980. The core legal question was whether a time charterer qualifies as a "beneficial owner" of a ship, thereby rendering the vessel liable to arrest in an action in rem for the charterer's debts. The Court held that the expression "beneficially owned as respects majority shares" refers strictly to equitable ownership and does not encompass mere possession or control by a charterer. Consequently, the Court ruled that a time charterer is not a beneficial owner, and the vessel could not be arrested for the charterer's liabilities. The Court preferred the interpretation established in The St. Merriel and The I Congreso del Partido, rejecting the broader interpretation of possession and control. The arrest order was vacated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'beneficially owned' in the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 include a time charterer?
  • Can a vessel be arrested in an action in rem for the debts of a time charterer?
  • Does possession and control of a ship by a charterer constitute beneficial ownership for the purposes of ship arrest?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sultan Ahmad Sami Ahmad & Bros. vs K.B. Hassan Ali and 3 others1984 MLD 775 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sterling Engineering Corporation vs The Collector of Customs and Another1984 CLC 857 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Standard Fisheries Corporation vs Messrs International1984 MLD 1173 · Sindh High Court · 1984-12-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Spinzer Snacks vs MRS. Anjum A. Rab and Another1984 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Skyrooms Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1984 PLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sine Trading Agencies vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another1984 CLC 2584 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Silver Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (West), Karachi1984 PTD 216 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09
  sales tax exemptionmanufacturer licencebogus purchasersburden of prooftax referencecotton yarntax liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This tax reference application under the Sales Tax Act addresses whether an assessee manufacturer was entitled to sales tax exemption on sales made to holders of manufacturer's licences who were subsequently found by the department to be non-existent or bogus. The assessee sold cotton yarn to various licensed parties without charging sales tax, obtaining photostat copies of their licences and certificates under the Sales Tax Rules. The assessing officer and Tribunal rejected the exemption because the purchasers were untraceable and their licences were allegedly cancelled. The core legal question was whether a registered manufacturer selling goods to a holder of a valid sales tax licence can be held liable for sales tax when the department later discovers the purchaser's licence was improperly issued or the purchaser is bogus. The High Court held that unless the licence was cancelled before the sale or the assessee had knowledge of the licensee's non-existence, the seller cannot be burdened with verifying the licensee's genuineness, as issuing licences is the department's statutory responsibility. The court answered the reference questions in the negative, ruling in favor of the assessee except where no licence copy was maintained.

  Questions settled

  • Whether sales made to holders of manufacturer's licences are entitled to exemption under the Sales Tax Act even if the purchasers are subsequently found to be non-existent?
  • Did the applicant discharge the burden of proving sales to licensed manufacturers by producing photostat copies of licences and certificates under the Sales Tax Rules?
  • Can a registered manufacturer be held liable for sales tax due to the department's failure to properly verify licensees before issuing sales tax licences?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shakoor Ali Muhammad, Hyderabad vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi1984 PTD 248 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ruby Trading Company vs Mst. Zainab Khanum and 5 OTHERs1984 CLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rex Talkies Ltd. vs Lintas Ltd.1984 MLD 795 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rashid Industries Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Other1984 PLC 700 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs R. B. Awari & Co, Ltd. vs Messrs Badruddin H. Mawani and 21983 CLC 1877 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Qamardin and Others vs Messrs Pakistan Shipping Agencies1984 CLC 2005 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Plasticrafters Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance and Another1984 CLC 2295 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Paramount Hosiery Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Syed Mustafa Hyder1984 PLD Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26
  ejectmentpersonal useres judicataadditional evidencebona fide requirementrent appealremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller in favour of the respondent-landlord on the ground of personal use of the premises for his son. The appellant-tenant contested the application, raising a preliminary objection of res judicata based on an earlier dismissed ejectment application, and denying the bona fides of the landlord's claim. During the appeal, the tenant filed an application under section 21(3) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 seeking to bring additional evidence on record regarding concurrent ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlord for other premises. The High Court considered the question of res judicata, holding that it was not attracted because the earlier application was based on the landlord's personal need whereas the present application was for his son. However, noting the appellant's allegations of mala fides and the provisions for further inquiry, the Court set aside the impugned order and remanded the case to the Rent Controller to record further evidence on the bona fides of the landlord's requirement and write a fresh order.

  Questions settled

  • Does a previous dismissal of an ejectment application bar a subsequent application filed for the personal use of the landlord's son under the principle of res judicata?
  • Can an appellate authority remand a rent case for recording additional evidence regarding the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakmalaya Trading Company vs Hellenic Navigator and 21984 CLC 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Pipe & Construction Co. Ltd. vs City Mukhtiarkar, Karachi East, Deputy Commissioner's Office, Karachi and Another1984 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court
  recovery of duesarrears of land revenuesummary recoverydisputed liabilityconstitutional petitionSind Industrial Trading Estatelimitation period
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution Petition challenged a demand notice issued by the City Mukhtiarkar for the recovery of alleged arrears of rent owed to the Sind Industrial Trading Estate (SITE) as arrears of land revenue under the Sind Industrial Trading Estate Recovery of Dues Act, 1973. The petitioners disputed the liability, citing the non-provision of promised amenities and arguing that the claim was time-barred. The core legal question was whether disputed dues could be recovered through summary proceedings as arrears of land revenue without prior judicial determination. The Court held that the recovery notice was illegal. It established the principle that statutory provisions allowing the recovery of dues as arrears of land revenue are intended only for admitted or established debts. Where a claim is disputed by the alleged defaulter, the summary recovery mechanism cannot be invoked; the creditor must first have the liability fixed, determined, and established by a competent court of law. Consequently, the impugned notice was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed dues be recovered as arrears of land revenue without prior determination by a competent court?
  • Does the Sind Industrial Trading Estate Recovery of Dues Act, 1973, allow for the summary recovery of claims that are denied and disputed by the alleged debtor?
  • Is the Limitation Act applicable to claims made by the Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Norwich Union Fire Insurance Society Ltd. vs Muhammad1984 PLD Karachi 519 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Nishat Talkies vs Messrs Zeray Enterprises Ltd. and Another1984 CLC 2366 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs National and Grindlays Bank Ltd. vs Arshad Ali Khalid Qureshi1984 MLD 362 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nadeem Corporation, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi1984 PTD 186 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs N.Hassan Ali & Company vs Mrs. Ruby Cawas Nosherwani1984 CLC 2466 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mustafa Prestressed R. C. C. Pipe Works Ltd., Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Investigation, Circle II, Karachi1984 PTD 415 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Munshi Flour Mills vs Mst. Mumtaz Begum1984 CLC 2671 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Ismail Thakar Sons LIMITEDs vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and others1984 CLC 2944 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Mir Qadir Bux & Brox. and Others vs Pakistan Fhrough1984 PTD 122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Liberty Cloth Stores and another vs Messrs Yakub & Sons and 31984 CLC 2809 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Kashmir Corner vs Ahsan Khawaja and another1984 P Cr. L J 2737 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karim Housing Enterprises vs Karachi Development Authority1984 CLC 3021 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Textile Dyeing and Printingworks, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Karachi1984 PTD 150 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27
  income tax referencerejection of book resultsgross profit rateexcise registersbest judgment assessmentnatural justicecomparable casesmethod of accounting
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference application under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose out of income tax proceedings for the assessment year 1968-69. The tax authorities rejected the applicant assessee's book results regarding its art silk manufacturing business and estimated higher sales and gross profit rates, primarily because the assessee maintained daily accounts in prescribed excise registers rather than maintaining separate day-to-day production and raw material consumption accounts for income tax purposes, and because comparable cases showed higher profits. The core legal questions were whether the rejection of book results under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act was supported by evidence and whether the department could rely on undisclosed comparable cases. The High Court answered both questions in the negative, holding that the Income-tax Act prescribes no specific accounting format. Assesses are free to adopt any regular accounting method, such as excise registers, provided proper profits can be deduced. Non-maintenance of day-to-day registers alone cannot justify rejecting accounts without specific findings of defect. Furthermore, relying on comparable cases without disclosing them to the assessee violates natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-maintenance of day-to-day raw material consumption registers by itself justifies the rejection of book results under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act?
  • Can the Income-tax Officer reject account books maintained regularly under Excise Rules without identifying specific defects showing that profits cannot be deduced therefrom?
  • Whether the tax department can rely upon parallel or comparable cases to reject an assessee's gross profit rate without disclosing the details of those cases to the assessee for rebuttal?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karachi Gas Company Ltd. vs Messrs Fancy Foundation1984 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-09
  specific performancevacant possessionlimitation periodre-instatement of tenantsagreement of saleearnest money refund
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for specific performance of an agreement for the sale of immovable property arose from a dispute regarding the delivery of 'vacant possession.' The plaintiff sought specific performance or, alternatively, damages and refund of the sale consideration. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act 1908, whether the agreement was valid despite the absence of a formal written contract, and whether the plaintiff's demand for possession free from the tenants' right of re-instatement—guaranteed under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959—was justified. The Court held that the suit was within the limitation period as the contract remained alive until its termination by the defendant. However, it found that the plaintiff was aware of the tenants' re-instatement rights, making the demand for 'clear' possession unjustified. Consequently, the Court refused specific performance due to the plaintiff's lack of readiness and willingness, but decreed the refund of the advance sale consideration with interest from the date of the contract's termination, as the defendant had no right to forfeit the amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract for the sale of immovable property require a specific formal written instrument to be legally binding?
  • Does the right of re-instatement of an evicted tenant under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 constitute a clog on the title of the property?
  • When does the limitation period for a suit for specific performance begin if no date for performance is fixed in the agreement?
  • Is a seller entitled to forfeit the advance sale consideration if the buyer refuses to complete the transaction due to a mutual mistake regarding the terms of possession?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jupiter Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax1984 PTD 133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Joosab Peer Muhammad & Co. vs The Central Board of Revenue1984 CLC 2032 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jang Publications Ltd. vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Sind and Another1984 PLD Karachi 292 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-16
  collective bargaining agentindustrial relationstrade union registrationprovincial jurisdictionmulti-provincial establishmentcollective bargaining unitNIRC
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a constitutional petition against the Registrar of Trade Unions, who certified a trade union as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the Karachi branch of "Jang Publications Limited." The appellant argued that because the company operates establishments in multiple provinces, a single national-level bargaining agent was required, rendering the provincial Registrar's certification illegal. The core legal question was whether the Registrar’s jurisdiction is ousted by the multi-provincial nature of the employer. The Court held that the Registrar’s authority under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance remains valid for provincial establishments unless and until the specific mechanism under Section 22-EE is invoked by a union or the Government to determine a collective bargaining unit. The Court affirmed that while Section 22-EE provides a framework for consolidating bargaining units across provincial boundaries, it does not automatically invalidate existing provincial certifications. Consequently, the Registrar’s certification was upheld as lawful, establishing that provincial jurisdiction persists until the National Industrial Relations Commission formally intervenes to restructure the bargaining unit.

  Questions settled

  • Does the existence of a multi-provincial establishment automatically oust the jurisdiction of a provincial Registrar of Trade Unions to certify a bargaining agent?
  • Can a provincial Registrar certify a collective bargaining agent for a branch of an establishment that operates in multiple provinces?
  • Does the certification of a collective bargaining agent under Section 22 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance remain valid until the specific mechanism of Section 22-EE is invoked?
  • Is an employer entitled to approach the National Industrial Relations Commission to determine a collective bargaining unit under Section 22-EE of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jahania Sons and another vs S.M. Younis and 2 others1984 CLC 2898 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Intraco Ltd. vs Globe Chemicals BV, Holland1984 CLC 1840 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Yousuf1984 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs Indus Valley Construction Co, vs Commissioner of Income-1984 PTD 426 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hussain Ebrahim Agencies Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Karachi1984 PTD 197 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Metropole Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1984 PTD 49 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Highland Manufacturers (Pak.) Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi1984 PTD 250 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Hamdard Thread House, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Incomet-Tax (East),Karachi1984 PTD 419 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →