Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Messrs Haji Fazal Din and 5 Others vs Karachi Development Authority1984 CLC 1706 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs H. R. & Brothers vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 Others1984 CLC 1796 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ghandhara Industries Ltd., vs Government of Pakistan1984 CLC 1913(1) · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs General Foods Corporation vs Joint Secretary, Govt, of Pakistan, Central Board of Revenue and 3 others1984 MLD 289 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs G.M. Pfaff A.G. vs Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks and another1984 CLC 2478 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Firdous Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. and Others vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Others1984 PLD Karachi 522 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This batch of constitutional petitions involves the interpretation and vires of Explanation (ii) in Notification No. S. R. O. 702(1)/80 dated June 26, 1980, issued under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, which excluded automatic-cone-winders from customs duty exemptions available to the textile industry. The core legal questions relate to whether the notification's phrasing rendered the exception conditional upon actual local substitutability, whether the executive's policy decision regarding substitutes was reviewable, and whether the provision was ultra vires due to unreasonableness. The Sindh High Court held that the notification unambiguously declared automatic-cone-winders to be substitutes for locally manufactured cone-winders as a matter of executive policy, which was a non-justiciable policy decision within the unconditional powers of the Federal Government under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969, read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897. The court concluded that the provision was neither unreasonable nor ultra vires. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Federal Government has unconditional power under section 19 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with section 21 of the General Clauses Act, 1897 to withdraw or restrict previously granted customs duty exemptions?
- Whether Explanation (ii) of Notification No. S. R. O. 702(1)/80 is capable of more than one interpretation regarding the local substitutability of automatic-cone-winders?
- Can the factual assumptions underlying an executive policy decision in a statutory notification be questioned and reviewed by the courts in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Whether a delegated legislative instrument such as a notification can be struck down as ultra vires on the ground of unreasonableness?
- Messrs Feedai Agency Ltd. and anothers vs Pakistan through Federal1984 CLC 2761 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Farsight Trading Co.--Applicant vs The Commissioner of1984 MLD 808 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Eastern Steels vs National Shipping Corporation1984 CLC 1640 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Dewan Textile Mills Limited, Karachi vs Pakistan through Ministry of Finance and 3 Others1984 CLC 1740 · Sindh High Court · 1916-11-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the imposition of additional excise duty on synthetic staple yarn manufactured by a textile mill whose plant and machinery had already been subjected to production capacity duty for cotton yarn under section 3(4) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal question was whether the authorities could levy excise duty on actual production under section 3(1) of the Act in addition to production capacity duty on the same machinery, and whether an administrative formula providing relief for such dual production had statutory backing. The court held that taxation on production capacity is levied in lieu of, and not in addition to, actual production excise duties under Entry 52 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution, and imposing both without excluding the relevant machinery amounts to impermissible double taxation. Furthermore, the administrative rebate formula lacked statutory sanction under Article 77 of the Constitution. The court declared the extra duty demand to be without lawful authority.
Questions settled- Can excise duty on actual production under section 3(1) of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944 be levied on goods manufactured using plant and machinery already subjected to production capacity duty under section 3(4) without revising the capacity?
- Whether the phrase 'in lieu of' in Entry 52 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution permits the simultaneous imposition of both production capacity duty and actual production excise duty on the same machinery?
- Does an administrative formula introduced by the Central Board of Revenue without statutory backing provide a valid legal basis for adjusting duties to prevent double taxation?
- Are subordinate rules that result in double taxation or conflict with constitutional mandates ultra vires?
- Messrs Dada Soap Factory Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary, Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance and 2 Others1984 PLD Karachi 302 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of fifty-one constitutional petitions involving common questions of law and fact regarding the proper classification of a chemical known as Tetra Propylene Benzene Sulphonic Acid 97% under the Pakistan Customs Tariff (P. C. T.). The core legal question was whether the chemical falls under P. C. T. Heading 29.03 as claimed by the petitioners, or under P. C. T. Heading 34.02 as claimed by the Customs Department, and whether a consistent past departmental practice of assessment precluded the department from changing its stance. The Sindh High Court held that the determination of the chemical's ingredients and its appropriate classification is a disputed question of fact best resolved by the hierarchy of tribunals under the Customs Act rather than the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court held that the material presented was insufficient to conclusively establish a binding long-term consistent departmental practice. Consequently, the court set aside the classification dispute, remanded the cases to the Collector of Customs for fresh adjudication after affording opportunities for further evidence, and ordered existing bank guarantees to remain intact subject to timely extensions.
Questions settled- Whether a long-standing departmental practice of classifying an imported item under a specific tariff heading is binding on the Customs Department?
- Can the High Court resolve disputed questions of fact regarding the chemical composition and tariff classification of imported goods in constitutional jurisdiction?
- Is the Collector of Customs under a statutory duty to apply independent judgment to the facts rather than solely relying on the opinion of a foreign agency or council?
- Whether the Customs Department can depart from an existing assessment practice without obtaining the approval of the Central Board of Revenue?
- Messrs Dada Enterprise vs Collector of Customs and another1984 MLD 895 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs D a Wood Builders vs MRs, P. Hameedullah1984 MLD 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Cowasjee Family Funds vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1984 PTD 192 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Coronet Paints & Chemicals Ltd. vs The Commissioner1984 PTD 355 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This income tax reference application concerns the rejection of an assessee’s book results by the Income-tax Officer and the subsequent estimation of profits under the first proviso to Section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922. The core legal question was whether the tax authorities were justified in rejecting the assessee's accounts due to unverifiable cash sales and lower gross profit margins compared to other manufacturers. The High Court held that the rejection was unjustified, ruling in favor of the assessee. The Court established that low gross profit margins or the existence of minor unverifiable transactions do not, by themselves, warrant the rejection of an assessee's entire accounting system unless the system is proven defective. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that relying on undisclosed data from other manufacturers to determine an assessee's profit rate violates principles of natural justice. The judgment clarifies that tax authorities cannot reject accounts based on mere suspicion or conjectures; they must demonstrate that the accounting system itself is fundamentally flawed or spurious.
Questions settled- Can an Income-tax Officer reject an assessee's book results solely because the gross profit rate is lower than that of other manufacturers?
- Does the rejection of book results under Section 13 of the Income-tax Act 1922 require proof that the accounting system itself is defective?
- Is it a violation of natural justice for tax authorities to rely on data from other manufacturers without disclosing their identities to the assessee?
- Can tax authorities reject an entire set of accounts based on the unverifiability of a small proportion of transactions?
- Messrs Consolidated Exports Ltd.. vs Messrs Dyer Textile and Printing1984 PLD Karachi 541 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 173 read with Section 239 of the Companies Act, 1913, filed by shareholders/contributories of a company in liquidation, seeking to stay winding-up proceedings and implement a revised scheme of arrangement. The core legal questions were whether the applicants, as shareholders, had the standing to move the court as 'contributories,' whether the application was maintainable, and whether the proposed scheme was bona fide. The Court held that the application was maintainable, affirming that the term 'contributory' under the Companies Act, 1913, encompasses holders of fully paid-up shares. Furthermore, the Court determined that staying winding-up proceedings to allow the revival of a textile mill was in the public interest, provided that the interests of creditors, including secured creditors and the Income-tax Department, were safeguarded. The Court sanctioned the scheme and stayed the winding-up proceedings for two years, subject to strict conditions regarding the payment of outstanding dues, the production of company books, and the preparation of the statement of affairs.
Questions settled- Does the term 'contributory' under the Companies Act, 1913, include holders of fully paid-up shares?
- Can the court stay winding-up proceedings under Section 173 of the Companies Act, 1913, based on a scheme of arrangement supported by creditors?
- Are allegations of non-compliance with statutory duties, such as failing to file a statement of affairs, sufficient to dismiss an application for staying winding-up proceedings?
- Messrs Churigar Plastic Industries Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-1984 PTD 194 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Birjis Sarfraz and Anothers vs Messrs Nusrat Ara and Another1984 CLC 2060 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bata Shoe Co. (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Messrs Hussain D'Silva1984 CLC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bank of Credit & Commerce International (Overseas) Ltd. vs Messrs Rudolf Donill Ltd. and 2 others1984 MLD 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bamhrouli Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. and another--1984 MLD 419 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Asad Brothers vs Ibadat Yar Khan1984 CLC 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Arag Industries Ltd. vs Pakistan and 3 others1984 MLD 38 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ameer Bux Badaruddin vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi1984 PTD 347 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs Alpha International Ltd. vs The Collector of Customs and Another1984 CLC 2177 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Alpha Contracting Company vs Messrs National Motors Ltd.1984 CLC 3458 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ajaz & Company vs The Collector of Customs1984 CLC 1659 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Adam Ltd. vs Messrs General and Rubber Trading Company1984 CLC 794 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abdul Khaliq Ice Factory vs Karachi Electric Supply1984 CLC 2720 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-14Read full judgment →
- Messes Zafar Saleem Bros. Ltd., Karachi vs Tm Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1984 PTD 225 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment by the Sindh High Court resolves three direct references filed under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 concerning assessment years 1965-66, 1966-67, and 1967-68, arising from a consolidated order of the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions involve whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in invoking the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act, 1922 to reject the assessee's book results, estimate sales, apply a flat gross profit rate of 15%, and disallow certain expenses for cotton ginning and oil milling businesses. The court held that where an assessee employs a regular method of accounting, authorities cannot arbitrarily reject book results without identifying specific defects, nor apply flat rates or make additions without a rational basis and supporting material. The court answered the referred questions largely in the negative, setting aside the Tribunal's orders.
Questions settled- Whether on the facts and in the circumstances of the case the proviso to section 13 of the Income-tax Act could be invoked and book results rejected in cotton ginning and oil milling businesses?
- Whether there was any material on record for the basis adopted by the Tribunal for computing the income and estimating sales?
- Whether the Income-tax Officer was justified in applying a flat gross profit rate of 15% without a rational basis?
- Whether disallowance of railway freight and other expenses was sustainable without cogent reasons?
- Mesrs Gabol & Bros. vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad1984 CLC 2112 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-30Read full judgment →
- Mehrab and 3 Others vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Bashir vs Mst.Mobina Begum1984 CLC 2620 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- Mehdi Hassan vs Zaheer Ahmad Khan1984 CLC 2076 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-12Read full judgment →
- Mehboob Jewellers and 3 others vs Noor Ahmad1984 CLC 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- Meenhon and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3178 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-19Read full judgment →
- Mechanical Movers Inc. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, `B' Range, Karachi1984 PTD 101 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
- Me.ssrs Eastern General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Mst. Khatija Begum1984 CLC 2927 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- Mazhar Ali and another--Applicants vs Ghulam MUliAMMAD Khan and 81984 MLD 908 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-21Read full judgment →
- Matin & Co. vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 3 others1984 MLD 1185 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mataro vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1724 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- Mat. Sherbanoo vs Sadruddin and another through her Legal1984 MLD 803 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mat. Janna T vs Rasool Bux1984 MLD 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-01Read full judgment →
- Masroor Islam Usmani vs Province of Sind through the Secretary, Department of Health and 4 others1984 CLC 2696 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-05Read full judgment →
- Masroor Hussain Siddiqui vs Mst.Qudsie Begum1984 MLD 308 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-03Read full judgment →
- Masood Jan vs Muhammad Shahban1984 PLD Karachi 139 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad vs Syed Wasiul Din Ahmad1984 CLC 1869 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-03Read full judgment →
- Maqbool Elahi vs S. Anwer Tauheed1984 CLC 626 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter comprises two first rent appeals challenging orders of the Rent Controller striking off the appellants' defence and ordering their ejectment due to non-compliance with tentative rent orders. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was bound to record formal evidence or conduct a detailed inquiry before passing a tentative rent order under the relevant rent ordinance, and whether non-compliance warrants striking off the defense. The court held that the Rent Controller conducted a sufficient summary inquiry by considering the tenants' objections, and that recording formal evidence was unnecessary where the tenants made only vague assertions without laying a proper foundation. The court ruled that where a tentative rent order is legal, non-compliance renders the tenant's defense liable to be struck off ipso facto. The appeals were dismissed in limine, granting the tenants time to vacate.
Questions settled- Whether the Rent Controller is required to record formal evidence before passing a tentative rent order?
- Does non-compliance with a legal tentative rent order render the tenant's defense liable to be struck off?
- Whether a summary enquiry by considering objections satisfies the legal requirements prior to a tentative rent order?
- Mehmood Perveznaz vs 1VTH Sind Labour Court and Others1984 PLC 36 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 152 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs Nazir Ahmad Khan1984 CLC 819 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-03Read full judgment →
- MANSOOlt Saleem Aiimad vs Malik Hussain1984 MLD 790 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-04Read full judgment →
- Mansaf Khan vs Allauddin1984 CLC 1959 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- Mangio vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- Malik Shafi Hyder vs Mst. Iqbal Bano1984 CLC 2237 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- Malik Noor Muhammad vs Mst. Tasneem1984 PLD Karachi 124 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-23Read full judgment →
- Malik Feroz vs Abdul Qayyum1984 MLD 295 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- Malik Abdul Rashid vs Mohammad Gulfam1984 CLC 2835 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- Major (Rtd.) Mahfooz Hasan Khan and otherss vs M.A.Waheed and 21984 CLC 2626 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Majnoo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2069 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- Majeed Anwar Choudhry and Others vs District Judge/Exofficio1984 CLC 685 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mahmud and 6 Others vs Haji Tajdin and 8 Others1984 CLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mahmood-Ul-Hassan vs Ali Sher and 2 others1984 MLD 1119 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-20Read full judgment →
- Mahboob vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 263 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-27Read full judgment →
- Mahboob Ali vs Abdul Manan and 2 Others1984 CLC 1201 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal is directed against an order of the Rent Controller ordering the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from a shop on the ground of default in rent payment. The core legal question was whether an alleged established practice of the landlord accepting accumulated or lump-sum rent over periods of time can modify the statutory obligation of the tenant to pay rent on a monthly basis, thereby absolving the tenant from default. The court held that a tenant cannot contract out of statutory provisions or plead a practice of irregular payment to justify default, as the statutory obligation to tender rent monthly remains absolute and a landlord's mere tolerance or acceptance of delayed payments does not waive this requirement. The key principle laid down is that an alleged practice of paying and accepting accumulated rent cannot modify the statutory obligation of a tenant under the relevant rent laws to tender rent month to month, and a tenant who permits rent to accumulate does so at the peril of eviction.
Questions settled- Can an alleged practice of accepting accumulated rent modify the statutory obligation of a tenant to pay rent on a monthly basis?
- Does a landlord's acceptance of rent at irregular intervals establish a practice of irregular payment that excuses future defaults?
- Is a tenant considered a defaulter under the rent laws for failing to pay monthly rent despite previous lump-sum acceptances by the landlord?
- Maharaj Sitaram Pujari vs Alimuddin1984 CLC 1806 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
- Mahammad Abdullah. Authority vs Monopoly ControlPTCL 1984 (CL) 363 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18Read full judgment →
- M.K. Abbasi vs Ch. Abdul Aziz1984 MLD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-20Read full judgment →
- M.I.R. Hashmi and anothers vs Province of Sind through Secretary to Government of Sind, Education Department, Karachi and another1984 CLC 2925 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
- M.F.Corporation vs Akhtarunnisa alias Nahid Akhtar1984 CLC 2617 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-22Read full judgment →
- M. Yousuf vs Wali Muhammad and Another1984 CLC 1690 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order of the Rent Controller rejecting an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, which sought to set aside an ex parte ejectment order on the ground of fraud. The core legal question was whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable before a Rent Controller in proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The High Court held that the Rent Controller possesses only limited powers of a civil court under section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, and the remaining powers—including section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908—are not applicable to rent proceedings. Consequently, a separate civil suit challenging an order on such grounds is not barred, and the application under section 12(2) was rightly rejected as non-maintainable. Furthermore, because the appellant had already filed a statutory appeal against the ex parte order, the present appeal had become redundant and was dismissed in limine.
Questions settled- Whether an application under section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 is maintainable in proceedings before a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Does section 20 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 confer all powers of a civil court upon the Rent Controller or only specific enumerated powers?
- Is a separate civil suit challenging an order of the Rent Controller on grounds mentioned in section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 barred?
- M. Yazdani vs Mst. Zainab Bai1984 CLC 2058 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-19Read full judgment →
- M. Iqbal vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.1984 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-06Read full judgment →
- M s. Khurshid Begum and 5 Others vs Egum Afroz Bookhari and 71984 CLC 1833 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- Luqman vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2663 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Lt.Commander Syed Askari Hasan vs Bashir Ahmad Jhumra and another1984 MLD 343 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-14Read full judgment →
- Lt. Commander Syed Askari Hassan vs Bashir Ahmad Jhumra and another1984 MLD 366 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-07Read full judgment →
- Loisif Stavgianoudakis and 7 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2437 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- Lever Brothers (Pakistan) Ltd. and 9 Others vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Finance and 2 Others1984 CLC 227 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-27Read full judgment →
- Lever Brother (Pakistan) Limited, Karachi And 9 Other. vs Government Of Pakistan Through Secretary, Ministry Of Finance And Two OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 229 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Leemon and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2690 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-10Read full judgment →
- Laung Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1478 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- Latif Haroon Hamid and 3 others vs Directorgeneral_Commissioner, Excise & Taxation and 2 others1984 CLC 2727 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Lal Shah vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2739 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-19Read full judgment →
- Lal Malook vs Syed Mazhar Ali1984 CLC 2000 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
- Lal Chand and 2 Others vs Officer on Special Duty,Federal Land1984 CLC 2396 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged orders passed by the Additional Chief Land Commissioner and the Federal Land Commission declaring certain land alienations void. The core legal questions were whether a gift by a Hindu required registration under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, and whether land authorities could inquire into the bona fides of transfers (gifts or exchanges) made to legal heirs under the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Regulation. The Court held that gifts by a Hindu do not require registration if other evidence establishes the transaction. Regarding the second issue, the Court ruled that the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) protects transfers made to legal heirs from being declared void on the ground of lack of bona fides. The Court interpreted the term 'otherwise' in the proviso as extending to all modes of transfer, including exchanges. Consequently, the impugned orders were declared to be without lawful authority, as the authorities lacked the jurisdiction to invalidate these transactions based on a lack of bona fides.
Questions settled- Does a gift made by a Hindu require a registered instrument to be valid under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Can the Land Commission inquire into the bona fides of a transfer of land made by a declarant to his legal heirs under the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
- Does the word 'otherwise' in the proviso to paragraph 7(1)(b) of the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, include transactions of exchange?
- Lal Bux and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2826 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
- Lakhomal vs Seth Awat Rai1984 CLC 108 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-23Read full judgment →
- Kishan Chand vs Gul Muhammad1984 CLC 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-18Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad vs Muhammad Bux1984 CLC 3523 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
- Khushi Muhammad alias Natho vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 533 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-06Read full judgment →
- Khursheedul Hassan Khan vs Mst. Shaista and 2 arms1984 CLC 2423 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-14Read full judgment →
- Khursheed Junejo vs The Commissioner and Appellate Authority, Sukkur Division and 3 others1984 CLC 2565 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Khursheed A. Nisar and 6 Others vs Salahudd1n and Another1984 CLC 1843 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-01Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux vs The State and 7 Others1984 P Cr. L J 2079 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-12Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux alias Khudoo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-26Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Ziauddin vs Chief Administrator of Auqaf1984 PLC (C. S.) 646 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-14Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Saidur Rahman and Anothers vs Wajihuddin H. Memon and Another1984 CLC 2324 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-05Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Qasimuddin vs Iftikhar Bano1984 MLD 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-24Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Muhammad Yousaf vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation1984 MLD 761 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-09Read full judgment →