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.
- Ejaz Ahmad Siddiqui vs Mst. Aziz Jehan Begum1984 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-04Read full judgment →
- Ehsan Elanhi vs Muhammad Ashraf Khan Lodhi1984 CLC 90 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-24Read full judgment →
- Dr.S.M.SATTAR/Landlord. vs Moosa1984 MLD 693 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-17Read full judgment →
- Dr.Bashir Ahmed Malik vs Government of Sind and 2 others1984 CLC 2694 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-04Read full judgment →
- Dr..Shahjahan Baig vs Sharif Ahmad Siddiqui1984 MLD 130 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
- Dr. S. Farooqi vs Raja Saeed Akhtar Khan represented by his Heirs1984 MLD 235 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-21Read full judgment →
- DR. Muhammad 1Lyas Akhtar vs Mst. Ghafooran1984 CLC 1652 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-26Read full judgment →
- DR. M. Murtaza Khan vs The Trustees of Haji Sir Abdullah Haroon Wakf1984 CLC 1050 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-17Read full judgment →
- Dr. M. B. Anklesaria vs Azizuddin Najmai--Resporident1984 MLD 119 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-18Read full judgment →
- DR. M. A. Qadir Khan vs The Bank of Bahawalpur Ltd. and Another1984 PLD Karachi 211 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from a suit filed by the respondent bank for the recovery of a loan and overdraft facility granted to the principal debtor, with the appellant standing as a guarantor under a continuing guarantee limited to a principal sum of Rs. 3,000. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation and whether a variance in the rate of interest through a promissory note executed between the creditor and principal debtor without the surety's consent discharged the surety. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was within limitation as the appellant failed to establish that a prior demand notice had been issued. However, the Court held that altering the rate of interest from 8% to 9% per annum constituted a material variance in the terms of the contract without the surety's consent, thereby discharging the surety from liability under section 133 of the Contract Act. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the judgment and decree against the appellant were set aside, laying down the principle that any unauthorized alteration in the primary contract affecting the surety's obligation discharges the surety.
Questions settled- Whether a suit against a guarantor is barred by time when the letter of guarantee specifies repayment within two days after demand?
- Does an increase in the rate of interest agreed between the creditor and principal debtor without the surety's consent amount to a variance discharging the surety under section 133 of the Contract Act?
- Who bears the burden of proof when establishing a plea of limitation based on an alleged prior notice of demand?
- Whether a surety is bound by obligations or varied terms that were not part of the original contract of guarantee.
- DR. Khawaja Abdul Jaleel vs Messrs Dastagir Investments and Managements Ltd1984 CLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-24Read full judgment →
- DR. Col. Said Ahmad vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central), Karachi1984 PTD 182 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
- DR. Burjor M. Anklesaria vs MRS. Zenobia and Another1984 CLC 3253 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-23Read full judgment →
- Dr. Ashraf Mahmood-. vs Syed Abdul Malik.1984 MLD 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-24Read full judgment →
- DR. Ashfaque Hussain Nadeem vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 777 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
- DR. Ahmad Bashir vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan through Establishment Secretary, Government of Pakistan and 2 Others1984 CLC 2429 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-20Read full judgment →
- DR. Aftab A. Khan vs Muhammad Iqbal and 2 Others1984 CLC 3158 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
- DR. Abdul Rashid vs Mst. Najma1984 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- DR, Roshan H. Nanji vs Mst. Razia Khatoon1984 CLC 2343 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad vs The State and others1984 MLD 1443(1) · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-26Read full judgment →
- District Population Planning Officer vs Syed Ahmad Hussain Zaidi1984 CLC 2016 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
- Dinal and 7 Others vs Mian Najamuddin and Another1984 P Cr. L J 193 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application sought the quashment of proceedings initiated under Section 145 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before a Magistrate. The core legal questions were whether the High Court could exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to intervene after a revision petition had already been dismissed by the Sessions Court, and whether proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 were maintainable given the lack of urgency and the existence of parallel civil litigation. The Court held that while second revision applications are barred, the High Court retains inherent power under Section 561-A to redress patent injustice. Furthermore, the Court quashed the proceedings, finding that the significant delay in initiating action negated the essential requirement of an emergency or apprehension of a breach of peace. It was established that proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are stopgap arrangements that must yield to civil court adjudication regarding title or possession, and that such proceedings require immediate action to address genuine emergencies, which was absent in this case.
Questions settled- Can the High Court exercise inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to correct patent injustice after a revision petition has been dismissed by the Sessions Court?
- Does a significant delay in initiating proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 negate the Magistrate's jurisdiction based on the requirement of an emergency?
- Must proceedings under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 yield to pending civil litigation regarding the same property?
- Is a prior notice to the opposite party a legal requirement for a Magistrate to pass an initial order under Section 145, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Din Muhammad vs Pirji Nisar Ahmed1984 CLC 962 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-02Read full judgment →
- Din Muhammad Quresh1 vs The State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan1984 MLD 1209 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-02Read full judgment →
- Dildar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1970 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
- Dhano alias Dhani Bukhsh vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 16 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
- Dhani Bux and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2753 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
- Dhani Bux and 2 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2533 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-26Read full judgment →
- Deputy Commissioner, Nawabshah and another vs Haji Ali Sher1984 MLD 193 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-25Read full judgment →
- Deputy Commissioner vs htiADIM Ali and others1984 MLD 854 · Sindh High Court · 1984-08-05Read full judgment →
- Deen Muhammad and 6 Others vs The Assistant Commissioner & S. D. M.1984 P Cr. L J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- Dawood Adam KABARI/Tenant vs Mst. Khatija BAI/Landlord1984 CLC 1713 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
- Daulatpur Jute Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Mughal and Sons and 4 others1984 MLD 351 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-04Read full judgment →
- Darya Khan vs Sham Man and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 1301 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-18Read full judgment →
- Darhoon and 4 Thers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3218 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
- Daleel and 5 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2783 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- Dadu vs The Member, Federal Land Commissioner, Sind and Baluchistan1984 MLD 265 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-03Read full judgment →
- Dada Steel Mills vs Collector Of Customs And OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 184 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- Dada Steel Mills vs Collector of Customs and Another1984 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-24Read full judgment →
- Dada Soap Factory Ltd. vs Messrs Stolt Nielsen Inc. and Another1984 CLC 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
- Dad Rahim vs Sind Government1984 MLD 1445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-02Read full judgment →
- Da. Abdullah Ghangro vs Mst. Tahira Begum1984 CLC 3102 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These statutory appeals under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 were filed against orders striking off the tenants' defence and directing their ejectment. The Rent Controller had ordered the tenant-appellants to deposit monthly rent by a specified date in the ejectment proceedings. Upon non-compliance, the landlord applied under Section 16 of the Ordinance to strike off their defence. The tenants claimed they had routinely deposited rent in a separate miscellaneous rent deposit proceeding between the same parties, relying on photostat receipts, but failed to produce original receipts or evidence from the Nazir confirming such deposits. The High Court affirmed the Rent Controller's orders, holding that unproved claims of depositing rent in miscellaneous proceedings do not amount to compliance with a specific deposit order issued in an ejectment case. The Court established that a tenant must strictly comply with a Rent Controller's deposit direction in the account of the active ejectment proceeding, and failure to prove proper deposit or provide a valid explanation justifies striking off the defence under Section 16(2) of the Ordinance.
Questions settled- Does depositing rent in a separate miscellaneous proceeding satisfy a Rent Controller's order to deposit rent in a specific ejectment case?
- Whether photostat copies of rent receipts without Nazir verification are sufficient proof of compliance with a rent deposit order?
- Is a tenant's defence liable to be struck off under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 upon unexcused failure to deposit rent in the designated case account?
- Cul Mehar vs Syed Ikram Ali1984 MLD 163 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
- Cotton Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs The Sind Labour1984 PLC 712 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-03Read full judgment →
- Controller of Esta't'e Duty, Karachi vs Mst. Halimabai1984 PTD 112 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-15Read full judgment →
- Committee of Administration, Fauji Foundation vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 others1984 MLD 356 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of. Sales Tax, Karachi (Central), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PT D 410 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Wealth Versus S. H. Muhammad Ahmad. Tax (East)PTCL 1984 (CL)300 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax/Income Tax, Karachi vs Abu Talib Dada1984 PTD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-23Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Wealth Tax (East) Karachi., K.R. Byraji vs S.H. MuhammadPTCL 1984 CL. 300 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax (East) Karachi. vs Messrs Choudhry Farzand Ali.PTCL 1984 (CL) 20 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Sales Tax (Central Zones) Karachi vs M/s. a & B FoodPTCL 1984 (CL) 402 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karat (East), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 61 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-07Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (West). Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 201 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (East), Karachi vs Messrs1984 PTD 4 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs R. C. Chapman1984 PTD 235 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-31Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs N. Fateh Ali & Co.1984 PTD 341 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-01Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs M. A. Toor1984 PTD 368 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-16Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi vs Messrs Adamjee1984 PTD 390 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax, Karachi. vs M_S Hussain Corporation, KarachiPTCL 1984 (CL) 156 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West), Karachi. vs M_S. Madina Cap House, HyderabadPTCL 1984 (CL.) 305 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West) Karachi. vs Manzoor Hussain AbdulPTCL 1984 (CL) 47 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West) Karachi. vs Habib Vali MuhammadPTCL 1984 (CL) 277 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (West) Karachi. vs Adamjee Sons, KarachiPTCL 1984 (CL) 392 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-01Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central), Karachi vs Abdul Karim HajiPTCL 1984 (CL) 179 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Daily Hilal-E-Pakistan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Others1984 PLC 395 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- Commissioner Of Income Tax (Central Zone) Karachi. vs M/s. GramophonePTCL 1984 (CL) 303 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Commissioner of Incom&Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Habib Vali1984 PTD 131 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ciba Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, East Karachi1984 PTD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-16Read full judgment →
- Chuttoo Bhai Panwala vs Mst. Sara Bibi1984 CLC 1769 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
- Choudhry Faqir Hussain vs Mst. Rashida Begum1984 MLD 412 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-30Read full judgment →
- Chhattan Shah vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2280 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
- Chaudhry Ghulam Rasool vs Secretary, Department of Education1984 MLD 697 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-24Read full judgment →
- Charki and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 638 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-10Read full judgment →
- Ch. Muhammad Ismail Khalid vs Commissioner Exofficio Court of Wards, Hyderabad and 4 Others1984 CLC 3045 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Farid vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
- Ch. Abdul Aziz and 3 manss vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal1984 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-22Read full judgment →
- Capt. Riffat Chowdhry vs Tim Executive Board, Pakistan Defence1984 CLC 2426 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
- Capt. Georgios Tsirogiannis vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1257 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-04Read full judgment →
- Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Fuel, Power and Natural Resources and 2 others1984 MLD 837 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21Read full judgment →
- Buxly Paints Ltd. vs Izharullah and Others1984 PLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-09Read full judgment →
- Buxial vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 861 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-20Read full judgment →
- Bodo Mal and 5 Others vs Illahi Ba K HSH1984 CLC 640 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
- Board of Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Punjab Industrial1984 MLD 745 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-16Read full judgment →
- Bhudaji alias Vithal vs The State1984 MLD 1598 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-11Read full judgment →
- Begum Azhari Bashir vs Abdul Hamid Chowdhary and 5 others1984 MLD 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-09Read full judgment →
- Begum Atiya Hassan and 3 Others vs Habib Fadoo1984 CLC 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-28Read full judgment →
- Bashiruddin vs Mst. Sughra Begum and another1984 MLD 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-17Read full judgment →
- Bashir Masih vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2788 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-27Read full judgment →
- Bashir Baig and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Shahzadi Begum.1984 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Ahmadul Haq Siddiqui1984 CLC 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali and 2 Others vs Province of West Pakistan and 3 Others1984 CLC 411 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-08Read full judgment →
- Bank of America vs Alam & Bros. and 6 Others1984 CLC 3393 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal was filed under Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, challenging an interlocutory order passed by the Special Court (Banking) which dismissed the appellant's application for the appointment of a commissioner to inspect, survey, and sell pledged goods. The core legal question was whether an appeal lies against an interlocutory order of a Special Court that does not dispose of the entire case. The Court held that the appeal was incompetent, affirming that the proviso to Section 12(1) of the Ordinance explicitly bars appeals from interlocutory orders that do not conclude the entire proceedings. The Court emphasized that the Ordinance is a special law designed for expeditious recovery, and its provisions regarding the finality of interlocutory orders prevail over general procedural laws like the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The principle laid down is that the right of appeal under the Ordinance is restricted to final judgments or orders that dispose of the entire case, and interlocutory orders of the Special Court cannot be challenged through appeal or revision.
Questions settled- Does an appeal lie against an interlocutory order of a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, if the order does not dispose of the entire case?
- Can the revisional jurisdiction of the High Court under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, be invoked against interlocutory orders of a Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the definition of 'order' in Section 2(14) of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, expand the scope of appealable orders under Section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Baluchistan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central_Board of Revenue and Others1984 CLC 2192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner challenged an assessment order dated 4th February 1975 passed by respondent 4, which classified imported spindle-holders (bolster units) and plastic rings under Item No. 84.38(C) of the Customs Tariff, attracting a 50% ad valorem duty plus sales tax. The core legal question was whether spindle-holders (bolster units) qualify as parts of textile spindles under heading 84.38(C) or fall under the residuary heading 84.38(D) of the Pakistan Customs Tariff. The Sindh High Court held that the alternate remedies of appeal and revision were illusory since the appellate and revisional authorities had already predetermined the issue, rendering the constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution. On merits, the Court held that bolster units are merely supports to hold the spindle and do not constitute a part of the spindle itself; therefore, they do not fall under heading 84.38(C) but under the residuary heading 84.38(D) at 20% ad valorem duty. The key principle laid down is that the existence of an alternate remedy is no bar to a constitutional petition if such remedy is illusory, and that mechanical parts used to support a device do not automatically become parts of that device for tariff classification purposes.
Questions settled- Whether the existence of an alternate remedy by way of appeal and revision bars a constitutional petition when such remedies are illusory?
- Can spindle-holders and bolster units be classified as parts of textile spindles under heading 84.38(C) of the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
- Does a support device used to hold a spindle become a part of the spindle itself for customs duty assessment?
- Bahadur vs The Deputy Commissioner, Dadu and 5 others1984 MLD 841 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-07Read full judgment →
- Bago alias Pathan and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3229 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a bail application filed by four applicants charged with offences under sections 307, 394, and 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance, following an alleged highway robbery and shooting incident. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to bail given the circumstances surrounding their identification and the evidence collected during the investigation. The Court observed that the applicants remained in police custody for approximately fifteen days prior to the identification parade, casting doubt on the reliability of the identification process at the pre-trial stage. Furthermore, the Court noted that the alleged extra-judicial confession was made to a minor and lacked sufficient weight for the purpose of denying bail. Holding that the applicants' complicity required further inquiry, the Court granted bail, invoking the principle that where there are reasonable grounds for further inquiry into the guilt of an accused, the case falls within the scope of section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, necessitating the grant of bail.
Questions settled- Does holding an identification parade after fifteen days of police custody render the identification evidence doubtful for the purpose of bail?
- Does the presence of reasonable grounds for further inquiry into an accused's complicity entitle them to bail under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can an extra-judicial confession made to a minor be considered sufficient evidence to deny bail?
- Bagh and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3222 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-24Read full judgment →
- Bachomal vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2797 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly giving false evidence during a murder trial. The appellant, who had initially supported the complainant during a preliminary inquiry, resiled from his statement during the subsequent trial, leading the trial court to issue a show-cause notice and eventually convict him for perjury. The core legal question was whether the trial court could validly take cognizance of the offence of giving false evidence without adhering to the mandatory procedural requirements. Upon review, the Court found that the trial court failed to file a written complaint as required by Section 195(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that in the absence of such a written complaint, the trial court lacked the jurisdiction to take cognizance of the offence. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted. The judgment reaffirms the principle that strict compliance with the procedural bar under Section 195, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 is a prerequisite for prosecuting perjury.
Questions settled- Can a court take cognizance of an offence under Section 193 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 without a written complaint as required by Section 195(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Is the filing of a written complaint by the trial court a mandatory prerequisite for prosecuting a witness for giving false evidence?
- Bachal vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1571 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →