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.

• Babu vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1932 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-18Read full judgment →
• Baboo Khan vs Maqbool Ahmed1984 CLC 2599 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-22
  ejectmentdefault in rentpower of attorneyframing of issuesrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from an ejectment application filed by the landlord through an attorney against the appellant tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller found the appellant to be a habitual defaulter and ordered his ejectment, which was challenged by the appellant in this appeal before the Sindh High Court. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant's failure to find the landlord excused rent payment default, and whether the power of attorney sufficiently authorized the attorney to file and verify the ejectment application. The Court held that a tenant unable to locate the landlord is nonetheless bound to deposit the rent with the Rent Controller, and that the power of attorney explicitly empowered the attorney to take legal action and institute proceedings. The Court further ruled that the Rent Controller is not bound to frame issues on frivolous or unsubstantiated pleas. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs, granting the appellant four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does a tenant's inability to trace the landlord absolve the tenant from the responsibility of paying rent?
  • Whether a general power of attorney authorizing legal action and proceedings permits an attorney to file and verify an ejectment application?
  • Is a Rent Controller legally bound to frame an issue in respect of each and every plea raised in the pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• B. P. Biscuit Factory Ltd. vs The Deputy Superintendent, Central Excise1984 MLD 68 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-05Read full judgment →
• Azmat Hayat Khan vs Q.Mushir Azam1984 CLC 2635 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad vs Anwar Ali. and 3 Others1984 CLC 1778 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-05Read full judgment →
• Aziz Ahmad Siddiqui vs Muhammad Iqbal, and another1984 MLD 872 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-07Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs Sh. Muhammad Raees Shamsi and 2 Others1984 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali Shah vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Azeem Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2720 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Avari Hotels Ltd. vs Hilton International Company1984 PLD Karachi 488 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ava A. Cowasjee and 8 others vs Nasreen Nizam Shah and 4 others1984 CLC 2705 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-10
  court-feejoinder of plaintiffsdistinct subjectsaggregate court-feecivil procedurevaluation of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a civil suit filed by nine plaintiffs seeking damages for various distinct grievances, including malicious trespass, wrongful arrest, and loss of business, arising from a single incident. The core legal question was whether the plaintiffs could pay a single maximum court fee on the aggregate value of their combined claims, or if they were required to pay court fees separately for each distinct subject matter under the Court Fees Act, 1870. The Court held that the plaintiffs are liable to pay court fees separately on each distinct claim presented in the plaint. The Court reasoned that while Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 allows for the joinder of plaintiffs, this procedural rule does not override the substantive requirement under Section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870, which mandates that suits embracing two or more distinct subjects must be charged with the aggregate amount of fees payable for each subject separately. The principle established is that procedural joinder does not exempt plaintiffs from paying individual court fees on separate causes of action.

  Questions settled

  • Does the joinder of multiple plaintiffs in a single suit under Order I, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, exempt them from paying separate court fees on distinct claims?
  • Is a suit containing multiple claims for damages arising from different causes of action subject to Section 17 of the Court Fees Act, 1870?
  • Does the maximum court fee limit prescribed by the Court Fees (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1977, apply to the aggregate value of all claims in a suit or to each distinct subject matter separately?
  Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs Syed Amjad Ali1984 CLC 1765 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-31Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb Abid and Another vs The State and Another1984 P Cr. L J 1558 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Auragzeb a Bid and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1764 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-01Read full judgment →
• Aula Mian and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3051 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-17Read full judgment →
• Attaur Rehman vs Mushtaq Ahmad Qureshi (deceased) through Legal1984 MLD 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1984-09-05Read full judgment →
• Atlas Group of Companies Employees' Union (C. B. A.) vs Registrar of Trade Unions and 5 Others1984 PLC 1482 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
• Associated Press of Pakistan vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1984 PLC 1687 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-25Read full judgment →
• Aslam Chughtai vs Civil Judge and Another1984 CLC 822 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-28Read full judgment →
• Asif Ali vs Muhammad Siddiq and Another1984 CLC 439 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-19Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Hussain alias Achhoo vs Mst. Hasan Bano and Another1984 CLC 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-06Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali and 3 others vs Muhammad Hashim and 8 others1984 MLD 951 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali alias Ghulam Murtaza Somro vs The State and 2 Others1984 P Cr. L J 2000 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-14Read full judgment →
• Ashfaque vs Mst.Begum Bibi alias Bego Bibi and another1984 CLC 2587 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-15Read full judgment →
• Ashfaq Ahmed Memon and Anothers vs Deputy Commissioner &1984 CLC 1987 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
• Asad Azhar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-24Read full judgment →
• Arshad Mahmood Siddiqui vs Muhammad Haroon1984 CLC 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-27
  ejectmentdefault in rentsuccessor-in-interesttransfer of propertymisreading of evidencestatutory tenantrent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal concerns an ejectment application filed against a tenant for default in rent payment. The original landlord transferred the premises to the appellant during the pendency of the litigation. The core legal questions were whether a successor-in-interest (purchaser) can rely on a default committed during the tenure of the previous landlord, and whether the tenant had proven an agreement to adjust repair costs against rent. The lower courts dismissed the application, holding that the default was not available to the new landlord and that the tenant's claim regarding repair adjustments was established. The High Court held that under Section 8 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882, the right to evict for default is not personal but attaches to the property, thus passing to the transferee. Furthermore, the Court found that the lower courts misread the evidence regarding the alleged repair agreement, noting inconsistencies in the tenant's pleadings and testimony. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, and the tenant was directed to vacate the premises, establishing that a successor landlord inherits the right to prosecute eviction proceedings based on prior defaults.

  Questions settled

  • Can a successor landlord rely on a default in rent payment committed during the tenure of the previous landlord?
  • Does the right to evict a tenant for default pass to a transferee of the property under the Transfer of Property Act, 1882?
  • Can a court accept a witness's testimony as true merely because the opposing party failed to cross-examine on that specific point, if the testimony contradicts the party's own pleadings?
  Read full judgment →
• Arifullah Haroon vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1444 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-12Read full judgment →
• Ardeshir Cowasjee vs Byram D. Avari and 4 others1984 CLC 2494 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Aoqeeluddin and 5 others vs Muhammad Rafique1984 CLC 2607 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-07Read full judgment →
• Anwarul Haq vs Mst. Hanifan and 3 Others1984 CLC 1788 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-21Read full judgment →
• Anwar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Anwar Pasha vs Pin State1984 P Cr. L J 359 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-30Read full judgment →
• Anwar Ali--Applicant vs Karachi Municipal Corporation, Karachi1984 MLD 820 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-04Read full judgment →
• Ansar Ahmed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2630 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• Anno or Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan and 4 Others1984 CLC 753 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-02Read full judgment →
• Anjumaneasna Ashari (Regd.) vs The Government of Sind through Secretary, Home Department and 11 Others1984 CLC 1845 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-30Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Bashindganeiqbal Colony and 2 Others vs Messrs Friends1984 CLC 1946 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• Anjuma N Ba Hboodeislam vs Government of Sind and 4 Others1984 CLC 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
• Anis Ali Khan vs Government of Sind and another1984 MLD 328 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-02Read full judgment →
• Anis a Hmad Rush Di and Another vs Mst. Zulekha and 9 Others1984 CLC 748 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
• Anfords (Pakistan) Limited vs Dentogene Laboratories Limited1984 MLD 208 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-15Read full judgment →
• Amjad Rashid Khan Malik vs Mrs. Zubeda Rashid Khan and Another1984 CLC 2851 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-20
  withdrawal of suitpreliminary decreesubstitution of legal representativesauction purchaserinherent powerspartition suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court addresses two miscellaneous applications arising out of a partition and administration suit in which a consent preliminary decree was passed, involving the proposed withdrawal of the suit by the plaintiff and the substitution of legal representatives of a deceased third-party auction purchaser. The core legal questions concern whether a plaintiff retains an absolute right to withdraw a suit after a preliminary decree has been passed, and whether the court can permit the substitution of legal representatives of a third-party auction purchaser using inherent powers under the Code of Civil Procedure. The court held that while a plaintiff generally has an unfettered right to withdraw a suit unconditionally, this right is curtailed once a preliminary decree is passed, rights are determined, or a third party acquires enforceable rights under the proceedings. Furthermore, the court held that even if specific provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure do not apply, the court can invoke its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure to substitute the legal heirs of a deceased auction purchaser to ensure complete justice. The key principles laid down are that a plaintiff cannot unilaterally withdraw a suit to nullify rights acquired by third parties under a preliminary decree, and that inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure can be utilized to bring legal representatives on record when a party or successful purchaser dies during proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff retain an absolute right to withdraw a suit after a preliminary decree has been passed?
  • Can a plaintiff and defendants nullify rights lawfully acquired by a third-party auction purchaser under a preliminary decree by withdrawing the suit?
  • Can the court use its inherent powers under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to substitute the legal representatives of a deceased auction purchaser when specific provisions of the Code do not apply?
  Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux vs Secretarygeneral, Ministry of Interior1984 P Cr. L J 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-13Read full judgment →
• Amir Bakhsh and 11 others vs Sanwal Khan and another1984 MLD 897 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-18Read full judgment →
• Amin Mohiuddin Foundation Ltd. vs Tax Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi (East)1984 PTD 282 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ami Muhammad and 3 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• American Export Inc. and anothers vs United Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd. and another1984 CLC 2575 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-26Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 4 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2798 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
• Aman Electronics Sales and Services vs Abdul Hamid and 6 others1984 CLC 2532 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• Alvia Tableeghi Trust and 8 Others vs Mujeebur Rahman Alvi and 71984 CLC 796 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-05
  private trustfiduciary dutydeclaration of ownershippreliminary decree for accountssuit for possessionbreach of trustSection 42 Specific Relief ActSection 92 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the Alvia Tableeghi Trust and its trustees against a fellow trustee (defendant No. 1) and associated partners, seeking a declaration of ownership, possession, and accounts in respect of a salt works ("Khurshid Salt Works"). The plaintiffs claimed that defendant No. 1 was instructed to purchase the salt works for the benefit of the Trust but improperly executed the sale agreement in the name of a bogus partnership firm (Habib Ocean Industries) created by him. The primary legal issue was whether defendant No. 1 purchased the property on his own behalf or for the benefit of the Trust, and whether the absence of a formal trust resolution or non-rectification of the sale agreement barred the claimed relief. The High Court of Sindh held that the preponderance of oral and documentary evidence established the property was negotiated and purchased for the Trust, funded substantially through trust resources and guarantees. Consequently, the Court decreed that the Trust was the owner, ordered delivery of possession, directed execution of necessary transfer documents, and issued a preliminary decree for accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agent or trustee who purchases property in the name of a private partnership after being instructed to buy it for a trust holds that property for the benefit of the trust?
  • Does the absence of a recorded resolution by trustees invalidate a transaction negotiated by a trustee on behalf of the trust?
  • Is a suit for declaration of title and possession maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without seeking formal rectification of the underlying sale agreement?
  • Can a court grant consequential relief of possession in a suit for declaration when such relief arises out of the pleadings without claiming perpetual injunction?
  Read full judgment →
• Altaf Hussain vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2680 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
• Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Messrs Decorative Arts and 2 Other1984 CLC 87 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-18Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan vs Rab Nawaz Malik1984 MLD 888 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-02Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. vs V. C. Khilnani and 2 Others1984 PLD Karachi 127 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-10
  summary procedureleave to defendsetting aside decreespecial circumstancesOrder XXXVII Rule 4conditional leaveex parte decreeexecution stay
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit against the defendant under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. After the original defendant's death, his legal heirs were brought on record and granted leave to defend on the condition of furnishing security, by a consent order. Upon the defendants' failure to furnish security within the stipulated time, the suit stood decreed. The defendants subsequently applied under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside the decree, citing medical treatment abroad as the reason for non-compliance. The High Court of Sindh considered whether Order XXXVII Rule 4 applies to decrees passed due to non-fulfillment of conditional leave to defend, and what constitutes 'special circumstances' thereunder. The Court held that Order XXXVII Rule 4 applies broadly to all decrees passed under Order XXXVII except on merits. However, 'special circumstances' required a higher standard than 'sufficient cause', referring to rare and exceptional events. Finding no such exceptional circumstances, the Court dismissed the application.

  Questions settled

  • Does Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply to set aside a decree passed upon a defendant's failure to comply with a conditional order granting leave to defend?
  • Can an ex parte decree passed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be set aside under Order IX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • What constitutes 'special circumstances' for setting aside a decree under Order XXXVII Rule 4 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. and 3 Others vs Chairman National1984 PLC 1342 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-25
  National Industrial Relations Commissionunfair labour practiceinterlocutory orderdismissalreinstatementIndustrial Relations Ordinancewrit jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition before the Sindh High Court challenged the interlocutory orders passed by the Chairman of the National Industrial Relations Commission suspending the dismissal of respondent employees. The core legal question was whether the Commission, upon a complaint filed under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for an unfair labour practice already committed, possesses the power to pass an ad interim order suspending dismissal or directing reinstatement. The Court held that Regulation 32 distinguishes between unfair labour practices already committed (where reinstatement or penal consequences follow a finding of guilt and conviction under section 53) and those likely to occur (where preventive measures can be ordered). Consequently, the Commission lacks jurisdiction to grant interlocutory reinstatement or stay dismissal orders in complaints concerning past acts of unfair labour practice. The petition was allowed, and the impugned suspension orders were declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission can suspend a dismissal order as an interim measure in a complaint filed under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Does the power to direct reinstatement under Regulation 32 of the National Industrial Relations Commission (Procedure and Functions) Rules 1973 depend upon a prior finding of guilt and conviction?
  • What is the distinction between clause (1) and clause (2) of Regulation 32 regarding past versus threatened unfair labour practices?
  Read full judgment →
• Allauddin and 10 Others vs Shaukat Ali Khan and 3 Others1984 PLC (C. S.) 261 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-07Read full judgment →
• Allahdito and ANOTHERs/Accused vs The State1984 PLD Karachi 223 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-18
  post-arrest bailnon-compoundable offenceex parte affidavitsabscondancetampering with evidenceattempted murderparity in bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This application for post-arrest bail arose out of a criminal case pending before the Court of Session, Nawabshah, where the applicants were facing trial under Sections 307, 504, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged that the applicants used hatchets and blunt weapons, causing twenty-one injuries (including fourteen incised wounds) to two victims amidst prior enmity, and subsequently absconded after obtaining pre-arrest bail. The applicants sought bail on grounds of an alleged compromise, a counter-case registered at another police station, and parity with a co-accused who was granted bail based on ex parte affidavits of prosecution witnesses. The High Court rejected the application, holding that non-compoundable offences cannot be bailed out on the ground of compromise, which instead indicates an attempt to tamper with evidence. The Court further laid down that ex parte affidavits sworn before Oath Commissioners by prosecution witnesses are not 'evidence' under the Evidence Act 1872 and cannot be relied upon to grant bail in heinous offences without proper judicial scrutiny.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an unapproved compromise in a non-compoundable offence can form a valid ground for the grant of post-arrest bail?
  • Whether ex parte affidavits sworn by prosecution witnesses before an Oath Commissioner constitute legal evidence for the purpose of granting bail in serious offences?
  • Under what circumstances may a court rely upon ex parte affidavits exonerating an accused to grant bail in heinous offences?
  Read full judgment →
• Allahdino and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2312 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• Allahdino alias Dino and 3 others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2242 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-29Read full judgment →
• Allahdad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 627 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Allahabad Co-Operative Housing Society vs Nazir Qureshi and 41984 MLD 99 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs Government of Sind and 2 Others1984 CLC 2100 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1747 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux vs Government of Sindh and 2 others1984 CLC 2481 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Bachayo vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2727 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• Ali Umar vs Collector of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi and 21984 CLC 2613 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Ali Umar vs Collector Of Customs (Appraisement), Karachi And 2 OtherPTCL 1984 (CL) 373 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ali Murad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2804 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-22Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad, through his Legal Haris and another vs Naimatullah1984 MLD 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1984-10-03Read full judgment →
• Ali Muha MM a D vs The Province of Sind and 5 others1984 MLD 257 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-28Read full judgment →
• Ali Khan vs Ali Khan and 3 Others1984 P Cr. L J 318 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Hayder and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2673 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan Shaikh vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1286 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar and 3 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 486 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ali Gohar and 2 Others vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-11Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Mst. Khatoon Hadi1984 MLD 639 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ali Akbar vs Gulzar Ali Shah1984 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-19
  summary suitservice of summonsleave to defendlimitation periodprocedural compliancenegotiable instruments
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two first appeals against a judgment and decree passed by a District Judge in summary suits filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellant challenged the trial court's dismissal of his applications for leave to appear and defend, which resulted in the suits being decreed against him. The core legal question was whether the service of summons was valid when the mandatory copy of the plaint was not annexed, thereby triggering the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908. The Court held that the service was improper because the summons did not comply with the prescribed form requiring the plaint to be attached. Consequently, the limitation period for seeking leave to defend did not commence. The Court set aside the decree and remanded the case for the trial court to decide the appellant's application for leave to defend on its merits. The key principle established is that in summary suits, strict compliance with the prescribed summons form, including the attachment of the plaint, is mandatory for valid service.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to annex a copy of the plaint to the summons in a summary suit invalidate the service of summons?
  • Can the limitation period for filing an application for leave to defend under Article 159 of the Limitation Act 1908 commence if the summons served is not in the prescribed form?
  • Is strict compliance with the prescribed form of summons mandatory in suits filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Alam Ali vs Haji Muhammad Ibrahim1984 MLD 237 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-09Read full judgment →
• Akram Ali and anothers vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2221 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-23Read full judgment →
• Akmal Ahmad vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1473 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-26Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1221 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-30Read full judgment →
• Akbar Khan vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1483 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• Akbar Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Ves/Ojuanojo Objedinenue1984 CLC 1605 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-05
  arbitration clausestay of suitforeign arbitrationdiscretionary powerbalance of convenienceex parte proceedingsarbitration agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and Section 3 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937, seeking to stay a civil suit in favor of arbitration in Moscow per a contract clause. The core legal questions were whether the suit must be stayed under the 1937 Act and whether the court should exercise its discretion to stay proceedings under the 1940 Act given the practical difficulties of foreign arbitration. The court held that Section 3 of the 1937 Act is inapplicable absent an actual submission of the dispute to arbitration. Regarding Section 34 of the 1940 Act, the court held that the power to stay is discretionary and not absolute. The key principle laid down is that a court may refuse to stay proceedings if it is satisfied that the arbitration would effectively result in an ex parte decision or cause severe injustice, particularly where all evidence, witnesses, and relevant records are located in Pakistan and foreign exchange restrictions make foreign arbitration impracticable.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 3 of the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act 1937 apply to an arbitration agreement where no actual submission of the dispute has been made?
  • Is the power of the court to stay legal proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 absolute or discretionary?
  • Can a court refuse to stay a suit in favor of foreign arbitration if the location of evidence and witnesses makes the arbitration process impracticable for one party?
  Read full judgment →
• Akbar alias Ghulam Akbar vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 3163 · Sindh High Court · 1984-06-25Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Mahmood vs Israrul Haque--Responde1984 MLD 688 · Sindh High Court · 1984-03-28Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Qureshi vs Thi3 State1984 P Cr. L J 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Hussain Bhatti vs Mst. Aisha Khatoon1984 CLC 2622 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
• Ajaz Ahmad vs The State1984 MLD 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1984-01-28Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ali vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 2681 · Sindh High Court · 1984-02-01Read full judgment →
• Aijaz Ahmed Zubari vs The XTH Civil Judge & Rent Controller, Karachi1984 CLC 3445 · Sindh High Court · 1984-05-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1573 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-24Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Hussain & Co vs Ahmad Raza Khan1984 PLD Karachi 23 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-18
  second appealdefault in payment of rentsection 30 noticedisplaced personsrate of rentmunicipal assessmentejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross second appeals arising from an ejectment proceeding initiated by a landlord against a tenant of a disputed property transferred under the settlement laws. The core legal questions involved whether the tenant committed a default in payment of rent under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958, whether the landlord was bound to supply copies of title documents upon request, and how the rate of rent ought to be determined based on municipal assessments. The court held that the tenant indeed committed default by failing to pay or tender any rent within the statutory three-month period following the receipt of the section 30 notice, notwithstanding any bona fide doubts regarding title or delay in issuing the notice. Furthermore, the court held that rent controllers are bound by the latest municipal assessment of the specific premises in question under section 30 of the Act. The appeals were accordingly disposed of, dismissing the tenant's appeal on the issue of default and partially accepting the landlord's appeal to revise the rate of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant loses statutory protection against default under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 by failing to pay or tender rent within three months of receiving notice?
  • Is a transferee of property from the Settlement Department legally required to supply copies of transfer documents such as P.T.O. and P.T.D. to a recorded tenant upon request?
  • Can rent control authorities go behind or alter the latest municipal assessment of a property when determining the rate of rent under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958?
  • Does a delay of several years in issuing a notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958 invalidate the notice or absolve the tenant from paying rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and Another vs The State1984 P Cr. L J 1441 · Sindh High Court · 1983-11-22Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Alim vs Messrs General Tyre and Rubber Co. of Pakistanltd. and 2 Others1984 PLC 122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Yar vs Hassan Ali Shah and 14 Others1984 CLC 3413 · Sindh High Court · 1984-04-22Read full judgment →
• Agha Zulfiqar Ali Shah and 10 OTHERSs vs Saiful and 8 Others1984 CLC 1734 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-08Read full judgment →
• Agha Zaheeruddin Khan vs Government of Sind and Another1984 P Cr. L J 3882 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-12Read full judgment →