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.

• Yaqoob Ali vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1671 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Yacoob and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1111 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-15Read full judgment →
• Waqf Muhammad Mehar Ellahi vs Abdul Razzak Ltd.1983 CLC 3285 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-19
  ejectmentdefault in rentsecond appealmisreading of evidencestatutory obligationlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from an ejectment matter filed by the landlord against the tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment and damage to the leased godown. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered ejectment, but the First Appellate Court reversed the decision, holding that the tenant was not a willful defaulter because rent was sometimes paid in lump sum and the landlord's collector failed to collect it. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the tenant had committed a default in the payment of rent and whether the First Appellate Court misread the evidence. The High Court held that the tenant is under both a contractual and a statutory obligation to pay rent monthly, and the landlord is not required to find the tenant to collect rent. The Court ruled that subsequent tenders by cheque or deposits in court after the default period cannot wipe off an already committed default, and the First Appellate Court's finding was based on a misreading of evidence. The appeal was allowed and the Rent Controller's order restored.

  Questions settled

  • Does an ordinance imposing a duty to pay rent require the landlord to find the tenant and collect rent?
  • Can a deposit of rent in court made after the expiry of the due date wipe off an already committed default?
  • Is a finding of fact by the First Appellate Court liable to be set aside in second appeal if it is based on a misreading of evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Zainab Khatoon1983 CLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad and 5 Others1983 CLC 3192 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-12Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad through Legal Heirs vs Custodian of Evacuee1983 CLC 2023 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-14Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Hussain vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Hussain and Another vs Muhammad Rafique and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1180 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-25Read full judgment →
• Wahid Shah vs Haider Mirza1983 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-14
  Section 14 Sindh Rented Premises Ordinancepersonal requirementsummary ejectmentlandlord over 60 yearstenancy renewalsubstantial compliancerent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Rent Appeal challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller allowing an application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, for the eviction of a tenant based on the landlord's personal requirement as a person over 60 years of age. The core legal questions were whether the pendency of a prior ejectment case under Section 15 barred a Section 14 application, whether the renewal of a tenancy agreement constituted a new tenancy for eligibility purposes, and whether strict compliance with the notice period was required. The Court held that Section 14 provides a distinct, summary cause of action separate from Section 15, and the pendency of the latter does not bar the former. It further held that the tenancy commenced in 1968, prior to the landlord reaching 60, making him eligible. Finally, the Court ruled that substantial compliance with the notice period is sufficient to satisfy the statutory requirements, provided the ejectment order is passed after the expiry of the mandatory period. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a rent application under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 bar a landlord from filing a separate application under Section 14 of the same Ordinance?
  • Does the renewal of a tenancy agreement constitute a new tenancy for the purpose of determining if a landlord was over 60 years of age at the time of renting?
  • Is strict compliance with the two-month notice period under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 required, or is substantial compliance sufficient?
  Read full judgment →
• W. D. Wahidy and 2 Others vs Mst. Amina Bi1983 CLC 497 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-13Read full judgment →
• Viqar Haider vs Kaneez Fatima and Others1983 CLC 91 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-22Read full judgment →
• Viqar Ahmed vs Muhammad Ashraf1983 PLD Karachi 196 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Usman Ahmad Ansari vs Messrs Union Steel Mills1983 CLC 2686 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-08Read full judgment →
• United Chemical Industries Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan1983 CLC 2544 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Aijaz Amin1983 CLC 530 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in rentvested right of appealwaiversecond appealejectment proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises out of an ejectment proceeding where the tenant's defence was struck off for alleged non-compliance with a tentative rent order passed under section 13(6) of the Ordinance, leading to an order of eviction sustained by the first appellate court. The core legal questions involved whether the second appeal was maintainable under the repealed law, whether the Rent Controller properly determined the arrears of rent approximately as mandated by law, and whether direct acceptance of rent by the landlord constituted a waiver of the deposit order. The Sindh High Court held that the right of second appeal is a vested right preserved upon the initiation of proceedings under the repealed law, and that a tentative rent order failing to specify exact calculations or leaving determination to the tenant is defective. Furthermore, issues of waiver through direct acceptance of rent require evidence and a proper hearing. The appeal was accordingly allowed, the impugned orders were set aside, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller. The key principles established include the preservation of vested rights of appeal and the mandatory requirement for the Rent Controller to precisely determine approximate arrears in tentative rent orders.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the right of second appeal under the repealed Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is preserved when proceedings were initiated prior to the promulgation of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a tentative rent order that leaves the calculation or verification of arrears to the parties or the tenant comply with the mandatory requirements of section 13(6) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Whether the direct acceptance of rent by a landlord outside the court at a higher rate can constitute a waiver of a tentative rent order requiring deposits to be made in court?
  • Is the Rent Controller required to finally determine the rent due even after ordering eviction by striking off the tenant's defence under section 13(6) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. and Another vs Abdul Wahab Khan1983 CLC 824 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
• Transworld Oil Ltd. vs Pakistan Refinery Ltd.1983 CLC 2182 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• Toyo Menka Kaisha Ltd. vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan1983 CLC 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
• Tirathmal vs Master Waliullah (Represented by His Hairs) and Another1983 CLC 1958 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• The Trustees of Port of Karachi vs Ghulam Abbas1983 CLC 2006 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-18Read full judgment →
• The State vs Qalandar Bux and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 372 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Jamil Halepota1983 P Cr. L J 122 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Allah Warayo and Another1983 P Cr. LJ 2050 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-03Read full judgment →
• The Seven-Up Company vs Abdul Aziz and Another1983 CLC 522 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Sales Tax, Karachi (East), Karachi vs Messrs1983 PTD 271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-18
  Sales Taxescaped assessmentnotice for returnmandatory periodCentral Board of Revenue instructionsForm S.S.T. 15assessment proceedingsvoid notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves direct references filed by the department under section 17(i) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, challenging the decision of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. The core legal questions concern whether a notice issued under subsection (2) of section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, was void ab initio for failing to allow a mandatory 35-day period for filing returns, and whether Form S.S.T. 15 prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue allowing 35 days is binding on Sales Tax Officers. The Sindh High Court held that instructions and forms prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue are binding on departmental officers under section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, and that curtailing the statutory/prescribed notice period of 35 days down to an unreasonably short period of 3 days severely prejudices the assessee and renders the notice and subsequent assessment invalid. The court established that in the absence of an explicit period in the Act or rules for filing returns under section 28, the prescribed form providing 35 days or a reasonable period akin to quarterly returns must be allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Appellate Tribunal was right in holding that the notice issued under subsection (2) of section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, without allowing the prescribed time for filing returns was void ab initio?
  • Is there a minimum mandatory period for filing returns required under subsection (2) of section 28 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951, which the Sales Tax Officer must allow?
  • Are forms and instructions prescribed by the Central Board of Revenue binding on Sales Tax Officers under section 5(3) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951?
  • Does curtailing the 35-day notice period prescribed in Form S.S.T. 15 down to 3 days render the assessment proceedings invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Messrs Hussain1983 PTD 289 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (East), Karachi vs Messrs Younus1983 PTD 389 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-13Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Central) vs Messrs Beach Luxury1983 PTD 178 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income, Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi vs Messrs1983 PTD 226 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
• The Australasia Bank Ltd. vs Messrs H. S. Mahmood Hassan Akbar and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 431 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-13
  banker-customer relationshippartnership dissolutionbankers books evidencepreliminary decree for accountslimitation periodpromissory noteburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a suit for the recovery of money filed by a bank against a firm and its partners, based on cash credit facilities and promissory notes. The core legal questions were whether the suit was time-barred, whether the partnership was dissolved, whether the defendants were liable despite the alleged dissolution, and whether the bank's statement of account was accurate. The court held that the suit was not time-barred, as the promissory notes were validly executed. While the partnership had been dissolved, the partners remained liable for the debt incurred during the partnership, as the bank had received actual notice of dissolution, and the debt was a pre-existing obligation. Crucially, the court found the bank's statement of account unreliable due to unexplained discrepancies and irregularities in entries. The key principle laid down is that while a certified copy of a bank's statement of account serves as prima facie evidence under the Bankers Books Evidence Act, it is not conclusive; once challenged with specific instances of error, the bank bears the burden of proving the accuracy of its accounts.

  Questions settled

  • Does a certified copy of a bank's statement of account serve as conclusive proof of debt, or is it merely prima facie evidence rebuttable by the customer?
  • Is a suit against a firm bad for non-joinder if all individual partners are not impleaded as defendants?
  • Does the execution of a promissory note by a partner after the dissolution of a firm bind the other partners for a pre-existing debt?
  • Can a court compare disputed signatures with admitted signatures under the Evidence Act to determine authenticity?
  Read full judgment →
• Thangai Alias Rifle Alias Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1227 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
• Textile Corporation of Pakistan LTQ. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1983 PLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• Textile Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1983 PLC 721 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05
  domestic enquirywrongful dismissalback benefitsLabour Court jurisdictionIndustrial Relations Ordinancereinstatementnatural justice
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenges an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which set aside a Labour Court decision and ordered the reinstatement of a worker with back benefits. The core legal questions were whether a Labour Court possesses the jurisdiction to review the findings of a domestic enquiry and whether a worker is entitled to back benefits for wrongful dismissal following the repeal of certain statutory provisions. The Court held that under Section 25-A, Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, a Labour Court is empowered to examine all facts of a case to determine if a dismissal is justified, effectively acting as a judicial check on domestic enquiries. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the repeal of specific provisions regarding junior Labour Courts does not deprive a wrongfully dismissed worker of the right to claim wages for the period they were kept out of employment. The principle established is that Labour Courts have full authority to adjudicate the merits of a dismissal, ensuring that domestic enquiries are not arbitrary, capricious, or biased.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Labour Court have the jurisdiction to go behind the findings of a domestic enquiry to determine the merits of a dismissal?
  • Does the repeal of Section 36-B(iv) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 deprive a wrongfully dismissed worker of the right to claim back benefits?
  • Is an employee entitled to full wages for the period they were kept out of work due to a wrongful dismissal order?
  Read full judgment →
• Tehsin Khan and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 570 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-16Read full judgment →
• Tausif Ahmad and Another vs Muhammad Azeem Beg Chughtai and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1462 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tariq Majeed vs District Magistrate, Jacobabad and Another1983 PLD Karachi 202 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
• Taj Ali Khan vs k. D. A. and Another1983 CLC 2654 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-25Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali vs Member, Board of Revenue, Sind and 7 Others1983 CLC 2998 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Tariq Hussain Rizvi vs Pakistan1983 CLC 752 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Syed Sibte Zahid vs The Deputy Commissioner, East Karachi and 71983 CLC 3124 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Sardar Ali vs Azmatullah1983 CLC 1127 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Riazul Hassan Shah vs Zamirul Haq1983 CLC 2274 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Rasheed Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1776 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Qamrul Hai vs Hazur Bakhsh and Another1983 PLD Karachi 337 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-24Read full judgment →
• Syed Omer vs Ashraf Ali Fazal and 2 Others1983 CLC 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Niyaz Ahmad vs The Joint Civil Judge and Family Judge, Nawab1983 CLC 3107 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Nazir Ali Shah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1472 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Musharraf Raza vs Syed Alay Raza1983 CLC 2068 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Saeed vs Malik Farman and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1338 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Mohiuddin vs M. N. Mangrio and 3 Others1983 CLC 491 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-09Read full judgment →
• Syed Mazhar Iqbal vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 834 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmud Hussain vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1983 PLC (C. S.) 858 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Hussain and 2 Others vs Commissioner of Karachi and Another1983 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-04Read full judgment →
• Syed Israr Alam vs S. M. Hussain1983 CLC 468 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03
  ejectmentpersonal uselandlord and tenantbona fidessubsequent eventsSind Rented Premises Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed by a landlord seeking the ejectment of a tenant from the upper storey of a house in North Nazimabad, Karachi, on the ground of personal need under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance after the landlord's retirement from police service. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord obtained possession of the ground floor of the same building. The primary legal question was whether a landlord's personal need is to be assessed as of the date of filing the application or the date of the final order, and whether the concept of bona fides is implicit in the requirement of 'need' under the Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that relief must be granted in accordance with the circumstances prevailing on the date of the final order rather than the date of institution, and that the term 'need' inherently encompasses the concept of bona fides and judicial scrutiny to prevent unreasonable demands or a mere desire for luxury. The court concluded that the landlord already possessed sufficient accommodation and that subsection (2) of section 14 further barred relief because the landlord was already in occupation of another building owned by him. The appeal was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the personal need of a landlord for ejectment is to be determined with reference to the date of filing the application or the date of passing the final order?
  • Does the term 'need' under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance envelop the concept of bona fides and mala fides?
  • Does subsection (2) of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance bar relief to a landlord who is already in occupation of a building owned by him?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Intesar Ali vs Ahmed Din Khan and Another1983 CLC 998 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01
  constitutional jurisdictioninterlocutory ordersrent controllerwrit petitionremedial processpiecemeal litigationright of appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged three interim orders passed by a Rent Controller in a pending rent case, which had effectively closed the petitioner's side for failing to cross-examine witnesses and produce evidence. The core legal question was whether interlocutory orders passed by a Rent Controller, which are not appealable under the governing statute, can be challenged through the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Court held that such interim orders cannot be challenged via a writ petition. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Court reasoned that the legislature intended for such matters to be resolved through the normal remedial process, specifically the right of appeal against the final order. Allowing constitutional challenges to interlocutory orders would defeat the legislative intent and encourage piecemeal litigation. The Court affirmed that constitutional jurisdiction is reserved for cases where no adequate or efficacious legal remedy exists; since the petitioner retains the right to challenge these interim findings in an appeal against the final order, the petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Can interlocutory orders passed by a Rent Controller be challenged through a constitutional petition?
  • Is a writ petition maintainable against an order that does not cause imminent or tangible damage to a party's rights?
  • Does the availability of a future right of appeal against a final order preclude the invocation of constitutional jurisdiction against interim orders?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Hadi Masood vs Begum Hameedah Salam1983 CLC 2048 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-05Read full judgment →
• Syed Ehsan Ali vs Ghulam Hussain and 2 Others1983 CLC 3262 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Suleiman Jafri (through His Legal Heirs) vs The Secretary, Government of West Pakistan Cooperative Department and 3 OthersPL D 1983 Karachi 314 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ali Hussain Rizvi vs Mst. Muzaffar Jehan1983 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Aijaz Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1741 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ahmed Ali vs Muhammad Yakoob1983 CLC 1135 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10
  rented premisesex parte orderlimitationservice of noticestay of executionrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against an order of the Rent Controller holding the appeal to be barred by limitation. The core legal question concerned the maintainability of the appeal and whether the Rent Controller possesses the power under Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment passed without proper service of notice upon the tenant. The Court held that since an application for setting aside the ex parte order was already pending before the Rent Controller, it was appropriate to allow the Controller to examine the question of service in the first instance, while deferring the consideration of the appeal's admission and granting a stay of execution of the impugned order pending the Controller's decision. The key principle laid down is that the Rent Controller should first determine whether an ex parte order was passed without proper service before appellate remedies regarding limitation are exhausted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal against an ex parte ejectment order is barred by limitation when the appellant had no prior knowledge of the order due to lack of service?
  • Does the Rent Controller have the power under Section 19(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 to set aside an ex parte order of ejectment passed without proper service?
  • Can execution of an ex parte ejectment order be stayed pending the decision of an application before the Rent Controller to set aside the said order?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Afaq Ali vs The State and 3 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 897 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Abid Hussain Shah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24
  culpable homicideconsent of deceasedextra-judicial confessionretracted confessioncriminal appealreduction of sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, following an incident where the appellant killed the deceased at the latter's request, as the deceased was reportedly fed up with life. The core legal question was whether the act constituted murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, given the deceased's consent. The Court held that while the judicial confession was unreliable due to the delay in recording and allegations of duress, the prosecution's case was sufficiently proven by credible extra-judicial confessions and the recovery of the weapon and body at the appellant's instance. Applying Exception 5 to Section 300, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which mitigates liability when a death is caused with the consent of the deceased, the Court altered the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304(1), Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The principle established is that a homicide committed at the express request of the deceased, where the deceased consents to suffer death, falls under the exception to murder and warrants a conviction for culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does a killing committed at the express request of the deceased fall under the exceptions to murder in the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of extra-judicial confession and recovery evidence if the judicial confession is discarded?
  • Is a conviction under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860 appropriate when the deceased consented to the act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mahmood vs Anwar Ahmad1983 CLC 2109 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad Bari vs Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi and Others1983 CLC 1538 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-01Read full judgment →
• Sui Gas Transmission Co. Ltd. vs M. v. "Good Herald" and 3 Others1983 CLC 886 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19
  Admiralty jurisdictionbill of ladingcarriage of goodsarrest of vesselnon-delivery of cargoliquidated damagesendorsee rights
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court for delivery of goods and liquidated damages, alongside an application for the arrest of the vessel 'GOOD HERALD'. The core legal question was whether a suit for non-delivery or refusal to give delivery of goods, brought by endorsees of a freight pre-paid bill of lading, is maintainable under the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court pursuant to the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980. The court held that claims for non-delivery, short delivery, delayed delivery, or refusal to give delivery fall squarely within the ambit of Section 3(2)(h) of the Ordinance, provided they arise out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods in a ship. Furthermore, endorsees of a bill of lading acquire the right to sue by virtue of the Bills of Lading Act, 1855. The key principles laid down are that the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 is a remedial statute to be construed liberally, and that section 3(2)(h) covers all claims in contract or tort arising out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim for refusal to give delivery or non-delivery of cargo fall within the Admiralty jurisdiction under section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980?
  • Can endorsees or assignees of a bill of lading file a suit for claims arising from the carriage of goods under the Bills of Lading Act, 1855?
  • Are claims in tort as well as contract covered under section 3(2)(h) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980, provided they arise out of an agreement relating to the carriage of goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Suhrab vs The Province of Sind and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 360 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Subhanallah Hotel vs Riaz Hussain and 7 omitsOpponents1983 PLD Karachi 586 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-13Read full judgment →
• Subedar Abdul Razzak vs Shamsuddin1983 CLC 2028 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-12Read full judgment →
• State vs Obaidullah1983 P Cr. L J 1171 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-03Read full judgment →
• State vs Maqbool Ahmed Alias Makoo and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1140 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
• State vs Khurshid Ali and Another1983 P Cr. L J 578 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-25Read full judgment →
• State vs Hamidullah and 4 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1214 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• State vs Ghulam Nabi and 4 Others1983 P Cr. L J 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
• State vs Abdul Ahmad1983 P Cr. L J 2452 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan /DecreeHolder vs DR. A.1983 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09Read full judgment →
• Soomro vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Soomar vs Jamal and 2 Others1983 CLC 314 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sobho Khan vs Farooq Ahmed Khan and 8 Others1983 CLC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-27Read full judgment →
• Smt. Menghi Bai and 2 otherss vs Hail Qamaruddin (Represented by Legal1983 CLC 879 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-18Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline and French of Pakistan Limited vs IV, Karachi and Another1983 PLC 72 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs Abdul Hamid1983 CLC 2096 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
• Siraj Ahmad Zuberi and 6 Others vs Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Ltd1983 CLC 1577 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-06Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Premier Tobacco1983 PLC 1222 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-02Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Amin Fabrics Limited1983 PLC 182 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-17
  social security contributionwages definitionproduction bonusconveyance reimbursementstatutory increasedefault and failurebeneficial legislation
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous appeal and accompanying cross-objections arise from disputes regarding the applicability of social security contributions on conveyance reimbursements and production bonuses under the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, along with the legality of statutory increases levied on unpaid contributions. The core legal questions involve whether conveyance reimbursement and production bonus constitute 'wages' under section 2(30) of the 1965 Ordinance, whether an employer is liable for statutory 'increase' under section 23 where no prior default or failure occurred due to the institution's conduct, and whether a social security court has the power to reduce the statutory rate of increase. The Sindh High Court held that conveyance allowances and production bonuses form part of remuneration and thus constitute wages subject to social security contributions, excluding production bonuses from the traditional bonus exception. Furthermore, the court held that no statutory 'increase' can be levied for periods prior to the formal raising of a demand where no prior failure to pay existed, and that neither the institution nor the social security court has the jurisdiction to arbitrarily reduce the statutorily prescribed rate of increase. The key principles laid down relate to the strict interpretation of welfare legislation exceptions and the determination of 'failure' under penal recovery provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether conveyance reimbursement paid to an employee constitutes wages under section 2(30) of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does production bonus fall within the exception of 'bonus' under section 2(30)(d) of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Can an employer be held liable for statutory increase under section 23 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965, for periods prior to the raising of a demand when no prior failure or default occurred?
  • Whether the Social Security Court has the power or jurisdiction to reduce the prescribed rate of statutory increase under section 23 of the Provincial Employees Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institute vs Ahmed Karachi Halwa1983 PLC 516 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sind Alkalis Ltd. vs Presiding Officer,1983 PLC 119 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
• Sind Alkalis Ltd. vs Fourth Sind Labour Court and Others1983 PLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-29Read full judgment →
• Sikandar vs Saleh Muhammad1983 CLC 1590 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-31
  review applicationlimitationfraudmisrepresentationresiduary articleex parte judgment
  Summary & questions settled

  This application was filed under Section 12(2) read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to review or set aside an ex parte judgment on the grounds of fraud and misrepresentation. The office raised an objection regarding limitation. The respondent argued that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applied, providing a three-year limitation period for applications based on fraud or misrepresentation. The High Court of Sindh rejected this argument, holding that Article 173 of the Limitation Act 1908 is the specific provision governing review applications, which prescribes a limitation period of ninety days from the date of the decree or order. The Court clarified that Article 181 is a residuary provision applicable only where no other period is prescribed. On the merits, the Court found that the applicant failed to provide particulars of fraud and that the allegations of misrepresentation or misreading of evidence were unsubstantiated by the record. Consequently, the review application was dismissed in limine as time-barred and lacking merit.

  Questions settled

  • Which article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs the limitation period for filing a review application?
  • Can Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 be invoked for a review application when Article 173 specifically provides a limitation period?
  • Does a dispute or lack of communication between a party and their own counsel constitute a valid ground of fraud against the opposing party under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan vs Abdul Oadirl1983 CLC 3009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Siddiq vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1195 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Siddiq vs Mehdi Hassan Khan1983 CLC 1339 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• Sher Zaman vs The State1983 PCr.LJ 610 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
• Sher Wali vs Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd., Karachi and Another1983 PLC 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-11Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs District Judge and Settlement Commissioner,Dadu1983 CLC 1609 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-08Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan vs The Secretary, Government of West Pakistan, Lahore and 4 Others1983 PLD Karachi 253 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-03Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad Khan vs Ali Jan Khan1983 CLC 2222 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-10Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Mushtaq Ali vs Askar Humayun Ansari1983 P Cr. L J 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-11Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Fazlur Rahman vs Directorgeneral, Excise and Taxation, Government of Sind1983 CLC 1407 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Fazal Din vs Dawoodur Rehman and Others1983 CLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26
  tentative rent orderstriking off defencedefault in rent depositurban rent restrictioncounsel negligencesecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil second appeal arises from rent proceedings where the appellant-tenant's defence was struck off by the Rent Controller for failing to comply with a tentative rent order issued under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, an action affirmed by the first appellate authority. The core legal questions involve whether negligence or misconduct of a counsel can constitute sufficient cause to condone a tenant's default in depositing rent under Section 13(6), and whether a defect in the portion of a rent order regarding arrears invalidates the entire order so as to excuse non-compliance with the valid direction for future monthly rent. The court held that principles governing the restoration of suits for default in appearance under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 cannot be imported into rent matters, and that a tenant's default in complying with a valid direction for future monthly rent justifies striking off defence even if the arrears direction is defective. The key principle laid down is that the statutory requirement for depositing monthly rent under Section 13(6) is distinct and mandatory, and its non-compliance warrants striking off defence regardless of defects concerning arrears.

  Questions settled

  • Can the principles governing the restoration of a suit under Order IX, Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be imported to condone a tenant's default in complying with a tentative rent order under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does negligence or failure of a counsel to inform his client about a rent deposit order constitute sufficient cause to excuse a tenant's default under Section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does a defect in the direction relating to the deposit of arrears of rent render the entire tentative rent order void so as to excuse non-compliance with a valid direction for the payment of future monthly rent?
  Read full judgment →