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.
- Shaukat vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2370 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- Shamshoo vs Mst. Tahira and Another1983 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an appellate judgment dissolving a marriage on the ground of Khula. The petitioner (husband) argued that the wife’s suit was barred by res judicata due to a previous dismissal for non-prosecution and a decree for restitution of conjugal rights. He further contended that the failure to prove specific grounds like cruelty or impotency precluded a decree for Khula, and that Khula could not be granted upon mere request. The High Court held that the principle of res judicata does not apply to a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage when new and additional grounds, such as Khula, are raised. Furthermore, the failure to prove specific allegations does not bar a court from granting Khula if the marriage has irretrievably broken down. The Court affirmed that in its extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction, it cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine evidence, provided the subordinate forum acted within its lawful authority. The petition was dismissed, upholding the dissolution of marriage.
Questions settled- Does the dismissal of a previous suit for dissolution of marriage for non-prosecution operate as res judicata against a subsequent suit for dissolution on the ground of Khula?
- Can a decree for restitution of conjugal rights bar a wife from filing a subsequent suit for dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
- Does the failure to prove specific grounds like cruelty or impotency preclude a court from granting dissolution of marriage on the ground of Khula?
- To what extent can the High Court interfere with a subordinate court's decision in a family matter under its constitutional jurisdiction?
- Shamsher vs Syed Ahsan Ali1983 CLC 308 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an order of the first appellate authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, which reversed the Rent Controller's dismissal of an ejectment application and ordered the appellant's eviction on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of proof regarding the tender and refusal of rent via money orders and the validity of establishing a landlord's personal requirement while occupying rented premises. The Sindh High Court held that the first appellate authority was justified in reversing the Rent Controller's finding on default, as the mere production of money order coupons without postal endorsement of refusal or supporting testimony from the postman did not discharge the tenant's burden of proof after the landlord denied receipt on oath. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord seeking eviction for personal use is not required to produce his own landlord in evidence, and the sufficiency of his current accommodation must be judged with reference to property owned by him rather than rented premises. The appeal was consequently dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether mere production of money order coupons is sufficient to prove tender and refusal of rent in the absence of postal endorsements and testimony from the concerned postman?
- Is a landlord seeking eviction on the ground of personal requirement legally required to produce his own landlord in evidence to prove threat of eviction from his current premises?
- Should the sufficiency of accommodation in the occupation of a landlord be judged with reference to his own property or rented premises?
- Can the High Court interfere in second appeal with findings of fact by the first appellate authority that are supported by evidence on record?
- Shamshad Ali Qureshi vs Shahzad Mian1983 CLC 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-16Read full judgment →
- Shamasudd1n vs Government of Sind and 47 Others1983 CLC 1965 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
- State vs Mohabat and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 572 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Taqi vs Muhammad Anwar Khan Ghauri1983 CLC 1085 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 against a judgment and decree for specific performance of a sale agreement of immovable property and possession. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by limitation, whether the contract stood frustrated due to the devaluation of currency and abnormal rise in property prices following the separation of East Pakistan, and whether the court should exercise its discretion to refuse specific performance on the grounds of hardship or laches. The court held that the suit was filed within the limitation period calculated from the expiry of the stipulated nine months, that subsequent economic changes and price increases did not frustrate the contract or constitute a valid ground to refuse specific performance, and that the appellant was solely responsible for the breach and did not come to court with clean hands. The key principles laid down are that inadequacy of consideration and subsequent rise in property values do not constitute hardship under section 22 of the Specific Relief Act so as to bar specific performance unless evaluated at the date of the transaction, and a party cannot take advantage of its own wrong or delay to plead frustration or hardship.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property is barred by limitation if filed within three years from the expiration of the total combined time stipulated for performance in the contract?
- Does a subsequent abnormal rise in property values and currency devaluation resulting from the separation of East Pakistan amount to frustration of contract under Pakistani law?
- Can a vendor successfully resist specific performance on the ground of hardship caused by increased property prices when the delay and breach were attributable to the vendor's own default?
- Whether an unsuccessful litigant can be permitted to lead additional evidence at the appellate stage under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill up omissions and patch up weak parts of their case?
- Shaikh Muhammad Saeed vs Mst. Saleha Khatoon1983 CLC 2039 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
- Shahoon and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1582 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
- Shahnawaz Thallo vs Sheikh Muhammad Saleem1983 CLC 2379 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- Shahmir vs The State and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
- Shahbazdino vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1790 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
- Shahabuddin vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1482 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-08Read full judgment →
- Shaft Muhammad and 2 Others vs Settlement Commissioner and 21983 CLC 1613 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
- Shafiq-Ur-Rahman vs Abdul Ghani1983 CLC 2020 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a second appeal arising from concurrent proceedings under rent laws, wherein the landlord sought the ejectment of the tenant on the grounds of default in rent payment, personal requirement, and nuisance. The Rent Controller allowed the application solely on the ground of default. Upon appeal and cross-objections, the first appellate court maintained the finding of default and additionally reversed the Rent Controller's finding on personal requirement, granting ejectment on both grounds. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of cross-objections, the appreciation of evidence regarding rent default, and the justification for reversing findings on personal requirement. The High Court held that the concurrent findings of fact regarding default were based on proper evidence and could not be termed perverse, and that the first appellate court erred in reversing the finding on personal requirement without sufficient supporting evidence concerning the dimensions of the existing premises. The court laid down that concurrent findings on default supported by rent books and counter-foils are unamenable to interference in second appeal, and that a claim for personal requirement for business expansion requires sufficient foundational evidence regarding the inadequacy of existing premises. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, upholding the ejectment order solely on the ground of default.
Questions settled- Whether concurrent findings of fact on the question of default in rent payment can be interfered with in second appeal?
- Are cross-objections maintainable in a rent appeal where the primary order is already in favour of the respondent?
- Is an appellate court justified in reversing a finding on personal requirement in the absence of basic evidence regarding the sufficiency of the landlord's existing premises?
- Shaffi Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 550 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Sh. Zubair Ahmed vs Ali Ahmed1983 CLC 3254 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Rafiq Akhtar vs SQN/LDR (Rua) Sheikh Ghulam Sadiq1983 CLC 333 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-04Read full judgment →
- Sh. Muhammad Matin vs MRS. Khorshed Dosu Marker and 8 Others1983 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
- Schindler Fateh Ally Marin Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1983 PLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-21Read full judgment →
- Sarwar Abbas vs Mst. Hajra Bai and 4 Others1983 CLC 337 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the judgment of the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi, confirming an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The appellant-tenant contended that following the death of the original landlady, the respondents failed to provide an heirship certificate establishing their legal title despite a demand, thereby exempting the tenant from tendering rent following a notice under Section 13-A. The High Court held that Section 13-A merely requires intimation to the tenant regarding the death of the owner and the identity of the legal heirs inheriting the property, and does not obligate the heirs to furnish an heirship certificate or documentary proof of inheritance. The Court noted that the tenant had options to remit rent or deposit it before the Rent Controller if genuine doubt existed. Failing to do so rendered the appellant a wilful defaulter from the date notice was received. The appeal was dismissed, confirming concurrent findings.
Questions settled- Does Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 require legal heirs to furnish an heirship certificate or documentary proof of inheritance to a tenant upon issuing notice?
- Is a tenant entitled to withhold rent on the ground that the legal heirs failed to produce an heirship certificate following a Section 13-A notice?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding default in payment of rent and the quantum of rent be interfered with in a second appeal?
- Sana Muhammad vs Family Judge, Karachi and Another1983 CLC 3246 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-18Read full judgment →
- Samiullah vs Yar Muhammad1983 CLC 2981 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
- Samiuddin Khan vs Mst. Jamila1983 CLC 2730 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-04Read full judgment →
- Sami Ahmad Jafri vs Third Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi and 21983 CLC 3069 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-20Read full judgment →
- Salahuddin vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2354 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- Sajan vs Mirza Saeed Ahmed1983 CLC 3115 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
- Safdar Hussain Qureshi vs Chaudhry Ghulam Muhammad and 7 Others1983 CLC 2857 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Saeed Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2476(2) · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
- Sabir Shahzad vs Mst. Zeenat Ara and 2 Others1983 CLC 383 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-16Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hasan vs Munir Malik1983 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second rent appeal concerns an eviction order granted against a tenant of a shop located in the landlord's residential house. The landlord sought eviction on the ground of personal requirement, intending to convert the shop into a garage for his car. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Authority had concurrently ordered the tenant's ejectment. The core legal question was whether a landlord can seek the eviction of a tenant from a shop—which is part of a residential building but used for commercial purposes—on the ground of personal requirement for residential use (parking). The Court held that the ejectment application was incompetent. It reasoned that because the premises were rented out as a shop and used for business, the shop constituted a 'non-residential building' under the relevant rent law. Consequently, the landlord could only seek eviction if he required the premises for non-residential purposes, not residential ones. The Court distinguished this case from precedents involving clinics or composite residential buildings, establishing that a shop located in a commercialized area, once let out as a shop, retains its character as a non-residential building.
Questions settled- Can a landlord seek the eviction of a tenant from a shop on the ground of personal residential requirement if the shop is located in a commercial area?
- Does a portion of a residential building rented out as a shop constitute a 'non-residential building' under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is an application for ejectment maintainable if a landlord seeks to convert a rented shop into a garage for personal residential use?
- Sabir Ali vs Deputy Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner, Sanghar and 2 mots1983 CLC 255 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21Read full judgment →
- Saadat Cotton Ltd. vs Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. and 4 Others1983 CLC 2677 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
- S. Y. Mohajir vs Mst. Aisha Jamal1983 PLD Karachi 489 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defense for failing to comply with a tentative rent order under Section 16(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the landlord's delay of approximately two years in filing an application to strike off the defense, coupled with the acceptance of rent deposits, constituted a waiver of the right to seek such relief. Upon reviewing the Nazir’s report, the Court acknowledged that a technical default occurred regarding the rent for November 1979. However, the Court held that the respondent’s prolonged inaction and the withdrawal of deposited rent amounts amounted to a waiver of the right to strike off the defense. The Court emphasized that where a landlord fails to promptly enforce a tentative rent order and accepts subsequent payments, the default is not considered willful, and the drastic remedy of striking off the defense should be condoned. Consequently, the appeal was allowed, the Rent Controller's order was set aside, and the case was remanded for expeditious disposal of the remaining issues.
Questions settled- Does a delay of two years in filing an application to strike off a tenant's defense constitute a waiver of the landlord's right to seek such relief?
- Can a landlord's acceptance of rent deposited in court be construed as a waiver of the right to strike off the tenant's defense for a previous default?
- Is the remedy of striking off a tenant's defense for non-compliance with a tentative rent order available when the default is not considered willful?
- Riyaz Khan vs Sodagar Khan1983 CLC 1343 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-21Read full judgment →
- Rind Ali and Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2381 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-06Read full judgment →
- Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate1983 PLC 1116 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rice Export Corporation Labour Union vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and Another1983 PLC 332 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
- Riasat Ali vs Mst. Raj Bai and 3 Others1983 CLC 711 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- Rehmatullah and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1701 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- Rehman vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 Others1983 PLC 210 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a 'Mali', challenged the termination of his services, alleging it was mala fide and in violation of law. Upon termination, the respondent-employer provided cheques covering all legal dues, including notice pay and provident fund, which the petitioner encashed. Subsequently, the petitioner filed a grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, without disclosing the receipt or encashment of these payments. The Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissed the application, concluding that the petitioner’s acceptance of the full and final settlement extinguished his grievance. The High Court affirmed this decision, holding that the petitioner’s conduct in accepting the payments without protest or disclosure demonstrated satisfaction with the settlement. The Court distinguished this matter from precedents involving partial payments or disputes over unpaid wages, ruling that where a workman accepts full payment of dues, they cannot subsequently invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court to challenge the termination. The petition was dismissed, as the petitioner’s actions precluded him from maintaining a claim for reinstatement.
Questions settled- Does the acceptance of full and final settlement dues by a workman preclude them from challenging the termination of their services?
- Can a workman maintain a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance after accepting and encashing cheques for all legal dues?
- Is a workman required to disclose the receipt of full and final settlement payments when filing a grievance application under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Raza Hussain and 3 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
- Raza Ali vs Ahmad Saeed Khan1983 CLC 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- Rasool Bux and 9 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 144 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
- Rashiduddin vs Syed Sajid Hussain1983 CLC 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
- Rashiduddin and 2 Others vs Nizamuddin and 6 Others1983 CLC 2950 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
- Ramzan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 688 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- Raja Muhammad Aslam vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1438 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-19Read full judgment →
- Rafiq Ahmad Ansari vs Deputy Commissioner, East Karachi and Another s1983 CLC 1766 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
- R. G. Sehwani Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. vs Haji Ahmad and 31983 PLD Karachi 11 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involved three consolidated suits filed by a Cooperative Housing Society and neighboring residents against plot purchasers, seeking to restrain the construction of a multi-storeyed commercial building. The core legal questions concerned whether restrictive covenants in a lease deed—limiting construction to residential use, two storeys, and one-third plot coverage—were enforceable by the Society against third-party purchasers, and whether such construction violated neighbors' easement rights. The Court held that the restrictive covenants were not enforceable by the Society because the lessor, the Karachi Municipal Corporation, had effectively waived these conditions by approving the building plans and accepting commercialization fees. Furthermore, the Court found no evidence of actionable infringement of easement rights regarding light, air, or privacy. The principle laid down is that restrictive covenants in a lease are not absolute and can be waived by the lessor; once waived by the competent authority, third parties such as a housing society or neighbors cannot enforce them to block development. Additionally, the Court noted that the suit was not validly instituted due to a lack of authorization for the signatory.
Questions settled- Can a cooperative housing society enforce restrictive lease covenants against third-party purchasers when the lessor has waived those conditions?
- Does the approval of a building plan by the Karachi Development Authority constitute a waiver of restrictive covenants contained in a lease deed?
- Is a suit challenging a building plan approved by a competent authority barred by Section 20 of the Sind Building Control Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the construction of a multi-storeyed building in a residential area inherently violate the customary right of privacy of neighboring residents?
- Qutub Ali Shah vs Mst. Zainab Khatoon Shah and 3 Others1983 CLC 1421 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
- Qurban Hussain vs Haji Choudhry Manzoorulhasan1983 CLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-19Read full judgment →
- Qamaruddin vs Hakim Mahmood1983 PLD Karachi 570 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from a rent ejectment application filed by a landlord against a tenant seeking possession of a shop for personal bona fide use. The Rent Controller initially granted the application, but the First Appellate Authority reversed this decision, holding that the landlord, a retired government servant, failed to prove the necessity of the shop, specifically lacking evidence of business experience and capital. The High Court rejected the Appellate Authority's view that a landlord must prove prior business experience or specific capital to establish bona fide need, noting that the law imposes no such requirement. However, the Court ultimately dismissed the appeal because the landlord failed to disclose the ownership of other properties in the urban area, including a shop already in his possession. The Court held that while non-disclosure of other properties is not fatal per se, the combination of failing to disclose multiple properties and failing to prove why the shop currently in the landlord's possession was insufficient rendered the claim for personal use not bona fide.
Questions settled- Is a landlord required to prove prior business experience or availability of capital to establish the bona fide nature of a personal use claim for a shop?
- Does the failure of a landlord to specify the exact nature of the business intended for the premises in the initial rent application render the application mala fide?
- Does the non-disclosure of other properties owned by a landlord in the same urban area automatically invalidate a claim for personal bona fide use?
- When a landlord owns multiple properties, is it necessary for the landlord to prove that the property currently in their possession is insufficient for their requirements?
- Qalandar Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 411 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- State vs Muhammad Amin And 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 617 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
- Province of Sind through Secretary, Education Sind Secretariat, Karachi and 2 Others vs Nisar Ahmed1983 CLC 1905 · Sindh High Court · 1983-08-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenged orders of a Rent Controller, including an ejectment order, concerning premises occupied by a nationalized school. The core legal questions revolved around the Rent Controller's jurisdiction following a notification issued under Section 3(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, which exempted "premises of the Schools and colleges" from the Ordinance's application. The appellants contended that this notification removed the Rent Controller's jurisdiction, and also challenged findings on default and personal requirement. The court held that an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11, CPC, in rent proceedings was an interim order and not appealable as a decree, but the plea could be raised in appeal against the final order. Interpreting the notification, the court determined that "premises of the Schools and colleges" included premises occupied on a rental basis, not solely those owned by them. Consequently, the Rent Controller ceased to have jurisdiction over the matter. While concurring with the Rent Controller on the default finding (holding that the tenant's internal procedures did not excuse non-payment), the court reversed the finding on personal requirement due to suppression of material facts. The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment order was set aside for lack of jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does a notification exempting "premises of the Schools and colleges" from the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, apply to premises occupied on a rental basis or only to those owned by schools and colleges?
- Can an order dismissing an application under Order VII Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, in rent proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, be treated as a decree for the purpose of appeal?
- Does a tenant's internal practice of requiring advance receipts excuse non-payment of rent, thereby preventing a finding of default?
- Does a change of forum due to a statutory exemption notification affect existing rights if the new governing law places the respondent on a better footing?
- Can a Rent Controller retain jurisdiction over a matter after the issuance of a notification exempting the subject premises from the application of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- Province of Sind and Another vs Haji Khan1983 PLD Karachi 621 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal under section 96 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 challenged an order of the Senior Civil Judge, Dadu, dismissing objections to an arbitration award and making it a rule of the court. The appellants raised three primary grounds: the invalidity of the sole arbitrator's appointment, the award being rendered beyond time, and the failure of the award to state reasons for a large monetary award. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants were estopped by their conduct and active participation from challenging the appointment of the sole arbitrator, and that the trial court had validly exercised its discretion to extend time under the Arbitration Act. However, regarding the lack of reasons, the Court held that pursuant to section 26-A of the Arbitration Act introduced by Ordinance XV of 1981, an arbitrator is mandatorily required to state reasons in sufficient detail, and for pending proceedings where no reasons are given, the court must remit the award to the arbitrator. The Court accordingly remitted the award to the arbitrator to provide detailed reasons within a specified timeframe.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the appointment of an arbitrator after having actively participated in the arbitration proceedings without protest?
- Whether an arbitration award rendered beyond the originally stipulated time is invalid when the court has impliedly extended the time under section 28 of the Arbitration Act?
- Is it mandatory for an arbitrator to state reasons in sufficient detail for an award under section 26-A of the Arbitration Act?
- What is the appropriate course of action for a court when an award in a pending proceeding fails to state reasons as required by section 26-A of the Arbitration Act?
- Province of Sind and 2 Others vs Ghazi Khan1983 CLC 1318 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- Port Muhammad Bin Qasim vs National Insurance Corporation, Karachi and 13 Others1983 CLC 3126 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an order of a learned Single Judge who decreed a suit for compensation filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, against the appellant and respondents following a fatal motor vehicle accident caused by the rash and negligent driving of the appellant's employee. The core legal questions involve whether the suit was barred by limitation under the Limitation Act and the extent of the insurance company's liability under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court held that the suit was within time because the plaintiffs were entitled to the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act since the limitation period expired during the court's summer vacation, and that the insurance company's liability was statutorily capped at twenty thousand rupees. The key legal principles established are that court vacation notifications cannot override the statutory benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act, and an insurer's liability for third-party risks in fatal accidents is strictly limited to the amount prescribed under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939.
Questions settled- Does the closure of a court for summer vacations prevent a litigant from taking the benefit of section 4 of the Limitation Act for filing a suit?
- What is the extent of an insurer's liability under section 95 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939 in respect of third-party risks in fatal accidents?
- Can a notification permitting litigants to file plaints during court vacations deprive them of the statutory benefit of excluding the vacation period in computing limitation?
- Piyaro vs Din Muhammad1983 CLC 958 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These connected second appeals arose from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against tenants on grounds of default, property damage, and personal requirement. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment based on default and personal requirement, while the First Appellate Court maintained the default finding but rejected the personal requirement claim. The core legal questions were whether a tenant’s failure to pay rent constitutes "wilful default" when the landlord refuses rent to coerce an illegal enhancement, and whether a landlord can introduce new grounds for personal requirement not pleaded in the original application. The High Court held that where a landlord refuses rent for months to force an illegal enhancement, the tenant's failure to pay is merely a technical default, not a wilful one. Furthermore, the Court held that a landlord cannot lead evidence for grounds of personal requirement, such as the needs of married children, if those grounds were not explicitly pleaded in the initial rent application. Consequently, the Court set aside the ejectment orders and dismissed the rent applications, establishing that default must be wilful to warrant ejectment.
Questions settled- Does a tenant's failure to pay rent constitute wilful default when the landlord refuses to accept rent to coerce an illegal enhancement?
- Can a landlord lead evidence regarding personal requirement for married children if such grounds were not pleaded in the original rent application?
- Is a tenant liable for ejectment due to default when the landlord has continuously refused to accept rent for several months?
- Pir Muhammad Khan Masood and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-14Read full judgment →
- Pir Bux and 3 Others vs Ismailia Platinum Cooperative Housing Society1983 CLC 2754 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pindu and 6 Others. vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 343 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-29Read full judgment →
- Photo Alias Kado vs The State and 3 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 2459 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- Parveez Hameed vs Syed Liaquat Hussain and Another1983 PLD Karachi 455 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Wool Scouring & Pressing Co. Ltd. vs Barkhurdar and Another1983 PLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Services Ltd., Hotel Intercontinental. Karachi vs Afzal1983 CLC 2083 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-06Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Security Printing Corporation vs Sind Labour Appellate1983 PLC 1237 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-26Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Radio House Ltd. and 12 OTHERSs vs Cassim Suleman and 71983 CLC 1656 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-16Read full judgment →
- Pakistan National Shipping Corporation vs Premier Insurance1983 PLD Karachi 550 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-07Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Tahir Ali1983 CLC 2745 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Sections 31 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking a declaration on the existence and scope of an arbitration agreement following a dispute over a dealership licence. The petitioner argued that the agreement was terminated by mutual consent, thereby extinguishing the arbitration clause, and that the specific disputes regarding the termination and possession were not covered by the clause. The Court held that the correspondence between the parties did not establish a mutual termination of the contract, as the parties were not ad idem. Furthermore, the Court affirmed the legal principle that an arbitration clause is a collateral, independent agreement that survives the termination or rescission of the substantive contract, particularly when the clause is broadly drafted to cover any disputes arising out of or connected with the subject matter. While the Court found the arbitration clause valid and applicable to the dispute regarding possession, it declared the respondent's unilateral appointment of a second arbitrator illegal for failing to comply with the 15-day notice period required by the agreement and Section 9(b) of the Arbitration Act, 1940.
Questions settled- Does an arbitration clause survive the termination or rescission of the substantive contract?
- Can a party unilaterally appoint an arbitrator without complying with the notice period stipulated in the arbitration agreement?
- Does a mere expression of a wish to surrender a dealership constitute a mutual termination of the contract?
- Is an arbitration clause an integral part of the substantive contract or a collateral, independent agreement?
- Pakistan (Ministry of Defence) vs Din Muhammad Muhammad Chhutal1983 CLC 1281 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arises from an arbitration award determining compensation for lands requisitioned and subsequently acquired by the Ministry of Defence under the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance, 1971. The core legal question concerned the adequacy of the compensation awarded for the acquired agricultural land, specifically whether the Arbitrator correctly assessed the market value and potentiality of the land. The Court held that the Arbitrator’s award was based on unrebutted evidence produced by the landowners, which demonstrated the land's proximity to commercial areas, highways, and essential infrastructure, thereby justifying the higher valuation. The Court affirmed the compensation rates for the acquired land, the 15% compulsory allowance, and the 6% interest rate, while setting aside the special damages awarded for unacquired portions of land, as the respondents conceded this point. The judgment reaffirms the principle that market value is a question of fact, and where a party fails to lead evidence in rebuttal, the evidence produced by the opposing party regarding the land's potentiality and market value may be accepted as the basis for determining fair compensation.
Questions settled- Is the market value of land for compensation purposes a question of fact?
- Can an arbitrator award compensation based on the potentiality of land for commercial use?
- What is the consequence of a party failing to lead evidence in rebuttal during compensation proceedings?
- Are special damages for unacquired land portions permissible in acquisition proceedings?
- Osman Haji Wali Muhammad vs Jan Muhammad1983 CLC 1241 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-12Read full judgment →
- Nusratullah Rathoro vs Government of Sind and Another1983 CLC 2673 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-17Read full judgment →
- Nooruddin vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 889 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- Nooruddin vs Election Authority and Another1983 CLC 1748 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-03Read full judgment →
- Noor M Uhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1357 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- Noor Hussain vs Noor Ali1983 PLD Karachi 448 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- Noor Elahi and 4 Others vs The State and Another1983 P Cr. L J 2310 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24Read full judgment →
- Noor Dad and 10 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment concerns an appeal filed by eleven appellants against their conviction under Section 156(1), clause 89 of the Customs Act, 1969, by the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, for smuggling foreign goods. The prosecution alleged that a Customs party intercepted a launch named 'Al-Tirmez' carrying smuggled goods and arrested its crew. The appellants, however, contended that their launch was intercepted by a Pakistan Navy ship, 'Babar', near the Iran coast, and the goods were loaded from that ship. The core legal question before the High Court was whether the convictions could be sustained given the admitted non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, which mandates the issuance of a notice. The High Court, in agreement with a cited precedent, held that the provisions of Section 171 were mandatory. Since no such notice was given, the seizure of goods and arrest of the appellants were deemed illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the convictions and sentences, and acquitted the appellants on this legal ground.
Questions settled- Can a conviction under the Customs Act, 1969, be sustained if the mandatory notice requirement under Section 171 of the said Act is not complied with?
- Does the non-compliance with Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, render the seizure of goods and arrest of accused persons illegal?
- Are the provisions of Section 171 of the Customs Act, 1969, regarding notice for search and seizure, mandatory in nature?
- Nisarally vs Messrs Noor Sons and 2 Others1983 CLC 3271 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
- Obaidullah Khan vs v, Karachi and Others1983 PLC 71 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-31Read full judgment →
- Nek Muhammad and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 927 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-28Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmed and Another vs Government of Sind and 3 Others1983 CLC 1508 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-24Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad vs Salahuddin Ahmad and Others1983 CLC 3093 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- Nazir Ahmad Bhatti vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd.1983 PLC 889 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-21Read full judgment →
- Nazakat Ali and 5 Others vs Abdul Azil and 2 Others1983 CLC 1546 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
- Nawaz Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 592 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Nawabzada Muhammad Aslam Khan and Others vs Settlement1983 CLC 2991 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Nawab Begum vs Muhammad Haleem Alvi and others1983 CLC 85 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
- National Insurance Corporation vs National Shipping Corporation1983 CLC 888 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-30Read full judgment →
- National Flour Oil Industries vs Muhammad Yousaf and 2 Others1983 PLC 931 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
- National Disinfectant Company vs National Detergents Ltd.1983 CLC 1762 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-08Read full judgment →
- National Bank of PAKISTANDecreeHolder vs Bawany Industries1983 PLD Karachi 300 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Order XXI Rule 26 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and Section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979, seeking the recall of an execution order and the return of an execution application for presentation to the proper court. The core legal question was whether an execution application for a decree passed by the High Court in a banking suit after the promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 should be entertained by the High Court or the Special Court. The High Court held that under Section 6(4) of the 1979 Ordinance, execution proceedings for decrees falling within the purview of the Ordinance must be brought before the Special Court, unless an execution application was already pending at the commencement of the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the exclusive jurisdiction for executing decrees in such banking matters vests in the Special Court, overriding the general provisions of Sections 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Which court has jurisdiction to entertain an execution application for a decree passed in a banking suit after the promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- Does Section 6(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 transfer execution proceedings initiated after the Ordinance to the Special Court?
- How do sections 37 and 38 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply in the face of exclusive jurisdiction provisions under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
- National Bank of Pakistan vs United Chemical Industries and 2 Others1983 CLC 2629 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Mst. Ashraf Jehan Begum1983 CLC 266 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-09Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs Tradewell (Pakistan)1983 CLC 2631 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
- Nasrullah Matamaken vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2322 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-20Read full judgment →
- Nasir Kamal Pasha vs Muhammad Ismail Khan1983 PLD Karachi 192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from an order of the Rent Controller striking off the appellant-tenant's defence and directing eviction for non-compliance with a tentative rent order passed under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller could issue a tentative rent order and subsequently strike off the defence without considering the tenant's disputed rent receipts and affording an opportunity to prove them. The High Court held that the Rent Controller's discretion to pass a tentative rent order is judicial and requires a summary inquiry into material facts, and cannot ignore documentary evidence like rent receipts on a mere denial by the landlord without a prima facie finding of falsehood. The court set aside the impugned orders and remanded the case back for a fresh determination. The key principle laid down is that a Rent Controller must conduct a summary inquiry and consider prima facie documentary evidence presented by a tenant regarding rent payments before passing a tentative rent order.
Questions settled- Whether a Rent Controller can ignore disputed rent receipts produced by a tenant without holding a summary inquiry?
- Does the power to pass a tentative rent order under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance require consideration of all material facts on record?
- Can a tenant's defence be struck off for non-compliance with a tentative rent order that was improperly passed without evaluating documentary evidence?
- Naseebzada vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1983 PLC 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →