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.
- Mir Ali Ahmed Khan Talpur vs Joseph D'Mello1983 PLD Karachi 208 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
- Mill Wala Sons Ltd. and Another vs Collector or Customs, Karachi1983 PLD Karachi 480 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner imported a vessel ("Stolt Atlantic") and sought a declaration that the recovery of customs duty at 32.5% ad valorem was without lawful authority, claiming the bill of entry was presented on June 6, 1975, prior to the enhancement of duty by the Finance Act, 1975. The core legal questions involved whether the bill of entry was validly presented before the delivery of the import manifest under the Customs Act, 1969, and when the increased customs duty under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 became effective. The Sindh High Court held that a bill of entry presented before the actual delivery of the manifest without the requisite permission of the Collector of Customs is not in accordance with law and is deemed to be filed on the date the manifest is delivered. The Court further held that budgetary proposals having a declared provision under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 become effective from the midnight of the day the bill is introduced, rejecting the contention that they operate from the exact hour of presentation. The petition was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether a bill of entry presented before the delivery of the import manifest without the permission of the Collector of Customs is valid?
- Does the requirement of delivering an import manifest apply to the import of a vessel?
- From what time does a declared provision under the Provisional Collection of Taxes Act, 1931 take effect upon the introduction of a Finance Bill?
- Can the powers of a Collector of Customs under the Customs Act, 1969 be delegated to a Principal Appraiser without statutory enabling provisions?
- Muhammad Shafi vs Mst. Zohra Khatoon1983 CLC 346 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal directed against the order of eviction passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, on the application of a respondent landlord seeking possession of the premises for personal use. The core legal question is whether the failure of a landlord to conclusively prove the prior service of a notice under Section 14(1) of the Ordinance before filing the ejectment application renders the entire proceedings incompetent, or if subsequent service of the application and the lapse of two months constitutes substantial compliance. The court held that where a landlord fails to substantiate prior notice, the object of the statute is still achieved if the eviction order is passed after the expiry of two months from the service of the application itself, amounting to substantial compliance with Section 14(1). The key principle laid down is that a landlord should not be non-suited on the technical ground of defective prior notice if the mandatory two-month period has elapsed during the pendency of proceedings subsequent to the service of the ejectment application.
Questions settled- Whether the failure to prove prior service of a notice under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, renders an ejectment application incompetent?
- Does the service of an ejectment application coupled with the lapse of a two-month period during proceedings constitute substantial compliance with Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
- How can the presumption of service of notice under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, be rebutted by a tenant denying receipt?
- Mian Mlinir Ahmad vs The State--Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 1043 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs United Bank Ltd.s vs Messrs Interior Decoration and Design1983 CLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiffs filed a suit for the recovery of Rs. 30,227.80 against the defendants based on an overdraft facility extended to defendant No. 1, which was secured by a promissory note and a letter of guarantee executed by both defendants jointly and severally. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was barred by time against the principal debtor and whether the guarantor stood discharged due to limitation or the expiry of time against the principal debtor. The court held that the liability of defendant No. 1 was effectively renewed and kept within time by a subsequent promissory note, and the suit against defendant No. 2 (the guarantor) was also within time because the cause of action against a guarantor accrues only upon a formal demand, which acts as a condition precedent under the terms of the guarantee. The key principles laid down are that a mere omission by a creditor to sue a principal debtor within the period of limitation does not discharge the surety, and that a guarantee creating a collateral promise requiring a demand postpones the accrual of the cause of action until such demand is made.
Questions settled- Whether a suit against a principal debtor is within time when a fresh promissory note is executed acknowledging the debt?
- Does the expiry of the period of limitation against the principal debtor automatically discharge the surety from liability?
- Does a guarantee requiring payment on demand create a collateral promise where the cause of action arises only after a formal demand is made?
- Whether the mere omission by a creditor to sue a debtor within the limitation period results in the debtor's discharge?
- Messrs United Bank Ltd.DecreeHolder vs Mst. Rehana1983 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This office reference addressed whether execution applications filed after April 1, 1979, concerning decrees within the jurisdiction of the Special Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, should be returned for presentation to the proper court. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to execute such decrees or if exclusive jurisdiction vested in the Special Court. The Court held that the Ordinance, being a special law, overrides the general provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Section 6(4) of the Ordinance explicitly excludes the jurisdiction of other courts regarding matters within the Special Court's purview, including decree execution. Consequently, the High Court lacks jurisdiction to entertain execution applications for such matters filed after the Special Court's establishment on May 3, 1979. The principle laid down is that where a special statute creates a specific tribunal and excludes the jurisdiction of existing courts, the special law prevails, and the ouster of jurisdiction becomes effective from the date the special tribunal is actually constituted and operational.
Questions settled- Does the Special Court have exclusive jurisdiction to execute decrees in matters falling within its ambit under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Does the ouster of jurisdiction of the High Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, apply to execution proceedings pending before the Special Court was established?
- Can the general provisions of Section 37 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, override the specific jurisdictional exclusions provided in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Muhammad Saeed Muhammad1983 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Thaver & Co. Ltd. vs MRS. Mumtaz1983 PLD Karachi 450 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Taj Ice Factory vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.1983 CLC 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Taipan Shipping Co. Inc. vs Messrs Bamacri, S. A. and Another1983 CLC 2030 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sungreen & Co. Ltd. and Another vs Settlement Commissioner1983 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Souvenir Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Income-Tax Officer, Companies1983 PTD 41 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shams Trading Company vs Collector of Customs, Karachi1983 CLC 1746 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sh. Mir Hassan Haji Mardan Khan vs Karachi Development1983 CLC 2315 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Saleh Muhammad & Bros. vs Ibrahim and 2 Others1983 CLC 2697 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Saleem Sons Ltd.s vs Messrs K. M. Ahmed1983 CLC 1192 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Roshan Cloth House vs Commissioner of Income-Tax. (East), Karachi1983 PTD 63 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Raleigh Investment Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi East, Karachi1983 PTD 126 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act, 1922 addressed whether the surplus realized by a non-resident company (incorporated in the United Kingdom) from the sale of shares in a Pakistani company was exempt from Pakistan tax under the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation between Pakistan and the United Kingdom. The core legal question was whether capital gains constitute 'industrial or commercial profits' exempt under Article III of the Double Taxation Agreement, or whether they fell outside the scope of the agreement because capital gains tax was not explicitly levied in Pakistan at the time the agreement was signed. The Sindh High Court held that the surplus derived from the sale of shares constituted commercial profits covered by the agreement, and that capital gains tax fell within the scope of income-tax and super-tax or alternatively constituted an identical or substantially similar tax under the agreement. The court concluded that the Income-tax Appellate Tribunal was not justified in denying the exemption. The key principle laid down is that terms like 'industrial or commercial profits' and 'income' in double taxation treaties are to be construed comprehensively to embrace capital gains within the natural meaning of income, and subsequent taxation provisions of a similar nature are covered under treaty extension provisions.
Questions settled- Whether surplus arising from the sale of shares by a non-resident company constitutes industrial or commercial profits under the Agreement for the Avoidance of Double Taxation?
- Does the exemption contemplated in Article III of the Double Taxation Agreement between Pakistan and the United Kingdom cover capital gains?
- Whether capital gains tax is an identical or substantially similar tax under Article I(2) of the Double Taxation Agreement?
- Messrs Rafhan Maizeproducts Co. Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi1983 PTD 49 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-23Read full judgment →
- Messrs Qaid Cap House vs Collector of Customs and 2 Others1983 CLC 1736 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-19Read full judgment →
- Messrs Peshawar Lahore Goods Transport Company, Karachi vs Messrs Habib Insurance Company Ltd., Karachi1983 CLC 2708 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-13Read full judgment →
- Messrs Peoples Goods Transport Co. vs D. A. S. So., S. A. S.O. and 71983 CLC 2637 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pan Islamic Steamship Co. Ltd. vs S. M. Naqi and Another1983 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Pakistan Welding Electrodes Ltd., Karachi--Applicant vs The1983 PTD 266 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-18Read full judgment →
- Messrs Orient Produce Export Syndicate vs Azhar Iqbal1983 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Opal Laboratories Ltd. vs Muhammad Moinul Islam1983 PLC 509 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, which had ordered the reinstatement of a Medical Representative, classifying him as a "workman." The core legal question was whether the definition of "workman" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, or the more restrictive definition under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, applies when an employee seeks to enforce rights guaranteed under the latter Ordinance. The Court held that when an employee seeks relief for the violation of a right guaranteed under the Standing Orders Ordinance, 1968, the definition of "workman" contained within that specific Ordinance must be applied. Consequently, the Court found that a Medical Representative, whose primary duties involve sales promotion rather than manual or clerical work, does not qualify as a "workman" under the Standing Orders Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that the definition of "workman" applicable in a labor dispute is determined by the statute under which the specific right being enforced is guaranteed, rather than the broader definition found in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969.
Questions settled- Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, apply when an employee seeks to enforce a right guaranteed under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Is a Medical Representative or salesman considered a 'workman' under the definition provided in the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Does the performance of incidental manual or clerical work by a salesman change their status to that of a 'workman' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
- Messrs Nazir Ahmad & Sons Ltd. and 2 Others vs The State and 2 Ot1983 P Cr. L J 2343 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Narumal Jetomal and 2 Others vs Judge of the Special Court1983 CLC 2695 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-10Read full judgment →
- Messrs Karimi Label Mills vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another1983 PLC 502 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Karachi Trading Agency vs Messrs Bawany Sugar Mills1983 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs International Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi1983 PTD 133 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs International Fisheries (Pakistan) Ltd. and 3 Others vs Messrs1983 CLC 3294 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application for a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking to restrain the defendants from using the plaintiffs' trade marks, factory, and fishery undertaking, and to compel delivery of possession following the expiry of a lease agreement. The core legal question was whether the lease of a running fishery undertaking and factory constitutes a tenancy protected under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, and whether the plaintiffs established a prima facie case for the grant of a temporary injunction. The court held that a running business undertaking equipped with machinery does not fall within the definition of 'building' or 'premises' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979, creating no interest in immovable property, and that the defendants were merely licensees whose possession became wrongful upon the expiry of the agreement. The court established the principle that specialized industrial units and running factories do not attract tenancy protections meant for residential or commercial premises.
Questions settled- Whether the lease of a running factory and business undertaking constitutes premises protected under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the mere use of terms like lease and rent in an agreement preclude the court from determining that the actual relationship created is that of a license?
- Does the acceptance of payments by a landlord after the filing of a suit amount to an express or implied consent to continue in possession under Section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Are the plaintiffs entitled to a temporary injunction when the defendants' continued possession of a commercial fishery undertaking after the expiry of the agreement is wrongful and contumacious?
- Messrs Husein Industries Ltd. vs Quresh Khan and 2 Others1983 CLC 2166 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
- Messrs Hoechst Pakisan Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and Others1983 CLC 1540 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Haq Brothers Ltd. vs The Pioneer Insurance Co. Ltd.1983 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Haji Muhammad & Bros. vs Messrs Abdul Latif Shakoor1983 CLC 1620 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Haji Ahmed Haji Essa vs The Rent Controller and 2 Others1983 CLC 840 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Rent Controller during execution proceedings, wherein the Controller decided to record evidence regarding a third party's claim of tenancy. The core legal question was whether a Rent Controller, under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, possesses the jurisdiction to adjudicate upon a stranger's claim of tenancy rights during execution. The Court held that the petition was maintainable because the challenge concerned the tribunal's jurisdiction. On merits, the Court ruled that the Rent Controller lacks the jurisdiction to entertain such objections. The Court emphasized that the Rent Controller is not a Civil Court and does not possess the broad powers of a Civil Court to adjudicate upon independent tenancy claims by strangers during execution. Execution proceedings are intended to enforce the ejectment order, not to re-litigate the status of the parties or introduce new tenancy disputes. Consequently, the impugned order was declared to be without lawful authority, as the Rent Controller cannot adjudicate upon the status of a stranger claiming tenancy in execution proceedings.
Questions settled- Can a Rent Controller adjudicate upon a third party's claim of tenancy during execution proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Is a constitutional petition maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Rent Controller if the order concerns the tribunal's jurisdiction?
- Does a Rent Controller possess the powers of a Civil Court to entertain objections under Section 47 or Order XXI of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Messrs Habib Cloth House vs Controller of Imports and Exports, Karachi and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 331 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Habib Bank Ltd vs Messrs H. M. Silk Mills Ltd. and Others1983 CLC 474 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-02Read full judgment →
- Messrs H. Nizam Din & SONSs vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, East, Karachi1983 PLD Karachi 288 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs H. Nizam Din & Sons vs Commissioner of Sales Tax, East, Karachi1983 PTD 108 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Forbes Forbes Campbell & Co. Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner, South Karachi and Another1983 CLC 1063 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Farrukh Chemical Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Incometax (South Zone), Karachi ; 28, 811983 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Farrukh Chemical Industries Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Income-Tax (South Zone), Karachi1983 PTD 67 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Emkays (1965) Ltd. vs Mst. Saeeda Khanum1983 CLC 1517 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
- Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. vs Alamgir and 3 Others1983 CLC 2718 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Crescent Sugar Mills and Distillery Ltd. vs Messrs American1983 PLD Karachi 29 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns a claim for damages arising from the short-landing of goods imported by the plaintiffs. The core legal questions involved the liability of local ship agents under the Customs Act, 1969, the evidentiary value of particulars in a Bill of Lading, the right of a consignee to refuse delivery due to unreasonable delay, and the carrier's right to limit liability. The court held that local agents are liable under Section 55 of the Customs Act, 1969, only after the claim is established against the principal carrier. It further held that while a Bill of Lading provides prima facie evidence of goods received, it does not establish value unless explicitly declared. The court affirmed that carriers must deliver goods within a reasonable time; failure to do so justifies the consignee's refusal of delivery. Finally, the court ruled that in the absence of a declared value, a carrier may limit its liability to the statutory maximum per package under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936, with damages calculated at the exchange rate prevalent at the time of the breach.
Questions settled- Are local ship agents personally liable for short-delivery claims under the Customs Act, 1969?
- Does a Bill of Lading constitute conclusive evidence of the value of goods shipped?
- Can a consignee refuse delivery of goods if the carrier fails to deliver within a reasonable time?
- Is a carrier entitled to limit its liability to a fixed amount per package under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act, 1936, if the value was not declared?
- Messrs Chemicals Ltd., Karachi vs Federal Government of Pakistan1983 CLC 3200 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Butla & Co. vs Sales Tax Officer, Circle I, East Zone, Karachi1983 PTD 221 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Burney's Industrial and Commercial Co. Ltd. vs Messrs Rehman1983 PLD Karachi 357 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff, a registered proprietor of two trade marks for safety wax match boxes under Class 34, seeking a permanent injunction, damages, and an accounting of profits against the defendant for trade mark infringement and passing off. The core legal questions before the High Court of Sindh were whether the defendant's un-registered match label deceptively resembled the plaintiff's composite registered trade mark under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1940, and whether the pendency of a registration application by the defendant offered any defense. The Court held that pending registration applications do not bar an infringement action under Section 21. Furthermore, while separate un-registered parts of a composite mark cannot grant exclusive rights under Section 11, the overall get-up, design, and color scheme of the defendant's label created deceptive resemblance. The High Court affirmed that the legal standard in Pakistan for assessing deceptive similarity is the impression created on an unwary or incautious purchaser with imperfect recollection, rather than a side-by-side or meticulous comparison by a cautious buyer.
Questions settled- Does a pending application for registration of a trade mark constitute a valid defense against an action for infringement under Section 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1940?
- Whether the standard for determining deceptive resemblance of a trade mark is based on the unwary purchaser or an average cautious buyer?
- Can a proprietor of a registered composite trade mark claim exclusive rights over a separate un-registered feature of the mark without separate registration under Section 11 of the Trade Marks Act 1940?
- Should conflicting trade marks be compared side-by-side or based on the general impression and imperfect recollection of a purchaser?
- Messrs Asmat Agencies vs Messrs Shaikh Yusufally Sons Ltd.1983 CLC 2088 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellant partnership firm for default in the tentative deposit of rent pursuant to the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance. The core legal question concerns whether the illness of an authorized officer of a partnership firm constitutes a valid and sufficient ground to condone the failure to comply with a tentative rent deposit order. The High Court dismissed the appeal in limine, holding that the appellant firm, consisting of multiple partners and employees, failed to establish sufficient cause for non-compliance, especially since other partners or staff could have managed the affairs and the nature of the illness did not incapacitate the officer from giving instructions. The key principle laid down is that the illness of a single representative does not excuse a partnership firm from statutory rent compliance obligations in the absence of absolute incapacity and total failure of all other partners or employees to act.
Questions settled- Does the illness of an authorized officer of a partnership firm constitute sufficient ground for condoning default in the tentative deposit of rent?
- Can a partnership firm excuse non-compliance with a rent deposit order on the ground of sickness when it has other partners and employees capable of managing its affairs?
- Whether an order of the Rent Controller striking out a defense for non-compliance with Section 16 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance is sustainable when gross negligence is shown?
- Messrs American Insurance Company vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1983 PTD 10 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-05Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ambala Bans Stores and 6 Others vs The Deputy Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1983 CLC 1440 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-27Read full judgment →
- Messrs Alkam International vs Ng. Khong Nok and Another1983 CLC 3100 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-08Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ahad & Zaidi Associates vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation1983 CLC 1598 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs Adamjee & Sons vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1983 PTD 138 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abdur Razzak and 9 Others vs Mst. Zohra Begum and Another1983 CLC 1658 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East), Karachi1983 PTD 53 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference under the Sales Tax Act, 1951 arose from the Appellate Tribunal's refusal to grant the applicant-assessee an exemption under Section 4 of the Act for sales of partly manufactured goods made during the charge year 1964-65. The Sales Tax Officer had disallowed the exemption on the grounds that some purchasers were non-existent or untraceable, while others, though initially licensed, had their licenses subsequently cancelled. The High Court observed that to qualify for the exemption under Section 4, an assessee is only required to prove that the sale was made to a person holding a valid license issued under Section 8 of the Act at the time of the transaction. The Court held that for sales made prior to the cancellation of a license and before intimation of such cancellation was given to the assessee, the exemption cannot be denied. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Tribunal was unjustified in disallowing the exemption for sales made to purchasers who held valid licenses at the material time, even if those licenses were subsequently cancelled.
Questions settled- Whether an assessee is entitled to a sales tax exemption under Section 4 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 for sales made to a purchaser whose license was subsequently cancelled by the Department?
- Does the subsequent cancellation of a purchaser's manufacturing license retrospectively disentitle the seller to a tax exemption for sales made prior to such cancellation and its intimation?
- Is the seller required to prove the ongoing physical existence or identity of a purchaser beyond establishing that the purchaser held a valid license under Section 8 of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 at the time of the sale?
- Messrs A. R. Muhammad Siddique vs The Saifee High School Board1983 CLC 507 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the rejection of the appellants' plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The appellants had filed a subsequent suit for declaration of tenancy, recovery of possession, and compensation, after their earlier suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 was dismissed for default. The lower courts rejected the subsequent plaint on the grounds that it was barred under Order IX Rule 9 and Order II Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The High Court of Sindh examined the scope of Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 and held that a suit under Section 9 is a summary remedy where title is irrelevant, whereas the subsequent suit was based on title. Since the causes of action and the evidence required to sustain the two suits were distinct, the subsequent suit was not barred. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the lower courts' orders, and remanded the suit for trial.
Questions settled- Whether the dismissal of a suit for possession under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 bars a subsequent regular suit for possession and declaration based on title?
- Does a suit under Section 9 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 share the same cause of action as a subsequent suit based on title for the purposes of Order II Rule 2 and Order IX Rule 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground of a bar from a previous suit without having the plaint of the previous suit on the record?
- Messes United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Amin Corporation Ltd. and Others1983 CLC 1559 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a mortgage suit filed by a bank for the recovery of money owed under a cash credit facility, involving issues of pledged stock deterioration and the validity of an equitable mortgage. The core legal questions were whether the suit was maintainable given challenges to the plaint's verification, whether the bank was liable for damages to pledged stocks, and whether the equitable mortgage covered the existing cash credit facility. The court held that the suit was maintainable as the verifying officer was sufficiently acquainted with the facts under the relevant procedural rules. Regarding the pledged stocks, the court found no evidence of bank negligence, attributing the damage to self-heating, and thus absolved the bank of liability. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the equitable mortgage was validly created as security for the outstanding cash credit limit. The judgment establishes that verification of pleadings can be performed by any person acquainted with the facts of the case, and that a bank is not liable for the deterioration of pledged goods absent proof of negligence.
Questions settled- Can a person other than a party or authorized agent verify a pleading if they are acquainted with the facts of the case?
- Is a bank liable for the deterioration of pledged goods if the damage resulted from self-heating and not bank negligence?
- Does an equitable mortgage created for a fresh loan also serve as security for an existing cash credit facility if the documentation so provides?
- Messers Palace Hotel, Karachi vs The Additional Secretary, Ministry1983 CLC 2882 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the excise authorities demanding differential duty, additional duty, and a penalty for alleged contravention of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944. The core legal questions involve the legality of levying differential duty on concessional room rates, the retrospective application of additional duty via statutory notifications, and the validity of imposing a penalty under the Central Excise Rules, 1944. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioners failed to establish valid grounds for charging concessional rates, upholding the differential duty demand, but remanded the additional duty issue for re-calculation based on the effective date of the notification. Furthermore, the court held that the penalty imposed under rule 226 was legally unsustainable as the authorities failed to establish the prerequisites for such a penalty. The key principles laid down are that the burden lies on the assessee to justify differential pricing as a valid concession, and that statutory penalties cannot be imposed mechanically without satisfying the explicit factual thresholds prescribed in the rules.
Questions settled- Whether charging differential rates of rent for hotel rooms amounts to a concession under section 4 of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
- Can additional duty be levied retrospectively prior to the coming into force of the relevant notification?
- Whether a penalty under rule 226 of the Central Excise Rules, 1944 can be imposed without satisfying the specific conditions stipulated in the rule?
- Messers M. Ismail & Brothers vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry1983 CLC 3204 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-22Read full judgment →
- Mehal vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 562 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
- Meat Merchants Welfare Association, Karachi and Another vs Government of Sind and 2 Others1983 CLC 464 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a meat merchants' welfare association and a meat seller challenging the notifications issued by the respondents fixing retail prices of meat, seeking declarations that the prices were unjust, discriminatory, and without lawful authority, alongside quashing of convictions and restraint from enforcement raids. The core legal question was whether retail prices of essential commodities like meat could be fixed under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 without current cost analysis and nexus to actual animal prices, and whether such notifications could remain operative indefinitely without periodic review. The court held that control prices must constitute fair prices reflecting the latest prevailing market prices of animals, requiring authorities to review them at reasonable intervals such as quarterly or half-yearly. Since the impugned notifications relied on stale data and lacked proper price analysis for beef, the court declared the notifications to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether retail prices of meat fixed under the Price Control and Prevention of Profiteering and Hoarding Act, 1977 require a direct nexus with the latest market prices of animals?
- Must price control notifications for essential commodities be reviewed periodically by the concerned authorities?
- Are price control notifications issued without fresh cost analysis and valid data lawful and enforceable?
- Mazdoor Itehad Union Star Textile Mills and Another vs Third Sind1983 PLC 491 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-06Read full judgment →
- Maudood Ahmad Farooqui vs Amin Fabrics Ltd. and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 176 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25Read full judgment →
- Mashooq Ali and 3 Others vs Danomal and 4 Others1983 CLC 1254 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Hussain Naqvi vs Muhammad Himayatullah and 4 Others1983 CLC 539 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-01Read full judgment →
- Maqsood Ahmad Khan vs D. B. Avari and 3 Others1983 CLC 2594 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-13Read full judgment →
- Manzoorul Haq vs Taj Bibi1983 CLC 1934 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ali Khan and 2 Others vs Syed Hasham Raza1983 CLC 2703 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
- Manzoor Ahmad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 2326 · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-27Read full judgment →
- Mansoor Ahmed Gaya vs Mian Rehm Atullah1983 CLC 2332 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
- Mano Alias Kiri and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 537 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-25Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Yaseen vs Commerce Bank Ltd.1983 CLC 2864 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
- Malik Muhammad Aslam vs Vicechancellor, Karachi University and Others1983 CLC 2385 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
- Major (R) A. S. K. Samad vs LT.Cot. (R) A. Husain and Another1983 CLC 2211 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-28Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodul Hassan Siddiqui vs MRS. Abdul Rahim Arain (Aziz Bibi)1983 CLC 831 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
- Mahmood and 11 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
- Madat Ali Lalani vs MRS. Sakina1983 CLC 2647 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
- M. S. Ibrahim Beg vs Mst. Amina Bai1983 CLC 2093 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-27Read full judgment →
- M. M.Aroof vs Muhammad-Akram and 2 Others1983PLC 411 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-14Read full judgment →
- M. K. Abbasi vs United Bank Ltd.1983 CLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The defendant filed an application under Order II, Rule 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking the dismissal of the plaintiff's suit on the basis that the plaintiff had intentionally relinquished a claim for Rs. 27,320.78 in a prior proceeding before a Special Court. The core legal question was whether the statutory bar under Order II, Rule 2, C.P.C. against splitting claims applies when the previous court lacked the pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the omitted claim. The Court held that the bar under Order II, Rule 2 does not apply in such circumstances. The ratio is that the prohibition against omitting claims or reliefs is predicated on the assumption that the former court had the jurisdiction to adjudicate those matters. Because the Special Court had previously ruled it lacked pecuniary jurisdiction to entertain the plaintiff's counter-claim, the plaintiff did not omit or relinquish the claim in a manner that would preclude a subsequent suit. Consequently, the Court dismissed the defendant's application, affirming that the bar is inapplicable unless the former court had the jurisdiction to try the claim omitted by the plaintiff.
Questions settled- Does the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply if the previous court lacked jurisdiction to try the omitted claim?
- Can a plaintiff file a subsequent suit for a claim that was previously raised as a counter-claim but rejected by the court for lack of pecuniary jurisdiction?
- Does the failure to pursue a counter-claim in a court lacking jurisdiction constitute an intentional relinquishment of that claim under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- M. A. Qayoom vs Mst. Roshan Sultan1983 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
- M Acdonald Layton & Co. Ltd. vs Pakistan Services Ltd and 2 Others1983 CLC 2252 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment disposes of two temporary injunction applications filed in connected suits arising from the termination of a construction contract for a winter sports and summer recreation centre at Malam Jabba, Swat. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of declaratory and injunctive suits concerning the encashment of bank guarantees and performance bonds, and whether temporary injunctions could be granted to restrain such encashment where the underlying contract was allegedly wrongfully terminated. The Sindh High Court held that while a construction contract cannot be specifically enforced and common reliefs seeking to thrust the contractor upon the employer are not maintainable, the plaintiffs had made out a strong prima facie case regarding the conditional nature of both the performance bond and the bank guarantee. The court ruled that encashment of these securities was subject to proof of conditions such as abandonment or breach, which were genuinely disputed, and that the balance of convenience favoured granting temporary injunctions to prevent multiplicity of litigation. The key principle laid down is that unconditional-seeming guarantees tied to mobilization advances or performance must be interpreted in light of their specific terms, and courts may restrain their encashment pending trial if the conditions for their invocation are prima facie unmet.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted to restrain the encashment of a bank guarantee or performance bond during the pendency of a suit challenging contract termination?
- Whether a construction contract can be specifically enforced to compel an unwilling employer to allow a contractor to continue work?
- Are bank guarantees issued for mobilization advances encashable arbitrarily without establishing the fulfillment of underlying conditions or proper utilization of the advance?
- Does a suit for a declaration that a bank guarantee and performance bond are not encashable lie under the law?
- Lila Ram vs Ghulam Ali and 9 Others1983 PLD Karachi 93 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-05Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1213 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-08Read full judgment →
- Latif Bux vs Muhammad Noor Hassan and Another1983 CLC 1759 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
- Land Acquisition (B & R), Hyderabad vs Seth Allaino1983 CLC 865 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These first appeals filed by the Land Acquisition Officer challenge a common judgment and decree enhancing compensation for acquired agricultural and Sakni lands. The core legal questions involve the calculation of limitation periods for filing appeals following the amendment of a decree under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908, and the restriction on awarding compensation exceeding the amount originally claimed pursuant to section 25 of the Land Acquisition Act. The court held that procedural amendments to a decree—such as supplying an omission to specify a satisfaction period under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908—do not provide a fresh starting point for limitation unless the amendment materially alters the substantive rights and obligations of the parties. However, sufficient cause under section 5 of the Limitation Act was established due to bona fide mistaken legal advice. On merits, the court held that compensation for Sakni land could not exceed the amount claimed by the claimant under section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act, while upholding the enhanced compensation for agricultural land based on sufficient evidence.
Questions settled- Does the amendment of a decree by supplying an omission regarding the time for satisfaction under section 82 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 provide a fresh starting point of limitation for filing an appeal?
- Can a court award compensation in a land acquisition reference exceeding the amount claimed by the applicant pursuant to section 25(1) of the Land Acquisition Act 1894?
- Whether mistaken legal advice regarding the computation of limitation following a decree amendment constitutes sufficient cause for condonation of delay under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Under what circumstances does an amendment to a judgment or decree alter the date from which the limitation period for an appeal is calculated?
- Lalji vs Mohammad Ibrahim1983 CLC 3051 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
- Lal Khan vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1667 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-17Read full judgment →
- Kutubuddin vs Allahdad and 3 Others1983 CLC 3181 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-19Read full judgment →
- Khudayar Khan and 9 Others vs Qutub Khan and Another1983 CLC 144 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
- Khudabux vs Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and Others1983 PLC 16 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged orders of Sind Labour Courts and the Labour Appellate Tribunal dismissing the petitioners' applications under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, on the preliminary ground that the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 applied to Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation and ousted the jurisdiction of Labour Courts. The core legal question was whether the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 excludes the jurisdiction of Labour Courts to adjudicate individual employee grievances like wrongful dismissal or termination. The Sindh High Court held, relying on the Supreme Court judgment in Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. v. NIRC, that where the Act applies, no other forum such as the Labour Court can resolve disputes between employer and employee arising from terms and conditions of service, and the statutory scheme excludes other forums. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 ousts the jurisdiction of Labour Courts under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the specified authority under the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952 have the power to adjudicate upon individual employee grievances?
- Whether observations of the Supreme Court regarding the exclusion of other forums constitute binding conclusions rather than mere obiter dicta?
- Khuban vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1693 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Naseeruddin vs Khalid Rashid1983 CLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
- Khawaja Muhammad Anwar vs The State--1983 P Cr. LJ 2070 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-19Read full judgment →
- Khan Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
- Khan Alias Khan Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 156 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31Read full judgment →
- Khalil Ahmed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →