Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Khalil Ahmed vs The Settlement Commissioner,Hyderabad and 2 Others1983 CLC 2281 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-10Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmed and 3 Others vs The State1983 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Khalil Ahmad vs Raisul Hassan Rizvi1983 CLC 2781 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-11Read full judgment →
• Khalid Adamjee vs Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi1983 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24
  rectification of assessmentmistake apparent from the recorddividend incometax holidayincome-tax referencepowers of income-tax officer
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference under section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act arose from consolidated income-tax cases where assessees sought rectification of their assessments under section 35 of the Income-tax Act to exclude dividend income received from tax-holiday companies under section 15-BB. The Income-tax Officer, Assistant Commissioner, and Appellate Tribunal all rejected the rectification applications. The core legal questions concerned whether the Tribunal was right in upholding the refusal to rectify the assessments, and whether dividend income derived from tax-exempt company income could lawfully be subjected to income-tax. The Sindh High Court held that while the power under section 35 to rectify mistakes apparent from the record is wider than Order XLVII Rule 1 CPC and includes errors of law, rectification is impermissible where the mistake is not ascertainable from the existing record without holding fresh inquiries. Because the assessees had neither disclosed the nature of the dividends nor claimed exemption in their original returns, and the legal position was debatable at the relevant time, the Tribunal was justified in refusing rectification. Both questions were answered in the affirmative.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the power conferred on an Income-tax Officer under section 35 of the Income-tax Act to rectify an error or mistake is analogous to or wider in scope than the power available to a civil court under Order XLVII Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can an Income-tax Officer rectify an assessment under section 35 of the Income-tax Act based on an error that requires further inquiry and is not apparent from the existing record and proceedings?
  • Whether dividend income received by an assessee from a company enjoying a tax holiday under section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act is exempted from income-tax in the hands of the assessee?
  • Whether the failure to apply an interpretation of law subsequently declared by courts constitutes a mistake apparent from the record correctable under section 35 of the Income-tax Act when the legal position was previously debatable?
  Read full judgment →
• Khair Muhammad vs Akhtar Hussain1983 CLC 302 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21
  service of noticedemand noticedefault in payment of rentejectmentpresumption of servicesection 114 evidence actdisplaced persons act
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal arising from an order of eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The core legal question concerns the extent and rebuttal of the legal presumption of service of a demand notice under Section 30 of the said Act when returned with an endorsement of refusal, and whether a bare denial on oath by the addressee is sufficient to displace it. The Sindh High Court held that while an endorsement of refusal by postal authorities raises a presumption of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872, this presumption stands rebutted when the addressee denies receipt on oath in court. Consequently, the burden shifts back to the sender to prove service by examining the postman, which was not done in this case. The court laid down that a statement on oath denying the notice or refusal is sufficient to rebut the presumption, requiring primary evidence through the examining postman to establish valid service.

  Questions settled

  • Does a postal endorsement of refusal raise a presumption of service under Section 114 of the Evidence Act?
  • Is a statement on oath by the addressee denying receipt sufficient to rebut the presumption of service?
  • Can an ejectment application on the ground of default be maintained without proving proper service of a demand notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons Act?
  • Must the postman be examined to prove service when the postal endorsement of refusal is challenged on oath?
  Read full judgment →
• Kauro vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 509 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux alias Lalu and 8 Others vs Muhammad Yaqoob1983 CLC 1768 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-08Read full judgment →
• Karachi-Road Transport Corporation Workers' Union vs Registrar1983 PLC 417 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
• Karachi Transport Corporation Workers' Union vs Registrar, Tram Unions, Sind and 4 Others1983 PLC 495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-13Read full judgment →
• Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited and Another vs Farid1983 PLC 72 (2) · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation vs National Industrial1983 PLC 367 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
• Kamal Afreen vs Mansoor Muhammad Qureshi1983 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09
  ejectment applicationwidow landlordstatutory tenantnon-joinder of partiespersonal requirementSind Rented Premises Ordinancenon-residential premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the dismissal of an ejectment application filed by a widow landlord under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The Rent Controller had dismissed the application on grounds of non-joinder of all legal heirs of the deceased tenant and a statutory bar under Section 14(2) of the Ordinance. The core legal questions were whether all legal heirs must be impleaded in an ejectment suit and whether a landlord occupying residential premises is barred from seeking the ejectment of non-residential premises. The Court held that the definition of 'tenant' under the Ordinance includes only those legal heirs in actual physical possession of the premises; therefore, non-joinder of non-occupying heirs is not fatal. Additionally, the Court ruled that the bar under Section 14(2) does not apply when the premises occupied by the landlord and the premises sought for ejectment differ in nature (i.e., residential versus non-residential). The appeal was allowed, and the ejectment was granted, establishing that statutory bars are contingent upon the nature of the premises involved.

  Questions settled

  • Are all legal heirs of a deceased tenant necessary parties in an ejectment application?
  • Does the bar under Section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply when a landlord occupies residential premises but seeks ejectment of non-residential premises?
  • Who qualifies as a 'tenant' under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 following the death of the original tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• K. P. Moidoo and Another vs Mst. Noor Jehan Begum1983 CLC 723 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-02
  ejectmentpersonal needhotel versus cafestatutory noticepower of attorneyrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, against the judgment of the Rent Controller directing the eviction of the appellants from a shop. The core legal questions involve whether a 'cafe' can be equated with a 'hotel' so as to be excluded from the definition of 'premises' under the Ordinance, whether a joint statutory notice to joint tenants is valid, whether a general power of attorney executed prior to the acquisition of the property suffices, and the interpretation of personal 'need' under section 14 versus 'require' under section 15. The Sindh High Court held that a cafe is not a hotel and remains subject to the Ordinance, that joint notices and joint descriptions of tenants are legally valid and constitute mere technicalities, that a power of attorney covering future properties is fully effective, and that section 14 imposes fewer restrictions on a landlord than section 15. The appeal was consequently dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a cafe can be equated with a hotel to exclude it from the definition of premises under section 2(h) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a joint statutory notice under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, addressed to multiple joint tenants legally valid?
  • Does a general power of attorney executed prior to the acquisition of a property authorize an attorney to file an ejectment application concerning that property?
  • Is there a substantive distinction between the term 'needs' in section 14 and 'requires' in section 15 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumo Slim 7 Others vs Tae State1983 P Cr. L J 1067 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12Read full judgment →
• Juilee Spinning and Weaving Mills Ltd. vs The Karachi Electric Supply1983 CLC 856 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-22Read full judgment →
• Javed Akbar vs Karachi Development Authority through Its1983 CLC 1760 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-02Read full judgment →
• Janoo and Others vs Custodian of Evacuee Property, Sind and Another1983 CLC 1963 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
• Jan-E-Alam vs Abdul Hamid1983 CLC 3230 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-06Read full judgment →
• Jabbar vs THB State1983 P Cr. L J 2361 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-09-14Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State-Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 1426 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-01Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs Rent Controller, Shahdadpur and Another1983 CLC 2994 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-16
  rent controlleradjournment costssind rented premises ordinancejurisdictioncivil procedure codespecial lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller awarding costs of adjournment in rent proceedings. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller is empowered to award costs of adjournment under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, given the limited applicability of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The High Court held that the Rent Controller, acting under a special law, possesses no inherent or statutory power to award adjournment costs, as the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure are strictly limited to the specific matters enumerated in Section 20 of the Ordinance. Consequently, the Court ruled that an order imposing adjournment costs is without jurisdiction, coram non judice, and of no legal effect. The key principle laid down is that rent tribunals cannot exercise powers not expressly conferred upon them by their governing special statute, and the general provisions of civil procedure cannot be invoked beyond the explicit exceptions provided in the law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Rent Controller has the power to award costs of adjournment in proceedings under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Do the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, generally apply to proceedings before a Rent Controller under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • What are the specific matters for which a Rent Controller can exercise the powers of a civil court under the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 823 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22
  murderattempted murdereye-witness credibilitydelayed witness statementinterested witnessescorroborationdying declarationballistic expert reportdelay in sending crime weaponbenefit of doubt
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal before the Sindh High Court arose out of the conviction of four appellants for murder (Section 302/34 PPC) and attempted murder (Section 307/34 PPC) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jacobabad. The prosecution alleged that the appellants fired shots at the victims over a prior murder feud, killing one woman and injuring two others. The High Court scrutinised the prosecution's evidence, which comprised ocular testimony, a dying declaration, motive, and ballistic recoveries. The Court excluded the evidence of one alleged eye-witness due to an unexplained eight-day delay by the police in recording his statement. It further held that ocular evidence from interested and inimical witnesses requires independent corroboration, which cannot be satisfied by motive alone where motive is co-extensive with enmity. Additionally, the dying declaration was discarded due to the lack of evidence of imminent death and potential tutoring, while the ballistic expert's report was rendered valueless owing to an unexplained seven-month delay in despatching the gun and empties. Consequently, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt and acquitted all appellants.

  Questions settled

  • Can the testimony of an eye-witness whose statement was recorded by the police after an unexplained delay be relied upon to uphold a conviction?
  • Does prior enmity between parties require independent corroboration for interested ocular testimony in a capital case?
  • Can motive that is co-extensive with established enmity serve as independent corroboration of interested ocular evidence?
  • What is the evidentiary value of a ballistic expert report when there is an unexplained long delay in despatching seized weapons and empties to the expert?
  Read full judgment →
• Islamul Haq and Another vs Haji Jamil Ahmad1983 CLC 1415 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-12Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs Muhammad Siddique Memon and Others1983 CLC 2776 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
• Islam Muhammad vs Messrs Cafe-De-Khan and 2 Others1983 PLC 169 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Ishaq vs Haji Wali Muhammad1983 CLC 1653 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Iradat Muhammad Affendi vs Iqbal Ahmed Siddiqui1983 CLC 1512 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-10Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Silk Factory vs Commissioner for Workmen's Compensation1983 CLC 3227 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hussain vs Messrs Subhanallah Hotel and 2 Others1983 CLC 2212 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-24Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Hassanally EFFENDIs vs Mst. Zarina Begum and 3 Others1983 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-05Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-09Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad Khan Lodhi vs Mirza Muhammad Ajmal1983 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Haji Moosa A. Karim and Another1983 CLC 284 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
• Inamul Haq vs Zille Abbas/1983 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-28Read full judgment →
• In re : Synthetic Chemicals Co. Ltd. vs Not1983 CLC 460 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-11Read full judgment →
• In re : Messrs Pakistan Tractors Corporation Ltd. and Another vs Not1983 CLC 1424 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
• In re : Companies Act, 1913 and Another vs Not1983 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-14
  winding-upjust and equitableprivate limited companypartnership principlesoppression and mismanagementexclusion from managementboard of directors
  Summary & questions settled

  These are two judicial miscellaneous petitions filed under the provisions of the Companies Act, 1913, concerning Nagina Films Limited. One petition sought relief against mismanagement and oppression under section 153-C, while the other prayed for the winding-up of the company under section 162 based on the 'just and equitable' clause. The core legal questions involved whether the exclusion of a minority shareholder holding twenty percent shares from the board of directors and the reduction of the board's strength justified the winding-up of a private limited company on partnership principles, and whether such a company could be treated akin to a partnership. The court held that where promoters' agreements or understandings regarding management participation are breached by the majority—such as unlawfully reducing the board of directors to oust a minority shareholder—it constitutes grounds for winding-up under the just and equitable clause. The court laid down that private limited companies may be treated as partnerships to the extent that grounds justifying the dissolution of a partnership firm under section 44 of the Partnership Act, 1932, apply to winding-up petitions, and ordered Nagina Films Limited to be wound up.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a petitioner can simultaneously file petitions under section 153-C and section 162 of the Companies Act, 1913?
  • Does the principle of treating a private limited company as a partnership apply strictly to single-family concerns or to companies formed by multiple family groups?
  • Is the unlawful reduction of the board of directors to exclude a minority shareholder a valid ground for winding-up a private limited company under the just and equitable clause?
  • Whether a petitioner must make out a case for winding-up under section 162 before relief can be granted under section 153-C of the Companies Act, 1913?
  Read full judgment →
• Imdad Ali and 4 Others vs Abdul Rashid and 6 OTHERSOpponents1983 CLC 1346 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-09Read full judgment →
• Imamuddin and 4 Othsrs vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1059 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ilyas vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 628 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ilam Khan vs Government of Pakistan and 3 Others1983 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23
  customs seizurerestraint ordershow-cause noticelimitation periodconfiscation of goodscustoms clearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notice and a subsequent restraint order issued under Section 168 of the Customs Act 1969. The Customs authorities had served a restraint order on a custodian preventing them from parting with six cases of imported machinery, on the ground that physical seizure was impracticable. The petitioner contended that the restraint order amounted to a seizure, and because the authorities failed to issue a show-cause notice under Section 180 within two months or provide grounds under Section 171, the detention became unlawful. The respondents argued that a restraint order does not constitute a physical seizure and thus the statutory time limits did not apply. The High Court of Sindh held that a restraint order issued under the latter part of Section 168(1) of the Customs Act 1969 has the same legal effect as a physical seizure, as it deprives the owner of the right to deal with the goods. Consequently, the statutory safeguards, including the two-month limitation for issuing a show-cause notice and the requirement to provide grounds, are fully applicable. Due to non-compliance, the restraint order was declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does a restraint order issued under Section 168(1) of the Customs Act 1969 on the ground of impracticability of physical seizure amount to a seizure of goods?
  • Are the statutory time limits and safeguards under Section 168(2) and Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 applicable to a constructive seizure or restraint order?
  • What is the legal consequence if the Customs authorities fail to issue a show-cause notice under Section 180 within two months of a restraint order?
  Read full judgment →
• Ikramuddin and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1589 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-09Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Trustee of the Port of Karachi and Another1983 CLC 3048 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 604 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs Muhammad Hussain and 2 Others1983 CLC 1627 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Ismail vs Brig. (Retd.) S. H. A. Gardezi1983 PLD Karachi 154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-31Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and 3 Others vs Sheikh Muhammad Yunus and 8 Others1983 CLC 1603 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim and 3 Others vs Mst. Khatija1983 CLC 1409 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Hussain Javeri vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 102 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-11
  quashment of proceedingsnon-cognizable offenceillegal investigationprohibitionliquor recoveryjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for quashment of proceedings was filed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking to quash the proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 4 of the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 and Section 43(3) of the Sind Abkari Act. The prosecution alleged that two and a half bottles of wine were recovered from the petitioner's bedroom. The petitioner contended that the offence, if any, was non-cognizable under Section 9(2)(b) of the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978, and that the police could not have investigated the matter or arrested the petitioner without complying with the mandatory provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court of Sindh held that because the liquor was recovered from a bedroom, the offence was non-cognizable. Consequently, the police had no authority to investigate without a magistrate's order under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, rendering the trial court's cognizance without jurisdiction. The Court further ruled that the special Ordinance overrode the Abkari Act. The petition was allowed, and the proceedings were quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an offence under Section 4 of the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 involving recovery of liquor from a bedroom is a cognizable or non-cognizable offence?
  • Can the police investigate a non-cognizable offence under the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 without complying with the provisions of Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Sind Prohibition Ordinance 1978 override the provisions of the Sind Abkari Act in respect of the same offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh and 3 Othors vs Noor Muhammad and Anothsrs1983 P Cr. L J 1585 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-20
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processcivil disputemala fideprivate complaintmatrimonial disputecriminal breach of trustcheating
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated under Sections 406, 419, and 420, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, arising from a private complaint. The core legal questions were whether the proceedings constituted an abuse of process due to their civil nature and mala fide intent, and whether the petition was maintainable despite the applicants not first moving the trial court under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process, as the dispute regarding the non-payment for livestock was clearly civil and the complaint was filed to harass the applicants amid ongoing matrimonial litigation. The Court further held that the petition was maintainable because the trial court had already formed a prima facie view by issuing process, rendering a Section 249-A application redundant. The key principle established is that criminal proceedings should be quashed when they are initiated with mala fide intent to harass and fail to disclose the essential ingredients of the alleged criminal offenses.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the underlying dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Is a petition for quashment of proceedings maintainable under Section 561-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if the applicant has not first moved the trial court under Section 249-A, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the issuance of process by a trial court after a preliminary inquiry bar the High Court from quashing the proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Husn Bano Begum vs Zaka Ali Khan and 3 Others1983 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
• Husein Industries vs Commissioner of Sales Tax1983 PTD 114 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-28Read full judgment →
• House Building Finance Corporation vs Pakistan and 3 Others1983 CLC 1428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Ho Abdul Hameed vs Ch. Muhammad Islam1983 CLC 970 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-11Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah and 3 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 447 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26Read full judgment →
• Imdadullah vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 218 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
• Imdad Khan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 205 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29
  quashment of proceedingspreventive jurisdictionpolice reportcriminal procedureabuse of processSection 110 CrPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition challenging proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a Magistrate could lawfully take cognizance and pass an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 based on a police report that was vague, general in nature, and lacked specific evidence of prior convictions or cited witnesses. Upon review, the Court found that the police report contained only general allegations and that the pending cases listed against the applicant had not resulted in any convictions, nor had any prosecution witnesses been examined. Consequently, the Court held that the proceedings were initiated prematurely and constituted an abuse of the process of the trial Court. The Court quashed the pending proceedings and set aside the Magistrate's order, establishing the principle that proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 cannot be sustained on the basis of a vague, unsubstantiated police report without proper inquiry.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be initiated based on a vague and general police report?
  • Is it legally permissible for a Magistrate to pass an order under Section 112 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without conducting a proper inquiry?
  • Are proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 considered premature if they rely on pending cases that have not resulted in conviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Hassan vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 961 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Hassan vs Ali Ahmed and Another1983 CLC 1053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-15Read full judgment →
• Hassan Masood vs S. M. Ahsan1983 CLC 1218 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-20Read full judgment →
• Hasil Baluch vs Deputy Inspectorgeneral (Police) Crimes, Karachi and 3 Others1983 P Cr. L J 2357 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-12
  contempt of courtfurther investigationsecond investigationfinal reportcriminal procedurepolice powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner filed an application seeking to punish police officials for contempt of court, alleging that they initiated a second investigation into a criminal case after a final report had already been submitted to the court. The core legal question was whether the police are legally barred from conducting a second or further investigation into the same crime once a final report under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has been submitted. The Court dismissed the application, holding that there is no legal prohibition against the police conducting a second investigation. The ratio established is that the police are not debarred from further investigation, as their statutory duty is to discover the truth, and the finality of an investigation stage cannot prevail at the expense of truth and justice. The key principle laid down is that while finality in investigation is desirable, it does not preclude the police from pursuing further evidence to ensure a fair determination of guilt or innocence, provided there is no imperative legal bar.

  Questions settled

  • Is the police legally barred from conducting a second investigation into a crime after submitting a final report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the initiation of a second investigation by the police into a matter pending before a court constitute contempt of court?
  • Can a Magistrate direct a further investigation by the police after the Magistrate has taken cognizance of the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Haseena Bano vs MRS. Mumtaz Younus1983 CLC 511 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-17Read full judgment →
• Hasan Ali vs Imdadullah Abbasi1983 CLC 2997 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-20Read full judgment →
• Haroon Ayoob Abdul Karim vs Sulleman Ahmad and 4 others1983 CLC 162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-19
  company directorsfiduciary relationshipsuit for accountsforeign companyunregistered companyjurisdictionlegal representativesjoint shareholders
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit instituted in the Sindh High Court involved a claim for an account of a company's branch business and assets situated in Rangoon, Burma, following the partition of India and the subsequent taking over of the parent company in Bombay by the Custodian of Evacuee Property. The core legal questions addressed whether a shareholder can maintain a direct suit for accounts against company directors in the absence of a fiduciary or contractual relationship, the effect of a foreign company's cessation or dissolution on its branch offices, the survival of actions against legal representatives of a deceased accounting party, and the territorial jurisdiction of the court over foreign immovable properties and assets. The court held that directors owe fiduciary duties to the company rather than individual shareholders, that a foreign company's branch may be wound up as an unregistered company but does not automatically render directors personally accountable to individual members for an account, that legal representatives cannot be compelled to render accounts in the technical sense, and that the court lacks jurisdiction to issue effective orders in personam concerning foreign properties and assets nationalized by a foreign government. The suit was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether directors of a company owe a fiduciary or contractual relationship to individual shareholders so as to render them liable to a direct suit for rendition of accounts?
  • Does the dissolution or taking over of a parent company by the Custodian automatically close its foreign branch office and create a common property among shareholders?
  • Can legal representatives of a deceased defendant be called upon to render accounts in the technical sense in a suit for accounts?
  • Does a civil court in Pakistan possess territorial jurisdiction to entertain a suit for accounts and pass an effective decree concerning business assets and immovable properties situated entirely outside Pakistan and nationalized by a foreign government?
  Read full judgment →
• Hanif vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1973 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Hamzo and Another vs The State--.Respondent1983 P Cr. L J 892 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23
  murder convictionretracted confessioninterested witnessesidentification evidencecriminal appealdeath sentence confirmationcorroboration of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences imposed by the Sessions Court for murder and destruction of evidence under sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of eye-witness testimony from interested, inimical witnesses, the validity of recoveries made by police, and the admissibility of retracted judicial confessions recorded after a delay. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court ruled that eye-witnesses who are closely related and inimical to the accused require independent corroboration, which was absent here. Furthermore, the Court established that identification in darkness via torchlight provides only a momentary glimpse, rendering it unreliable. Additionally, the Court found the recoveries suspicious due to inconsistencies in arrest times and the nature of the evidence. Finally, the Court held that judicial confessions recorded after an unexplained delay of three days, and subsequently retracted, are unreliable. Consequently, the Court acquitted the appellants and rejected the reference for confirmation of the death sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Can judicial confessions recorded after an unexplained delay of three days be relied upon for conviction?
  • Is the testimony of closely related and inimical eye-witnesses sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does the identification of accused persons in the dark by torchlight constitute reliable evidence?
  • Can one piece of tainted evidence corroborate another piece of tainted evidence in a criminal trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Dawakhana (Waqf) vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi1983 PLC 124 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hakimullah vs The State1983 PTD 46 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-23Read full judgment →
• Hajiani Zulekha Bai vs Province of Sind and Another1983 CLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Haji Zulfiqar Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1838 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Haji Zakaria vs Muhammad Farooq1983 C LC 2115 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Umer Din vs Abdul Samad1983 CLC 2234 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-11Read full judgment →
• Haji Nazar Muhammad vs The Province of Sind and 2 OTHERSs1983 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Umar vs DR. Zafarullah1983 CLC 781 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-06Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Siddik vs Pir Bux and Another1983 CLC 1949 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Aqil vs Fazullah alias Fazul Muhammad and 2 Others1983 CLC 1009 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-13Read full judgment →
• Khiomal vs Jamiatmal1983 CLC 2666 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ali (Represented by 10 Heirs) vs Yar Muhammad and 31983 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Kabir Pasha vs Yousaf Shareef1983 CLC 2199 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-30Read full judgment →
• Haji Hafiz Ali vs Nook Muhammad and Others1983 P Cr. L J 204 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Chakar vs Station House Officer, Police Station, Pano Akil and 21983 PLD Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Bagh Ali and Others vs WAPDA and Others1983 CLC 88 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Allah Ditto vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1614 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-12Read full judgment →
• Haji Ahmad Nawaz vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 106 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Sattar vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-01Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Rehman and 2 Others vs The State--Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 2443 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1983-06-07Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Razzak vs Haji Abdul Karim Vayani and 5 Others1983 CLC 2118 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Qadir Motiwala vs Saifuddin Ahmed1983 CLC 3006 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Aziz-Appelllant vs Mansooruddin Hyder1983 CLC 812 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-20Read full judgment →
• Haider Khan vs Syed Muhammad Naseer.Opponent1983 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-20Read full judgment →
• Hafiz Syed Muhammad Yahya vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and onion1983 CLC 2983 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-16Read full judgment →
• Hafeez Qaisar and Another vs MRS. Pillo J. Master and Another1983 CLC 3122 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Habibullah and 6 Others vs Muhammad Umar1983 CLC 2206 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Iqbal I. Chundrigar and Another1983 CLC 1464 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21
  overdraft facilityletter of guaranteeproprietary firmsurety liabilitylimitation periodpremature suitcause of action
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a banking suit filed by a bank against the principal debtor and a guarantor for the recovery of an outstanding overdraft balance. The core legal questions revolved around whether a proprietary firm and its sole proprietor are distinct entities for incurring liabilities, whether a suit against a surety is barred by limitation when the guarantee requires a specific demand before payment, and whether the filing of the suit can cure a premature demand. The court held that a proprietary firm and its proprietor are one and the same in the eyes of the law, and that under the terms of the guarantee, the cause of action against the surety arises only after a demand is made and the stipulated period expires. However, to avoid multiplicity of proceedings, the service of summons in the suit was deemed sufficient notice of demand, thereby maturing the action and rendering the suit within time. The suit was accordingly decreed in favor of the plaintiff bank.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a proprietary firm and its sole proprietor are separate legal entities for the purpose of incurring liability?
  • Does the period of limitation for a guarantor commence from the date of the execution of the letter of guarantee or from the date of demand?
  • Can the service of court summons be deemed a valid demand to mature a prematurely filed suit against a guarantor?
  • Is a guarantor liable for transactions conducted under the name of the proprietor's business firm?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Green Hosiery Mills and 4 Others1983 CLC 1297 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-17Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Allied Trading Corporation Ltd. and 5 Others1983 CLC 1317 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-02Read full judgment →
• Habib Abdul Qadir vs Mst. Haseebunnissa Begum1983 CLC 2123 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-21Read full judgment →
• H. N. A. Furnishers vs AlHaj Hafiz Muhammad Ishaq (Represented by His1983 CLC 1269 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →