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.

• Gulzar Hussain vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1864 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
• Gulzar Ahmad vs MRS. Shah Noor Fazal1983 CLC 1077 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-17Read full judgment →
• Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd. vs Pakistan1983 CLC 1474 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10
  Constitutional petitionCustoms dutyTariff classificationAlternate remedySpindle holdersImport policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a customs assessment order classifying imported spindle holders (bolster units) and plastic rings under item 84.38(C) of the Pakistan Customs Tariff, attracting a higher duty rate. The core legal questions were whether the petition was maintainable despite the existence of alternate statutory remedies, and whether the imported items were correctly classified as parts of spindles. The court held that the petition was maintainable because the appellate authorities had already prejudged the issue, rendering the alternate remedy illusory. On merits, the court determined that spindle holders, which function as supports for spindles, do not constitute parts of spindles themselves. Consequently, the items did not fall under the specific heading 84.38(C) but rather under the residual heading 84.38(D), which carries a lower duty rate. The court declared the assessment order without lawful authority and directed the assessment under the correct tariff heading. The key principle established is that the existence of an alternate remedy does not bar a constitutional petition when such remedies are rendered illusory by the prior conduct of the appellate authorities.

  Questions settled

  • Is the existence of an alternate remedy a bar to a constitutional petition when the appellate authorities have already prejudged the issue?
  • Are spindle holders (bolster units) considered parts of spindles for the purpose of classification under the Pakistan Customs Tariff?
  • Does the classification of a machine part under the heading of the machine apply to support devices like bolster units?
  Read full judgment →
• Gufran Ahmed and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 620 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17
  customs offencemandatory noticesmuggled goodsrecovery witnessesbenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellants under Section 156(89) of the Customs Act 1969, following their arrest for the alleged possession of smuggled foreign watches. The core legal question was whether the conviction could be sustained in the absence of a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969, and whether the prosecution had proven its case beyond reasonable doubt given the evidentiary contradictions. The Sindh High Court held that the failure to issue the mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 rendered the conviction legally unsustainable. Furthermore, the Court found that the prosecution's case suffered from material contradictions, particularly regarding the presence of the recovery witnesses (Mashirs) on a day they typically kept their shops closed, casting significant doubt on the recovery proceedings. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, acquitting the appellants on the basis of benefit of doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that strict compliance with statutory notice requirements is a prerequisite for a valid conviction under the Customs Act 1969.

  Questions settled

  • Is the issuance of a notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 mandatory before a conviction can be sustained?
  • Does the failure to provide a mandatory notice under Section 171 of the Customs Act 1969 vitiate a conviction?
  • Can a conviction be sustained when the prosecution's case relies on recovery witnesses whose presence at the scene is rendered doubtful by material contradictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan vs Fazle Haq1983 CLC 2669 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-15Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan through Its Secretary, Irrigation, Communication and Works Department vs Syed Zainul Ebad Rizvi1983 CLC 1763 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-04Read full judgment →
• Government of Sind vs Sind Fine Textile Mills1983 PLD Karachi 134 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-26Read full judgment →
• Golden Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Alibhoy and Another1983 PLC 1270 · Sindh High Court · 1983-07-16Read full judgment →
• Golden Industries Ltd. vs Province of Sind and 2 Others1983 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-07
  property taxvaluation listcurative legislationretrospective legislationlegislative competenceconstitutional petitionequality before lawindustrial property
  Summary & questions settled

  This batch of constitutional petitions challenged the validity of a new valuation list for property tax assessment on industrial properties in Karachi, compiled under the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958. The petitioners contended that the list was prepared without following statutory procedures, was arbitrary, and that the subsequent validating legislation, the Sind Finance Act, 1977, was unconstitutional and discriminatory. The Court held that while the initial valuation list may have lacked strict statutory compliance, the Sind Finance Act, 1977, effectively validated the list. The Court affirmed that the Provincial Legislature possesses sovereign power to enact curative legislation, including with retrospective effect, provided it does not violate constitutional provisions. Furthermore, the Court ruled that it lacks the jurisdiction to judge the mala fides of the legislature. The classification of industrial properties in Karachi for tax purposes was found to be reasonable and not violative of the equality guarantee under Article 25 of the Constitution. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed, directing petitioners to pursue departmental remedies for specific assessment grievances.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court declare a statute void on the ground that it was the result of mala fides on the part of the legislature?
  • Does the legislature have the power to enact curative or validating legislation with retrospective effect?
  • Is a classification of properties for taxation purposes discriminatory if it applies only to a specific category of property within a specific rating area?
  • Can a valuation list prepared in violation of statutory procedures be validated by subsequent legislation?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs This State1983 P Cr. L J 1386 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Muhammad Mithal and Another1983 CLC 480 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-20Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Raza vs Mst. Fatima Bibi1983 CLC 2352 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasul vs Haji Bashir Ahmad and Another1983 P Cr. L J 1683 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs National Bank of Pakistan and Another1983 CLC 1556 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1319 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-06Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi vs Additional District Judge and Another1983 CLC 2382 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-12Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 7 Others vs Abdul Karim1983 CLC 2714 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa vs Mst. Rehmat Bibi and 7 Others1983 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-10Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 888 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State--1983 P Cr. L J 1831 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad and Another vs Additional Commissioner1983 CLC 2986 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-13Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Kadir and 2 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1291 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder Shah and 9 Others vs The Chief Land Commissioner, Sind1983 CLC 1585 · Sindh High Court
  Land Reforms Regulationretrospective operationvested rightspast and closed transactionssuo motu reviewconstitutional petitionland alienation
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenge orders of the Land Commissioner, Sind, which reviewed and recalled earlier orders confirming land gifts made to non-heirs under the Land Reforms Regulation (M.L.R. 115). The core legal question was whether the amendments to the Regulation, introduced by the Land Reforms Regulation (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, operated retrospectively to invalidate transactions that were already finalized and closed under the previous law. The Court held that the amendments were not intended to reopen past and closed transactions. Although the Ordinance was deemed effective from March 11, 1972, the Court ruled that this did not authorize the reopening of cases already concluded under the unamended law. The key principle laid down is that a statute should not be construed to have a greater retrospective operation than its language necessitates. In the absence of clear legislative intent to interfere with vested rights, retrospective laws cannot be used to impair transactions that were validly concluded under the prior legal regime, as courts must lean against constructions that impair vested rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Land Reforms Regulation (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1972, have retrospective effect on transactions already finalized under the previous law?
  • Can the Land Commissioner exercise suo motu review powers to reopen transactions that were validly concluded under the unamended Land Reforms Regulation?
  • Is a statute presumed to have retrospective operation if it impairs vested rights and affects past and closed transactions?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hussain Malik vs Ghulam Dastgir Khan1983 CLC 1520 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 496 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17Read full judgment →
• Ghous Bux vs Mir Ashraf Ali (through Legal Heirs)1983 CLC 2244 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-28Read full judgment →
• Ghayoor Alam vs Muhammad Jamil1983 CLC 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-19Read full judgment →
• Ghafoor Textile Mills Ltd. vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1983 CLC 3214 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-14Read full judgment →
• Gangoomal vs Jamiatmal1983 CLC 955 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• G. P. Shahani and 2 Others vs Federal Land Commission and 2 Others1983 CLC 1971 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-10Read full judgment →
• G. Francis Jacob vs Bashir Ahmed Khan1983 CLC 1535 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-22Read full judgment →
• Firdous vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 962 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-05Read full judgment →
• Ferozuddin vs Central Government of Pakistan through Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi1983 CLC 3211 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-23Read full judgment →
• Feroz Khan vs The State and ANOTHERs1983 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1983-10-11Read full judgment →
• Feroz Ahmad vs Mst. Asifa Khatoon1983 CLC 1247 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-02Read full judgment →
• Fazil Khan vs Syed Muhammad Idrees1983 CLC 2359 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-30Read full judgment →
• Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd. vs The Commissioner of Sales Tax1983 PTD 44 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-26
  Sales TaxExemptionLicensed ManufacturerCancellation of LicenceBogus PartyReferenceSales Tax Act 1951
  Summary & questions settled

  This direct reference under the Sales Tax Act, 1951 arose from an order of the Income-tax Tribunal disallowing the assessee's claim for sales tax exemption under section 4(a) of the Act on sales made to a licensed manufacturer, Messrs Amin Weaving Mills, on the ground that the purchasing party was bogus. The core legal question was whether the assessee was entitled to the sales tax exemption for sales made to a licensed manufacturer prior to the cancellation of that manufacturer's license. The Sindh High Court held that since the sales in question occurred before the cancellation of the purchaser's manufacturing license and the purchaser held a valid license at the time of the transactions, the assessee was legally entitled to the claimed exemption. The court laid down the principle that a licensed manufacturer's transactions are entitled to statutory exemptions under section 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 if the purchasing entity held a valid manufacturing license at the time the sales were executed, and subsequent cancellation of the license cannot retrospectively invalidate exemptions for prior sales.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an assessee is entitled to sales tax exemption under section 4(a) of the Sales Tax Act, 1951 on sales made to a licensed manufacturer prior to the cancellation of that manufacturer's license?
  • Whether sales made to a party holding a valid manufacturing licence at the time of transaction can be disallowed for exemption on the ground that the licence was subsequently cancelled?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Rahim Khan vs MRS. Sultana Yasmeen and 2 Others1983 CLC 1600 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15Read full judgment →
• Fazal Din vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 932 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-29Read full judgment →
• Fawwad & Fareen Enterprise Ltd. vs Director of Industries, Government of Sind, Karachi and Others1983 PLD Karachi 340 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30
  constitutional petitiontender processcontractual rightswrit jurisdictionadministrative instructionsdisputed questions of factSind Purchase Manual 1977
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the decision of the Director of Industries, Government of Sindh, to reject the petitioners' lowest tender and invite fresh tenders for supply contracts. The petitioners argued that a binding contract had been formed upon the opening of tenders and that the authorities violated Clause 38 of the Sind Purchase Manual, 1977. The Court held that the petition involved disputed questions of fact regarding the formation of a contract, which are not amenable to writ jurisdiction. Furthermore, the Court determined that the Sind Purchase Manual, 1977 constitutes administrative instructions rather than statutory rules; therefore, any alleged breach does not confer a justiciable right for the High Court to intervene. Additionally, the Court affirmed that contractual rights cannot be enforced through extraordinary constitutional jurisdiction. Consequently, the petition was dismissed, as the petitioners failed to establish a vested legal right, and the authorities acted within their reserved rights under the tender conditions to reject bids.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding the formation of a contract be resolved in the High Court's writ jurisdiction?
  • Do the instructions contained in the Sind Purchase Manual, 1977, constitute statutory rules enforceable through writ jurisdiction?
  • Are contractual rights enforceable by recourse to the writ jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Does the submission of the lowest tender create a vested legal right to the grant of a contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Fateh Chand and 2 0Thers vs The State and 3 Others--1983 P Cr. L J 253 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-03Read full judgment →
• Farid Khan vs Atiqur Rehman and Another1983 PLD Karachi 510 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Farid Ahmed vs Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. and Another1983 PLD Karachi 576 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-13
  constitutional petitionmaintainabilitycorporation employeesservice of Pakistancivil servantbar of jurisdictiondismissal from service
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Marine Engineer employed by Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Limited, challenged his dismissal from service through a constitutional petition after being found unsatisfactory following a show-cause notice. The core legal question addressed by the court was whether the constitutional petition was maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution and the provisions of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978. The Sindh High Court held that corporation service is declared to be the service of Pakistan under section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978, thereby bringing the petitioner within the ambit of civil servants for service matters and attracting the exclusive jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal. Consequently, the court laid down the principle that the first part of section 5 of the Ordinance operates as a general declaration making corporation service the service of Pakistan, independently of whether an employee was removed or demoted under section 3, thus barring the jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 212 of the Constitution. The petition was accordingly dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition by a corporation employee is maintainable in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Does section 5 of the Corporation Employees (Special Powers) Ordinance, 1978 declare all corporation service to be the service of Pakistan independently of actions taken under section 3?
  • Are employees of corporations deemed civil servants for the purposes of the Service Tribunals Act, 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Faqir Muhammad Malik vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1757 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-02Read full judgment →
• Faqir Hussain & Co. vs Asghar Ali Ghulam Hussain Antria and Others1983 CLC 2270 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
• F. A. Zuberi vs Ali Hussain and Others1983 PLC 477 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
• Excise and Taxation Officer, Sukkur and 2 Others vs Ahsanullah Khan1983 CLC 716 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-29Read full judgment →
• Esso and Another vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 530 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
• Emi (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Shalimar Recording Co. Ltd.and 3 Others1983 CLC 1750 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-15Read full judgment →
• Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd. vs Additional1983 CLC 3105 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-14Read full judgment →
• Earthworm Tractor Co. (Inc.), New York,U. S. A. vs National1983 CLC 2067 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-16Read full judgment →
• Dur Muhammad vs Bashir and 2 Others1983 P Cr. L J 2053 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-24
  cancellation of bailinjured victim standinglocus standigrievous injurySection 326 PPCprohibitory clausepost-arrest bail
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed by an injured victim seeking cancellation of post-arrest bail previously granted to two respondents by the High Court. Bail had originally been granted without opposition from the State on the belief that the injuries were simple and on non-vital body parts. The applicant subsequently produced medical certificates demonstrating that both injured persons suffered grievous injuries, bringing the alleged offense under Section 326 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which carries potential life imprisonment or ten years' imprisonment. The respondents challenged the competence of an injured person who is not the F.I.R. complainant to seek bail cancellation under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that an injured victim, as a person vitally interested in the prosecution, is fully competent to apply for cancellation of bail. Finding that the grant of bail was based on an erroneous factual basis and that the statutory prohibition under Section 497, Cr.P.C. applied, the High Court cancelled the respondents' bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an injured victim who is not the original complainant have locus standi to move an application for cancellation of bail under Section 497(5) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail granted under a misapprehension of the nature of injuries be cancelled upon subsequent production of medical certificates showing grievous injuries under a prohibitory clause offense?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. Tajuddin Manji vs Societe International Detelecommunications1983 CLC 295 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-02Read full judgment →
• DR. Salahuddin Ahmed vs Ministry of Works and Another1983 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-15
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionmala fidesinterim injunctionpermanent injunctiongovernment accommodationrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arose from the concurrent dismissal of the applicant's suit and rejection of his plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the lower courts, who held that the suit was barred under Sections 10 and 11 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965. The core legal questions were whether Section 10 of the Ordinance bars permanent injunctions or only temporary injunctions, and whether Section 11 completely ousts civil court jurisdiction when mala fides are alleged. The Sindh High Court held that Section 10 only bars temporary or interim injunctions without ousting jurisdiction over permanent injunctions, and Section 11 does not bar civil suits where mala fides are alleged in the plaint. The court established the principle that while considering a rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, the court must assume the averments in the body of the plaint to be true and cannot rely on defence pleas, and allegations of mala fides require framing issues and recording evidence before a plaint can be dismissed or rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 10 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965 bar the grant of permanent injunctions alongside temporary injunctions?
  • Does Section 11 of the Central Government Lands and Buildings (Recovery of Possession) Ordinance, 1965 oust the jurisdiction of civil courts when mala fides are alleged against government functionaries?
  • Can a plaint be rejected under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 on the basis of pleas raised in the defence rather than the statements made in the body of the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• DR. S. H. Rahimtoola vs DR. Habiba and Others1983 CLC 2099 · Sindh High Court · 1982-08-07Read full judgment →
• DR. Muhammad Umar Nizami vs The State-1983 P Cr. L J 355 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
• DR. MRS. Noor Bano Alvi vs Settlement and Rehabilitation1983 CLC 905 · Sindh High Court · 1982-12-15Read full judgment →
• DR. Manzur Ahmad vs Ahmad Ali Siddiqui1983 CLC 2072 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-04Read full judgment →
• Dr. Basharat Ali vs Mrs. Ahmadi Begum1983 CLC 2464 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• DR. Abdul Rashid vs Abdul Qayum Kamil1983 CLC 3243 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-15Read full judgment →
• Dosu vs The, State1983 P Cr. LJ 2106 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Dominic Pereira vs MRS. Hameeda Begum1983 CLC 317 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Dolla alias Dara vs Additional Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur and 21983 CLC 952 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
• Dilkusha Enterprises Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Fourth1983 PLC 1229 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-29Read full judgment →
• Dhanjishaw Bahramji Ghadialy and Another vs Abdul Latif1983 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-19
  ex parte decreesufficient causecivil procedurecounsel negligencerestoration of suitOrder IX Rule 13litigant responsibility
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order dismissing an application to set aside an ex parte decree passed in a civil suit. The core legal question was whether the appellants demonstrated "sufficient cause" under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to justify their non-appearance at the hearing. The appellants argued that their counsel’s illness caused him to miss the hearing date, despite it being listed in the cause list. The Court held that the appellants failed to establish sufficient cause. Evidence showed the counsel was present in court for other matters on the same day, undermining the claim of illness-induced absence. The Court affirmed that "sufficient cause" is fact-dependent and not susceptible to a rigid definition. Crucially, the Court laid down the principle that engaging a counsel does not absolve a litigant of the responsibility to diligently prosecute their case. Where a counsel is negligent or lacks professional responsibility, the client cannot automatically shift the burden of that negligence to the opposing party, and the client must bear the consequences of such default.

  Questions settled

  • Does the engagement of a counsel absolve a litigant of the responsibility to diligently prosecute their case?
  • Can a party successfully set aside an ex parte decree based on the negligence of their counsel if the counsel was present in court for other matters on the same day?
  • Is there a hard and fast rule for defining 'sufficient cause' under Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawood vs Abdul Ghani1983 CLC 339 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03
  rent appealsecond appealdefault in payment of rentexercise of discretioncondonation of defaultejectment applicationlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second rent appeal arose from an eviction proceeding initiated by the landlord-respondent under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The Rent Controller and the first Appellate Court granted eviction on the ground of default in payment of rent, finding that the tenant-appellant was a wilful defaulter for a single month's rent (April 1964). The core legal question before the High Court was whether, in a second appeal, the Court could exercise statutory discretion under Section 13 of the Ordinance in favour of the tenant to condone a single month's default, where the lower tribunals had refused to exercise such discretion. The High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction order, holding that where a tenant has committed default for only one month since the inception of tenancy and the landlord failed to prove other grounds of eviction, it constituted a fit case for the exercise of judicial discretion to refuse the order of ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court in second appeal can exercise statutory discretion under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 to condone a default in rent after lower courts refused to do so?
  • Whether a single month's default in payment of rent by a long-term tenant constitutes a fit case for exercising judicial discretion against ordering eviction?
  Read full judgment →
• Dawood H. Chatto vs Qamar Muhammad1983 CLC 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan and 4 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. LJ 2127 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-05Read full judgment →
• Daily "Aftab" Newspaper, Hyderabad vs VI and 2 Others1983 PLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-18Read full judgment →
• Convell Laboratories Ltd. vs M. v. Alexanders' Faith1983 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1983-03-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Wealth Tax (Central). Karachi vs Messrs Paracha1983 PTD 335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-30Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Sales Tax (Central), Karachi vs Messrs Pakistan1983 PTD 117 · Sindh High Court · 1982-09-07Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Incometax, Karachi (West) vs Haji Gulzar & Sons1983 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi(West), Karachi vs Manzoor1983 PTD 291 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-26Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Haji Gulzar & Sons1983 PTD 111 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-21Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) vs Messrs Haji Jethaahoi1983 PTD 30 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Colony Thal Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and 31983 CLC 2738 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-26Read full judgment →
• Col. (Retd.) DR. Wahaj A. Mirza vs The District Judge, Karachi and 21983 CLC 1036 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-20Read full judgment →
• Choudhry Muhammad Afzal vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-26Read full judgment →
• Darshanmal vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 36 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Chief Personnel Officer, Pakistan Railways, Lahore and Another vs Muhammad Ibrahim and 9 Others1983 PLC 1235 · Sindh High Court
  payment of wagesmandatory conditiondeposit of awarded amountlabour court appealconstitutional petitionjoint applicationstatutory compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the order of the Labour Court, which dismissed the petitioners' appeal against an order of the Authority under the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The Authority had directed the petitioners to pay deducted wages and compensation to the respondents. The petitioners appealed this decision but failed to comply with the mandatory proviso to Section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936, which requires the filing of a certificate of deposit of the awarded amount along with the appeal. Although the petitioners claimed to have deposited the funds, they failed to produce the required certificate despite being granted an opportunity by the Labour Court. The High Court held that the Labour Court's dismissal of the appeal for non-compliance with a mandatory statutory condition was legally sound. Furthermore, the Court rejected the petitioners' arguments regarding the maintainability of the joint application, noting that the application was filed under Section 15, not Section 16, and that the objection was overly technical without showing prejudice. The petition was dismissed, affirming that statutory conditions for appeals must be strictly satisfied.

  Questions settled

  • Is the filing of a certificate of deposit a mandatory condition precedent for maintaining an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
  • Can an appellate court dismiss an appeal for failure to produce the required certificate of deposit despite being granted an opportunity to do so?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory provisions of Section 17(1) of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 justify the dismissal of an appeal?
  Read full judgment →
• Channa N Shah vs Settlement Commissioner, Central Cell, Sind,1983 CLC 330 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Chango and 6 Others vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1246 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Chand Badhsah and 23 Others vs Province of Sind and 2 Others1983 CLC 2732 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shah Muhammad vs Wajahat Ali and 6 Others1983 CLC 3013 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-21Read full judgment →
• Ch. Faqir Muhammad vs C. W. Scott1983 PLD Karachi 606 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-30Read full judgment →
• Capt. Hashmat Khan vs MRS. Zohra1983 CLC 3276 · Sindh High Court · 1983-02-09Read full judgment →
• Burshane (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Cantonment Executive Officer, Cantonment Board of Korangi Creek, Karachi and 3 Others1983 PLD Karachi 517 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-15
  octroi dutycantonment boardfiscal statutetax modificationprocedural compliancegas cylinders
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a private limited company engaged in the business of supplying liquefied petroleum gas (L.P.G.), challenged the authority of the Cantonment Board of Korangi Creek to repeatedly levy octroi duty on empty L.P.G. cylinders brought back to its plant for re-filling. The petitioner argued that octroi was payable only upon initial import and that repeated levies on returned cylinders were unlawful. Additionally, the petitioner challenged the validity of the amending notification dated 31-5-1979 on the grounds of non-compliance with the mandatory procedural requirements of sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonments Act, 1924. The High Court of Sindh held that while the process of re-filling empty cylinders constitutes 'use' within the cantonment limits, making them repeatedly liable to octroi under ordinary circumstances, the impugned notification itself was invalid. The Court ruled that the statutory procedures under sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonments Act, 1924, are mandatory for both the initial imposition and any subsequent modification or enhancement of taxes, and failure to comply with them invalidates the levy.

  Questions settled

  • Does the re-filling of empty gas cylinders within cantonment limits constitute 'use' for the purpose of levying octroi duty?
  • Are the procedural requirements under sections 61 and 62 of the Cantonments Act 1924 mandatory for the modification or enhancement of an existing tax?
  • What is the legal effect of a Cantonment Board's failure to publish a notice inviting public objections before revising a tax rate?
  Read full judgment →
• Burma Oils Mills Ltd. vs Amir Ali and 2 Others1983 CLC 1990 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-23Read full judgment →
• Boota vs The State1983 PCr. LJ 2110 · Sindh High Court · 1983-05-01Read full judgment →
• Blackwood Hodge (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Hakimsons (Impex) Ltd.1983 CLC 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-18Read full judgment →
• Begum Ali Al-Hashmi- vs Mst. Amatul Shakoor and Another1983 CLC 762 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-07Read full judgment →
• Bawany Sugar Mills Ltd. vs Market Committee, Badin and Another1983 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06
  market feeagricultural produceadministrative lawdouble taxationwrit petitionstatutory interpretationdelegated legislationquid pro quo
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition challenged the validity of notifications issued under the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, and the subsequent levy of market fees on sugar and sugarcane. The core legal questions concerned the procedural validity of notifications issued under Sections 3 and 4, the legality of appointing an Administrator under Section 25-A in the absence of a pre-existing market committee, and whether the market fee constituted an unauthorized tax or a valid fee for services. The Court held that the notifications were validly issued, as they must be read in conjunction with the initial declaration of intent. It further held that Section 25-A grants emergency powers to the Government to appoint an Administrator even where no market committee previously existed. Regarding the fee, the Court ruled that while the levy is a valid fee for services rendered under the Act, the Market Committee cannot charge fees on both sugarcane and the sugar manufactured therefrom, as this constitutes impermissible double taxation. The judgment establishes that administrative notifications under the Act are valid if they substantially comply with statutory requirements and that double levy on raw and finished products is prohibited.

  Questions settled

  • Can the government appoint an Administrator under Section 25-A of the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939, in the absence of a pre-existing market committee?
  • Is a market fee levied by a market committee considered a tax or a fee for services rendered?
  • Does the levy of market fees on both sugarcane and the sugar manufactured from it constitute impermissible double taxation?
  • Does the Sugar Factories Control Act, 1950, impliedly repeal the West Pakistan Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1939?
  Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmed vs Mst. Zubeda Khatoon1983 CLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-09
  rent restrictionejectmentjurisdictionstatutory interpretationpremises definitionfactory tenancyrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller against the appellant on the ground of default. The core legal question is whether the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 applies to a tenancy involving a saw machine let out with a portion of land, thereby granting the Rent Controller jurisdiction over the matter. The appellant argued that such a composite letting of machinery and land falls outside the scope of the Ordinance. The Court held that the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 does not cover a factory or premises comprising machinery and land. Relying on established precedents regarding the interpretation of similar definitions in the repealed West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, the Court determined that the definitions of 'building', 'land', and 'premises' in the current Ordinance do not encompass a factory. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the ejectment order for lack of jurisdiction. The principle laid down is that the scope of rent control legislation is strictly governed by its statutory definitions, and a preamble cannot expand these definitions to include subjects not explicitly covered by the operative provisions.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 apply to a tenancy involving a saw machine installed on a piece of land?
  • Can a preamble to an enactment control or regulate the main provisions of that enactment?
  • Does the definition of 'premises' under the Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1979 include a factory?
  • Can a question of jurisdiction be agitated at the appellate stage if it involves no investigation of facts?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat All Khan and Another vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation1983 PLD Karachi 453 · Sindh High Court · 1983-12-22
  Fatal Accidents Actnegligenceduty of careelectrocutionvicarious liabilitycompensationutility provider liability
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, by the parents of a deceased individual seeking compensation following his death by electrocution. The core legal questions concerned whether the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (K.E.S.C.) was negligent in maintaining its electric wires and whether it failed to take necessary precautionary measures after being notified of a broken live wire. The court held that the K.E.S.C. failed to discharge its duty of care to the public, as it provided no evidence regarding maintenance or protective measures. The court found that the accident could have been avoided had the K.E.S.C. acted promptly upon receiving the complaint. Consequently, the court held the defendants liable for the death. The key principle laid down is that a utility provider, such as an electric supply company, bears a strict obligation to maintain its infrastructure and implement safety measures to prevent live wires from posing hazards to the public; failure to provide evidence of such maintenance creates a presumption of negligence.

  Questions settled

  • Is an electric supply company liable for damages if it fails to maintain its wires and prevent them from remaining live after breaking?
  • Does the burden of proof regarding the maintenance of electric infrastructure lie with the utility provider?
  • Can a court award compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, based on a reasonable estimate of financial support the deceased would have provided to his parents?
  • Are defendants jointly and severally liable for compensation in a fatal accident case involving negligence?
  Read full judgment →
• Bahadur Yar Jang Co-Operative Housing " Society Ltd.-Pettitioner vs1983 CLC 2773 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-01Read full judgment →
• Badruddin vs Azizur Rehman1983 CLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-30Read full judgment →
• Bachu vs The State-Opponent1983 P Cr. L J 1417 · Sindh High Court · 1983-01-25Read full judgment →
• Bachal vs The State1983 P Cr. L J 1780 · Sindh High Court · 1983-04-16Read full judgment →
• Azmat Wali vs Hassan Aladawi and 2 Others1983 CLC 546 · Sindh High Court · 1982-11-17
  summary suitpromissory noteleave to defendconditional leavecollateral securitycancellation of adhesive stampsnegotiable instruments
  Summary & questions settled

  This summary covers a summary proceeding under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs. 3,00,000 based on a demand promissory note. The defendants filed applications seeking unconditional leave to defend the suit, asserting that an endorsement on the carbon copy of the promissory note tied it to a share sale agreement dated 27-10-1980, making the note subject to counter-obligations, conditional, invalid under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881, and lacking consideration due to share cancellation. The Sindh High Court held that while the carbon copy's endorsement entitled defendants to refer to the underlying agreement, the original promissory note contained an unconditional undertaking. Analyzing the defence, the Court held that the defendants had taken full control of the company, audited accounts beforehand, and unilaterally cancelled the shares to avoid liability. Finding the defence unsatisfactory and lacking bona fides rather than plausible, the Court granted conditional leave to defend subject to furnishing security for the full claim amount.

  Questions settled

  • Does an endorsement on the carbon copy of a promissory note rendering it subject to an agreement invalidate the original promissory note under Section 4 of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881?
  • Under what circumstances is a defendant entitled to unconditional leave to defend versus conditional leave to defend in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be maintained by a single payee named in a promissory note where the underlying contract involved multiple vendors?
  Read full judgment →