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.

• Ziarat Khan vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1038 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmad vs Mehdi Hasan1982 CLC 623 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
• Zafaryab Ali Khan vs Mst. Afsar Begum1982 CLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another1982 CLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and Another,1982 CLC 760 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-21Read full judgment →
• Zafar Ahmed and Another vs Muhammad Hussain1982 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
• Z. A. Wasti vs Post Master General, Southern Circle and Another1982 PLC (C. S.) 575 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• Younus vs MRS.Hameeda1982 CLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22
  ejectmentstatutory noticepersonal bona fide needwidow landlordmaturity of cause of actionrent proceedingssubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from rent proceedings where the appellants challenged an ejectment order passed in favor of the respondent-widow under section 14 of the relevant rent restriction law, on the grounds that the ejectment application was filed before the expiry of the statutory two months' notice period. The core legal question was whether filing an ejectment petition prematurely before the expiry of the notice period under section 14 renders the proceedings incompetent, or if the defect is cured when the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that although the petition was filed prematurely, the cause of action matured during the pendency of the proceedings before the ejectment order was passed, and technical objections regarding notice cannot be raised for the first time at the appellate stage without showing material prejudice. The court laid down the principle that the requirement of substantial compliance applies to summary ejectment provisions for special categories of landlords, and courts may take note of events occurring during proceedings to mould relief and prevent multiplicity of litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Does filing an ejectment application before the expiry of the statutory two months' notice period under section 14 invalidate the proceedings if the cause of action matures during their pendency?
  • Can a tenant raise an objection as to the validity of a statutory notice for the first time at the appellate stage?
  • Is a landlord seeking ejectment under section 14 required to prove good faith in addition to personal requirement?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 739 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
• Wazi R vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 81 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• Wassayo and 3 Others vs The State-Opponent1982 P Cr. L J 97 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
• Waqar Hussain and Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1015 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-01Read full judgment →
• WAPDA vs Asghar Ali1982 CLC 2395 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-24Read full judgment →
• Wall Ahmed Khan vs Government of Sind and 6 Others1982 PLC (C. S.) 1 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Yousuf and 3 Other1982 CLC 85 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-26Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 798 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-07Read full judgment →
• Wali Dad Khan vs District Magistrate & Tribunal (South), Karachi and Another1982 P Cr. L J 264 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-06Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux Soomro vs Ghulam Muhammad Baloch1982 CLC 1436 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
• Universal Business Equipment Ltd. vs Messrs Shaheen Foundation and Another1982 CLC 1095 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Rent Controller, Karachi and 2 Others1982 CLC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Rent Controller, Karachi and 2 Other1982 CLC 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs Business Investment Ltd. and 3 Others1982 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd vs Business Investment Ltd. and 3 Other1982 CLC 1101 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• United Bank Limited vs Ahmed Spinning Mills Limited1982 CLC 1653 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Ulfat Hameed vs Mst. Birjis Khatoon1982 PLD Karachi 823 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-03
  ejectmentcommercial buildingwidow landlordsummary remedyrent controllernotice validitypersonal use
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 challenged an order of ejectment passed by the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Ordinance, directing the appellant to vacate a shop premises. The respondent, a widow, had served a notice seeking personal use of the premises, which the appellant failed to vacate. The core legal questions involved whether section 14 applies to commercial buildings, the validity of a notice with a discrepancy in the shop number, the interpretation of occupation of another building under subsection (2) of section 14, and whether the Rent Controller is required to inquire into the genuineness of the landlord's personal need. The court held that section 14 applies to both residential and commercial buildings, minor discrepancies in shop numbers in notices do not invalidate proceedings absent prejudice, 'occupation' under section 14(2) requires actual physical occupation, and the Rent Controller cannot inquire into the bona fides or genuineness of a landlord's need under section 14. The appeal was consequently dismissed with an allowance of four months to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 apply to non-residential or commercial buildings?
  • Whether a minor discrepancy in the shop number mentioned in a notice under section 14 renders the notice invalid?
  • What constitutes occupation of another building under subsection (2) of section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to inquire into the genuineness or bona fides of a landlord's need in proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  Read full judgment →
• Twaha vs The Master M. V. `Asian Queen' and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 749 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-27
  admiralty jurisdictionship mortgagepriorities of maritime claimscrew wagesarrest of shipaction in rem versus in personamsale proceeds distribution
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses various objections concerning the distribution of sale proceeds of the arrested ship m. v. 'ASIAN QUEEN' among multiple decree-holders in various admiralty suits. The core legal questions involved the validity and registration requirements of a ship mortgage under the Admiralty Court Acts, the maintainability of a mortgage suit when the ship was not under arrest at the initial filing, the entitlement of foreign decrees in personam to participate in the sale proceeds of a ship sold in rem, and the proper order of priorities among crew wages, master's wages and disbursements, mortgages, and necessaries. The court held that the mortgage was validly registered under the Merchant Shipping Act, 1894, that technical defects regarding the timing of the ship's arrest do not vitiate the suit's maintainability when jurisdiction is subsequently acquired, that decrees in personam cannot participate in the proceeds of an action in rem, and that British practice regarding priorities should be applied as a rule of justice, equity, and good conscience in the absence of local rules.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mortgage suit under the Admiralty Court Act 1840 is maintainable if the ship was not under arrest at the exact time of filing the suit?
  • Do foreign decrees passed in personam against shipowners entitle the decree-holders to participate in the sale proceeds of a vessel sold pursuant to an action in rem?
  • Whether subsistence allowance claimed by crew members constitutes wages earned on board the ship under section 10 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861?
  • How are priorities of claims determined against the sale proceeds of a ship in the absence of local admiralty rules?
  Read full judgment →
• The Kakachi Club vs Director General, Excise & Taxation and 3 Other1982 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
• The Executive Engineer, Lined Channel Division vs Messrs Awan1982 CLC 2335 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• The Eastern Federal Union Insurance Co. Ltd vs Central Board of Revenue and Another1982 CLC 2316 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (Investigation) vs Messrs Jan1982 PLD Karachi 911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• Textile Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, VI, Hyderabad (Sind) and Another1982 PLC 22 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tamizul Haque and 5 Others vs Singer Sewing Machine Co.1982 CLC 1778 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Talat Fatima Mahmood and Others vs Federation of Pakistan and Or1982 CLC 2365 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs DR. Abdul Kadir and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 780 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-03Read full judgment →
• Syed Wazir Ali Shah vs Ghulam Rabbani and 13 Other1982 CLC 859 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Wazir Ali Shah vs Ghulam Rabbani and 13 Othbrs1982 CLC 859 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Shahid Hassan vs Mrs. Zeenat Farijqi and Another1982 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
• Syed Saifuddin Shah vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Roshan Ali Shah and Another vs Fishermen's Co-Operative1982 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Roshan Ali Shah and Another vs FISHERMEN's Co Operative1982 CLC 1137 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Qamar Hayat Naqvi vs Co-Ordinator, Landhi Korangi Zonal1982 PLC (C. S.) 85 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Murtaza Hussain (Represented by Legal Hfirs) vs Dep Uty1982 CLC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Murtaza Hussain (Represented by Legal Heirs) vs Deputy1982 CLC 1150 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Iqbal vs Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan1982 PLC (C. S.) 594 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Mehtab Hussain Rizvi vs Syed Zafir Ahmad1982 CLC 606 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Mahmud Hussain and Another vs The Islamic Republic of Pakistan1982 CLC 1385 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-26Read full judgment →
• Syed Khursheed Zaman vs Ghulam Hussain and 2 Other1982 CLC 650 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
• Syed Jamil Hussain vs Government of Sind and 4 Others1982 CLC 2092 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Syed Jalilur Rehman Etc. vs Messrs Johar Trading Co1982 CLC 219 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-06
  rent restrictiondefault in rentwilful defaultejectmentlandlord and tenantdiscretion of Rent Controllersecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by the landlord against the tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on grounds of default in rent payment, unauthorized subletting, and conversion of premises. The Rent Controller ordered eviction, finding that the tenant had committed a wilful default of ten months, which could not be cured by subsequent deposits in court. The Additional District Judge reversed this, finding that the tenant had deposited rent in court prior to the filing of the application and that the landlord had actively avoided receiving rent to manufacture grounds for eviction. The High Court upheld the appellate decision, holding that while a technical default occurred under the Ordinance, the Rent Controller possesses the discretion to condone such default if it is not found to be wilful. The Court affirmed that where the landlord avoids accepting rent, the tenant's subsequent deposit in court negates the 'wilful' nature of the default. Consequently, the appellate court's exercise of discretion to refuse ejectment was upheld, as it was neither arbitrary nor capricious.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller exercise discretion to condone a technical default in rent payment if the default is not found to be wilful?
  • Does the deposit of rent in court by a tenant, after a period of arrears but before the filing of an ejectment application, automatically negate the existence of a default?
  • Is a finding by an appellate court regarding the non-wilful nature of a rent default subject to interference in a second appeal if the discretion was exercised reasonably?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Inam Ahmad vs Mst. Nurunnisa Mirza1982 PLD Karachi 763 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-09Read full judgment →
• Talat Fatima Mahmood and Others vs Federation of Pakistan and Others1982 CLC 2365 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Idris Mirza vs K. F. Developmentcorporation Limited and Othbrs1982 CLC 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Hassan Idris Mirza vs K. F. Developm Ent Corporation Limited and Others1982 CLC 2198 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah and 2 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and 4 Others1982 CLC 1472 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Nabi Shah and 2 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and 4 Other1982 CLC 1472 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-17Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Muhammad Shah Etc. vs The United Bank Ltd.1982 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Muhammad Shah Etc. vs The United Bank Ltd1982 CLC 1898 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Syed Fateh Ali Haderi vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 121982 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-14Read full judgment →
• Syed Fateh Ali Haderi vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 12 Other1982 CLC 1794 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Fariduddin Hyder vs Member, Federal Land Commission and Others1982 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Fariduddin Hy Der vs Member, Federal Land Commission and Other1982 CLC 1942 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Arshad Hussain vs The Government of Sind and 38 Other1982 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-30
  quo warrantomunicipal electionsdelimitation of constituenciesreturning officermunicipal corporationconstitutional petitionlaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the validity of municipal elections held in Sukkur and the subsequent conversion of the Municipal Committee into a Municipal Corporation. The petitioner, a voter, alleged that the elections were void due to the failure to publish the final delimitation of constituencies in the official Gazette before the polls and because the elections were conducted by an improperly notified Returning Officer. Furthermore, the petitioner contested the legality of the existing office-bearers continuing as Mayor and Deputy Mayor of the newly constituted Corporation without fresh elections. The Court held that the petition was maintainable as a quo warranto proceeding. On the merits, the Court ruled that the publication of the final delimitation list through display at public offices and other means, necessitated by urgency, satisfied the legal requirements. It further held that procedural irregularities in notifying the appointment of Returning Officers did not invalidate the election absent proof of material prejudice. Finally, the Court affirmed that the conversion of a municipality into a corporation does not mandate fresh elections, as existing office-bearers naturally transition to their new designations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to publish a final delimitation list in the official Gazette before an election render the election void?
  • Can an election be invalidated due to procedural irregularities in the notification of a Returning Officer's appointment?
  • Does the conversion of a Municipal Committee into a Municipal Corporation necessitate holding fresh elections?
  • Is delay a sufficient ground to dismiss a petition in the nature of quo warranto?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Abdul Rasheed vs Mst. Tajunnisa1982 CLC 954 · Sindh High Court · 1982-10-25
  second appealejectmentdefault in rentbona fide personal usemisreading of evidenceconcurrent findingssale of property pending appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent decisions of the lower courts ordering the appellant-tenant's ejectment on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide use by the respondent-landlord. The core legal question concerned whether the lower courts misread and misappreciated the evidence regarding the alleged default and the landlord's personal need, particularly where the landlord failed to enter the witness box and subsequently sold the property pending appeal. The Sindh High Court held that the lower courts misread the evidence, as the tenant had been depositing rent in court and the landlord's attorney lacked personal knowledge of the earlier period, while the ground of personal need ceased to exist upon the sale of the property. The court set aside the ejectment orders, establishing that concurrent findings based on misread evidence cannot be sustained and that a bona fide personal need claim abates when the disputed property is sold during litigation.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be interfered with in second appeal if they are based on a misreading of evidence?
  • Does the ground of personal and bona fide use for ejectment cease to exist if the landlord sells the property during the pendency of an appeal?
  • What is the evidentiary value of testimony given by an attorney who lacks personal knowledge of the material facts when the principal fails to enter the witness box?
  Read full judgment →
• Suwali vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 808 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21
  criminal appealmurdertorchlight identificationballistic reportbenefit of doubtevidentiary valuecircumstantial evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of the deceased. The core legal questions concerned the reliability of ocular evidence based on torchlight identification in pitch darkness, the evidentiary value of a ballistic report submitted after a significant delay, and whether the prosecution successfully established guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Court held that the conviction could not be sustained. It established the principle that torchlight identification in darkness is inherently suspicious and requires independent corroboration to be credible. Furthermore, the Court ruled that substantial, unexplained delays in transmitting incriminating articles, such as crime empties and weapons, to a ballistic expert deprive the resulting report of its evidentiary value. Additionally, the Court noted that unexplained prior incidents occurring near the scene of the crime cast doubt on the prosecution's version of events. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction, emphasizing that the benefit of any doubt must be extended to the accused, leading to the appellant's acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of an accused by torchlight in pitch darkness sufficient for conviction without independent corroboration?
  • Does a significant, unexplained delay in sending crime empties and a weapon to a ballistic expert render the expert's report unreliable?
  • Should the benefit of doubt be extended to an accused when the prosecution fails to explain suspicious circumstances surrounding the crime scene?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Mawjee and Other vs Federation of Pakistan Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Karachi and 3 Other1982 PLD Karachi 889 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-27Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs Kazi Muhammad Mian (Represented by Heirs) and Another1982 CLC 1071 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs Kali Muhammad Mian (Represented by Heirs) and Another1982 CLC 1071 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-15Read full judgment →
• Suhrab vs District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and 4 Others1982 CLC 725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
• Suhrab vs District & Sessions Judge, Hyderabad and 4 Other1982 CLC 725 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-24Read full judgment →
• Sugnomal vs Zille Abbas1982 CLC 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• Su Gnomal vs Zille Abbas1982 CLC 2305 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-02Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Saleh Sono and Another.1982 P Cr. L J 937 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• State vs Allah Bachayo1982 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
• State vs Abdul Fattah and Another1982 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporationof Pakistan vs Nasim Ahmad and Another1982 CLC 1993 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Nasim Ahmad and Another1982 CLC 1993 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan vs Kausar Jehan1982 CLC 1658 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-14Read full judgment →
• State and Another vs Karimdino and 12 Others1982 P Cr. L J 1325 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-18Read full judgment →
• Sobho and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-18Read full judgment →
• Smt. Sundri Bai vs Ghulam Hussain1982 CLC 2441 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline & French of Pakistan Ltd. vs Abdul Rashid Pai and Others1982 PLC 580 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sky Rooms Ltd., Karachi vs Assistant Collector of Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi1982 PLD Karachi 244 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-04
  constitutional petitioncentral excise dutyconcessional raterate structurehotel room chargesalternate remedytax assessment
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged an order passed by the Assistant Collector of Customs confirming a demand for central excise duty and additional duty against a hotel operated as a subsidiary of the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation. The core legal question was whether differential room rates and discounts offered to specific categories of customers, such as airline crew and long-term guests, constituted 'concessional rates' under section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944, attracting excise duty based on normal unreduced rates. The court held that different rates fixed for distinct classes of customers or categories of stay do not amount to 'concessions' unless a favour or reduction is granted to customers within the exact same class. The key principle laid down is that a concessional rate imports a reduction or rebate from a fixed price for a specific class, whereas a legitimate differential rate structure applied across different classes of customers in trade and commerce does not attract penal assessment under excise law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a constitutional petition is maintainable despite the existence of an alternate remedy of appeal when the appellate authority has already prejudged the matter?
  • Do differential room rates charged to different classes of hotel customers constitute concessional rates under section 4(3)(a) of the Central Excise and Salt Act, 1944?
  • What constitutes a concessional rate or rebate in the context of trade and commerce for the assessment of central excise duty?
  Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs Lark Ana Municipal Committee1982 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-28Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs Laizkana Municipal Committee1982 CLC 1979 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-28Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin and Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1982 P Cr. L J 860 · Sindh High Court · 1982-07-01Read full judgment →
• Sind Madrasatul Islam Board Society vs Shamim1982 CLC 2242 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sind Madrasatul Islam Board Society vs Sham Im1982 CLC 2242. · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-17Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachis vs Social1982 CLC 939 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi vs Social Security1982 CLC 939 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Silva Industries Ltd.1982 PLC 1062 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-02
  social security contributioncanteen allowancepenal increasedefaultinterpretation of statuteword failarrearsWest Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment of the Sind Social Security Court No. 1, Karachi, which partly allowed an appeal against the assessment of arrears of social security contribution and a 50% increase thereon regarding canteen allowance and Eidi. The core legal question was whether the imposition of a statutory increase for unpaid contributions under section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is automatic, or whether it requires inexcusable neglect, default, or omission by the employer, particularly when non-payment resulted from a clarification letter issued by the institution's Director. The Sindh High Court held that the word 'fail' in section 23 implies an inexcusable neglect or omission by the employer and does not apply where non-payment is attributable to an act, omission, or representation of the institution itself. The court laid down the principle that a penal increase for delayed contributions cannot be levied if the employer's failure to pay on the due date was induced by the institution's own conflicting clearance or clarification relied upon by the employer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employer is automatically liable to pay a penal increase on delayed social security contributions under section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, regardless of the reason for non-payment?
  • Does the word 'fail' in section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 require inexcusable neglect or omission on the part of the employer to attract the penalty?
  • Can an employer be held liable for a statutory increase on unpaid contributions when the non-payment resulted from a clarification or representation issued by the institution itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs R. C. D. Ball Bearing Ltd.1982 PLD Karachi 829 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Lipton (Pakistan) Ltd.1982 PLC (C. S.) 674 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-13Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Ali vs Selection Board, Liaquat Medical College, Jamshoro1982 CLC 2658 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-31Read full judgment →
• Siddiq and 23 Other vs The Deputy Commissioner, East, Karachi and Another1982 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
• Shri Mahant Bawa Manobhagir Mangalgir vs Divisional Evacuee Trust1982 CLC 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• Shershah Industries Ltd. vs The Government of Sind and 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-18
  octroi dutyconstitutional petitionship breaking industryalternative remedywrit jurisdictionprovincial legislative competencead valorem taxmunicipal limits
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition, along with 129 connected matters, challenged the demand by the Karachi Municipal Corporation (KMC) for octroi duty at 2% ad valorem on vessels imported for scrapping. The petitioners argued that the vessels were dismantled at Gadani, Baluchistan, outside KMC limits, and thus not subject to octroi for "consumption, use or sale" within Karachi. The KMC contended that the vessels entered its limits, triggering the tax liability. The Court addressed preliminary objections regarding the maintainability of writ petitions where alternative remedies exist and where disputed questions of fact arise. The Court held that while ordinarily alternative remedies should be exhausted, the constitutional jurisdiction remains available where the impugned order is challenged as being without jurisdiction or where the alternative remedy is not efficacious. On merits, the Court ruled that since the vessels were imported for scrapping and were dismantled outside the KMC limits, they were not "consumed" within the municipality. Consequently, the demand for ad valorem octroi on the vessels was declared without lawful authority, though the petitioners remained liable for octroi on the scrap brought into Karachi by road.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition when an alternative statutory remedy is available?
  • Does the levy of octroi on goods imported by sea into a municipality constitute an encroachment on the Federal legislative field of customs duties?
  • Is octroi leviable on a vessel imported for scrapping if the scrapping occurs outside the municipal octroi limits?
  • Does the High Court have the discretion to entertain a writ petition despite the existence of disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Ali vs Abdul Kader1982 CLC 2029 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-27Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Hameed vs Hifazat Hussain Jafri1982 CLC 744 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
• Sharbat and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-13Read full judgment →
• Shamsur Rehman and Another vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No, 1, Karachi and 19 Others1982 PLC 742 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21
  trade unionchange of officersRegistrar of Trade UnionsLabour Courtindustrial relationsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of three constitutional petitions involving a common question of law regarding the interpretation of Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether an appeal or application to the Labour Court under Section 8(7) is maintainable only against the Registrar's refusal to register a change of trade union officers under Section 8(5), or whether it also lies when the Registrar registers a disputed change of officers. The Sindh High Court held that Section 8(7) provides two distinct remedies: one in the case of a dispute regarding the change of officers, and another in the case of an appeal against the Registrar's refusal under subsection (5). The court ruled that the dispute does not cease to exist merely because the Registrar has registered the change, and replaced office-bearers or members can challenge it. The petitions were allowed, setting aside the Labour Court's orders and directing it to decide the appeals on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Does an appeal to the Labour Court under Section 8(7) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, lie against the registration of a change of trade union officers by the Registrar, or only against the refusal to register such change?
  • Does a dispute regarding the change of trade union officers cease to exist as soon as the Registrar registers the change under Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • What is the scope of the Registrar's power when examining a change of trade union officers under Section 8 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →