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.

• Shamsuddin vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 271 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin vs Imamuddin1982 PLD Karachi 327 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-05Read full judgment →
• Shams Textile Mills Ltd., Lahore vs Federation of Pakistan and Other1982 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-06Read full judgment →
• Shameem Ahmed Choudhry vs Musharaf Ali Khan1982 C LC 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shameem Ahmed Choudhri vs Musharaf Ali Khan1982 CLC 2284 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Shambhumal Hiranand & Co. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (West), Karachi46 TAX 120 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Shaikh Shafaul Haque vs Qaiser Shikoh Jafri1982 CLC 722 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-02Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad SIDDIQUE'parwaz vs Inayat Ali and Another1982 CLC 2055 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Muhammad Siddique Par Waz vs Inayat Ali and Anothers1982 CLC 2055 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-16Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Haider vs Government of Sind and 4 Other1982 PLD Karachi 336 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Fazal Din vs Haji Noor Muhammad1982 CLC 2595 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Fazal Din vs Haji Moor Muhammad1982 CLC 2595 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-01Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Aziz vs Sardar Muhammad Roshan1982 CLC 2598 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Abdul Shakoor vs Shaikh Abdul Kadir1982 CLC 707 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• Shaikh ,Aziz vs Sardar Muhammad Roshan1982 CLC 2598 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
• Shahid Hussain vs Muhammad Ziauddin Khan1982, CLC 2648 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-27Read full judgment →
• Shah Nawaz and 2 Other vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 281 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-26Read full judgment →
• Shafaat Ali vs S. H. O., Saddar Police Station, Karachi1982 P Cr. L J 703 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Khan vs Amir Bux and 5 Others1982 CLC 2583 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-05Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Khan vs Amir Bux and 5 Other1982 CLC 2583 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Sargodha Central Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another vs New1982 PLD Karachi 627 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-07
  insurance contractlimitation periodsuppression of material factsbenami transactioncontractual liabilityappellate procedurecross-objections
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for an insurance claim, primarily on the grounds that the suit was time-barred under the insurance policy's terms and that the insured had suppressed material facts. The core legal question was whether a clause in an insurance contract limiting the insurer's liability to a period shorter than the statutory limitation period violates Sections 23 and 28 of the Contract Act 1872. The Court held that such a clause is valid and enforceable, distinguishing between a clause that restricts the time to file a suit (which is void) and a clause that limits the duration of the insurer's liability (which is permissible). Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the suppression of material facts regarding the true owner's substantial interest in the insured business justified the repudiation of the policy. Additionally, the Court clarified that under Order XLI, Rule 22 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, a respondent may support a decree on grounds decided against them without filing a cross-appeal. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a clause in an insurance policy limiting the insurer's liability to a period shorter than the statutory limitation period violate Section 28 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a respondent support a decree on grounds decided against them in the trial court without filing a cross-appeal?
  • Does the suppression of material facts regarding the true ownership or interest in an insured business entitle an insurer to repudiate liability?
  • Is there a legal distinction between a clause that restricts the time to file a suit and a clause that limits the duration of liability for the purpose of the Contract Act 1872?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Shakoor Khan vs Pakistan Etc.1982 CLC 1891 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar M. Shakoor Khan vs Pakistan Etc1982 CLC 1891 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-13Read full judgment →
• Sardar Ali Khan vs The Election Tribunal_District Judge, Khairpur and Another1982 CLC 276 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Sanyal Shah vs Asghar Ali and Other1982 PLD Karachi 276 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31
  constitutional petitionpermanent transfer deedfunctus officiosettlement authoritiesdisplaced personsproperty transfer
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the Additional Settlement Commissioner and Settlement Commissioner altering property areas after permanent transfer deeds (P.T.Ds.) had been issued. The core legal question is whether settlement authorities retain jurisdiction to alter, amend, or set aside a permanent transfer deed and vary property areas after title has passed, in the absence of fraud or misrepresentation. The court holds that once a P.T.D. is issued, the settlement authorities become functus officio and cannot invoke revisional powers to substantially vary property descriptions or areas unless fraud or misrepresentation is alleged and established in accordance with the applicable rules. The petition is allowed and the impugned orders are set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Do settlement authorities become functus officio after the issuance of a permanent transfer deed?
  • Can settlement authorities alter or amend a permanent transfer deed and vary property areas without allegations of fraud or misrepresentation?
  • Whether revisional powers under section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 can be invoked to set aside a completed transfer after the deletion of rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Industries Limited vs Messrs Burhani Trading Co. and Another1982 CLC 973 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-24
  stay of suitres judicataconcurrent jurisdictionpecuniary jurisdictiontransfer of suitcivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application arises from an order passed by the Senior Civil Judge staying the applicant's subsequent suit for recovery of Rs. 20,450 pending the disposal of an earlier suit for Rs. 3,550 in the Small Causes Court, both involving a breach of the same contract. The core legal question was whether Section 10 of the Civil Procedure Code applies to stay a subsequent suit when the previously instituted suit is pending in a court lacking pecuniary jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit. The Sindh High Court held that the provisions of Section 10 are inapplicable because the Small Causes Court does not possess concurrent jurisdiction and its decision would not operate as res judicata. Consequently, the court set aside the stay order, but in the interest of justice and to avoid conflicting decisions, it exercised its powers under Section 24 of the Code to transfer the earlier suit to the court of the Senior Civil Judge for both suits to be tried together. The key principle laid down is that for Section 10 C.P.C. to apply, the court in which the previous suit is pending must be competent to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applies when the previously instituted suit is pending in a court that lacks jurisdiction to grant the relief claimed in the subsequent suit?
  • Does a decision rendered by a Small Causes Court operate as res judicata in a subsequent suit exceeding its pecuniary jurisdiction?
  • Can a subsequent suit be stayed under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the strict conditions of Section 10 are not met?
  • Does a High Court have the power under Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to transfer a previously instituted suit to another court to be tried together with a subsequent suit arising from the same contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Foot-Wear vs Abdul Hakim and Another1982 CLC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Salim Foot Wear vs Abdul Hakim and Another.1982 CLC 1406 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Saleh vs Superintendent, Central Prison, Hyderabad1982 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26
  section 382-B CrPCundertrial detentionadjustment of sentenceinherent powersreview of judgmentconstitutional petitioncriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment by the Sindh High Court addresses a series of miscellaneous applications, criminal appeals, confirmation cases, and writ petitions concerning the grant of the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which provides for the adjustment of the period of detention as an undertrial prisoner against the substantive sentence of imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether section 382-B is procedural or substantive, whether a disposed-of criminal case can be reviewed under section 561-A to grant this benefit despite the bar under section 369, and whether a constitutional petition is competent against jail authorities for its enforcement without a court order. The court held that section 382-B is a procedural provision operating retrospectively, that the High Court possesses inherent powers under section 561-A to entertain miscellaneous applications for granting this benefit in already disposed-of cases without violating section 369, and that a writ petition is not maintainable against jail authorities in the absence of a specific court order under section 382-B. The key principles laid down relate to the retroactive procedural nature of sentence-computation provisions and the procedural mechanism for claiming undertrial detention credit via inherent powers.

  Questions settled

  • Is section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a procedural provision having retrospective effect?
  • Can the High Court entertain a miscellaneous application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to grant the benefit of section 382-B in a case already disposed of, notwithstanding the bar contained in section 369?
  • Will a lesser sentence awarded by a court create a presumption that the benefit of section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 has already been taken into consideration?
  • Is a constitutional petition competent against jail authorities or the Home Secretary for the enforcement of section 382-B in the absence of an order from a competent court of law?
  Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs The State and 3 Others1982 P Cr. L J 731 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-27Read full judgment →
• Sajandass vs The State and Another1982 PLD Karachi 600 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-02Read full judgment →
• Saffar and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 826 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Sabhago vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1318 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-30Read full judgment →
• Saad Muhammad Shaheen Al-Soofi and 8 Others vs Principal &1982 CLC 805 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saad Muhammad Shaheen Al Soofi and 8 Others vs Principal &1982 CLC 805 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. M. Zahoor Ali Zaidi vs Mst. Kareemunnisa. Jillani1982 CLC 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• S. M. Zahoor Ali Zaidi vs Mst. Aareemunnisa Jillani1982 CLC 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-03Read full judgment →
• S. M. Akil Fikree vs Muhammad Qamaruz Zaman1982 PLD Karachi 745 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-26
  summary suitleave to defendstay of suitpreviously instituted suitinterlocutory applicationOrder XXXVII C.P.C.Section 10 C.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was filed by the plaintiff under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for recovery of Rs. 3 lacs on a dishonoured cheque. The defendant filed an application under Order XXXVII Rule 3 for leave to appear and defend, while simultaneously seeking stay of the suit under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that his previously instituted suit concerning the same subject-matter was pending. The primary legal issue before the Sindh High Court was whether an application under Section 10 C.P.C. for stay of a summary suit can be entertained and decided before the defendant is granted leave to appear and defend under Order XXXVII. The Court held that Order XXXVII Rule 2(2) C.P.C. places a mandatory statutory bar preventing the defendant from appearing or taking any step in the suit without first obtaining leave. Consequently, a defendant cannot move an interlocutory application under Section 10 C.P.C. prior to obtaining leave to defend. Consideration of the Section 10 application was deferred until the application for leave to defend was decided.

  Questions settled

  • Can an application under Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be decided in a summary suit before leave to defend is granted under Order XXXVII?
  • Does the mandatory bar under Order XXXVII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 prevent a defendant from filing interlocutory applications prior to obtaining leave to appear and defend?
  • Does Section 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 oust the jurisdiction of the court to entertain a subsequently instituted suit?
  Read full judgment →
• S. J. Shah vs S. M. Alam1982 CLC 622 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-01Read full judgment →
• S. Alamdar Hussain Kazmi vs DR. Shareefuddin Ahmed1982 CLC 935 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• Rifat Ahmad Mirza vs Mst. Tanweer Ara Jafri1982 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
• Riasat Ali vs Mst. Shamshadi Begum1982 CLC 1967 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-28Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Sons Ltd. vs Saeed Tourist Enterprisers and 4 Others1982 CLC 2667 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Sons Ltd. vs Saeed Tourist Enterprisers and 4 Other1982 CLC 2667 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-11Read full judgment →
• Rehmat Ali vs The Security Papers Ltd. and Another1982 PLD Karachi 913 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10
  workmansecurity guardshift jamadarburden of proofmanual workdomestic inquiryreinstatementlabour dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This common judgment of the Sindh High Court addresses two constitutional petitions concerning whether a Security Guard and a Shift Jamadar qualify as 'workmen' under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. In both cases, the employers had initiated disciplinary actions, issued charge-sheets, and terminated services under the provisions of the Ordinance, but subsequently argued before the labour tribunals that the employees were not 'workmen'. The High Court held that the terms 'manual' and 'work' in Section 2(i) must be construed broadly to cover any person performing manual work as part of their duties, provided they belong to the labour class, regardless of the quantum of such work. Crucially, the Court laid down that where an employer takes disciplinary action against an employee under the Ordinance, the burden of proof shifts to the employer to establish that the employee is not a 'workman'. Consequently, the Court allowed both petitions, set aside the impugned orders of the Appellate Tribunal, and remanded the matters for decision on the merits and the nature of duties.

  Questions settled

  • Does a security guard or chowkidar who performs manual duties such as physical searching qualify as a workman under Section 2(i) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does the burden of proof shift to the employer to show that an employee is not a workman if the employer has previously proceeded against that employee under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does the quantum of manual work performed by a member of the labour class affect their status as a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Rashid Khalid vs Ibrahim Baig1982 CLC 375 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22Read full judgment →
• Rashid Ahmed vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and Another,1982 PLC 43 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-20Read full judgment →
• Rana Usman Ali and Another vs National Bank of Pakistan and Another1982 CLC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-22Read full judgment →
• Rana Usman Ali and Another vs National Bank Oe Pakistan and Another1982 CLC 1234 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-22Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs Mst. Safooran1982 CLC 1167 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-24Read full judgment →
• Ramzan and Other vs The, State Sohbat and ANOTHERs Penal Code (XI.v1982 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Qurban Ali S vs Punhoon and 2 OTHERSs1982 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31
  criminal revisioncognizance of offenceCourt of Session jurisdictionsummoning co-accusedpolice reportLaw Reforms Ordinance 1972Column No. 2
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenged an order by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, who refused to summon a person (Mst. Mehrun Nisa) as a co-accused in a murder trial, despite her name appearing in Column No. 2 of the police report. The trial judge had declined to act, reasoning that no prior inquiry had been conducted against her by a Magistrate. The core legal question was whether a Court of Session, after the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, possesses the jurisdiction to summon a person as an accused if they were placed in Column No. 2 of the police report. The High Court held that the Court of Session, upon receiving a case from a Magistrate, becomes seized of the entire criminal transaction. Consequently, it has the authority to summon any person implicated in the offence, regardless of their exclusion by the police. The court established the principle that the Court of Session is not bound by the police report and may exercise its jurisdiction to implead additional accused persons based on the material before it.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Court of Session have the jurisdiction to summon a person as an accused if their name was placed in Column No. 2 of the police report?
  • Is a Court of Session bound by the police's opinion in a report submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the Court of Session become seized of the entire criminal transaction upon receiving a case from a Magistrate under Section 190(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the requirement to inform an accused of their right to have a case tried by another court apply to proceedings in the Court of Session?
  Read full judgment →
• Quality Steel Works LTC. vs Registrar, Trade Unions1982 PLC 564 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-29Read full judgment →
• Qazi Jamiluddin vs Mst. Mushaida Khatoon1982 CLC 922 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux Haji Nathu Khan & Co. vs Mst. Nawab Begum and Another1982 CLC 819 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux Haji Nathu Khan & Co. vs Mst. Nawab Beg (JM and Another1982 CLC 819 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-14Read full judgment →
• Qadir Bux and 2 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 290 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-29Read full judgment →
• Punjab Films vs Haji Getha Bhai Gokhal1982 CLC 720 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-12Read full judgment →
• Punhal Etc. vs Secretary Revenue, Sindh Government, Etc.1982 CLC 620 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-25Read full judgment →
• Province of Sind and Another vs S. Zaheeruddin Hussain1982 CLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
• Project Director and Another vs Messrs Nawab Brothers Ltd1982 CLC 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Project Director and Another vs Messrs Nawab Brother Ltd1982 CLC 1147 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority, Karachi vs Messrs Nadeem Brothers and Another1982 CLC 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
• Port Qasim Authority, Karachi vs Messrs Nadeem Brother and Another1982 CLC 1506 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
• Popat vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 211 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-19Read full judgment →
• Pirdino and Another vs Mst. Khursheed Begum1982 CLC 1927 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
• Pir Jalal Shah vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 567 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03
  joint trialchild accusedyouthful offendervitiated trialillegal trialspecial lawretrialcapital punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses a confirmation case for a death sentence, an appeal against conviction, and a criminal revision arising from a joint trial of an adult and a minor accused for murder and robbery. The core legal question was whether the joint trial of a child accused with an adult accused, conducted after the extension of the Sind Children Act 1955 to the Karachi area, vitiated the entire trial under section 10 of the said Act, notwithstanding section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The court held that section 10 of the Sind Children Act 1955 expressly prohibits the joint trial of a child with an adult, and this mandatory provision of a special law overrides general procedural provisions, rendering the joint trial illegal and incurable. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, disposed of the death sentence reference, and ordered a retrial of the accused persons separately in accordance with the law.

  Questions settled

  • Does the joint trial of a child accused with an adult accused vitiate the trial under the Sind Children Act 1955?
  • Is an illegality arising from the violation of section 10 of the Sind Children Act 1955 curable under section 537 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • What constitutes a child under the Sind Children Act 1955 regarding age at the time of arrest or initiation of proceedings?
  • Can a retrial be ordered against an accused whose trial was vitiated due to a misjoinder or joint trial violation?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and 3 Othsrs vs Mst. Asma Bai and 2 Other1982 CLC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux and 3 Others vs Mst. Asma Bai and 2Others1982 CLC 1302 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Phool Muhammad vs Abdul Ghaffar1982 CLC 2575 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-07
  rent controlcompromise decreeexecution of decreestatutory interpretationrepeal of statuteejectment applicationmaintainability of application
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from an order of the Rent Controller directing a landlord to provide a room in a newly constructed building to a tenant, based on a private compromise agreement. The core legal question was whether the tenant’s application under Section 13(5-B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, was maintainable. The Court held that the application was incompetent. Firstly, the statutory conditions for Section 13(5-B) were unmet: the landlord had not obtained possession under Section 13(2)(vi), and the application was filed after the building's completion. Secondly, the Court affirmed that a compromise order is executable as a decree under Section 17 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, making the Rent Controller’s intervention via Section 13(5-B) improper. Furthermore, the Court held that upon the repeal of the old Ordinance by the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the pending application became non-maintainable as the new law lacked a corresponding provision to Section 13(5-B). Consequently, the appeal was accepted, and the impugned order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant invoke Section 13(5-B) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, if possession was obtained through a private compromise rather than an order under Section 13(2)(vi)?
  • Is a compromise order passed by a Rent Controller executable as a decree under Section 17 of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does a pending application under the repealed Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, remain maintainable if the new Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, contains no corresponding provision?
  Read full judgment →
• Petitioner In Person. vs Not1982 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Peero vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 795 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-27
  criminal revisionnon-cognizable offencepolice investigationmagistrate permissionquashment of proceedingspolice reportcognizance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision petition was filed under Sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging the petitioner's conviction under Section 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The petitioner was originally tried for offences under Sections 323 and 324 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and the appellate court ultimately maintained his conviction under Section 323, which is a non-cognizable offence. The core legal question was whether the police had the authority to investigate a non-cognizable offence without the prior permission of a competent Magistrate, and whether a trial court could take valid cognizance of a case based on such an unauthorized police report. The High Court held that Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 strictly prohibits police officers from investigating non-cognizable cases without a Magistrate's order. Consequently, the unauthorized investigation was a nullity, and the resulting police report could not form a valid basis for taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court quashed the proceedings and set aside the conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police officer investigate a non-cognizable offence without the prior order of a competent Magistrate under Section 155(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a police report resulting from an unauthorized investigation into a non-cognizable offence be treated as a valid complaint or information for the purpose of taking cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the definition of a complaint under Section 4(1)(b) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 include a report submitted by a police officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Parke Davis & Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Bliss & Co. Ltd., Karachi1982 PLD Karachi 94 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-14
  winding-up petitioninability to pay debtsstatutory noticebona fide disputeinsolvencycorporate winding-upjust and equitable
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed by the Creditors for the winding-up of the Company under the Companies Act, 1913, on the grounds of the Company's inability to pay its debts and that it would be just and equitable to wind it up. The core legal question was whether the Company's failure to pay the outstanding debt, despite statutory notice, warranted a winding-up order, particularly when the Company alleged a bona fide dispute and had initiated separate litigation for damages. The Court held that the Company was unable to pay its debts and ordered its winding-up. The Court established that while a bona fide dispute regarding a debt may preclude a winding-up order, the mere filing of a civil suit does not automatically bar such proceedings. The Court must determine if the dispute is genuine or merely a 'cloak' to avoid payment. In this case, the Company failed to demonstrate a genuine dispute, and the outstanding liability far exceeded the Company's paid-up capital, confirming its insolvency and justifying the winding-up order.

  Questions settled

  • Does the pendency of a civil suit by a company against its creditor automatically bar a winding-up petition?
  • What is the effect of a company's failure to pay a debt after receiving a statutory notice under the Companies Act 1913?
  • When can a court determine that a company's dispute regarding a debt is merely a 'cloak' to avoid payment?
  • Is a company's inability to pay its debts presumed upon failure to comply with a statutory notice?
  Read full judgment →
• Pan Islamic Steamship Co. Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi (West), Karachi46 TAX 31 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan, Electrical and Mechanical Constructors Ltd. vs Member1982 PLC 574 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Warehouse Carriers Workers Union and Another vs Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. v, Karachi and 2 Others1982 PLC 528 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-11Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and Another1982 CLC 2495 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-27Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Toilet Works vs Income Tax Appellate Tribunal and Another45 TAX 222 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd. vs National Industrial Relations1982 PLC 539 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi vs Indus Shipping & Trading Co. Ltd., Karachi and 2 Others1982 CLC 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Refinery Ltd., Karachi vs Indus Shipping & Trading Co. Ltd., Karachi and 2 Other1982 CLC 750 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Messrs1982 CLC 1689 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan General Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Seven Stars1982 PLD Karachi 549 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan General Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Seven Stars Goods Transport1982 CLC 139 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd. vs Central Labour Commissioner and 51982 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03
  Essential ServicesLabour LawIndustrial DisputeJurisdictionCentral Labour CommissionerStatutory InterpretationReinstatement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a challenge to an order by the Central Labour Commissioner reinstating employees of Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd., an entity governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952. The core legal question was whether the Commissioner possessed the jurisdiction to adjudicate individual industrial disputes under the Act, specifically regarding the scope of the power to 'regulate' wages and service conditions under Section 6. The Full Bench held that the power to 'regulate' does not encompass the authority to adjudicate or settle individual industrial disputes or grievances. The Court determined that the Act and its rules do not provide a machinery for such adjudication. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Commissioner cannot adjudicate industrial disputes. The key principle laid down is that the term 'regulate' in the Act implies a legislative or administrative power to set general rules and conditions, not a judicial or quasi-judicial power to resolve specific disputes between employers and employees. Thus, the jurisdiction of other forums remains intact where the Act does not explicitly provide a mechanism for dispute resolution.

  Questions settled

  • Does the issuance of a notification under Section 3 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, automatically render all other enactments inapplicable to an employment?
  • Does the power to 'regulate' wages and conditions of service under Section 6 of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, include the power to adjudicate individual industrial disputes?
  • Can the Central Labour Commissioner adjudicate an industrial dispute between an employer and an employee?
  • To what extent does Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, exclude the jurisdiction of other labour forums?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Automobile Corporation Limited and Another vs General1982 PLD Karachi 796 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-06
  interim injunctionfranchise agreementnon-exclusive franchiseEconomic Reforms Order 1972licence coupled with interestrevocation of agencypublic policy
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit arose out of an application for an interim injunction under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by state-controlled automobile corporations seeking to restrain Defendant No. 1 from revoking an Isuzu commercial vehicle franchise and transferring it to private-sector defendants. The plaintiffs contended that the franchise constituted an exclusive licence coupled with interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 and that private assembly violated public policy under the Economic Reforms Order 1972. The High Court of Sindh made tentative findings that the original letter of intent granted a non-exclusive privilege and that the Economic Reforms Order 1972 did not expressly bar private enterprise in motor vehicle assembly, provided Federal Government permission was obtained. However, noting that Defendant No. 1 prematurely terminated the arrangement five months before the mutually understood run-out date of August 1981, threatening substantial capital losses on unsold inventory, the High Court suspended the operation of the termination notice pending regular hearing of the suit.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Economic Reforms Order 1972 expressly or impliedly prohibits private sector participation in motor vehicle assembling and manufacturing?
  • Whether a non-exclusive franchise agreement constitutes a licence coupled with an interest under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can a court suspend a notice of termination of a commercial agency via an interim injunction where premature termination threatens heavy financial losses on existing stock?
  Read full judgment →
• Nusrat Ali Abbasi vs Masood Ali Qureshi1982 PLD Karachi 712 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-14Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad vs Mohammad Qayoom1982 CLC 253 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-16Read full judgment →
• Noor Muham Mad vs Settlement Commissioner, Chief Accounts1982 CLC 2570 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-04Read full judgment →
• Noor Din vs Ashiq Ali Arm 3 Other1982 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-21Read full judgment →
• Noor Din vs Ashiq Ali and 3 Others1982 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-20Read full judgment →
• Nook Muhammad and 10 Others vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 239 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-31Read full judgment →
• Noabat and Other vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 502 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-17Read full judgment →
• Nighat Yasmin vs Government of Sindh and 3 Other1982 CLC 188 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-27Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad Khan vs Settlement Commissioner (Lands), Hyderabad1982 CLC 2202 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-30Read full judgment →
• Niaz Muhammad and Another vs The Superintendent, Central Prison, Sukkurand Another1982 P Cr. L J 192 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Niaz Ali vs Faiz Muhammad1982 CLC 850 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-26Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Usmani vs Syed Mohammed Ali1982 CLC 682 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Employees' Union vs Sind Labour Appellate1982 PLC 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-26Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State45 TAX 52 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →