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.

• Mohammadi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Income Tax (East), Karachi45 TAX 140 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohammad Yamin vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone C , Karachi Arts1982 CLC 407 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-20Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Munir vs Ahmad Ally Memon and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 425 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-09
  declaration and permanent injunctioneasement of privacyright of light and aircustomary pardahbuilding regulationsrestrictive covenantsmulti-storeyed constructionno objection certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for declaration and perpetual injunction to restrain the defendants from constructing a multi-storeyed building (ground plus four floors) on an adjacent plot in Garden East, Karachi, beyond two storeys and a covered area exceeding one-fourth of the plot size. The plaintiff contended that the proposed high-rise construction violated original lease conditions, the Collector's Circular of 1938, building regulations under a town planning award, and infringed easement rights of light, air, and privacy. The defendants countered that the circular lacked statutory force, building permissions were validly granted by competent municipal authorities, and easement rights were not infringed. The High Court dismissed the suit, holding that the 1938 Circular was merely administrative guidance without statutory force, subsequent town planning decisions allowed multi-storeyed construction, and non-production of a no-objection certificate from neighbours did not invalidate the approval. It further held that customary rights of privacy must be explicitly pleaded and strictly proved by evidence, which the plaintiff failed to establish.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an administrative circular issued by a Collector restricting building height possesses statutory force or constitutes a covenant running with the land?
  • Whether the lack of a No Objection Certificate from adjacent property owners invalidates building plan approval granted by a competent development authority?
  • Can a customary right of privacy or pardah be recognized without specific pleading and evidence demonstrating its immemorial, certain, and continuous practice in the locality?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Jameel vs Mst. Sarwar Jahan and 2 Other1982 CLC 655 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-26Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Hanif vs Mst. SaraP. L D 1982 Karachi 182 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-15Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Deen Malik and Another vs Iind Additional District Judge, Karachi and 2 Other1982 CLC 441 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-28Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Ayoob vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 335 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Anwar vs Syed Imam1982 CLC 436 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
• Moeen Afridi vs Capt. M. R. Choudry1982 CLC 1116 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
• MMSRS Nizari Co-Operative Housing Society Ltd. vs Qamruddin M.1982 PLD Karachi 774 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-06Read full judgment →
• Mitho vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1133 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-30Read full judgment →
• Miss Zarina Juma vs Khurshid Alam1982 CLC 987 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
• Miss Zarina Juma vs Khurshid Ala M1982 CLC 987 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-05Read full judgment →
• Miss Shahida Khatoon vs Government of Sind and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 454 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-25Read full judgment →
• Miss Seema vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Etc.1982 CLC 1911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• Miss Seema vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation Etc1982 CLC 1911 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-21Read full judgment →
• Miss Nasira Siddiqui vs Mrs. Samar Rashiduddin1982 CLC 2480 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-17Read full judgment →
• Miss Khursheed Bano vs Chairman, Selection Committee and Principal1982 CLC 499 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-13Read full judgment →
• Mirza. Mubarak Baig vs Abdul Rashid1982 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
• Mirza Zahid Baig vs Ghaffar Ahmad Khan and Others1982 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mirza Zahid Baig vs Ghaffar Ahmad Khan and Other1982 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-01Read full judgment →
• Mirza Muqueem Baig vs Election Authority Hyderabad and I5 Other1982 CLC 291 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Mirza Mubarak Bail vs Abdul Rashid1982 CLC 2105 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-23Read full judgment →
• Mir Eahadur Ali vs Crief Land Commissioner, Sindh Ahd Ot Heirs1982 CLC 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mir Dastgir Ali and 2 Other vs Additional Deputy Commissioner and Additional Settlement Commissioner (Lands) and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 508 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-20Read full judgment →
• Mir Bahadur Ali vs Chief Land Commissioner, Sind and Others1982 CLC 2432 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Mir Ali Bux Talpur and Others vs Chief Land Commissioner, Sindh1982 CLC 520 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Ministerial Officers' Association, Central Excise and Land Customs1982 PLC (C. S.) 448 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Steel Corporation Ltd. vs Sheikh Gulzar Ali & Co. Ltd1982 CLC 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Metropolitan Steel Corporation Ltd. vs Sheikh Gulzar Ali & Cc. Ltd.1982 CLC 2019 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Volkervam (Pakistan) Ltd. and 2 Others vs Syed Mushtaque1982 PLC 761 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Distributors Ltd. vs Collector of Customs and 21982 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Distributors Ltd. vs Collector of Customs and 2 Other1982 CLC 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Karachi Rubber Industries and 51982 CLC 2522 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd vs Messrs Delta Trading and Another1982 CLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Seafood Industries, and 2 Other vs Messrs United Bank Ltd.1982 PLD Karachi 902 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Taj Construction Company vs Federation of Pakistan and 9'PLD 1982 Karachi 378 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19
  doctrine of indoor managementcooperative housing societysupersession of managing committeeunregistered partnership firmlocus standivicarious liabilityprivity of contractlimitation actsection 80 cpc noticepreliminary decree for accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  Five Letters Patent Appeals were filed against the judgment of a Single Judge dismissing suits brought by building contractors against the Federation of Pakistan, Pir Illahi Bakhsh Cooperative Housing Society, and individuals for money allegedly due under construction contracts, damages, and misappropriated building materials. The High Court considered whether the Federal Government was liable for the actions of a superseding Managing Committee, whether the contracts executed by the Society's Organizer were valid and binding on the Society, and whether the plaintiffs had established the quantum and value of the work executed. The High Court held that the suit against the Government was barred by limitation and lacked privity of contract. It determined that contracts executed by the Organizer were binding on the Society under the doctrine of indoor management. However, four of the appeals were dismissed as the contractors failed to prove the quantum of work done or value of materials left, and one suit was held unmaintainable due to lack of locus standi under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932. One appeal (L.P.A. No. 84/1968) was partly allowed, remanding the matter for accounts adjustment via a preliminary decree.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Federal Government vicariously liable for the actions of a newly appointed Managing Committee following the supersession of a cooperative society by the Registrar?
  • Whether contracts entered into by an office-bearer of a cooperative society outside formal authorization are binding on the society under the doctrine of indoor management?
  • Does a newly registered partnership firm comprising additional partners have locus standi under Section 69 of the Partnership Act 1932 to sue on contracts executed by an earlier registered firm under the same name?
  • What is the effect of non-production of measurement books and regular books of account by a contractor claiming outstanding payments under a construction contract?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation and 3 Others vs Fazal1982 CLC 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs State Life Insurance Corporation and 3 Others S vs Fazal1982 CLC 1162 · Sindh High Court · 1982-05-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shambhumal Hiranand & Co vs Commissioner of Income Tax1982 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shalsons Fisheries Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Lohmann & Co. and Another1982 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-26
  breach of contractconcluded contractconsensus ad idemcounter proposalbank guaranteeagent liabilityindenting agentdamagesloss of profitsPay As You Earn Scheme
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking recovery of Rs. 3,26,119.65 as damages for an alleged breach of contract by defendant No. 1 regarding the supply and import of a combined shrimp canning and cooking plant under the 'Pay As You Earn' Scheme, with defendant No. 2 impleaded as the local agent. The core legal questions involved whether a concluded and binding contract existed between the parties, which party committed the breach, whether defendant No. 2 incurred personal liability as an agent under Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872, and whether the claimed damages were substantiated. The High Court held that no concluded contract came into existence because material terms were unilaterally altered and varied without absolute and unqualified acceptance, and the agreement was explicitly subject to final confirmation. Furthermore, the plaintiff failed to fulfill essential terms, including providing the agreed foreign bank guarantee and installment drafts. Additionally, under Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872, defendant No. 2 as an indentor bore no personal liability, and the alleged damages were unsubstantiated. The suit was consequently dismissed with costs awarded to defendant No. 2.

  Questions settled

  • Whether acceptance of a contract proposal subject to alterations and variations constitutes a valid acceptance or merely a counter-proposal under Section 7 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Does a clause in a draft agreement stating that supply is subject to final confirmation prevent the formation of a concluded and binding contract?
  • Can an indenting commission agent be held personally liable for a breach of contract under Section 230 of the Contract Act 1872 when the agent did not execute the contract on behalf of the foreign principal?
  • Can a plaintiff claim damages for breach of contract where the expenses incurred were entirely voluntary or based on altered conditions that the plaintiff failed to fulfill?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaikh Gulzar Ali & Co. Ltd. vs Larkana Textile Mills Ltd.1982 CLC 1749 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Servico Pak1stan S vs Trading Corporation of Pak1stan Ltd., Karachi1982 CLC 670 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rehabilitation Construction & Commercial Co. and Another1982 CLC 1372 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pan-Islamic Steamship Co, Ltd. vs S. M. Naqi and Another1982 CLC 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pan Islamic Steamship Co. Ltd. vs S. M. Naqi and Another.1982 CLC 1944 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan International Airlines, Karachi vs Messrs National1982 PLD Karachi 463 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Motors Ltd. vs Messrs Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Karachi1982 CLC 236 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-13
  banking companies recovery of loansspecial court jurisdictiondefinition of borrowerdefinition of loanbank guaranteecivil court jurisdictionrejection of plaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This High Court Appeal arises from an order returning a plaint for presentation to a Special Court pursuant to section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The appellants, who had advanced money to a third party (AEMCO) that procured a bank guarantee from the respondent-Bank in the appellants' favour, filed a recovery suit against the Bank. The core legal question was whether a beneficiary of a bank guarantee who is a creditor of the principal debtor can be termed a 'borrower' or deemed to have taken a 'loan' under the Ordinance so as to oust the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court in favour of a Special Court. The Court held that the appellant was a creditor, not a borrower, and that a bank guarantee constitutes a loan only in relation to the borrower on whose behalf it is issued (AEMCO), not the beneficiary. Consequently, the Special Court lacked jurisdiction. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and the suit restored before the High Court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the beneficiary of a bank guarantee who is a creditor of the principal debtor qualifies as a borrower under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does a bank guarantee issued on behalf of a customer constitute a loan extended to the beneficiary of that guarantee for the purposes of establishing Special Court jurisdiction?
  • Does section 6 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 bar the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts in suits filed by a creditor against a banking company?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Containers Ltd. vs Messrs National Shipping1982 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1968-12-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Merck Sharp & Idohme of Pakistan Ltd. vs Sind Labour1982 PLC 148 · Sindh High Court
  labour appellate tribunaladditional evidenceindustrial relations ordinancecode of civil procedurereinstatementback benefitsmisconductconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal which reversed a Labour Court's decision and ordered the reinstatement of an employee with full back benefits. The core legal question concerned the jurisdiction and powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunal to suo motu record additional evidence under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, and whether the strict procedural requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure applied to labour proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunal and the Labour Court are co-extensive under Section 38(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, allowing them wide latitude to examine facts and record additional evidence in the interest of justice without being strictly fettered by the technicalities of the Code of Civil Procedure. The court laid down the principle that while procedural technicalities of civil procedure do not strictly apply to labour tribunals, such tribunals must act fairly, and failure to object to procedural irregularities at the earliest opportunity constitutes a waiver.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the Labour Appellate Tribunal has the power to record additional evidence during an appeal?
  • Are the strict procedural requirements of Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure applicable to proceedings before a Labour Court or Labour Appellate Tribunal?
  • What is the extent of jurisdiction of a Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance when examining a domestic dismissal order?
  • Does a failure to object to a procedural irregularity before the tribunal constitute a waiver preventing a party from raising it in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mehar Cotton Factory, Rahimyarkhan-- Petitioner vs Messrs1982 PLD Karachi 414 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Mec Shipbreakers Ltd. vs Messrs Peason Investment Inc. and Another1982 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-21
  attachment before judgmenttemporary injunctionbreach of contractship arrestcommercial transactionadequate remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment from the Sindh High Court arises from a suit filed by Messrs Mec Shipbreakers Ltd. against Messrs Peason Investment Inc. and another for the recovery of damages for breach of contract and for permanent and temporary injunctions to restrain the defendants from sailing the vessel m/t IRIS out of the jurisdiction of the court, alongside an application for attachment before judgment. The core legal questions involved the interpretation and application of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 and Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the conditions required for pre-judgment attachment and temporary injunctions in commercial matters. The court held that an order for attachment before judgment cannot be granted merely because the sole property of the defendant within jurisdiction is mobile or because the plaintiff fears obtaining a paper decree; the plaintiff must specifically plead and establish that the removal or disposal of property is tainted with the actual intention to delay or defeat any decree that may be passed. Furthermore, the court held that temporary injunctions to restrain a breach of contract will not be granted where a concluded contract is not prima facie established and where monetary compensation provides an adequate remedy. Both applications were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can an order for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 be issued merely because the defendant's property is mobile and may leave the jurisdiction of the court?
  • What are the essential pre-conditions that a plaintiff must establish to obtain an attachment of property before judgment under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a temporary injunction under Order XXXIX Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be granted when the existence of a concluded contract is not prima facie established?
  • Does a claim for monetary damages for breach of contract bar the grant of a temporary injunction on the ground that damages constitute an adequate relief?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mandli Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Collector of Customs and 31982 P Cr. L J 258 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Macdonald Layton & Company Limited vs Messrs AssociatedP L. D 1982 Karachi 786 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Korongi Sizing Works vs Muhammad Rahim1982 CLC 2455 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs Kausar Oil & General Millss vs Messrs Muhammad AminPLD 1982 Karachi 717. · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jamia Industries Ltd vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1982 PLD Karachi 870 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs J. Tyler & Co.S vs Messrs United Bank Ltd.1982 PLD Karachi 639 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Indhara Industries Ltd.; Karachi vs Government of Pakistan1982 PLD Karachi 260 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-10
  arbitration awardspeaking awardremittal of awardarbitration proceedingsjudicial reviewsufficient reasons
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns objections filed against an arbitration award in a commercial dispute regarding the supply of vehicles. The core legal question was whether an arbitration award, which failed to provide detailed reasons for the decision, could be remitted to the arbitrator for clarification under the newly enacted Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981. The High Court held that the award, which lacked sufficient reasoning, must be remitted to the arbitrator. The Court directed the arbitrator to submit a revised award containing reasons in sufficient detail within three months, noting that the failure to do so would render the award void. The Court established that Section 26-A of the Arbitration Act, 1940, mandates that arbitrators provide a 'speaking award' with reasons in 'sufficient detail' to enable judicial review of any questions of law. This requirement applies to pending proceedings, and 'sufficient' is interpreted as adequate for the purpose of enabling the Court to understand the issues and findings involved.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 require an arbitrator to provide reasons for an award in sufficient detail?
  • What is the consequence under the Arbitration Act, 1940, if an arbitrator fails to provide sufficient reasons for an award?
  • Can an arbitration award be remitted to the arbitrator for clarification if it lacks sufficient detail regarding the reasons for the decision?
  • Does the requirement for a speaking award under the Arbitration (Amendment) Ordinance, 1981 apply to arbitration proceedings pending at the time of the Ordinance's commencement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Inayatullah & Sons vs Registrar of Trade Marks1982 CLC 786 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hydari Industries Ltd. vs Messrs Hashwani Sales & Services Ltd.1982 CLC 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Metropole Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan,1982 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Metropole Ltd. vs Pakistan through Secretary to Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and Another1982 CLC 1682 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Ahmed Abdul Gani Textile Mills and 91982 CLC 936 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs MBSSRS Ahmed Abdul Gan[ Textile Mills and 91982 CLC 936 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fazal Textile Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Sattar Cotton Ginning1982 CLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eveready Pictures Ltd.. vs Chaman Begum1982 PLD Karachi 770 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-23
  default in rentpersonal and bona fide requirementnotice of attornmentejectmentcommercial premisesrent controller
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged an order of the Rent Controller directing their ejectment from the disputed premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal and bona fide requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the absence of a formal notice under section 13-A of the relevant rent restriction ordinance vitiates a default proceeding when the tenant has actual knowledge of the property transfer, and whether the landlady established a bona fide personal requirement for her son. The Sindh High Court held that where a tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of property and has paid rent to the new landlord, a formal notice under section 13-A is not mandatory and its absence does not preclude a finding of default. The Court further held that the landlord's oath regarding personal requirement, supported by consistent pleadings and unshakeable cross-examination, satisfies the requirement of bona fides. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether service of notice under section 13-A of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance is mandatory when the tenant has actual knowledge of the transfer of property?
  • Does a tender of rent for seven months together constitute a valid tender under section 13(2)(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance?
  • Is an assertion of personal requirement by a landlord on oath sufficient to establish bona fides under section 13(4) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance if left unshaken in cross-examination?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Elnaval Navigation Co vs Rana Shippings, Karachi Judgment1982 PLD Karachi 104 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Electric and Radio Corporation vs Messrs Pakistan Steel Mill1982 CLC 1679 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eastern Shipping Co. vs Newzealand Insurance Co. Ltd. Etc.1982 CLC 1914 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Delphi Promoters Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Railways, Islamabad1982 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs D. H. L. International Ltd. vs Messrs N. T. C. Ltd.1982 CLC 1360 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-29
  attachment before judgmentspecific performancenegative covenantprohibitory injunctioninterlocutory appealjoint ventureagency agreementquarterly accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  These interconnected appeals arose from a common order of the learned Single Judge passed in a suit for specific performance of contract, accounts, damages, and permanent injunction relating to a courier services joint venture and agency agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the requirements for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 were met, whether a direction to file quarterly business accounts was lawful, and whether an implied negative covenant could be enforced by a prohibitory injunction under Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 at the interlocutory stage. The court held that the power to order attachment before judgment or restraint under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 is extraordinary and cannot be invoked merely because a foreign company re-exports its articles in the ordinary course of business without proof of intent to obstruct or delay execution. The court further held that a direction to file quarterly accounts was justified since the plaintiff claimed damages based on business accounts, but refused to grant a temporary prohibitory injunction based on an alleged implied negative covenant where the existence of a five-year contract period and the negative covenant itself required recording of evidence at trial. The key principles laid down are that Order XXXVIII Rule 5 requires strict proof of intent to defeat a prospective decree and cannot be used as a matter of course against foreign firms re-exporting goods, and that implied negative covenants requiring trial evidence will not be enforced by interlocutory injunction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether simpliciter exporting of machinery and equipments by a foreign company in the ordinary course of business warrants an order of attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a direction for filing quarterly accounts be lawfully issued against a defendant in a suit where the plaintiff has claimed accounts and damages for breach of an agency agreement?
  • Whether an implied negative covenant can be inferred and enforced by way of a prohibitory injunction under Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 at the interlocutory stage when the very duration of the contract is disputed and requires trial evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Continental Grains Co. vs Messrs Naz Brothers1982 CLC 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Continental Grains Co. vs Messes Naz Brother1982 CLC 2301 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Construction Services (Pakistan) vs Ali Hussain1982 CLC 1241 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23
  ejectmentretiring government servantpersonal needSind Rented Premises Ordinancejuristic personpartnership firmgood faith
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges an order passed by the Rent Controller under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, directing the ejectment of the appellant firm from the tenement in question upon the retirement of the landlord from government service. The core legal questions involve whether the landlord's ownership of a property in Islamabad bars him from seeking ejectment under section 14 due to the expression "any locality", whether the issue of good faith or bona fide personal need can be examined under section 14, and whether a rent application is maintainable against a firm rather than its individual partners. The Sindh High Court held that the phrase "any locality" in subsection (2) of section 14 is to be construed with reference to the city where the tenement is situated, excluding properties in another city such as Islamabad; that the question of good faith or bona fide need is irrelevant under section 14 because the legislature deliberately omitted those words; and that a registered firm, being a juristic person, can be sued directly in rent proceedings. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with a two-month extension granted to hand over vacant possession.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'any locality' in section 14(2) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 include a property owned by the landlord in a different city such as Islamabad?
  • Can the question of good faith or bona fide personal need be examined by a Rent Controller in an application filed under section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Whether a rent application can be filed directly against a partnership firm as a tenant rather than against its individual partners?
  • What is the effect of the death of a managing partner on a partnership firm in the context of maintainability of rent proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd. vs Rehmatullah1982 CLC 2471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Colony Textile Mills Ltd. vs Re Hmatullah1982 CLC 2471 · Sindh High Court · 1982-06-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Canal Petrol Service, Larkana, Sind vs Messrs Pakistan1982 PLD Karachi 121 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-30Read full judgment →
• MEssRs Cake & Oil Products Ltd. and Another vs Collector &1982 CLC 2032 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Cake & Oil Products Ltd. and Another vs Collector &1982 CLC 2032 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Balagamwala Oil Mills Ltd., Karachis vs Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finance Andanother1982 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amsons Dairies & Food Ltd. vs Sind Labour Court No. IV and 21982 PLC 738 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alpha Insurance Company Ltd. vs Syed Nasiruddin1982 CLC 790 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Afzal Stores Ltd. vs Commissioner for Workmen's1982 PLC 641 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Co."Ltd. vs Dentsche Damshiffahrts Gessell1982 CLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adamjee Insurance Co.Ltd. vs Dentsche Damshiffahrts Gessell1982 CLC 1220 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messes Asian Mutual Insurance Co. Ltd vs Messrs Pakistan Insurance1982 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-09Read full judgment →
• Mehdi Hasan vs Muhammad Saeed Chandna1982 CLC 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1982-04-18Read full judgment →
• Mehboob and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 869 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-28Read full judgment →
• Maudud Ahmad Faruqui vs Amin Fabrics Ltd.1982 CLC 463 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-04Read full judgment →
• Masud H. Qasmi vs Mst. Shams Unnisa1982 CLC 202 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-10Read full judgment →
• Master Abdul Aziz Ghafqqr Khan vs Controller of Estate Duty, Karachi and Another45 TAX 55 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Master Abdul Aziz Ghafoor Khan vs Controller of Estate Duty, Karachi and Another45 TAX 55 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Masjid-E-Humra vs Zamir Ahmad1982 CLC 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
• Masjid E Humra vs Zamir Ahmad1982 CLC 2193 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mashlakhuddin vs Syed Ali Haider1982 CLC 644 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-07Read full judgment →
• Masas National Containers Ltd. vs Messrs National Shipping1982 CLC 1630 · Sindh High Court · 1968-12-26Read full judgment →
• Maryam Bai (Mobin Bal) vs The Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur and Another1982 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-12Read full judgment →
• Maryam Bai (Mobin Bad) vs The Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur and Another1982 CLC 1321 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-12Read full judgment →
• Marghoob Ahmed Ansari and Another vs Settlement Commissioner1982 CLC 2051 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →