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.

• Abdul Majeed vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-02Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs Syed Nazimuddin1982 CLC 2654 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed and Others vs Superintendent, Jail, Khairpur1982 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir vs Mir Ashraf Ali Khan and 2 Other1982 CLC 110 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22
  specific performanceagreement to sellprior agreementcollusive decreeearnest moneydiscretionary reliefjurisdiction of civil court
  Summary & questions settled

  This First Appeal arises from a judgment of the Senior Civil Judge, Dadu, dismissing the appellant-plaintiff's suit for specific performance, possession, and mesne profits based on an agreement to sell agricultural land, but decreeing it for the recovery of earnest money. The core legal questions involve determining whether the appellant's agreement to sell was prior in time to a competing agreement executed in favour of a second defendant, whether a prior decree obtained by the second defendant from a civil court at Hyderabad was collusive and without jurisdiction, and whether the appellant was entitled to specific performance or discretionary relief under the Specific Relief Act. The Sindh High Court held that the competing agreement in favour of the second defendant was genuine and prior in time, that the appellant failed to prove it was forged or that the Hyderabad decree was collusive, and that specific performance is a discretionary remedy which was properly refused given the circumstances and contractual terms between the parties. The court upheld the trial court's judgment and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether specific performance of a contract can be granted when a competing agreement to sell in favour of another party is proved to be prior in time?
  • Can a court sit in judgment over the decree of a court of coordinate jurisdiction without proper pleadings and proof of fraud?
  • Is the grant of specific performance a mandatory right or a discretionary remedy to be exercised on judicial principles?
  • Whether a plaintiff seeking to nullify a court decree must explicitly include a prayer for its cancellation in the plaint?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir vs Amina Begum and 2 Other1982 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar vs Mst. Nafeesa Khatoon1982 CLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone `C' and 2 Other1982 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Niazi vs Mst. Wiltu Begum and Another1982 CLC 2255 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Niazi vs Mst. Wiltu Beg Um and Another1982 CLC 2255 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Wing CDR. (RTD.) Zulfikar Ali Aziz1982 CLC 531(2) · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed vs Mst. Amina Begum1982 CLC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1982-02-24Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Beg vs Deputy Commissioner & Settlement1982 CLC 695 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem and Another vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 975 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-16
  murder referencecapital sentencestatement under section 164substantive evidenceinterested witnessbenefit of reasonable doubtweapon recoveryhostile witness
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arises from the judgment of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under section 302/34, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and sentencing them to death for the murder of Yaseen. The core legal question concerns the reliability of the prosecution evidence, particularly the admissibility and weight of statements recorded under section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pursuant to section 265-J, the testimony of a solitary interested eye-witness, and the credibility of alleged weapon recoveries. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond a reasonable doubt, noting severe procedural flaws in recording statements under section 164 without proper notice or opportunity to cross-examine, lack of corroboration for the inimical solitary witness, and unconvincing recovery evidence. The court laid down the principle that statements under section 164 admitted under section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require strict compliance with procedural safeguards, including written notice and effective opportunity of cross-examination, and that interested testimony of an inimical witness cannot sustain a capital conviction without independent corroboration.

  Questions settled

  • What are the mandatory procedural requirements for admitting a statement recorded under section 164 as substantive evidence under section 265-J of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can a capital conviction be sustained on the uncorroborated testimony of a solitary eye-witness who has a background of enmity with the accused?
  • Whether the failure of the prosecution to examine independent available witnesses from the locality creates a fatal dent in the prosecution case?
  • Does the uncorroborated solitary testimony of an investigating officer regarding the delayed recovery of crime weapons suffice to prove the charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hadi and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-01Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Settlement Commissioner (Land) and 2 Other1982 CLC 1333 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and 2 Other vs The State and Another1982 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State1982 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and Another vs The State1982 P Cr. L J 1128 · Sindh High Court · 1982-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bart and Another vs Muhammad Saeed1982 CLC 2264 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari Siddiqui vs Syed Karim Hyder1982 CLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari and Another vs Muhammad Saeed1982 CLC 2264 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Ramchand1982 CLC 214 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-27Read full judgment →
• Abbasi Textile Mills Ltd. vs Commissioner of Sales Tax (East) Karachi45 TAX 218 · Sindh High Court · 1981-11-25Read full judgment →
• A. S. Mughal vs Mst. Khurshid Azmat Ali1982 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1982-01-23
  ejectmentpersonal bona fide needsenior citizenstatutory limitationsummary procedurelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The respondent-landlady sought eviction of the appellant-tenant on the grounds of personal requirement for her daughter and on having attained sixty years of age. The appellant challenged the maintainability of the application, arguing it was filed beyond the six-month statutory window from the date the landlady attained sixty years, and that Section 14 does not permit eviction for the need of children. The High Court of Sindh accepted the appeal and set aside the eviction order. The Court held that the landlady's application was time-barred under the then-applicable proviso to Section 14, as her own prior petition to the President of Pakistan proved she had attained sixty years more than six months prior to filing. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 14 is a special summary remedy meant strictly for the personal use of the applicant, and unlike Section 15(2)(viii), it deliberately omits the needs of the landlord's children.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an ejectment application under Section 14 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 is maintainable if filed more than six months after the landlord attained sixty years of age under the pre-amended proviso?
  • Can subsequent legislative amendments to a procedural or substantive right be applied retrospectively to validate an ejectment application that was incompetent at the time of its filing?
  • Does the term 'personal use' under Section 14(1) of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 extend to the needs of the landlord's children, or is it restricted solely to the personal benefit of the applicant?
  Read full judgment →
• A. H. Mirza vs Province of Sind and 6 Others1982 PLC (C. S.) 599 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• A. Ghani Danwala vs Ahmad Ibrahim Ameen1982 PLD Karachi 935 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-19Read full judgment →
• Zubeda Ahmad vs Abdus Sattar1981 CLC 1018 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
• Zaman Textile Mills Ltd. vs Anwar & Company Karachi1981 CLC 6 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
• Zakaria vs The State1981 PLC 870 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
• Zain Packaging Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Abdul Rashid and 2 Others1981 PLC 800 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-20
  gratuity calculationwages definitionlabor lawcost of living allowancestanding ordersindustrial employment
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged orders passed by labor authorities regarding the calculation of gratuity for a resigned employee. The core legal question was whether allowances—specifically cost of living, house rent, conveyance, and tea allowances—constitute 'wages' for the purpose of calculating gratuity under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The petitioners argued that gratuity should be based only on basic pay and that certain allowances were excluded. The Court held that the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, is applicable for calculating gratuity in the absence of a specific definition in the Standing Orders Ordinance. The Court affirmed that 'wages' encompasses all remuneration capable of being expressed in monetary terms, including the disputed allowances, as they were not expressly excluded by the relevant statutory definitions. The principle laid down is that where the Standing Orders Ordinance does not define 'wages,' the definition provided in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, governs the calculation of gratuity, and such 'wages' include all cash remuneration agreed upon between the employer and employee.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of 'wages' in the Payment of Wages Act, 1936, apply to the calculation of gratuity under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968?
  • Are house rent, conveyance, and tea allowances included in the definition of 'wages' for the purpose of calculating gratuity?
  • Can an employee claim gratuity based on the last drawn wages including cost of living allowance?
  Read full judgment →
• Zahoor and 3 Others vs Additional Settlement Commissioner1981 CLC 1569 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Zafar Mahmood Paul vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 66 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-11
  customs proceedingssmugglingquashing of proceedingsnotified goodsrevision petition
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant challenged the criminal proceedings pending against him before the Special Judge (Customs and Taxation), Karachi, under section 156(1), clause 89 of the Customs Act, involving the alleged recovery of foreign car stereos. The core legal question was whether the goods seized constituted smuggled goods under the law when they were not covered by the relevant notification issued under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969. The Court held, following precedent, that an offence of smuggling or possession of smuggled goods requires that the goods be expressly mentioned in section 2(s) or notified thereunder by the Government. Since the State conceded that the goods did not fall within the purview of the governing notification, the Court allowed the revision petition and quashed the pending proceedings against the applicant, while clarifying that this order does not prejudice other proceedings available to the authorities under the Customs Act.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be prosecuted for possession of smuggled goods if the goods in question are not covered by a notification issued under section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969?
  • Whether proceedings under the Customs Act 1969 can be quashed when the State concedes that the recovered goods do not fall within the purview of the relevant notification?
  Read full judgment →
• Z. A. Qureshi and 2 Others vs Additional District Judge, Karachi and Another1981 CLC 651 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Yutaka Maeda vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 340 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-29Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Ali Khoja vs MRS. Anwari Begum1981 CLC 1482 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
• Yousif vs Tim State1981 PLD Karachi 672 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Ali Khoja vs Mst. Anwari Begum1981 CLC 1531 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-06Read full judgment →
• Younus Khan vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 378 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Ali vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 542 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
• Yamin vs The .State1981 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-27Read full judgment →
• Yakoob vs The State1981 P Cr. LJ 248 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-14Read full judgment →
• Waqar Hussain vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 958 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-03Read full judgment →
• Walli Muhammad vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation and 2 Others1981 CLC 730 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-06Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs Mrs. Hameeda1981 PLD Karachi 794 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-22
  ejectment applicationstatutory noticepersonal bona fide needwidow landlordcause of actionsummary proceedingstechnical objections
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns an ejectment application filed by a widow under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979. The appellants challenged the order on the grounds that the respondent failed to serve the mandatory two-month notice prior to filing the ejectment application. The core legal questions were whether an ejectment application filed before the expiry of the statutory notice period is maintainable, and whether the landlord must prove 'good faith' under Section 14. The Court held that while the application was technically premature, the cause of action matured during the pendency of the proceedings, as the ejectment order was passed well after the two-month period had expired. The Court emphasized that technical objections regarding statutory notice must be raised at the earliest opportunity and cannot be introduced at the appellate stage. Furthermore, the Court clarified that Section 14 does not require the landlord to prove 'good faith,' as that requirement is absent from the statutory language, unlike in Section 15(2)(viii). The appeals were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to serve a full two-month notice under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 render an ejectment application incompetent if the cause of action matures during the pendency of the proceedings?
  • Is a landlord required to prove 'good faith' when seeking ejectment under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
  • Can a party raise an objection regarding the validity of a statutory notice for the first time at the appellate stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Usman vs Deputy Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1981 PLD Karachi 588 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-23Read full judgment →
• Uris vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 50 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-26
  quashing of proceedingsSection 110 CrPCSection 561-A CrPChabitual offendergeneral reputationpolice evidencesecurity for good behaviour
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 pending against the applicant before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Naushahro Feroze. The core legal question was whether proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained solely on the basis of opinions and testimony from police officers regarding the applicant's alleged general reputation as a habitual offender without independent public witnesses. The High Court held that general reputation refers to the collective opinion of the community in which a person resides, rather than the individual opinion, suspicion, or history-sheets of police officers. The Court ruled that oral testimony or records from police personnel alone are inadmissible as hearsay and insufficient to prove habit or general repute. Consequently, continuing proceedings based exclusively on police evidence would amount to unnecessary harassment. The High Court accordingly quashed the proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and discharged the applicant's bail bonds.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 can be sustained solely on the evidence of police officers regarding general reputation?
  • What constitutes valid proof of general reputation to establish habit under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Are police history-sheets, entries in police diaries, or individual opinions of police officers admissible as evidence of general repute?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Begum Jamila Khatoon1981 CLC 299 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-07Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. vs Haji Bawa Company Ltd. and 3 Others1981 CLC 89 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-15
  recovery suitcontract of guaranteesurety liabilitylimitation periodnotice of demandcause of actioncontinuing guaranteejurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for recovery of Rs. 1,93,533.08 was instituted by United Bank Ltd. against the principal borrower and its personal guarantors/sureties. Defendant No. 2, a guarantor who contested the suit, argued that the claim was barred by limitation under Articles 65, 67, 115, or 120 of the Limitation Act 1908 because the last transaction occurred in June 1969, while the suit was filed in March 1976. The guarantor further claimed that the principal debtor's registered office was in Chittagong (East Pakistan) and that the claim against the principal debtor was extinguished by time and the cessation of East Pakistan, thereby discharging the guarantor. The Sindh High Court held that the deed of guarantee strictly governed the surety's liability. As the guarantee stipulated payment within two days after demand, the notice of demand served in February 1974 served as a condition precedent that gave rise to the cause of action against the surety. The claim was governed by Article 65 read with Article 115 of the Limitation Act and was within time. Furthermore, under Section 137 of the Contract Act 1872 and the terms of the guarantee, forbearance to sue the principal debtor or the debt becoming time-barred against the principal does not discharge the surety.

  Questions settled

  • When does the period of limitation begin to run against a guarantor under a guarantee agreement stipulating payment within a fixed time after a notice of demand?
  • Which Article of the Limitation Act 1908 governs a suit by a creditor against a guarantor on a deed of guarantee?
  • Does a creditor's remedy against a surety lapse or get extinguished merely because the debt has become time-barred against the principal debtor?
  • Can parties to a contract privately alter, curtail, or enlarge the statutory period of limitation prescribed under the Limitation Act 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd. Karachi vs Shabbir Ahmad Abbasi and Another1981 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-28
  civil procedureproduction of documentslate filing of documentsinspection of documentsprocedural discretionrecovery suitliberal construction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved seven applications filed by the plaintiff, United Bank Ltd., in two recovery suits, seeking permission to produce documents at a late stage. The defendants opposed the applications, arguing that the plaintiff failed to file the documents with the plaint as required by Order VII, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and refused inspection under Order XI, Rule 15. The core legal question was whether the court should exercise its discretion to allow the reception of these late documents despite procedural non-compliance. The court held that the applications should be allowed, reasoning that procedural rules regarding the filing of documents are intended to prevent the introduction of forged evidence and to expedite trials, not to shut out genuine evidence. The court emphasized that procedural provisions must be construed liberally to serve the interests of justice. Consequently, the court permitted the production of the documents, noting that the defendants were not prejudiced and could seek inspection, while dismissing the plaintiff's review application regarding costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to file documents with the plaint as required by Order VII, Rule 14, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, absolutely bar their later production?
  • Can a court exercise its discretion to allow the reception of documents filed late in the proceedings?
  • Is a defendant entitled to inspection of documents under Order XI, Rule 15, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, if those documents were not filed with the plaint?
  • Does the failure to file an affidavit of documents under Order XI, Rule 12, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, preclude a party from later producing documents?
  Read full judgment →
• Umer and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 267 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-21Read full judgment →
• Treasurer of Charitable Endowments for Pakistan vs Central Board1981 PLD Karachi 357 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-22
  excise dutyabatementproduction capacityestoppel against statutequasi-judicial discretionadministrative lawsugar industry
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners, trustees of a charitable endowment, sought judicial review of an order by the Central Board of Revenue granting only partial abatement of excise duty for a shortfall in sugar production. The Board had applied a blanket 10% deduction from the claimed abatement based on a general formula rather than an individual assessment of the factory's circumstances. The core legal question was whether the Board could apply such a formula under Rule 4 of the Excise Duty on Production Capacity (Sugar) Rules, 1972, and whether the petitioners were estopped from challenging this deduction due to their prior acquiescence. The Court held the impugned order invalid, ruling that the Board failed to exercise its quasi-judicial discretion subjectively as mandated by the Rules. The Court established that no estoppel can be pleaded against a statute; therefore, a party's prior consent or failure to object cannot validate an order that is otherwise contrary to law. Consequently, the Court remanded the matter for a fresh, lawful determination of the abatement claim based on the specific facts of the case.

  Questions settled

  • Can a statutory authority apply a blanket formula to deny abatement claims without considering individual circumstances?
  • Does the doctrine of estoppel prevent a party from challenging an administrative order that is contrary to statutory provisions?
  • Is a party's prior consent to an illegal administrative order binding, or can they subsequently challenge it?
  • Does the failure to object to a proposed administrative action preclude a party from later seeking judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• Trans Ocean Asia vs Alpha Insurance Company Ltd., Karachi1981 CLC 1028 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-24
  marine insuranceinsurance premiumoverage vesselcondition precedentopen cover noterefund of premiumreinsurance
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises from a suit filed by a registered partnership firm against an insurance company claiming a refund of marine insurance premium amounting to Rs. 1,81,842.75 paid for an overage vessel. The core legal question was whether the appellant was contractually bound to pay the enhanced overage extra premium at 4 percent as demanded by the respondent insurer, or whether the rate was fixed at 1.5 percent. The Sindh High Court held that under subsection (4) of section 3-C of the Insurance Act 1938, payment of premium or a bank guarantee is a condition precedent to liability, and no enforceable insurance contract comes into existence without it. Furthermore, the court held that since the open cover note left the overage extra rate open for ascertainment through reinsurers, and the insurer remained at risk throughout the voyage, the appellant was liable to pay the enhanced extra premium of 4 percent and was not entitled to any refund. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payment of premium or furnishing of a bank guarantee is a condition precedent to liability under a contract of insurance?
  • Can an insured claim a refund of premium after the insurer has remained at risk throughout the voyage?
  • Whether an insurance company is bound by an initially quoted overage extra rate when the cover note expressly leaves the rate subject to ascertainment from reinsurers?
  Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Alehsan Trading1981 CLC 999 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs U. Niamat Moulvi1981 P Cr. L J 382 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Gul Hameed1981 P Cr. L J 491 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-08Read full judgment →
• The Premier Insurance Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Ejaz Ahmed1981 CLC 311 · Sindh High Court
  arbitration awardobjections to awarderror apparent on face of recordburden of proofpartnership authorityimplied authorityinsurance claimappreciation of evidencescope of judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged a Single Judge's order dismissing objections against an arbitration award and making it a rule of the Court, stemming from an insurance claim dispute over a bus destroyed by fire. The appellant contended the award was based on no evidence, contained an error of law apparent on its face regarding the burden of proof, and that the arbitration reference by one partner was incompetent under Section 19(2) of the Partnership Act. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Umpire's appreciation of evidence was not open to scrutiny under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act, and the award was not based on no evidence. It further clarified that an error of law 'apparent on the face of the record' must be discoverable solely from the award itself, not by reference to external documents like the insurance policy unless explicitly incorporated. Lastly, the Court ruled that implied authority for a partner to refer a dispute to arbitration is sufficient, and a stranger cannot challenge such authority.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitration award be set aside on the ground that it is based on no evidence if some evidence was presented to the Umpire?
  • What constitutes an 'error of law apparent on the face of the award' for the purpose of setting aside an arbitration award?
  • Can a court substitute its own finding on the appreciation of evidence for that of an Arbitrator or Umpire under Section 33 of the Arbitration Act?
  • Is express written authority required for one partner to refer a dispute to arbitration on behalf of other partners under Section 19(2) of the Partnership Act?
  • Can a stranger to a partnership challenge the competency of one partner to make a reference to arbitration on behalf of the firm?
  Read full judgment →
• The Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Akhlaq Ahmad and Another1981 PLD Karachi 636 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-11Read full judgment →
• The Jetpur Memon Association vs Mst. Zubeda Begum and 9 Others1981 CLC 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
• The Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Karachi vs Muhammad1981 CLC 197 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Teoomal vs Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, Sanghar and Another1981 PLD Karachi 349 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-21
  writ jurisdictionnecessary partyevacuee propertysuo motulachesconstitutional petitionLetters Patent Appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal challenges a judgment of a Single Judge who, in a Constitutional Petition under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution, remanded a case to the Deputy Custodian of Evacuee Property for rehearing. The core legal question was whether the High Court could set aside an order of the Custodian of Evacuee Property and remand the matter when the Custodian was not impleaded as a party, and whether such action could be taken suo motu. The Court held that the High Court lacks suo motu jurisdiction under Article 98, which requires an application by an aggrieved party. Furthermore, the Custodian was a necessary party; failing to implead the authority whose order is impugned renders the writ petition defective. The Court also noted the respondent's laches in challenging the order after ten years. The key principle laid down is that in writ proceedings, the authority whose order is challenged is a necessary party, and the High Court cannot grant relief against non-parties or act suo motu to set aside administrative orders without proper pleadings and parties.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court exercise suo motu jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution?
  • Is the authority whose order is impugned a necessary party in a writ petition?
  • Can a High Court set aside an administrative order in a writ petition without the issuing authority being impleaded as a party?
  • Do Settlement Authorities have jurisdiction to transfer property that has been declared non-evacuee?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-02Read full judgment →
• Taiyab A. Kapadia vs Agha Ziauddin Barni1981 CLC 1267 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-07
  second appealevictiondefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide requirementdeath of landlordpleadings in rent casesaccount booksconcurrent findings
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an eviction proceeding initiated by a deceased landlord against a tenant on grounds of non-payment of rent for four months and bona fide personal requirement for running a film production business. The Rent Controller allowed the eviction application on both grounds, and the Third Additional District Judge, Karachi dismissed the tenant's first appeal, affirming the lower court's findings. Before the High Court, the tenant argued that the landlord's death altered the personal requirement claim and that the lower courts erred in disregarding account books of a partnership firm showing alleged cash rent payments. The High Court held that the personal requirement of a deceased landlord for a business requiring specialized skill cannot be automatically inherited or substituted by his legal heirs (a widow and married daughters). However, on the question of default, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings, holding that account books of a partnership firm to which the landlord was a stranger could not establish rent payment, especially when no partnership was pleaded in the written statement. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a landlord's personal bona fide requirement for a specialized business be substituted by his legal heirs after his death?
  • Can a tenant rely on account books of an unpleaded partnership firm to prove payment of rent to a landlord who is a stranger to that firm?
  • Whether concurrent findings of fact on the question of rent default can be interfered with in second appeal when not perverse or contrary to record?
  Read full judgment →
• T. R. Arthur vs Alex Robert David1981 CLC 522 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Shamsul Qamar Warsi vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1274 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-18Read full judgment →
• Syed Qamar Moini vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and 31981 CLC 1231 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Khadim Ali Shah vs S. M. Zia and 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-16
  rejection of plaintco-operative societiesdispute touching the business of the societyjurisdiction of civil courtpermanent injunctionforcible dispossessionallotment of plot
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil miscellaneous appeal involves applications under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, seeking the rejection of a plaint and dismissal of a suit for permanent injunction filed by the plaintiff to restrain the defendants from interfering with his possession of a plot. The core legal question was whether a dispute concerning the threatened forcible dispossession of a member in possession of a plot by another member touches the business of a co-operative society so as to oust the jurisdiction of civil courts under sections 54 and 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The court held that a dispute regarding illegal or forcible dispossession does not touch the business of the society, as neither the Act nor the society's bye-laws confer powers on the society or the Registrar to resolve disputes of threatened forcible ejectment or to grant permanent injunctions against dispossession. Such matters fall within the domain of ordinary civil courts. Consequently, the applications for rejection of the plaint were dismissed, establishing the principle that civil court jurisdiction is not barred for suits seeking protection against forcible dispossession by other members of a co-operative society.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute regarding threatened forcible dispossession of a member from a plot by another member constitute a dispute touching the business of a co-operative society under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  • Whether the jurisdiction of civil courts is barred under section 70-A of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925, in a suit for permanent injunction against illegal dispossession?
  • Does the Registrar of Co-operative Societies have the power to resolve disputes relating to threatened illegal dispossession between members?
  • Can interlocutory orders under Rule 32-A of the Co-operative Societies Rules, 1927, be passed in respect of a dispute that does not fall under section 54 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ishtiaq Ali, Advocate vs Province of Sind and 12 Others1981 CLC 1374 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-28Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs The State and 6 Others----1981 P Cr. L J 561 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Fazlur Rehman vs Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan and Another1981 CLC 1523 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Farzan Rizvi vs Khalilur Rehman1981 CLC 1223 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-09
  bona fide personal requirementevictionsecond appealurban rent restrictiongood faithsuitability of premisesalternative accommodation
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance arises from concurrent orders of eviction passed against the tenant by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Additional District Judge, Karachi. The landlord sought ejectment of the tenant from commercial premises on the ground of default in payment of rent and bona fide personal requirement to establish a Katha manufacturing business. The High Court remanded the matter for additional evidence regarding whether the landlord had vacated other buildings without sufficient cause. Upon receiving the finding in the affirmative against the landlord, the High Court evaluated the bona fides of the claim. The Court held that a landlord's mere desire cannot be equated with a requirement in good faith, and that the landlord failed to prove the reasonable suitability of the premises, lacked necessary municipal licenses for a hazardous manufacturing trade, and had voluntarily parted with alternative commercial premises for profit. Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal and set aside the eviction orders, establishing principles regarding the strict proof required to substantiate a landlord's bona fide personal requirement under rent laws.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord's mere desire for commercial premises can be equated with a requirement in good faith under rent restriction laws?
  • Does the absence of evidence regarding space requirements and municipal licenses for a hazardous trade negate the bona fides of a landlord's personal requirement claim?
  • What is the legal effect under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance of a landlord parting with possession of alternative commercial premises without sufficient cause?
  • Can an advance deposit held by the landlord covering accruing rents be construed as creating a fixed tenancy period that bars an eviction application?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Azad Ali vs Muhammad Yaseen and Anothers1981 CLC 788 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-10Read full judgment →
• Syed Ashraf Ali vs Ali Mohomed Khan1981 CLC 675 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Asghar Zaidi vs Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad and 21981 CLC 1356 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Akhtar Hussain vs Muhammad Tahir Alam and Another1981 CLC 1323 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
• Superintendent, Sind Government Press and Another vs Farhat All1981 PLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-17Read full judgment →
• Sulleman and 2 Others vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 434 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
• Suleman vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-31
  criminal revisionstock witnessesburden of proofexpert evidenceillegal searchcontrabandacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application challenges the conviction of the applicant under Section 43(3) of the Abkari Act, 1878, for the alleged possession of charas. The core legal questions involved the sufficiency of the trial court's reasoning, the credibility of prosecution witnesses, the admissibility of an Excise Officer's certificate regarding the nature of the contraband, and compliance with search procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The High Court held that the trial court failed to provide adequate reasons for conviction, erroneously shifting the burden of proof to the accused. Furthermore, the Appellate Court failed to consider additional evidence admitted under Section 428, Cr. P. C., regarding the status of prosecution witnesses as 'stock witnesses.' The Court also ruled that a certificate from an Excise Officer is insufficient to prove the nature of contraband, which requires expert testimony under the Evidence Act, 1872. Additionally, the search violated procedural requirements under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, as the recovery witness was not from the locality. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the applicant was acquitted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a certificate issued by an Excise Officer sufficient to prove the nature of recovered contraband, or is expert testimony required?
  • Does the failure of a trial court to provide detailed reasons for a conviction constitute a legal infirmity?
  • Can a search conducted in violation of the locality witness requirement under the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, be sustained?
  • Is the burden of proof on the accused to prove innocence, or does it remain with the prosecution throughout the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman (Represented by His Heirs) and 11 Others vs Rochomal and 191981 CLC 1219 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• State vs Shamim Ahmad and 12 Others---1981 P Cr. L J 1214 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Sarwar and 5 Others1981 P Cr. L J 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-31Read full judgment →
• State vs Lois Kowach1981 P Cr. L J 102 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-07Read full judgment →
• State vs Ishaque1981 P Cr. L J 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-23Read full judgment →
• State vs Basham and 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 321 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• State vs Badal and 8 Others1981 P Cr. L J 658 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sped Muhammad vs Mazhar Ali Khan1981 PLD Karachi 76 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12
  limitation periodcondonation of delayrent appealspecial lawrented premises
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a series of rent appeals filed beyond the prescribed thirty-day period under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, accompanied by applications under section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay. The core legal question is whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to appeals filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. The court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act is not applicable to appeals under section 21 of the Ordinance, and consequently dismissed the applications for condonation of delay as well as the time-barred appeals. The key principle laid down is that where a special or local law prescribes a period of limitation different from that provided in the First Schedule to the Limitation Act, section 5 of the Limitation Act stands excluded by virtue of section 29(2) of the Limitation Act, 1908, unless expressly made applicable by the legislature.

  Questions settled

  • Whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to an appeal filed under section 21 of the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979?
  • Does section 29(2) of the Limitation Act exclude the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to special or local laws prescribing a different period of limitation?
  • Can delay in filing a rent appeal under the Sind Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 be condoned under section 5 of the Limitation Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Smt. Vidayabai and 3 Others vs Mooranjmal1981 CLC 903 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-08Read full judgment →
• Sirajul Arfeen vs Chief Settlement & Rehabilitation Commissioner, West Pakistan, LahoreP L, D 1981 Karachi 437 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sirajuddin Ahmad vs Muhammad Yusuf and 4 Otheer1981 CLC 1216 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
• Sind Road Transport Corporation vs Jaffar Ali and 3 Others1981 CLC 1166 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution vs Messrs Al-Mohammadi1981 PLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-07
  social securitybeneficial legislationestablishmentemployer liabilityremedial legislationpartnership changecontribution payment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal was filed under Section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, challenging a judgment of the Social Security Court which held that an establishment was no longer liable to pay contributions after changing its name and partnership composition. The core legal question was whether an establishment, once notified under the Ordinance, ceases to be subject to its provisions upon a change in its name or the addition of a new partner. The High Court held that the establishment remains subject to the Ordinance, emphasizing that the Ordinance is a beneficial and remedial legislation intended to ameliorate the lot of the working class. The Court ruled that the identity of an establishment is not defined by its name or the specific composition of its partnership, but by the nature of the business and the employment of workers. Consequently, the Court set aside the lower court's judgment, affirming that the respondents must continue to register secured workers and pay contributions as required by law.

  Questions settled

  • Does a change in the name of an establishment exempt it from the application of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Does the addition of a new partner to a firm alter the status of an establishment for the purposes of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • How should the terms 'employee' and 'establishment' be interpreted in the context of beneficial legislation like the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Construction Co. vs The Karachi Port Trust, Karachi1981 CLC 1282 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-26Read full judgment →
• Sikandar and 2 Others vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 884 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
• Siddiq vs THS State--Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-15Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Shafique vs Humayun Kabir and 3 Others1981 CLC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-24
  compromise decreestay of executionpower of attorneyfraudmaintainability of suitrevisional jurisdictionfurnishing security
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application arose from an order of the Additional District Judge, Sukkur, staying the execution of a compromise decree under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The respondent No. 3, whose husband (respondent No. 2) had signed the compromise application on her behalf using a special power of attorney, filed a separate civil suit challenging the validity of the decree on grounds of fraud, forgery, and interpolation of the power of attorney. The applicant contended that a separate suit was not maintainable as an appeal was the proper remedy, and that the compromise signed by the authorized advocate was binding. The High Court held that a separate suit for declaration was maintainable because the remedy of appeal was of a limited nature and inefficacious for resolving complex factual disputes of fraud. The Court also noted that the newly added Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 did not apply retrospectively to this suit. However, to prevent prejudice to the decree-holder and address potential collusion, the Court modified the stay order, directing that the execution proceedings be stayed only upon respondent No. 3 furnishing security for the decretal amount.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a separate civil suit challenging a compromise decree on the grounds of fraud and forgery is maintainable when an alternate remedy of appeal is available but is inefficacious?
  • Does the bar on separate suits under Section 12(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply retrospectively to suits filed before the promulgation of the Code of Civil Procedure (Amendment) Ordinance 1980?
  • Can an attorney delegate the power to compromise a suit to an advocate if the attorney himself was not granted the power to compromise in the original power of attorney?
  • Should a court staying execution proceedings under Order XXI Rule 29 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 impose terms as to security to protect the interests of the decree-holder?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Rafiq Akhtar vs SQN./LDR. (RTD.) Shaikh Ghulam1981 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court
  specific performancetemporary injunctionearnest moneyinterlocutory proceedingsprima facie casebalance of convenienceimmovable property
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the defendant from alienating a property pending the disposal of a suit for specific performance. The core legal question was whether a receipt for earnest money, which contemplated a future formal agreement, constituted a binding contract for sale sufficient to warrant an interlocutory injunction. The court held that the plaintiff established a prima facie case, as the receipt indicated an agreement on price and subject matter. The court emphasized that disputed contentions regarding fraud, misrepresentation, or the adequacy of consideration are matters for trial and not for interlocutory adjudication. Consequently, the court granted the injunction, subject to the plaintiff depositing the balance of the sale consideration. The key principle laid down is that for interlocutory injunctions in specific performance suits, the court must assess the prima facie case, balance of convenience, and irreparable loss, while recognizing that breach of a contract to transfer immovable property is generally not adequately compensated by money alone.

  Questions settled

  • Does a receipt for earnest money that contemplates a future formal sale agreement constitute a binding contract for the purpose of an interlocutory injunction?
  • Should the court decide disputed questions of fraud and property valuation at the interlocutory stage of a suit for specific performance?
  • Is the breach of a contract to transfer immovable property considered adequately compensable by money alone?
  • What are the three essential criteria for granting an interlocutory injunction in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Muhammad Akram vs Federation of Pakistan and 7 Others1981 CLC 1654 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-29Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Rahim vs Government of West Pakistan and Another1981 PLD Karachi 504 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 169 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
• Shamsus Salam Siddiqui vs Syed Hizabruddin Hussain1981 CLC 31 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-16Read full judgment →
• Shadoo vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 610 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →