Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Shabbir Ahmed Abbasi vs United Bank Ltd., Karachi and Other1981 PLD Karachi 596 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These intra-court appeals arose from suits filed by a bank for the recovery of substantial sums against the appellants, alleging conspiracy and unauthorized advances in connivance with a bank manager. The core legal question concerned whether documents not produced along with the plaint or within the initial timeline could be received in evidence at a belated stage under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the non-production of documents at the initial stage under Order VII, rules 14 and 18 does not absolutely bar their subsequent reception, as Order XIII, rule 2 and section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 grant the court judicial discretion to admit them upon showing good cause and in the interest of justice. The key principles laid down are that the court exercises sound judicial discretion considering the authenticity of the documents, reasons for non-production, absence of dilatory intent, and the overarching demands of justice, and that a mislabeling or omission of a specific provision in an application does not defeat relief if the substance warrants it.
Questions settled- Whether documents not produced with the plaint under Order VII Rule 14 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 can be received in evidence at a subsequent stage of the suit?
- What considerations govern the exercise of judicial discretion by a court under Order XIII Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 for admitting late documents?
- Does the failure to cite the correct provision of law in an application seeking an extension of time or production of documents vitiate the application if the substantive relief is permissible under another provision like section 148 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Sh. Mehtabuddin and Another vs Abdul Sattar and 2 Others1981 CLC 828 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
- Security Papers Ltd. No, IV and Another vs Sind Labour Court1981 PLC 898 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by the employers challenging the order of the Sindh Labour Court which had set aside the dismissal of a Security Guard (respondent No. 2) and ordered his reinstatement with back benefits. The petitioners contended that the respondent was not a workman under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, that the grievance notice was improper, and that the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 was inapplicable to their establishment due to an amendment. They further argued that no right of appeal existed under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for proceedings initiated under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The High Court held that the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 into Standing Order 12(3) made the entire procedure, including the right of appeal under Section 37(3), available to aggrieved workmen. Since the petitioners had an alternate, adequate remedy of appeal which they had already filed and kept pending, the writ petition was dismissed as premature and not maintainable.
Questions settled- Whether the incorporation of Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 into Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 includes the right of appeal under Section 37(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
- Does the exclusion of an establishment from the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 take away the statutory remedy of a workman under Standing Order 12(3) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
- Can a constitutional petition be maintained when an alternate statutory remedy of appeal is available and has already been initiated by the petitioner?
- Sarfraz vs The State---Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- Samo and 5 Others vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1981 CLC 1308 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Saleh Muhammad and Anotrer vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 179 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged the cognizance taken by a Special Judge (Customs) against the applicants for possession of smuggled goods. The core legal question was whether the Special Judge had jurisdiction to take cognizance based on a police report signed by a Superintendent of Police (S.P.), given that the law at the time required a 'complaint' by an authorized officer under Section 185-A(6) of the Customs Act, and whether such a report constituted a valid complaint. The Court held that the cognizance was validly taken. It reasoned that the S.P. was an authorized officer under the relevant Customs General Order, and the document submitted, though styled as a police report, functioned as a complaint for the purposes of the Customs Act. The Court clarified that the definition of 'complaint' in Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure does not strictly exclude reports by authorized officers when acting in their capacity as designated complainants under special statutes. The principle laid down is that a report submitted by an authorized officer under the Customs Act satisfies the statutory requirement of a 'complaint' regardless of its nomenclature.
Questions settled- Does a report submitted by an authorized officer under the Customs Act constitute a valid 'complaint' for the purpose of taking cognizance, even if styled as a police report?
- Is the definition of 'complaint' in Section 4(h) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exhaustive when applied to special statutes like the Customs Act?
- Does the mere signature of a Superintendent of Police on a challan satisfy the requirement of applying one's mind to the facts for the purpose of filing a complaint?
- Saifuddin vs Haji Fida Hussain1981 CLC 1126 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- Saeeduddin vs Nasiruddin1981 CLC 1070 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-13Read full judgment →
- Saeed Pasha Lodhi vs Government of Sind1981 P Cr. L J 398 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
- Sachunand and Another vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1981 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, exercising suo motu revisional powers under paragraph 29 of Martial Law Regulation No. 115, whereby oral gifts of agricultural land made by petitioner No. 1 in favour of his parents were declared void and non-existent for want of registration under section 123 of the Transfer of Property Act. The core legal question was whether an alienation of land that is de facto complete and bona fide can be struck down under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 merely on the ground of a technical defect or lack of registration under the general law of property, where there is no dispute between the transferor and the transferee. The Sindh High Court held that for the purposes of land reforms, the de facto nature of a transaction and the complete parting of possession by the owner are decisive, rather than strict de jure compliance with general property laws meant to resolve disputes between private parties. The court concluded that the Federal Land Commission acted without lawful authority, setting aside the impugned revisional order and restoring the validity of the bona fide alienations.
Questions settled- Whether an oral gift of land can be treated as void under Martial Law Regulation No. 115 solely for want of registration under the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
- Does the term transfer under land reforms regulations contemplate de facto alienations where the transferor has completely parted with possession?
- Can the Federal Land Commission set aside a bona fide transaction that has been accepted and mutated by the provincial land commissioner?
- Sachu and 3 Others vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 914 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-21Read full judgment →
- Sabir Hussain vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 517 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
- S. Zahir Hussain vs Province of Sind and Another1981 CLC 379 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed by the Province of Sind against an arbitration award in a building contract dispute. The core legal questions addressed whether a party can challenge an arbitrator's appointment after participating in proceedings, whether an award can be set aside for being time-barred despite party acquiescence, and the scope of judicial review regarding an error of law apparent on the face of the award. The court held that a party who participates in arbitration proceedings without protest waives the right to challenge the arbitrator's appointment or jurisdiction. Furthermore, the court ruled that it possesses discretion to extend the time for an award where parties have acquiesced to the proceedings continuing beyond the statutory period. The court affirmed the principle that it cannot act as an appellate court to re-examine evidence or findings of fact, as an error of law requires a specific erroneous legal proposition within the award itself, not merely a disagreement with factual conclusions. Consequently, the court dismissed the objections, modifying the award only regarding the interest rate to comply with legal limits.
Questions settled- Can a party challenge the appointment of an arbitrator after participating in the arbitration proceedings without protest?
- Does the court have the discretion to extend the time for an award if parties have acquiesced to the proceedings continuing beyond the statutory period?
- What constitutes an error of law apparent on the face of the award under the Arbitration Act?
- Is it permissible for a court to re-evaluate evidence or findings of fact made by an arbitrator when reviewing an award?
- S. M. Younus and 2 Others vs Premier Mercantile Service, Karachi and Another1981 CLC 1380 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- S. M. Jaffer vs Muhammad Ziauddin1981 CLC 1429 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-02Read full judgment →
- S. M. Anwar Sethi vs Sheikh Muhammad Hussain1981 CLC 1179 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-21Read full judgment →
- S. Abdul Majeed vs M. Anwar Aziz and Another1981 CLC 978 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-05Read full judgment →
- Rustam and 2 Others vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Ranjho and Another vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 890 · Sindh High Court · 1981-09-27Read full judgment →
- Rajib vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
- Raja Qureshi vs MRS. Yasmeen Qureshi1981 PLD Karachi 61 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-31Read full judgment →
- Rais Khair Muhammad and 4 Others. vs Imdadullah Shah1981 CLC 1411 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-19Read full judgment →
- Rabia Bibi vs The State and 5 OTHERSs1981 P Cr. L J 458 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-25Read full judgment →
- R. M. Gulistan vs Karachi Metropolitan Corporation1981 CLC 1500 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
- Qazi Yar Muhammad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-13Read full judgment →
- Qassam vs Dunya Gul1981 CLC 1743 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-01Read full judgment →
- Qamrul Islam vs The State and Another---1981 P Cr. L J 586 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bux vs Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and Another1981 CLC 1574 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- Qadir Bakhsh vs The StateP L -D 1981 Karachi 581 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-14Read full judgment →
- Province of West Pakistan vs Abdulali P. Jivani and 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 774 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
- Popat vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-23Read full judgment →
- Pioneer Steel Mills Ltd. vs Anees Corporation Etc.1981 CLC 955 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08Read full judgment →
- Pinio vs The State-Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-01Read full judgment →
- Photo and Another vs Haji Nihal and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 460 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
- Phool Muhammad vs S. Hassan Arif Fatmi and 4 Others1981 CLC 1719 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-28Read full judgment →
- Patraco Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner and Assistant Custodian of Enemy Property and 3 Others1981 CLC 1433 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Paryal vs Punhoon and 3 Others1981 CLC 265 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Warehouses and Carriers Workers'union, Karachi vs Karachi Dock Labour Board, Karachiand 6 Other,1981 PLC 33 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
- Qutubuddin Ahmad Khan vs Mst. Zohra Musarat Amin and Another1981 CLC 212 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an impugned order of the Additional District Judge dismissing an appeal against orders of the Rent Controller that struck off the defence of the respondent-tenant and rejected the appellant's application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. to be impleaded as an intervenor. The core legal questions involve whether a person in physical occupation as a former employee of the tenant can claim status as a direct tenant without evidence of direct attornment or landlord acceptance, whether an appeal is competent against the rejection of an Order I, Rule 10 application under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959, and whether contempt of court is made out for violating a stay order without authentic prior knowledge. The Sindh High Court held that the appellant failed to establish a direct landlord-tenant relationship, that an appeal against an Order I, Rule 10 rejection is not competent under Section 15 of the Ordinance, and that contempt proceedings fail where the respondents had no definite and authentic prior knowledge of the stay order. The court laid down that a Rent Controller is persona designata where the Civil Procedure Code does not directly apply, that appeals from a Rent Controller are strictly confined to sections specified in Section 15, and that penal consequences for contempt require clear proof of wilful disregard with definite information of the order.
Questions settled- Can a person in physical occupation of a premises as an employee of the tenant claim tenancy status without proving direct acceptance of rent by the landlord?
- Is an appeal competent against an order of the Rent Controller rejecting an application under Order I, Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Whether disobedience of a stay order constitutes contempt of court in the absence of definite and authentic prior knowledge of the order by the alleged contemner?
- Pakistan Toilet Works, Karachi vs The Additional Commissioner1981 CLC 1543 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan through Pakistan Western Railways, Lahore vs Mist. Kakubai1981 PLD Karachi 667 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-13Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Shipping Lines Ltd. vs Trustees of the Port of Karachi and 21981 CLC 1451 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan Shipping Corporation, Karachi vs Sind Employees' Social1981 PLC 9 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal under section 64 of the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 against the judgment of the Social Security Court. The core legal question is whether the statutory appellant Pakistan Shipping Corporation ceased to be liable for social security contributions under the Ordinance following the transfer of ownership and management of certain taken-over establishments (Messrs Muhammadi Engineering Works Ltd. and Messrs East & West Steamship Company) to the Corporation. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and held that the liability to pay social security contributions does not cease by a mere change of ownership or management as long as the establishment continues to exist as an organization and employees work in or in connection with its work. The key principle laid down is that social security legislation is beneficial and remedial, meaning obligations under section 20 of the Ordinance attach to the establishment as an organization and persist regardless of changes in ownership or corporate structure.
Questions settled- Does the liability to pay social security contributions cease upon the transfer of ownership or management of an establishment to a statutory corporation?
- Whether an establishment under the Social Security Ordinance, 1965 is confined strictly to the physical premises or constitutes an organization?
- Does a change in the employer or corporate ownership affect the statutory obligation to contribute to the social security fund for employees working in connection with the establishment?
- Pakistan Narcotics Control Board vs Enrico Minicucci and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-19Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Fisheries Ltd. vs Deputy Collector of Customs and 2 Others1981 CLC 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Cable Employees' Union, Labour Welfare Centre and Another1981 PLC 589 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-16Read full judgment →
- Pak Ocean Shipping Co. Ltd., Karachi and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Oghan and Another vs The State- Respondent1981 P Cr. L J 425 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-18Read full judgment →
- Obaidullah Khan vs The Labour Court1981 PLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-13Read full judgment →
- Noubat and Other vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-22Read full judgment →
- Norwich Union Life Insurance Society vs Mst. Zainab Bibi1981 CLC 1722 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This first appeal arose from a money suit filed by the mother of a deceased insured against an insurance society for recovery of claims under two life insurance policies. The policies had lapsed due to non-payment of premiums and insufficient surrender value. Upon the society's demand for a declaration of good health as a condition precedent for reinstatement, the insured provided health declarations on two occasions, leading to the revival of the policies. Following the insured's death, medical evidence revealed that he had suppressed serious pre-existing ailments when making those declarations. The trial court found the health declarations false but decreed the suit, holding the condition was not part of the revived policies. On appeal, the High Court reversed the decree. The High Court held that an insurer may impose new conditions to revive a lapsed policy, making such declarations integral to the revival contract. Since life insurance requires utmost good faith (uberrimae fidei), the insured's fraudulent non-disclosure rendered the contract voidable, entitling the insurer to repudiate liability.
Questions settled- Whether an insurer can legally impose new terms and conditions, such as a declaration of good health, for the revival of a lapsed life insurance policy?
- Whether a false declaration of good health submitted to procure the revival of a lapsed life insurance policy entitles the insurer to repudiate its liability?
- Does the failure to formally incorporate a health declaration into the original policy document prevent an insurer from relying on its falsity to repudiate a revived policy?
- Nooruddin Hussain and Another vs Diamond Vacuum Bottle1981 PLD Karachi 720 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for an interim injunction filed by the plaintiffs against the defendants for alleged patent infringement and breach of a prior consent decree. The core legal questions were whether the suit was barred under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, as an attempt to execute a previous decree, and whether an interim injunction could be granted to enforce negative covenants within that decree despite provisions of the Specific Relief Act 1877. The Court held that Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, was inapplicable because the current dispute involved a third party not present in the original suit. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that where a consent decree contains negative covenants, the Court may grant an injunction to enforce the bargain made between parties. The Court laid down the principle that the validity of a patent is presumed for interlocutory purposes if previously established, and that courts may enforce negative covenants in consent decrees via injunction, independent of the balance of convenience, provided the covenantee has not acted unjustly.
Questions settled- Does Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 bar a suit that involves a party who was not part of the original decree?
- Can a court grant an interim injunction to enforce negative covenants contained in a consent decree?
- Is the validity of a patent presumed in an interlocutory application if it was previously established in a prior suit between the parties?
- Noor Muhammad vs Mumtaz Baig1981 CLC 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-05Read full judgment →
- Nizamuddin Yahya and Another vs Additional Chief Land1981 CLC 536 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nizamuddin vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 601 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-02Read full judgment →
- New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. vs District Judge, Karachi and 31981 PLC 566 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Nazir of the High Court of Sind & Baluchistan, KARACHI/DecreeHolder1981 CLC 372 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This execution application was filed by the decree-holder to execute a decree passed in 1959. The primary legal question addressed by the court was whether the second execution application was barred by limitation under Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908, considering an amendment made by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, which reduced the limitation period from twelve years to six years. The court held that the right to execute a decree is a vested right, and an alteration reducing the limitation period is not retrospective; therefore, decrees passed prior to the 1972 amendment continue to be governed by the unamended twelve-year period. The court further held that the mere pendency of a first execution application does not provide a continuing right to save a subsequent application from limitation, but simultaneous or successive execution applications are not barred by law. The execution application was found to be within time and was granted.
Questions settled- Whether the amendment made by the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972 reducing the limitation period under Article 183 of the Limitation Act, 1908 is retrospective in nature?
- Does the pendency of a first execution application by itself provide a continuing right to save a second execution application from limitation?
- Is there any statutory prohibition against filing a second execution application while a first execution application is still pending?
- Nazar Muhammad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
- Nawab Brothers Ltd., Karachi vs Project Director, Office of the Project Director, Special Projects, Planning and Development Department, Karachi and Another1981 CLC 638 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the plaintiff, Nawab Brothers Ltd., against the Project Director and Additional Chief Secretary of the Government of Sind, seeking to place an agreement on record, order a reference to arbitration, and obtain related relief concerning the construction of the Sind House at Islamabad. The core legal questions involved whether a valid and subsisting arbitration agreement existed between the parties, whether a subsequent agreement operated as a novation that wiped out the original contract and its arbitration clause under section 62 of the Contract Act, 1872, and whether an arbitration agreement must be signed to be legally enforceable under section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940. The court held that the subsequent agreement only modified certain terms rather than substituting the entire original contract, that the arbitration clause remained valid, binding, and severable, and that an arbitration agreement need not be signed provided it is in writing and its terms are ascertained and agreed upon. The court ordered the arbitration agreement to be filed and directed the reference of the disputes to arbitrators.
Questions settled- Whether a subsequent agreement modifying certain terms of an original contract operates as a novation that completely extinguishes the original contract and its arbitration clause?
- Is it a mandatory requirement under section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act, 1940, that an arbitration agreement must be formally signed by the parties?
- Does an arbitration clause in a building and construction contract survive the frustration, modification, or breach of the main contract?
- Whether an arbitration agreement that provides for the reference of future disputes to arbitration is rendered void as being in restraint of legal proceedings under section 28 of the Contract Act, 1872?
- Nawab Ali vs Umar Din and 3 Others s1981 P Cr. L J 775 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- Nauhat and 2 Others vs The State--1981 P Cr. L J 1313 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-04Read full judgment →
- National Cement Industries Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1981 PLC 561 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Constitutional Petition was filed to challenge an order of the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal holding that it lacked revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 over orders passed by a Labour Court in an appeal under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court's decision under a special law other than the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 constitutes a proceeding under the Ordinance and is subject to the revisional powers of the Labour Appellate Tribunal. The High Court held that under Section 35(5)(d) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, the Labour Court's ordinary jurisdiction includes powers assigned to it under other laws. Applying the established principle that conferring new jurisdiction on an existing court imports all ordinary incidents of that court's procedure and remedies, the Court held that adjudications under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936 become proceedings under the Ordinance amenable to the Tribunal's revisional jurisdiction. The petition was allowed and the matter remanded.
Questions settled- Does the Labour Appellate Tribunal possess revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 over appellate orders of a Labour Court under Section 17 of the Payment of Wages Act 1936?
- Are proceedings conducted by a Labour Court under a special statute deemed to be proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 by virtue of Section 35(5)(d)?
- Does conferring additional jurisdiction on an established court implicitly attach all ordinary procedural incidents including appeal and revision?
- Nasir Ahmad vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 594 · Sindh High Court · 1981-12-13Read full judgment →
- Naseer vs Tim State1981 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-08Read full judgment →
- Nabo Jan vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 951 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-25Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ali Khan and Another vs Progressive Tobacco Ltd., Karachi1981 CLC 1051 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-09Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs Member II, Federal Land Commission and 2 Others1981 CLC 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-01Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad Khan vs Nasimur Rehman1981 CLC 137 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-06Read full judgment →
- Muqtada Khan Iqtida Khan vs Allah Rakhi Begum1981 CLC 568 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions involved were whether the omission to make consequential amendments in subsection (4) of section 15 of the Ordinance after the amendment of subsection (1) affected the limitation period for second appeals, and whether section 5 of the Limitation Act applies to second appeals filed under section 15(4) of the said Ordinance. The Sindh High Court held that despite the draftsman's omission to amend subsection (4), the right of second appeal is retained by interpreting the reference to the appellate authority in accordance with the legislative intent. However, the Court held that section 5 of the Limitation Act does not apply to second appeals under section 15(4) because the special law prescribes a period of limitation different from the First Schedule of the Limitation Act, thereby excluding section 5 pursuant to section 29(2) of the Limitation Act. The appeal was consequently dismissed as time-barred.
Questions settled- Whether the omission to amend subsection (4) of section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 nullifies the right of second appeal to the High Court?
- Does section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to second appeals filed under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- How should a statutory provision containing an unamended reference resulting from a legislative oversight be interpreted by the courts?
- Whether section 29(2) of the Limitation Act 1908 excludes the application of section 5 of the Limitation Act to special laws prescribing a different period of limitation?
- Munshi Sirajul Haque vs Nizamuddin1981 CLC 864 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
- Mumtazuddin Ahmed vs Mst. Sultan Jehan Begum1981 PLD Karachi 329 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal under the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 arose from an eviction order passed by the Rent Controller under Section 14 of the Ordinance directing the tenant to deliver vacant possession. The tenant contended that he was denied a reasonable opportunity to defend, that an earlier application under Section 15 barred the Section 14 proceedings, and that the landlady was disentitled because another flat in the building had been re-let after she turned 60. The High Court analyzed the statutory distinction between summary proceedings under Section 14 and regular trials under Section 15. The Court held that Rent Controllers retain discretion to determine the scope of inquiry in Section 14 cases provided natural justice is observed, and the statutory proviso restricting re-letting applies strictly to the specific rented premise in dispute, not other independent units in the building. Furthermore, the pendency of a Section 15 application does not bar resort to Section 14. Finding no jurisdictional error or denial of due process, the High Court dismissed the appeal and granted thirty days to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the pendency of an eviction application under Section 15 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 bar a landlord from filing a summary application under Section 14?
- Is a Rent Controller required to conduct a full formal inquiry with affidavits and cross-examination when deciding an application under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979?
- Does the statutory restriction against re-letting after attaining sixty years of age under Section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance 1979 apply to any property owned by the landlord or strictly to the specific building unit subject to the eviction application?
- Mumtaz Ali Bhutto vs The Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Interior and 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 98 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-24Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the refusal by the Government of Pakistan to issue a passport to the petitioner. The core legal question was whether the issuance of a passport is a matter of absolute executive discretion immune from judicial review, or if the refusal is subject to the principles of natural justice. The Court held that while the issuance of a passport may be an executive function, the exercise of such public power cannot be arbitrary or capricious. It determined that because the Passports Act 1974 prohibits travel without a passport, the refusal to issue one adversely affects a citizen's ability to move, thereby invoking the principles of natural justice. The Court established that even in the exercise of discretionary public power, authorities must act fairly and provide the affected party an opportunity to be heard. Consequently, the Court directed that the petitioner's appeal against the refusal be considered and decided within a specified timeframe, satisfying the requirement for a fair hearing.
Questions settled- Does the refusal to issue a passport by the government constitute an administrative act subject to the principles of natural justice?
- Is the issuance of a passport a matter of absolute executive discretion immune from judicial review?
- Does the prohibition on travel without a passport under the Passports Act 1974 necessitate that the refusal of a passport be based on reasonable grounds?
- Mukhtar vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 713 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- Mujeebur Rehman Alavi and 3 Others vs Alvia Tablighi Trust, Karachi1981 CLC 175 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Zaman vs Collector of Customs and 2 Others1981 CLC 991 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yunus and Antoher vs The State and Another----1981 P Cr. L J 1271 · Sindh High Court · 1981-10-31Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Mst. Nafisa Khatoon and Another1981 PLD Karachi 773 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf and 5 Others vs Adam Ali and 4 Others1981 CLC 596 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-15Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus vs The State-19811 P Cr. L J 1208 (1) · Sindh High Court · 1985-08-12Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus vs DR. S. Muzammil Ali1981 CLC 327 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the Rent Controller directing the appellant-tenant to hand over possession of the disputed residential bungalow to the respondent-landlord on the ground of bona fide personal requirement. The core legal questions involved whether the landlord had successfully established his bona fide personal requirement in good faith, the evidentiary value of the landlord's statement on oath, and whether the landlord could support the ejectment order on the ground of default under appellate provisions. The Sindh High Court held that the landlord had satisfactorily proved his bona fide personal requirement through his un-shaken statement on oath, retirement from service, and the fact that he resided in a rented flat, whereas the tenant failed to establish any lack of good faith. The Court further held that vague allegations of default without particulars are insufficient, and past defaults waived by continuous acceptance of rent cannot be relied upon. The appeal was consequently dismissed, upholding the ejectment order on personal requirement.
Questions settled- Whether the un-shaken statement on oath of a landlord is sufficient to prove bona fide personal requirement in the absence of rebuttal evidence?
- Does a tenant on the expiry of a written lease agreement become a statutory tenant from month to month?
- Can a landlord succeed on the ground of default in rent payment when the allegations in the rent application are vague and lacking in particulars?
- Whether an appellate authority under the rent laws can maintain an order on a ground decided against the respondent by the Rent Controller?
- Muhammad Yasin vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 823 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yamin and 16 Others vs Member (Land Utilization), Board1981 CLC 1700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Yameen vs Muhammad Yaseen1981 CLC 1706 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-11Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Usman vs Fazal Karim1981 CLC 104 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Uris-Opponent vs Zainuddin Applicant1981 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts directing the ejectment of the appellant-tenant from a residential house on grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide requirement for use as an 'Otak' (sitting place). The core legal questions concern whether the tenant committed a default under the relevant rent restriction law regarding the computation of the 60-day period for rent tender, and whether the landlord's claim for personal requirement was made in good faith. The Sindh High Court held that the 60-day grace period for rent payment commences from the expiration of the entire monthly period for which the rent is payable, rather than from the first day of the month, meaning the tenant's tender was valid and no default occurred. Furthermore, the Court held that the concurrent findings on personal requirement were vitiated because the lower courts ignored crucial surrounding circumstances—specifically the landlord's sale of another nearby house and lack of explanation for timing—rendering the claim doubtful. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the ejectment orders were set aside.
Questions settled- From which date does the 60-day period for tendering rent begin to run under section 13(2)(i) of the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 in the case of a monthly tenancy?
- Does the use of a residential building as an 'Otak' or sitting place for visitors constitute a non-residential use under the Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding a landlord's bona fide personal requirement be interfered with in second appeal if material circumstances are ignored by the lower courts?
- Does a landlord's failure to utilize or retain a previously owned nearby house affect the bona fides of a subsequent ejectment application for personal requirement?
- Muhammad Sultan vs The State----Opponent1981 P Cr. L J 1014 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-13Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sualeheen and 9 Others vs Muhammad Siddiq Mazhar and 12 Others1981 CLC 1039 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Siddique vs S. D. M. Tribunal1981 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed to challenge an order of the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (S.D.M.) Tribunal, Garhi Yasin, which issued a non-bailable warrant against the petitioner based on a police report under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975. The petitioner contended that the Tribunal issued the warrant in disregard of Section 5 of the Act, which ordinarily requires a summons, and that the police report lacked the necessary particulars of the alleged acts. The High Court of Sindh observed that the Tribunal failed to record any reasons or demonstrate that the petitioner's immediate arrest was necessary to prevent the apprehended acts, as mandated by Section 5. Furthermore, the court noted that the police report contained only vague and general allegations without specifying the date, time, and place of the alleged acts, or under which clauses of Section 14 they fell. The High Court held that a mere list of pending cases or substantive offences does not satisfy the statutory requirement of providing specific particulars. Consequently, the court declared the proceedings initiated against the petitioner to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.
Questions settled- Whether a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 can issue a non-bailable warrant instead of a summons without recording specific reasons showing that immediate arrest is necessary?
- Can proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 be validly initiated on a police report that lacks specific details of the time, place, and nature of the alleged acts?
- Does the mere pendency of criminal cases or a list of past charges against a person suffice to classify them as a habitual offender under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
- Muhammad Shahabuddin and Another vs Khushi Muhammad and Another1981 CLC 1556 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Shafi vs The State-1981 P Cr. L J 366 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-29Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shafi vs The State and 9 Other1981 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Shabbir Khan and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 883 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-27Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sarwar Khan vs Additional Chief Land Commissioner, Sind, Hyderabad and 3 Others1981 CLC 1561 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Saleh vs The State and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 373 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sadiq vs S. D. M., Malir & Tribunal City Court, Karachi1981 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafi Kachelo and 2 Others vs Member, Federal Land1981 CLC 1503 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafi and 6 Others vs Muhammad Idris1981 CLC 1364 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-14Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawaz/ vs Jiand Rai and 2 Others1981 CLC 867 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Nawab and Another vs Abdul Ghafoor and 11 Other1981 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Munir vs Ahmad Ally Memon and 2 Others1981 CLC 414 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-15Read full judgment →