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.
- Muhammad Mujibur Rahman Siddiqui vs Abdul Bari and 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 537 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil second appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by the landlord against the tenant regarding a residential premises in Nazimabad, Karachi. The core legal questions involved the determination of bona fide personal use by the landlord and the alleged subletting of the premises by the tenant. The Sindh High Court held that an unchallenged assertion on oath by a landlord regarding personal requirement, consistent with the ejectment application and unshakeable in cross-examination, must be accepted as bona fide, even if an unauthorized construction had been raised on the property due to pressing accommodation needs. Furthermore, findings of fact regarding personal requirement and subletting arrived at by the first appellate court cannot be interfered with in second appeal unless shown to be based on no evidence or perverse. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether an unchallenged assertion on oath by a landlord regarding personal requirement is sufficient to establish bona fide need?
- Does an unauthorized construction raised on the property negate the landlord's plea of bona fide personal requirement?
- Can a finding of fact regarding personal requirement and subletting arrived at by the first appellate court be interfered with in second appeal?
- Muhammad Ismail vs Muhammad Yousuf1981 CLC 1731 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Idrees vs Settlement Commissioner, Hyderabad and 21981 CLC 700 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Hassan Amd 3 Others vs Officer on Special Duty and Another1981 CLC 1015 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Fazil vs Ashfaq Brothers, Karachi1981 CLC 1519 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil appeal challenges an order passed by the IIIrd Additional District Judge, Sukkur, granting an interim injunction in favour of the respondents under Order XXXIX, Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in a suit for perpetual injunction restraining the infringement of a trade mark, passing off, and damages under Sections 20(2) and 21 of the Trade Marks Act 1940. The core legal question involves determining whether the appellants' trade mark and get-up are deceptively and confusingly similar to the registered trade mark of the respondents so as to mislead unwary purchasers, despite differences in certain words and numerals. The Sindh High Court held that a close examination of the competing labels revealed striking similarities in size, colour scheme, design, printing, and layout, going far beyond mere differences in numerals or words, thereby establishing a strong prima facie case for the grant of temporary injunction. The court affirmed the trial court's order and dismissed the appeal, laying down the principle that where an overall visual and structural comparison of trade mark labels demonstrates substantial resemblance in get-up, colour scheme, and layout capable of deceiving unwary purchasers, temporary injunction against infringement and passing off is rightly granted.
Questions settled- Whether an interim injunction can be granted in a trade mark infringement suit when competing labels share identical colour schemes, designs, and layouts despite differences in words and numerals?
- Does a strong prima facie case of passing off arise when the overall get-up and visual presentation of a defendant's trade mark label closely resembles that of the registered proprietor?
- Are minor variations in numerals and brand names sufficient to negative consumer deception where the cumulative visual impression of the trade mark labels indicates confusing similarity?
- Muhammad Azam Khan vs Mst. Akhtar Jehan Begum and 5 Others1981 CLC 1251 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ayub vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1072 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-01Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 308 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Arif vs Liaquat Ali and 3 Others1981 CLC 591 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aref Effendi vs Egypt Air, Karachi1981 CLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anwar vs Mst. Nafeesa Begum1981 PLD Karachi 85 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Anwar vs Abdul Majeed and 6 Other1981 PLD Karachi 528 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-10Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ali and Another vs The State---1981 P Cr. L J 1210 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst.Aishabai and 3 Other vs Mianakber Hussain1981 PLD Karachi 52 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This Letters Patent Appeal challenged an order dismissing an execution application as time-barred. The primary legal questions were whether the appeal itself was filed within the limitation period, considering the 'time requisite' for obtaining certified copies, and whether Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies to execution applications of decrees passed by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction. The Court held that the appeal was maintainable because the 'time requisite' for obtaining copies extends until the litigant is informed that the copy is ready; where the court office fails to provide such notice, the period until actual delivery is excluded. Furthermore, the Court held that the High Court exercises ordinary original civil jurisdiction, thus Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies, providing a six-year limitation period for execution. Consequently, the execution application was not time-barred. The principle established is that 'time requisite' under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 may be extended by the office's failure to notify the litigant of copy readiness, and that Article 183 governs execution of High Court original side decrees.
Questions settled- Does the 'time requisite' for obtaining copies under Section 12 of the Limitation Act 1908 include the period after a copy is ready if the court office fails to notify the applicant?
- Does the High Court exercise ordinary original civil jurisdiction for the purposes of Article 183 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- What is the limitation period for the execution of a decree passed by the High Court in its ordinary original civil jurisdiction?
- Mst. Zullo Bai vs M. A. Rahim and Another1981 CLC 48 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-30Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zulekhan vs Naimatullah and Another1981 P Cr. L J 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1981-07-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zubaida Bai vs II ND Rent Controller, City Court, Karachi and Another1981 PLD Karachi 82 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition was filed by a landlady challenging an order of the Rent Controller directing the restoration of possession of the rented premises to the tenant. The landlady had originally obtained an ex parte ejectment order, which was executed with police aid. Subsequently, the appellate court set aside the ex parte order on the ground of non-service of notice and remanded the case. The tenant then applied for restitution of possession under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which the Rent Controller allowed. The landlady contended that the Rent Controller lacked jurisdiction to order restitution as Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 does not apply to rent proceedings. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the power of restitution is inherent in the court to ensure that no act of the court causes injury to a suitor. When an ejectment order is reversed, restitution must follow automatically to restore the parties to their original position, and the Rent Controller possesses the jurisdiction to enforce this obligation.
Questions settled- Does a Rent Controller have the jurisdiction to order restitution of possession to a tenant after an ex parte ejectment order is set aside on appeal?
- Is the power of restitution dependent solely on Section 144 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, or is it an inherent power of the court to prevent injury to suitors?
- Can a party seek discretionary constitutional relief against an order on the ground of lack of jurisdiction if they failed to raise that jurisdictional objection before the lower tribunal?
- Mst. Zaibunnissa vs Muhammad Qassam and 4 Others1981 CLC 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Warkhema and 4 Others vs Abdul Rasheed and 2 Others1981 CLC 944 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- Mst. Tahsin Shafqat vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1981 CLC 1663 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
- Mst. Subhan Khatoon vs Nazar Muhammad Arm Otheri1981 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-27Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sharman and 5 Other vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.1981 PLD Karachi 701 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This suit for damages was brought under the Fatal Accidents Act 1855 by the mother and minor siblings of an eight-year-old boy who died of electrocution after stepping into rainwater accumulated around broken overhead electric wires belonging to the defendant corporation. The plaintiffs alleged negligence in maintaining safety devices and failing to act promptly upon receiving telephone complaints. The defendant claimed the incident was an act of God caused by heavy rain uprooting a tree, asserted strict compliance with safety rules, and contended that siblings are not statutory beneficiaries under the Act.
The Sindh High Court held that the defendant failed to show that reasonable maintenance and pre-monsoon safety checks had been carried out, rendering the failure of protective safety mechanisms a direct result of actionable negligence rather than an act of God. The Court ruled that siblings are not entitled to claim compensation under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855, making the mother the sole beneficiary. Assessing expected financial support based on a standard expected lifespan of 60 years in Pakistan, the Court decreed damages in favor of the mother while dismissing the siblings' suit.
Questions settled- Are siblings of a deceased person entitled to claim damages as beneficiaries in a suit filed under Section 1 of the Fatal Accidents Act 1855?
- Whether the defense of an act of God applies to an electrocution accident when a electricity supply company fails to prove proper maintenance of protective safety measures?
- What is the standard expected span of human life in Pakistan for the purpose of calculating financial loss in fatal accident cases in the absence of evidence shortening or lengthening life expectancy?
- Mst. Sharifan Begum vs The Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1981 CLC 1514 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Shamsunissa vs Smt. Nirmala1981 CLC 1745 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Salma Abbasi and Another vs Ahmed Suleman and 2 Others1981 CLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This civil suit was instituted for the recovery of mesne profits and possession of a disputed portion of land measuring 10 ghuntas, which the plaintiffs claimed to have purchased from an evacuee property transferee. The core legal questions involved the validity of the transfer of evacuee property, the legality of partition orders passed by Rehabilitation Authorities regarding joint evacuee and non-evacuee land, the operational date of a registered sale deed under section 47 of the Registration Act 1908, and whether a suit for possession and mesne profits by a co-sharer could be maintained or converted into a suit for partition in the absence of necessary parties. The Sindh High Court held that while the transfer of the evacuee share was valid and the sale deed operated from its date of execution prior to the suit, the Rehabilitation Authorities lacked jurisdiction to partition joint evacuee and non-evacuee property. Furthermore, the court held that although a court has the power to grant a partition decree even without an express prayer, it cannot do so when necessary co-sharer parties are not impleaded. Consequently, the suit was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the Settlement and Rehabilitation Authorities are competent to partition property jointly owned by evacuees and non-evacuees?
- From which date does a registered document operate under section 47 of the Registration Act 1908?
- Can a court grant a decree for partition in a suit for possession when partition has not been expressly prayed for?
- Are all co-sharers necessary parties in a suit for partition of joint land such that no effective decree can be passed in their absence?
- Mst. Raisa Begum vs Mst. Shakila Begum1981 CLC 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1981-03-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rais Jehan vs Jamshed Irani1981 CLC 1238 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-10Read full judgment →
- Mst. Rabia vs Yousaf1981 CLC 1361 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noori and Another vs Ghulam Muhammad1981 CLC 797 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts dismissing an ejectment application filed under Section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground that no relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The original applicant sought eviction of the respondent, who contested the title and claimed exclusive ownership and adverse possession of the property. The Rent Controller and the First Appellate Court both found in favor of the respondent, holding that the appellant failed to prove the tenancy or execution of rent receipts. Additionally, the First Appellate Court erroneously held that the appeal was barred by limitation. The High Court held that the first appeal was within time under the principles governing the exclusion of time for obtaining certified copies when notice is not given, but upheld the concurrent findings of fact on the merits, concluding that the appellant failed to establish the relationship of landlord and tenant. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.
Questions settled- Whether the time taken in obtaining a certified copy can be excluded for limitation purposes when no notice of the copy being ready is given to the appellant?
- Can concurrent findings of fact regarding the absence of a landlord-tenant relationship be interfered with in second appeal?
- Does a landlord seeking ejectment under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 bear the burden of proving tenancy when the alleged tenant denies the relationship and signatures on rent receipts?
- Mst. Naushaba Begum vs Deputy Land Commissioner, Nawabshah and 21981 CLC 1405 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Nasreen Muhammad Naseem and 4 Other vs Messrs Quality Steel1981 PLD Karachi 561 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Naila vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Mumtaz Jehan Begum vs Settlement & Rehabilitation1981 CLC 774 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Khudeja Begum vs Additional Settlement Commissioner and 21981 CLC 1024 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Khatoon Bibi and 4 Others vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mst. Khatoon and 3 Other vs Siddiq Muhammad and Another1981 CLC 409 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a judgment of the First Appellate Court (IV Additional District Judge, Hyderabad) which set aside the trial court's decree in a partition suit and remanded the case with directions to implead the descendants of a deceased co-owner as necessary parties. The appellants, who had themselves previously applied to implead these parties on the ground that they were necessary for a complete adjudication, argued that the appellate court lacked the power to order such joinder and remand the case, and that any objection to non-joinder had been waived. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that under Order I Rule 10(2) read with Section 107(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, an appellate court possesses the power to implead necessary parties at any stage of the proceedings to ensure an effectual and complete adjudication. The Court emphasized that in partition suits, all co-sharers are necessary parties, and a court must ensure all interested persons are before it under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908.
Questions settled- Can an appellate court exercise the power under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to implead a necessary party at the appellate stage?
- Whether all co-sharers and persons claiming an interest in the property are necessary parties in a suit for partition under Order XX Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Can a party who previously applied to implead certain persons as necessary parties subsequently object to their joinder by the appellate court?
- Mst. Khalida vs Babu and 3 Others1981 P Cr. L J 292 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. Kalsoom vs Jalil Ahmed Khan and Another1981 P Cr. L J 630 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatma and 4 Others vs The Board of Revenue, Sind and 5 Others1981 CLC 133 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima vs Additional Cheif Land Commissioner, Sind and 3 Others1981 CLC 942 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-21Read full judgment →
- Mst. Fatima Bai and 7 Others vs Rehmatullah and 2 Others1981 CLC 1235 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
- Mst. Faizan vs Pakistan through Directorgeneral, Pakistan Telegraph1981 CLC 1524 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Barkatunnisa and 6 Others vs Chief Settlement Commissioner and 3 Others1981 CLC 1467 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mst. Aziz Begum vs Muhammad Khushdil and Another1981 PLD Karachi 141 · Sindh High Court · 1980-07-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application challenged an order by the VII Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi, which consolidated two separate criminal proceedings—one initiated by a police report and the other by a private complaint—against the same accused for the same offence of murder. The petitioner argued that the private complaint should take precedence and the police case should be stayed, relying on the precedent in Noor Illahi v. The State. The Court examined whether consolidation was legally permissible when the accused and the version of events were identical in both cases. The Court held that consolidation is appropriate when there are no conflicting versions, different sets of accused, or distinct evidence, as separate trials in such circumstances would lead to a waste of public time and potential conflicting decisions. The Court clarified that the procedure in Noor Illahi is not an invariable rule but a mechanism to prevent prejudice where versions conflict. Consequently, the Court upheld the consolidation order, affirming that trial courts have the discretion to amalgamate cases to ensure procedural efficiency when the factual matrix is substantially the same.
Questions settled- Is a trial court required to stay a police-initiated case when a private complaint regarding the same offence is pending?
- Does the precedent in Noor Illahi v. The State mandate separate trials for all cases involving both a police report and a private complaint?
- Under what circumstances may a trial court consolidate a private complaint and a police report case?
- Is consolidation of criminal cases permissible when the accused and the version of the incident are identical in both proceedings?
- Mst. Ayesha Bai and Another vs Mst. Shahida and 4 Other1981 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This administration suit was instituted by the widow and minor son of a deceased person against the deceased's daughter and other relatives, seeking the administration of the estate and rendition of accounts. The core legal question was whether a suit for administration and accounts is maintainable when the defendants dispute that the deceased left any property at the time of his death and claim that the properties in question belong either to themselves or to third parties. The Sindh High Court held that the preliminary issue must be answered in the affirmative, ruling that in an administration suit, the court has the inherent jurisdiction and duty to ascertain what properties belonged to the deceased at the time of death, including determining questions of ownership and deciding the validity of adverse claims or alienations as an ancillary measure. The court laid down the principle that the maintainability of an administration suit depends on the specific pleadings in each case, and where a sufficient nexus is established between the deceased and the assets, the court can investigate disputed titles to prevent multiplicity of proceedings.
Questions settled- Whether an administration suit is maintainable when defendants claim that the deceased left no property at the time of his death?
- Does a court have the jurisdiction to determine disputed questions of ownership and title to property in an administration suit?
- Can the question of ownership regarding assets claimed by a third party intervenor be decided within the scope of an administration suit to avoid multiplicity of proceedings?
- Mst. Asmat and 4 Others vs Muammad Nawaz Mali and 12 Others1981 P Cr. L J 854 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mst. Amina Bai /Petitioner vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 813 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23Read full judgment →
- Mst. Aisha Bai vs The State and Another1981 P Cr. L J 338 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
- MRS. Z. A. Qadir vs Union of Soviet Socialist Republic and Another1981 PLD Karachi 715 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-14Read full judgment →
- MRS. Shahnaz Adil Khory vs Adil Dinshaw Khory1981 CLC 531 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-04Read full judgment →
- MRS. S. T. Naqvi vs Mst. Zubaida Begum1981 CLC 933 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-28Read full judgment →
- MRs. Parveen Hilaluddin vs Omar Jan and Another1981 CLC 1495 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-03Read full judgment →
- MRS. Mariam Fernandes vs State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi1981 PLD Karachi 591 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This case involves four second appeals addressing whether the notice requirement under section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is mandatory. The appellants were tenants whose premises were purchased by a company, which later nationalized and became the State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan. Ejectment applications were filed against the tenants on the ground of default in rent, without serving the statutory notice of transfer by registered post. The lower courts ruled against the tenants, holding that notice was unnecessary due to nationalization and that payment of rent for some time constituted a waiver. The Sindh High Court held that the requirement of notice under section 13-A is mandatory and designed to protect tenants from default when ownership changes. The Court clarified that while non-compliance does not render a rent application non-maintainable if other grounds for eviction exist, it prevents a finding of default based solely on non-payment until notice is properly served. Consequently, the High Court set aside the judgments of the lower courts and allowed the appeals.
Questions settled- Is the requirement of notice provided in section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 mandatory?
- Does non-compliance with the notice provision under section 13-A render a rent application for ejectment entirely non-maintainable?
- Can a tenant be deemed to have defaulted in the payment of rent if the transferee landlord fails to give notice of transfer by registered post?
- Does the principle of estoppel apply to waive the requirement of a statutory notice under section 13-A when a tenant pays rent for some time after a transfer?
- MRS. Jamila B. Naimat vs Mian Abdul Waheed1981 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves office references in two unregistered suits on the original side of the High Court, wherein the common question for decision is whether the plaintiffs are required to pay court-fees on their respective plaints. The plaintiffs contended that, pursuant to a previous Division Bench judgment of the court, no court-fee is leviable on the original side under the Court Fees Act, 1870, and that such view remains binding under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, notwithstanding a stay order granted by the Supreme Court in pending appeals. The court held that while a Division Bench decision is entitled to high respect, it is not binding on another Division Bench under Article 201, which applies only to subordinate courts. Considering the practical difficulties in recovering revenue if the Supreme Court reverses the precedent, and to avoid anomalous situations where non-parties benefit uniquely from a stayed judgment, the court adopted the consistent practice initiated by Fakhruddin G. Ebrahim, J. The court ordered a conditional arrangement requiring the plaintiffs to deposit or pay court-fees subject to a binding undertaking by the Provincial Government to refund the same if the Supreme Court ultimately upholds the abolition of court-fees on the original side.
Questions settled- Whether court-fees are leviable on plaints filed on the original side of the High Court?
- Does a Division Bench judgment of a High Court have a binding effect on another Division Bench of the same High Court under Article 201 of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973?
- How should the High Court deal with the question of court-fees when the precedent holding them non-leviable is pending adjudication and stayed before the Supreme Court?
- MRS. Haseena R Hatoon vs Government of Sind and 2 Others1981 CLC 785 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-27Read full judgment →
- MRS. Abdul Malik vs Mst. Asghari Begum1981 PLD Karachi 88 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-11Read full judgment →
- Mouloo Erc.S - vs Tim State1981 PLD Karachi 745 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Mohammadi Rerolling Mills Ltd., Karachi and ANOTHERs vs Mst. Ahmedi1981 CLC 1160 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammadi Rerolling Mills and Mohammadi Utensil Products vs Shamasuddin Ali1981 CLC 430 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mohammad Shabbir vs Province of Sind and 3 Others , .1981 PLC (C. S.) 566 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-06Read full judgment →
- Mo. Salami vs Mir Hassan and 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 11 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, was filed by a mother seeking the custody of her minor daughter, aged 7-8 years, allegedly kidnapped by the respondents. The respondents claimed the minor was married to one of them. The core legal question was whether the High Court’s jurisdiction under Section 491, Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, is ousted by the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts regarding custody, and whether the minor's detention was illegal or improper. The Court held that while Family Courts possess jurisdiction over guardianship matters, the High Court retains authority under Section 491 to determine if a minor's detention is improper. The Court ruled that the mother holds the preferential right of hizanat (custody) under Shariat law for a minor of tender age who has not attained puberty. Consequently, the detention was declared improper, and the minor’s expressed preference for the respondents was disregarded as potentially influenced. The Court ordered the minor’s custody be restored to the mother, leaving the respondents to pursue civil remedies for conjugal rights if legally permissible.
Questions settled- Does the exclusive jurisdiction of Family Courts over custody matters oust the High Court's jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Can a mother claim the right of hizanat for a minor of tender age in a habeas corpus petition despite claims of a valid marriage by the respondents?
- Should the expressed preference of a minor of tender age be considered when determining custody if the minor's mind has been influenced against the mother?
- Is the detention of a minor girl by alleged in-laws considered improper under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, even if a marriage is alleged?
- Mm Is Rauf & Company Ltd. vs Alpha Insurance Company Ltd., Karachi1981 PLD Karachi 457 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-12Read full judgment →
- Miss Shamasa Siddiqui vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and Another1981 CLC 1264 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Miss Humaira Zahid vs District Magistrate, Shikarpur and 4 Others1981 CLC 909 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-28Read full judgment →
- Mirza Zahid Beg vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-25Read full judgment →
- Mirza Farooq Beg vs Muhammad Arif1981 PLD Karachi 67 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal challenges the order of the VIII Additional District Judge, Karachi, which reversed the Rent Controller's decision and ordered the appellant's eviction from two shops. The respondent-landlord had sought ejectment on grounds of breach of tenancy conditions, causing obstruction, and personal and bona fide use. During the pendency of the proceedings, the landlord obtained possession of two other shops in the same building. The core legal question concerned the effect of obtaining alternate premises during pending ejectment proceedings under the second proviso to section 13(3) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The Court held that acquiring another premises during pendency does not render the pending application non-maintainable or infructuous, but rather places an additional burden on the landlord to prove that the newly vacated premises are unsuitable for his needs. The Court further held that the first appellate court misread the evidence regarding registration certificates and improperly dismissed the landlord's full-time employment status. The appeal was accepted, setting aside the appellate authority's order and restoring the Rent Controller's dismissal of the ejectment application.
Questions settled- Does an ejectment application on the ground of personal and bona fide requirement become non-maintainable or infructuous if the landlord obtains possession of another premises of the same class during the pendency of the proceedings?
- What is the legal effect under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, when a landlord obtains possession of alternate premises during the pendency of an ejectment petition?
- Can an appellate court reverse a finding of fact of the trial court without demonstrating a logical basis or when based on a misreading of evidence?
- Does a landlord's status as a full-time employee constitute a relevant circumstance in assessing the bona fides of a personal requirement for business premises?
- Mir Tariq Hussain vs Member, Federal Land Commission1981 CLC 41 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-03Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mir Muhammad Ali vs Officer on Special Duty and 2 of as1981 CLC 627 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- Mir Khan vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-02Read full judgment →
- Mian Sohail Iftikhar and Another vs The Daily Nawaiwaqt, Lahore and 3 Others1981 CLC 474 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mian Muhammad Yunus vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 1154 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Sheikh Hussain Bux & Co. vs Messrs Zaib Tun Textile Mills Ltd.1981 PLD Karachi 28 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed against an arbitration award regarding a cotton transaction. The core legal questions were whether the objections were filed within the statutory limitation period and whether a valid arbitration agreement existed between the parties, given the absence of a formal written contract and the lack of proof regarding the broker's authority. The Court held that the objections were time-barred, as the evidence supported the earlier receipt of the notice. Notwithstanding the limitation issue, the Court refused to make the award a rule of the Court, finding it legally flawed. Specifically, the umpire acted beyond his competence by awarding interest on interest, which constitutes damages. Furthermore, the Court established that membership in an association does not automatically imply an arbitration agreement absent a contract expressly subject to the association's bye-laws. Additionally, the Court affirmed that under Section 17 of the Arbitration Act 1940, it retains the discretion to set aside or remit an award even if objections are filed out of time, particularly where the existence of an arbitration agreement is doubtful or unproven.
Questions settled- Can an arbitration agreement be inferred solely from membership in a trade association?
- Is an arbitrator competent to award interest on the amount of damages?
- Does the Court have the discretion to set aside an arbitration award even if objections are filed after the limitation period?
- Does a sold note signed by a broker constitute a valid arbitration agreement without proof of the broker's authority to act for both parties?
- Messrs Shaft Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs Government of Pakistan1981 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from objections filed by the plaintiff against an arbitration award rendered by an Umpire in a contract dispute concerning the supply of Bren Gun Chests. The defendant had cancelled the contract due to non-delivery and asserted a counter-claim for price difference damages. The two nominated arbitrators disagreed, leading to a reference to the Umpire, who awarded damages to the defendant. The plaintiff challenged the award on the grounds that the counter-claim was raised after the initial reference and that the objections were within time. The High Court of Sindh addressed the preliminary issue of limitation under Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908, holding that the statutory notice of filing an award under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 does not strictly require a formal written notice; constructive or informal notice is sufficient to trigger the limitation period. On the merits, the Court held that in the absence of a restrictive written reference, arbitrators are competent to entertain counter-claims to resolve the entire dispute expeditiously. The objections were dismissed, and the award was made a rule of the court.
Questions settled- Does the notice of filing an award under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 require a formal written notice to start the limitation period under Article 158 of the Limitation Act 1908?
- Can a party who has constructive knowledge of the filing of an arbitration award in court demand fresh statutory notice under Section 14(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Are arbitrators competent to entertain and adjudicate upon a counter-claim raised after the initial reference in the absence of a specific written reference restricting their scope?
- Messrs Peoples Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Hafizuddin and 7 Otxaxs1981 PLD Karachi 739 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from an order striking off the tenant's defence under Section 13(6) of the Sind Rent Restriction Ordinance for failing to comply with a tentative rent order. The appellant-tenant had deposited cheques for the monthly rent with the Nazir of the Court before the stipulated dates. However, due to summer vacations, the Nazir delayed presenting the cheques to the bank for about four weeks, by which time the tenant had withdrawn substantial funds for commercial purposes, leading to the cheques being dishonoured due to insufficient funds. The tenant argued that presenting a cheque constitutes a valid tender and that the liability shifted to the Nazir for the delay. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that while a cheque may be a valid conditional tender, its validity is defeated upon dishonour. The court ruled that it is the drawer's duty to maintain sufficient funds to meet the cheque at any point within its validity period, and the subsequent dishonour constitutes a default under the rent laws.
Questions settled- Does the presentation of a cheque in court constitute a valid tender of rent if the cheque is subsequently dishonoured due to insufficient funds?
- Is a tenant absolved of default if the Nazir of the court delays the presentation of a rent cheque to the bank?
- Is a drawer of a cheque obligated to maintain sufficient funds in their bank account throughout the validity period of the cheque to ensure it is honoured upon presentation?
- Messrs Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd. vs State Life Insurance1981 PLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-15Read full judgment →
- Messrs Jupiter General Industries vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal1981 PLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-12Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ibad & Co. vs Government of Sind and Outs1981 PLD Karachi 236 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns objections filed by the defendant against a non-speaking arbitration award under the Arbitration Act, 1940. The core legal questions were whether the award was unintelligible, whether the arbitrator failed to apply his mind by not itemizing findings or using specific terminology, and whether the court could re-examine evidence to determine if the award was based on no evidence. The court held that the award was valid, dismissing the objections. It established that a non-speaking award is not required to provide separate findings on every issue or itemize the breakdown of damages, provided it clearly resolves the controversy. Furthermore, the court affirmed that it cannot act as an appellate body to re-weigh evidence or investigate the sufficiency of evidence before an arbitrator. The use of a lump sum award is legally permissible, and the arbitrator’s failure to use specific legal terminology, such as damages, does not invalidate the award. The court concluded that the arbitrator acted within his jurisdiction, and the award was made a rule of the court.
Questions settled- Is a non-speaking arbitration award invalid if it fails to provide separate findings on each issue raised in the pleadings?
- Can a court re-examine evidence to determine the sufficiency of the basis for a non-speaking arbitration award?
- Does the failure of an arbitrator to use specific terminology like 'damages' in a non-speaking award constitute legal misconduct?
- Is a lump sum award legally valid under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
- Messrs Ghafoor Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Fazal Imam and Another1981 PLD Karachi 534 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Foremost Trading Company vs Caledonian Insurance1981 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-29Read full judgment →
- Messrs Burma Oil Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Zamindar Cotton Factory, Karachi1981 PLD Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
- Messrs Adamjee Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Presiding Officer, Sind1981 PLC 93 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs Adam Tea Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 3 Others, .1981 PLC 525 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-09Read full judgment →
- Messrs Abdul Latif-Abdul Shakoor Madraswalla, Karachi vs Messers1981 PLD Karachi 367 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-11Read full judgment →
- Mercantile Mutual Insurance Co. of Pakistan Ltd vs Master Iqbal and Another1981 CLC 1329 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mehar Ali vs Jumma Khan and 6 Others1981 CLC 73 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-30Read full judgment →
- Meenhon and Another vs The State1981 PLD Karachi 184 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-15Read full judgment →
- Medical Education Uplift Fund Association of Seventh-Day1981 PLC 229 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-15Read full judgment →
- Mbsirs Pakistan Tobacco Company Ltd., Karachi vs Sind Labour1981 PLC 482 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These petitions challenged a decision of the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the interpretation of the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980. The core legal question was whether the word 'and' in the proviso, requiring a settlement to be 'announced and become effective on or after the first day of January, 1980' for an employer to claim a set-off against cost-of-living allowances, should be read as 'or' to allow set-off if only one condition is met. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the proviso is clear and unambiguous, requiring both conditions to be satisfied. The Court affirmed that beneficial legislation must be interpreted in favor of employees and that a proviso, being a limitation on the main enactment, cannot be construed to enlarge its scope or nullify it. Furthermore, the Court rejected the argument that individual clauses of a settlement could be treated as separate, severable agreements, viewing the settlement as a composite 'package deal' that must be considered as a whole.
Questions settled- Does the proviso to Section 3(4) of the Employees' Cost of Living (Relief) (Amendment) Ordinance, 1980 require both the announcement and the effectiveness of a settlement to occur on or after January 1, 1980, to qualify for a set-off?
- Can the word 'and' in a statutory proviso be interpreted as 'or' in the absence of ambiguity?
- Should a collective bargaining settlement be treated as a composite package deal or as severable individual clauses for the purpose of statutory set-off?
- How should beneficial legislation intended for the welfare of workers be interpreted by the courts?
- Maula Bakhsh and Another vs Chairman, Evacuee Trust Property1981 CLC 1210 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
- Mats. Amna Bibi vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 688 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-04Read full judgment →
- Masroor Hasan and Another vs Abbas Ali Khan1981 CLC 669 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from the concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and the Second Additional District Judge, Karachi, directing the eviction of the appellants (tenant and occupant) on grounds of subletting and personal bona fide requirement of the landlord. The appellants challenged the findings, contending that permitting a relative (father-in-law) to use the premises did not constitute subletting and that a separate dismissed rent application regarding an adjoining shop disproved the landlord's personal need. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that once unauthorized use by a third party is established, the burden shifts to the tenant to prove it does not constitute subletting or sharing of tenancy rights, irrespective of personal relations. Furthermore, the High Court held that evidence from unconsolidated parallel proceedings cannot be imported into another case. Finding that concurrent factual determinations of the courts below on subletting and personal requirement were supported by evidence and not perverse, the High Court declined to interfere in second appeal, while granting the appellants eight months to vacate.
Questions settled- Does the burden of proof shift to the tenant to disprove subletting or sharing of tenancy rights once it is established that a third party is using the rented premises?
- Does a close personal or familial relationship between the tenant and an occupant prevent an unauthorized occupation from being classified as subletting?
- Can evidence recorded in an unconsolidated rent case regarding a different tenement be considered in a separate rent proceeding between different parties?
- Under what circumstances can the High Court interfere in second appeal with concurrent findings of fact regarding subletting and personal requirement?
- Manzoor Ahmed vs The State and 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 511 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-17Read full judgment →
- Manthar vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 214 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
- Malik Noor Muhammad vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-20Read full judgment →
- Major (R) Ahmad Khan Bhatti vs Mst. Masoolia Fatimi1981 PLD Karachi 398 · Sindh High Court · 1981-04-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff filed a suit for specific performance of an agreement to sell a bungalow, evidenced by a receipt dated 10-4-1976. The defendant contested the claim, arguing the receipt was not a concluded contract as it contemplated a future formal agreement, and that the plaintiff acted as an estate broker for an undisclosed purchaser rather than in his personal capacity. The court held that the receipt contained all essential terms of a valid contract, including the price and property description. It established that where a document contemplates a future formal agreement, it is a matter of construction whether that future document is a condition precedent or merely an expression of desire regarding the transaction's execution. Finding the latter, the court ruled the receipt was a binding contract. Furthermore, the court determined the plaintiff acted in his personal capacity and that time was not of the essence in this contract for the sale of immovable property. Consequently, the court decreed specific performance, directing the defendant to execute the sale deed upon payment of the balance consideration.
Questions settled- Does a document contemplating the execution of a future formal agreement constitute a binding contract?
- Is time considered of the essence in contracts for the sale of immovable property in the absence of a specific stipulation?
- What criteria determine whether a preliminary receipt for the sale of property is a concluded contract?
- Majnoo vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 463 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
- Majid Ali vs Principal, Government Women's College, Karachi and 21981 CLC 1255 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mairaj Ahmad Jun Ejo vs The President, Summary Milittary Court No. 1, Karachi and 2 Others1981 P Cr. L J 617 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mahmoodah Yusuf Nizami and 6 Others vs S. Hooda and Another1981 CLC 1341 · Sindh High Court · 1980-12-07Read full judgment →