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 Manna N vs The Tribunal A. C. & S. D. M., Karachi and Another---1981 P Cr. L J 1173 · Sindh High Court · 1981-08-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Late vs Thestate and Another1981 PLD Karachi 206 · Sindh High Court · 1980-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Ghulam Abbas Bhatti1981 CLC 1114 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Mst. Kohi Noor Begum and Another1981 CLC 1055 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-03
  specific performancesecond appealconcurrent findingsburden of proofPardanashin ladycontractual validitydocumentary evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the concurrent judgments of the lower courts, which dismissed a suit for specific performance of a contract for the sale of a house. The plaintiff claimed the defendant agreed to sell the property for Rs 6,000, alleging part payment and adjustment of salary arrears. The defendant, a Pardanashin lady, denied the transaction, asserting the alleged agreement document was fabricated. The core legal question was whether the plaintiff had sufficiently proven the validity of the agreement and the genuineness of the defendant's signature. The High Court held that the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof, noting that the document was suspicious, the signatures did not match, and the plaintiff's testimony was contradictory. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that concurrent findings of fact by lower courts are not open to challenge in second appeal simply because the High Court might view the evidence differently. The principle established is that a party claiming a transaction with a Pardanashin lady must strictly prove its validity, and the Court retains the authority to adjudicate the authenticity of evidence regardless of its initial admission.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be challenged in a second appeal?
  • Does the admission of a document into evidence preclude the court from later determining its validity or authenticity?
  • What is the standard of proof required for a transaction involving a Pardanashin lady?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to specific performance when the underlying agreement is found to be dubious and the burden of proof is not discharged?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir and 7 Others vs Chief Land Commissioner and 4 OTHERs1981 CLC 1354 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-06Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1981 CLC 719 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim Khan vs The State and ANOTHERs1981 P Cr. L J 607 · Sindh High Court · 1981-01-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakeem vs Election Authority, Sind and 3 Other1981 PLD Karachi 38 · Sindh High Court · 1980-08-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani and Another vs The State1981 P Cr. L J 805 · Sindh High Court · 1980-10-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs Mustafa Khan and 5 Othsrs1981 PLD Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 1980-09-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Other1981 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1981-02-23
  civil servantscompulsory retirementArticle 212 barconstitutional petitionService Tribunal jurisdictionouster of jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicedepartmental authority
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference was heard by a Full Bench of the High Court of Sindh concerning constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution challenging orders of compulsory retirement passed under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 after twenty-five years of service. The primary legal question referred was whether petitions challenging such retirement orders under Article 199 are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution, and whether the Service Tribunal has exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate such matters. The High Court answered the reframed question in the affirmative, holding that the petitions under Article 199 are barred by Article 212. The Court laid down that an order of retirement in the public interest under Section 13(ii) relates to terms and conditions of service and is fully appealable under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973. It was held that the constitutional bar under Article 212 is absolute and mutually exclusive, ousting the High Court's jurisdiction even on grounds of mala fides, lack of jurisdiction, ultra vires, or coram non judice.

  Questions settled

  • Whether constitutional petitions under Article 199 of the Constitution seeking to challenge orders of retirement under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 are barred under Article 212 of the Constitution?
  • Whether an order of retirement under Section 13(ii) of the Civil Servants Act 1973 falls within the exclusion of fitness under Section 4(1)(b) of the Service Tribunals Act 1973 or is appealable before the Service Tribunal?
  • Can the High Court exercise jurisdiction under Article 199 in service matters committed to the Service Tribunal on grounds that the impugned order is mala fide, ultra vires, without jurisdiction, or coram non judice?
  • Does an order passed by an incompetent departmental authority take the matter outside the jurisdiction of the Service Tribunal under Section 4 of the Service Tribunals Act 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Federal Land Commission, Rawalpindi and 3 Others1981 CLC 1447 · Sindh High Court · 1981-05-12Read full judgment →
• Aba Umar Shaikha vs Abdul Rehman Shah and Another1981 P Cr. L J 455 · Sindh High Court · 1981-06-06
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil liabilityprivate complaint
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending before a Magistrate, which were initiated on a private complaint under Section 420 and Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The core legal question was whether the non-payment of the balance price for cattle purchased on credit in the course of prior business dealings constitutes a criminal offence of cheating or criminal breach of trust, or whether it amounts strictly to a civil liability. The Sindh High Court held that the allegations in the complaint, even if accepted as true, disclosed a purely civil dispute regarding the recovery of money and did not make out the ingredients of any criminal offence. Consequently, the Court allowed the application and quashed the pending criminal proceedings, laying down the principle that the mere failure to pay a debt or the purchase price of goods bought on credit arising from established business relations does not constitute a criminal offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 and cannot be used as a substitute for civil recovery.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-payment of the balance price of goods purchased on credit constitute a criminal offence under Section 420 or Section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can criminal proceedings initiated on a private complaint be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the dispute is essentially of a civil nature?
  • Does a history of business dealings and credit transactions between parties preclude criminal liability for unpaid debts?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Az1z Sumawala vs Presiding Officer, III S1ND Labour Court, Karachiand Another1981 PLC 834 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-25Read full judgment →
• Zulfikar Ali Bhutto vs The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and 4 Others1980 PLD Karachi 113 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-29
  habeas corpusterritorial jurisdictioncoram non judicewrit jurisdictiondetentionsuperior courtsconstitutional law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two habeas corpus petitions filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the release of Zulfikar Ali Bhutto, who was detained in Central Jail, Rawalpindi. The petitioners challenged the validity of the convictions rendered by the Lahore High Court and the Supreme Court, arguing that both courts were coram non judice due to alleged irregularities in the appointments of their respective Chief Justices. The core legal questions addressed were whether the Sindh High Court possessed territorial jurisdiction over a detention occurring outside its province and whether it could issue writs against superior courts. The Court held that it lacked territorial jurisdiction, as the detention occurred in Rawalpindi, outside its authority. Furthermore, the Court ruled that under Article 199(5) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, no writ of any kind can be issued against the High Court or the Supreme Court. Consequently, the petitions were dismissed in limine, affirming that the Court cannot interfere with the judgments of superior courts or exercise jurisdiction over matters beyond its territorial limits.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Sindh High Court have territorial jurisdiction to entertain a habeas corpus petition regarding a detention occurring in Rawalpindi?
  • Can a High Court issue a writ against the Supreme Court or another High Court under the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is a court empowered to declare the Supreme Court or a High Court coram non judice based on the alleged invalidity of the appointment of a Chief Justice?
  Read full judgment →
• Zikur Rehman and 3 Others vs Haji Muhammad Yasin1980 CLC 284 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-06Read full judgment →
• Zahri Khan and Another vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 153 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-16Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Muhammad Kureshi and 2 Others vs Sadruddin1980 CLC 897 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-17Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Mahmood vs Muhammad Sale H1980 CLC 1329 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-05Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hussain Rizvi vs Muhammad Hanif1980 CLC 2177 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-22Read full judgment →
• Yousuf vs Ghulam Muhammad and Another1980 CLC 1969 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-18Read full judgment →
• Yousaf Hussain vs The State and 25 OTHERs1980 P Cr. L J 569 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-17Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 309 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-29Read full judgment →
• Waroo vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 789 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1239 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-02Read full judgment →
• Wajahat Hussain vs Mst. Hajira Begum1980 CLC 1830 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-25Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux vs Haji Khuda Bux and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-22Read full judgment →
• Vik10 vs Abdullah and Another1980 P Cr. L J 602 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-08
  cancellation of bailjudicial discretionsuccessive bail applicationsperverse ordermurder caseprima facie caseballistic report
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two separate criminal miscellaneous applications seeking the cancellation of bail granted to accused persons in murder cases. The core legal questions concern the criteria for cancelling bail and the circumstances under which a second bail application may be entertained. The Court held that while there is no hard and fast rule, bail may be cancelled where the order granting it is perverse, ignores salient facts, or results from a capricious exercise of judicial discretion. Regarding successive bail applications, the Court affirmed that a fresh application is competent if it introduces new material or grounds, or if the applicant demonstrates that a particular circumstance was not previously considered by the court. Applying these principles, the Court cancelled the bail of two accused where the lower court had disregarded patent evidence, including positive ballistic reports and eyewitness testimony, while maintaining the bail of a third accused where no such arbitrary exercise of discretion was found. The judgment emphasizes that bail is a matter of judicial discretion, not to be cancelled as a matter of course.

  Questions settled

  • Under what circumstances can the High Court cancel bail that has already been granted?
  • Is a second bail application competent if it relies on identical grounds to the first?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to cancel bail if the lower court's order was based on a capricious exercise of discretion?
  • Can bail be granted solely on the ground that an incident lacked premeditation?
  Read full judgment →
• Vakil Khan vs Haji Khan and Another1980 CLC 582 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
• Umar Din vs Superintendent of Police, Incharge Anticorruption1980 PLD Karachi 158 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• Transocean Asia Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and Another1980 CLC 556 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-18Read full judgment →
• The STATEComplainant vs Muhammad Saleh and ANOTHERAccused1980 PLD Karachi 131 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-18
  suo motu revisioninordinate delayacquittalabsconding accusedjudicial supervisioncriminal trialSection 249-A Cr.P.C.
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves the suo motu revision of thirty long-pending criminal cases from the Dadu District, characterized by inordinate delays and lack of progress. The High Court examined the failure of trial courts to secure the attendance of witnesses and accused persons, noting a systemic lack of judicial supervision. The core legal question concerned the appropriate disposal of these cases where prosecution evidence was absent or insufficient. The Court held that for cases involving absconding accused, trial courts must strictly adhere to the procedures under Sections 87, 88, and 512 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Regarding cases where the prosecution failed to produce witnesses despite repeated opportunities, the Court exercised its power under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to acquit the accused, finding no prospect of conviction. The judgment establishes that magistrates bear a mandatory duty to supervise their offices, ensure the service of processes, and prevent the abuse of process by allowing fruitless, long-pending criminal proceedings to continue indefinitely.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court acquit an accused under Section 249-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when there is no prospect of conviction due to the prosecution's failure to produce witnesses?
  • What is the procedure for recording evidence in the absence of an absconding accused under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does the High Court have the authority to exercise revisional powers to dispose of long-pending cases in subordinate courts?
  • Is the failure of a magistrate to supervise the issuance of court processes a valid ground for judicial intervention in pending criminal cases?
  Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mishal Khan and 5 OTHERSAccused/1980 P Cr. L J 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Iqbal Hussain1980 P Cr. L J 66 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Allah Bachayo Accused1980 P Cr. L J 1170 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-30Read full judgment →
• The Premier Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs The Transoceanic Steamship1980 PLD Karachi 54 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-26Read full judgment →
• The Pakistan International Airlines Corporation vs The Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 472 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-26
  trade marksuo motu noticerectification of registerburden of prooftrade mark registrationconclusive validityaggrieved person
  Summary & questions settled

  These miscellaneous appeals were filed under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 against an order of the Registrar of Trade Marks removing the appellant's registered trade marks 'PIA' in Classes 16 and 18 pursuant to suo motu proceedings initiated under section 46(4) of the Act. The core legal questions involved whether the Registrar could exercise suo motu powers under section 46(4) without an application by an aggrieved person, and whether registered trade marks that had passed the seven-year conclusiveness period under section 24 could be cancelled without establishing fraud or violation of section 8. The Sindh High Court held that suo motu action under section 46(4) requires an underlying application by an aggrieved person, and that after seven years, a registration enjoys conclusive validity under section 24 unless fraud or a violation of section 8 is proven, with the heavy burden of proof resting entirely on the Registrar. The impugned removal order was accordingly set aside and the appeals were allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Marks issue a suo motu notice for rectification or cancellation under section 46(4) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 without an application from an aggrieved person?
  • What is the effect of the expiration of seven years from the date of original registration of a trade mark regarding its validity under section 24 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • On whom does the burden of proof lie when the Registrar initiates suo motu proceedings to remove a registered trade mark after the expiry of the statutory limitation period?
  • Does a trade mark registered for stationery or goods require those goods to be sold as vendible articles in the market to satisfy the definition of a trade mark under section 2(1)(L) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• The National Commercial Bank Ltd, Karachi vs Muhammad Younus1980 CLC 90 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-01
  recovery suitletter of creditpromissory notepledged goodsnovation of contractsole proprietorshipnotice of sale
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit for the recovery of Rs. 42,175.43 filed by a commercial bank against a sole proprietor on the basis of a letter of credit transaction, subsequent clearance charges paid by the bank, and a demand promissory note executed by the defendant. The core legal questions involved whether the defendant remained the sole proprietor of the firm or effectively novated the contract through a partnership and subsequent dissolution, whether the defendant executed the promissory note, and whether the disposal of pledged goods without a mandatory notice under the Contract Act vitiated the defendant's liability in the absence of a counterclaim. The Sindh High Court held that the alleged partnership was a fake arrangement created to evade liability, the defendant's liability under the promissory note and initial proprietorship stood established, and the lack of a pre-sale notice under Section 176 of the Contract Act did not absolve the defendant in the absence of a counterclaim or set-off. The court accordingly decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff bank.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a change in the constitution of a firm absolves the original sole proprietor from liability under a prior letter of credit transaction?
  • Does the statutory presumption under Section 118 of the Negotiable Instruments Act apply to a promissory note executed in connection with commercial transactions?
  • Whether the disposal of pledged goods without serving a mandatory notice under Section 176 of the Contract Act invalidates the borrower's underlying liability when no counterclaim or set-off is pleaded?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousaf A. Mitha and 3 Others vs Aboo Baker and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-21
  rejection of plaintOrder VII Rule 11court fee valuationjurisdictional valuationSuits Valuation Act 1887original side jurisdictionbinding precedentstay order effect
  Summary & questions settled

  This order resolves an application filed under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by defendant No. 3, seeking rejection of the plaint for under-valuation and insufficient court-fee. The plaintiffs had sought declarations and permanent and mandatory injunctions regarding a share sale agreement valued at Rs. 6,700,000, but valued the suit at Rs. 51,000 for jurisdiction and Rs. 600 for court-fees, paying Rs. 45. The court held that under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887, jurisdictional and court-fee valuations must be identical for ad valorem suits, and that the plaintiffs could not fix an arbitrary valuation. The court directed the plaintiffs to correct the valuation for both jurisdiction and court-fees to Rs. 6,700,000. However, following a binding Division Bench precedent, the court concluded that no court-fees are currently payable on suits instituted on the High Court's original side, despite a pending Supreme Court appeal where stay had been granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the valuation for court-fees and jurisdiction must be identical under Section 8 of the Suits Valuation Act 1887 in suits seeking declaratory and injunctive relief?
  • Can a plaintiff put an arbitrary valuation on a suit for court-fee purposes when seeking consequential reliefs involving high-value property?
  • Whether an interim stay order granted by the Supreme Court in a pending appeal deprives a High Court Division Bench judgment of its binding precedent value under Article 189 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• The Board of Control for Cricket in Pakistan vs Messrs Sind Cricket1980 CLC 683 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-10Read full judgment →
• Tariq Mahmood Butt vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
• Tanawar Ahmad Khan vs District Magistrate, Hyderabad and Another1980 P Cr. L J 380 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-27Read full judgment →
• Tan Veer Ansari vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and Another1980 CLC 67 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
• Talib and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1010 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-13Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad and Another vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1003 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-12
  quashment of proceedingsfalse complaintcriminal revisioninsufficiency of evidencemedical evidencedelay in prosecutioninterested witnesses
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected criminal proceedings originating from a land dispute between the parties. In the first instance, the petitioners challenged an order for further inquiry passed by an Additional Sessions Judge regarding a complaint filed against them, which had previously been dismissed by a Magistrate. In the second instance, the complainant sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against him under Sections 182 and 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for allegedly filing a false complaint. The Court addressed whether the proceedings should continue given the significant lapse of time and the evidentiary weaknesses. The Court held that both proceedings should be quashed. It reasoned that the initial complaint suffered from material deficiencies, including interested testimony and contradictory medical evidence, rendering a conviction improbable. Regarding the prosecution for filing a false complaint, the Court established that the mere failure of a case due to insufficient evidence or lack of corroboration does not automatically constitute a 'false' case warranting prosecution under Sections 182 or 211. Consequently, the Court quashed both proceedings to prevent an abuse of the court process.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure of a criminal case due to insufficiency of evidence or lack of corroboration automatically render the complaint 'false' for the purposes of prosecution under Section 211 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can proceedings be quashed on the ground of excessive delay and the improbability of a conviction?
  • Is the finding of a Magistrate regarding the demeanor of witnesses entitled to weight in revision proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Tahir Ali vs Mst. Masoodi Beg Um and 4 Others1980 CLC 1332 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-12
  ejectmentpersonal requirementSection 30 noticeDisplaced Persons Actprotection periodsecond appeallandlord-tenant relationship
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from an ejectment order passed against a tenant on the ground of personal requirement. The core legal questions were whether a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, was valid despite failing to specify the rent amount, whether the protection period under Section 30 commences from the initial notice or subsequent notices, and whether the landlord's personal requirement was established. The Court held that the notice was valid, as non-mention of rent does not invalidate it. It further ruled that the six-year protection period commences from the date of the initial notice, not subsequent ones. Regarding personal requirement, the Court affirmed the concurrent findings of the lower courts, noting that the landlord's personal requirement includes the needs of family members and dependents, and that there is no legal requirement for the landlord to personally testify if other evidence is sufficient. The appeal was dismissed, upholding the ejectment order while granting the appellant four months to vacate, provided rent is paid.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to specify the rate of rent in a notice under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, invalidate the notice?
  • Does the six-year protection period for a tenant under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Comp. & Rehab) Act, 1958, recommence upon the service of subsequent notices?
  • Is a landlord required to personally appear as a witness to prove the ground of personal requirement for ejectment?
  • Does the term 'for his own occupation' in the context of personal requirement include the needs of the landlord's family and dependents?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabbir Ahmed Shah and 2 Others vs Pakistan and 3 Others1980 P Cr. L J 349 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-28
  smugglingPakistan Coast GuardsCustoms Actseizure and detentionmotor carsprohibited goodsjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions called into question the seizure and detention of allegedly smuggled motor cars by the Pakistan Coast Guards. The primary legal question raised was whether the Pakistan Coast Guards possess the jurisdiction to seize and detain motor cars as smuggled goods under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973 and the Customs Act, 1969, where such cars have not been specifically notified under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969, notwithstanding any prohibition under the Import and Export Control Act, 1950. The Sindh High Court held that the definition of 'smuggling' under clause (s) of section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 is restricted to the items expressly specified therein or notified by the Federal Government, and does not extend to all goods prohibited under other laws, which instead fall under a separate category governed by clause (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the Court ruled that the Coast Guards lacked jurisdiction to seize the motor cars as smuggled goods, allowed the petitions, and reaffirmed the established legal principle distinguishing between smuggling under clause (s) and general import-export violations.

  Questions settled

  • Does the definition of smuggling under section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969 include all goods whose import or export is prohibited by any law, or is it limited to specified and notified goods?
  • Do the Pakistan Coast Guards have the jurisdiction to seize and detain goods that do not fall within the definition of smuggling under section 2(s) of the Customs Act 1969?
  • How do clauses (8) and (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act 1969 operate in relation to prohibited imports and exports?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Masood Ahmed vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1135 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
• Syed M Ubarakali/ vs Inayat Hussain and Another/1980 PLD Karachi 254 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Jaffer Hussain Akhari vs Tausiq Ahmad Alvi1980 CLC 1040 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Ali Hyder Kazmi vs Mst. Naqi Bano and Another1980 CLC 1782 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-09Read full judgment →
• Suleman Jafer and 2 Others vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 739 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
• State vs Puttan alias Sihte Hassan and 23 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1034 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
• State vs Nayyar Mirza and 4 Others1980 PLD Karachi 96 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
• State vs Ishaque1980 P Cr. L J 597 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-26Read full judgment →
• State vs Anwarul Haq1980 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
• State vs Abdul Qayyum and 3 Others1980 PLD Karachi 465 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-09Read full judgment →
• State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi vs Mst. Sarwat1980 CLC 1953 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-02Read full judgment →
• State Bank of Pakistan vs Karachi Development Authority1980 CLC 626 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
• Southern Cooperative Society Ltd., Karachi vs Muhammad Yasin Khan1980 CLC 75 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
• Sodho and 4 Others vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 441 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-09Read full judgment →
• Sirajuddin vs Raisuddin and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1066 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-12Read full judgment →
• Sind Trading Company vs Haji Ahmed Ismail1980 CLC 1021 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-07Read full judgment →
• Sind Star Syndicate, Karachi vs Synthetic Chemical. Co. Ltd and onIns1980 CLC 1351 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-13
  rectification of decreeaccidental slip or omissionseparate legal entityparent establishmentprivity of contractexecution of decreeattachment
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 152 read with section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 filed by defendant No. 2 seeking rectification of a judgment and decree and recall of a writ of attachment issued against it. The core legal question was whether a decree could be passed against defendant No. 2 as a parent establishment in the absence of privity of contract or a specific legal liability distinct from defendant No. 1, and whether the omission of the defendant's name in the judgment was an accidental slip or omission rectifiable under section 152 C.P.C. The court held that defendant No. 1 and defendant No. 2 are separate legal entities, that there was no privity of contract between the plaintiff and defendant No. 2, and that no decree could be passed against defendant No. 2. The court further held that the failure to specify defendant No. 1 in the judgment was an accidental slip and ordered the rectification of the judgment and decree to reflect that the suit was decreed against defendant No. 1 only, withdrawing the attachment against defendant No. 2.

  Questions settled

  • Can a decree be passed against a parent company in a suit for breach of contract entered into solely by its subsidiary in the absence of privity of contract?
  • Does an accidental omission to specify the judgment-debtor in a judgment constitute a clerical or arithmetical mistake rectifiable under section 152 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are a nationalized company and its parent establishment distinct legal entities capable of independent liabilities?
  • Does nationalization of a company under the Economic Reform Order 1972 merge its legal personality with the Federal Government?
  Read full judgment →
• Sherdil and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 919 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-30Read full judgment →
• Sher Afghan and Another vs Messrs Sidd1que & Saeed Ltd., Karachi1980 P Cr. L J 435 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-29Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Ghulam Hussain vs Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. and Another1980 PLC (C. S.) 309 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-28Read full judgment →
• Shanghai Silk Mills, Karachi vs Muhammad Sharif and 2 Others1980 CLC 71 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
• Shamimur Rehman vs Government of Pakistan and Others1980 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-08
  Martial Law Regulationmala fidejudicial revieweminent domainconstitutional petitionexpropriationnatural justicelegislative competence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged Martial Law Regulation No. 103 and Order No. 22 of 1972, which dissolved the Rehmania Fauji Sugar Mills Limited and transferred its assets to the Fauji Foundation. The core legal question was whether a legislative instrument promulgated by an individual authority could be challenged on grounds of mala fide and whether such an instrument, if conceived in bad faith for collateral purposes, constitutes valid law or a void executive fiat. The Court held that the impugned Regulation and Order were issued mala fide for collateral purposes—specifically to secure Army investments—rather than for a legitimate public purpose. Consequently, the Court declared them void ab initio, ruling that mala fide acts are not protected by constitutional validation clauses. The judgment establishes that legislative instruments issued by an individual are subject to judicial scrutiny for mala fide and collateral purpose. Furthermore, it affirms that the power of eminent domain requires a public purpose, and principles of natural justice must be read into statutes affecting proprietary rights, rendering arbitrary expropriation without hearing invalid.

  Questions settled

  • Can a legislative instrument issued by an individual authority be challenged on the grounds of mala fide?
  • Does the doctrine of eminent domain require a public purpose for the compulsory acquisition of private property?
  • Are principles of natural justice applicable to legislative instruments that affect the proprietary rights of individuals?
  • Does the constitutional validation of legislative measures under Article 281 of the Interim Constitution protect acts done mala fide?
  Read full judgment →
• Shailaja vs Assistant Commissioner, Hyderabad and Others1980 CLC 2075 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-09Read full judgment →
• Shahzado and 3 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 298 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-28Read full judgment →
• Shahidunna Bi Khan vs The State and 3 Others1980 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
• Shaft Muhammad and 4 Others vs Deputy Commissioner & Settlement1980 CLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 184 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Hussain Asghar Ali vs Messrs Mian Khurshid Ahmed & Co. and 5 Others1980 CLC 2092 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Searle (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Monopoly Control Authority, Islamabad1980 PLD Karachi 171 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-10Read full judgment →
• Sartaj Ahmed Ansari and 2 Others vs Shah Mir and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 479 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-03Read full judgment →
• Sardar Mir Khwaja and 7 Others vs Pakistan International1980 CLC 1305 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-21Read full judgment →
• Sar Dar Ali Bhola vs M. V. Coos Bay and Another1980 PLD Karachi 450 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-24Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Burney and Others vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 728 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
• Sanaullah Burney and Another vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 981 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-21Read full judgment →
• Salim vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1230 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-27Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad. vs Presiding Officer, Summary Military1980 PLD Karachi 26 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Presiding Officer, Summary Military Court, Karachi and 2 oTHERs1980 PLD Karachi 240 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sajid Ali vs Mst. Abida Begum and Another1980 CLC 312 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
• Sain Bux and 4 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1980 CLC 1395 · Sindh High Court
  constitutional petitionland reforms regulationsuo motu revisional jurisdictiongift alienationsmutation entriesdakhil kharij register
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, exercising suo motu powers under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972, whereby he set aside gift alienations of agricultural land made by the first petitioner to his minor sons. The core legal question was whether the revisional authority could invalidate gift alienations on grounds of non-genuineness of entries and absence of mutation records that were contrary to the actual facts and record. The Sindh High Court held that the revisional order was based on a misconception of facts, erroneous assumptions regarding the registers used, and self-contradictory reasoning, as the gifts were duly recorded in the Dakhil Kharij Register and supported by mutation entries. The court laid down the principle that an order passed by a revisional authority on assumptions contrary to the record and without legal justification is void, and that entries in the Dakhil Kharij Register and corresponding revenue forms, when duly made and not genuinely doubted, sufficiently establish the validity of agricultural land transactions under the Land Reforms Regulation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order passed by a revisional authority under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972 on facts contrary to the record is sustainable in law?
  • Can a gift alienation of agricultural land be invalidated on the ground of absence of changes in Village Form VIII-A when proper mutation entries exist in the Dakhil Kharij Register?
  • Does a revisional authority have legal justification to disregard contemporaneous revenue records and gift entries without supporting evidence or cogent grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• Saifullah and 5 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L L 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-04Read full judgment →
• Saidul Zafar Mirza vs Kazi Zafar Abbas1980 CLC 993 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
• Saeedud Din vs Mohammad Saleem1980 PLD Karachi 92 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25
  rent restrictionejectmentwilful defaultsecurity deposittenancy agreementSection 13-A noticelandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an order of ejectment passed against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The core legal questions were whether a notice under Section 13-A of the Ordinance was mandatory despite a fresh tenancy agreement between the new landlord and the tenant; whether a security deposit could be adjusted against rent arrears; and whether the proven default in rent payment was wilful. The Court held that where a new tenancy agreement is executed between a new landlord and an existing tenant, the statutory requirement for notice under Section 13-A is dispensed with, as the agreement establishes a fresh relationship. Regarding the security deposit, the Court held that such funds are intended to ensure the performance of contractual obligations and are not automatically adjustable against rent unless expressly agreed. Finally, the Court affirmed the ejectment order, finding the tenant's default wilful due to the failure to tender rent in accordance with the law. The key principle established is that a fresh tenancy agreement supersedes the necessity for statutory notice upon property transfer, and security deposits cannot be unilaterally adjusted against rent.

  Questions settled

  • Is a notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 necessary when a fresh tenancy agreement is executed between a new landlord and the tenant?
  • Can a security deposit held by a landlord be adjusted against rent arrears in the absence of an express agreement to that effect?
  • Does a change in the nature of tenancy from a fixed term to a month-to-month basis alter the character of a security deposit?
  • What constitutes a wilful default in the payment of rent sufficient to justify an order of ejectment?
  Read full judgment →
• Sadruddin vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad and 21980 PLD Karachi 187 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sabir Ali Zahoor Muhammad Shaikh vs Presiding Officer, Summary1980 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• S. Najmul Huda vs Shaikh Muhammad Scheele1980 CLC 869 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
• S. M. Younus and 2 Others vs Messrs Crescent Publicity Service1980 CLC 441 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-16Read full judgment →
• Rukhsana Bibi vs The Province of Sind and 3 Others1980 PLD Karachi 291 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
• Richard Benjamin Wheeler Haines vs Ismail and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 1172 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz Subhani vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 523 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
• Relumal and Another vs Settlement Commissioner, South Zone, Karachi and 3 OTHERs1980 CLC 1771 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-20Read full judgment →
• Rehmatullah A. Shaikh vs Pakistan Employees Cooperative Housing1980 PLD Karachi 287 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-12Read full judgment →
• Rehmat vs Pirzada Sultan Ahmad1980 PLD Karachi 197 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
• Rehmanuddin vs Ust. Merunun Nissa and 3 Others1980 CLC 1846 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20Read full judgment →