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.

• Moharam and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 50 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
• Miss Sabira Manjiani vs Government of Sind and 5 Others1980 CLC 2112 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
• Miss Nasira Jabeen vs Pakistan and 7 Others1980 PLD Karachi 128 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-25Read full judgment →
• Miss Na Veed Yousuf vs Principal, Dow Medical College and Others1980 CLC 1286 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-17Read full judgment →
• Misal Khan vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 16 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
• Mirzo and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 450 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-12Read full judgment →
• Mirza Azim Beg Chughtai vs The State and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 911 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
• Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. vs The Deputy Commissioner and the Controlling Authority, District Tharparkar and 4 Others1980 PLD Karachi 237 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mir Ghulam Nabi and 7 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
• Mir Baloch Khan and 3 Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1980 CLC 1316 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zahid Press Ltd. vs National Bank of Pakistan Ltd.1980 CLC 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Yakub Associates vs Mst. Phool Bano1980 CLC 1136 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Variety Traders, Karachi vs Government of Pakistan1980 PLD Karachi 30 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Universal Merchants vs Commissioner of Karachi and 21980 CLC 704 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-15
  octroi taxmunicipal taxationprevious sanctionlegislative competencefiscal statutebonded warehouseretrospective application
  Summary & questions settled

  These petitions challenged the validity of octroi tax imposition and rate enhancement on liquor by the Karachi Municipal Corporation. The petitioners argued that octroi interfered with inter-provincial and foreign trade, falling under the Central Government's exclusive legislative competence, and that the 1967 rate enhancement was procedurally invalid. The Court held that octroi is a tax on the import of goods for local consumption, use, or sale, not a tax on trade, and thus remains within provincial and municipal competence. Regarding the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, the Court ruled that the 'Model Tax Schedule' under Section 35 serves as guidance rather than a binding maximum rate. Furthermore, the requirement of 'previous sanction' under Section 33 is satisfied if the government approves the tax proposal before it becomes legally enforceable through collection. However, the Court held that enhanced tax rates cannot be applied retrospectively to goods imported and stored in bonded warehouses prior to the notification date. The principle established is that 'levy' in a fiscal context encompasses the entire process of imposition, requiring sanction before the tax is legally recoverable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the imposition of octroi by a municipal committee on goods entering a city constitute an interference with inter-provincial or foreign trade?
  • Does the 'Model Tax Schedule' under Section 35 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, impose a binding maximum limit on tax rates?
  • What is the legal meaning of 'previous sanction' under Section 33 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, regarding the imposition of municipal taxes?
  • Can enhanced tax rates be applied retrospectively to goods stored in a bonded warehouse prior to the notification of the new rates?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Electric & Refrigeration Company vs Veb Deutsche1980 CLC 921 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs United Bank Ltd., KARACHIDecree Holder vs Mst. Asma Zafarul1980 CLC 565 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-02
  execution of decreesetting aside saleprivate offerpublic auctioninherent powersmaterial irregularitylimitationsale proclamation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed by the judgment-debtor under Section 151 read with Order XXI, Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to set aside an execution sale. Following a mortgage decree, the subject property was put up for public auction twice, but no bidders participated. Consequently, the High Court Nazir secured a private offer higher than the approximate value specified in the proclamation, which was accepted by the court after notice to the judgment-debtor's advocate. The core legal questions pertained to whether an executing court possesses inherent powers to accept a private offer when public auctions fail, and whether the application to set aside the sale was barred by limitation under Article 166 of the Limitation Act 1908. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the application, holding that the executing court has implied inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to accept a reasonable private offer to execute its decree when public auctions yield no results, and that the application filed beyond 30 days from the sale was time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Does an executing court have inherent powers under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to accept a private offer for an attached property when public auctions yield no bidders?
  • Is the limitation period for filing an application under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 governed by Article 166 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Does the issuance of a sale certificate constitute a new terminus a quo for computing limitation to set aside an execution sale?
  • Can an execution sale be set aside under Order XXI Rule 90 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without proving that a material irregularity caused substantial injury to the applicant?
  • Is an application under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 maintainable after an execution sale has been confirmed and the executing court has disposed of the execution application?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Shaukat & Raza Ltd, Karachi vs The Karachi Development1980 CLC 346 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-08
  Arbitration Act 1940Section 41 Arbitration Actinterim injunctioncommencement of arbitrationSection 37 Arbitration Actbank guaranteemaintainabilityappointment of arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed by the applicants under Clause 4 of the Second Schedule read with Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940 and Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking a temporary injunction to restrain the respondent from encashing certain bank guarantees pending arbitration. The applicants had issued a notice to the respondent requesting the appointment of an arbitrator, but filed the injunction application before any arbitrator was appointed or any reference was made.

  The core legal question before the Sindh High Court was whether arbitration proceedings can be said to have commenced upon service of a notice requesting the appointment of an arbitrator so as to maintain an application for interim injunction under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940.

  The High Court held that the application was not maintainable. The court ruled that the deeming provision in Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 regarding the commencement of arbitration applies strictly for the purposes of Section 37 and the Limitation Act 1908, and does not apply to Section 41. In order to invoke the court's powers under Section 41 to grant interim relief, actual arbitration proceedings must be pending before an arbitrator, authority, or court. Because no arbitrator had been appointed, no arbitration proceedings were in existence, rendering the injunction application premature and non-maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Does the deeming provision in Section 37(2) of the Arbitration Act 1940 apply to determine the commencement of arbitration proceedings for the purpose of Section 41?
  • Can a court issue an interim injunction under Section 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940 before an arbitrator is appointed?
  • Are arbitration proceedings deemed to be pending merely upon the service of a notice requesting the appointment of an arbitrator?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sadiqueen Traders, Karachi vs S. M. Alam, Section Officer, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad and Another1980 CLC 1851 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Quaid Cap House vs Secretary, Divisional Evacuee Trust1980 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Plasticrafters Ltd. Karachi vs Messrs Maniar Industries Ltd.1980 CLC 812 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs Philip Morris Incorporates vs Registrar of Trade Marks and Another1980 CLC 1272 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-08
  trade mark registrationopposition proceedingssuo motu actiongeographical significancedeceptive similaritytrade marks act
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, challenged the order of the Registrar of Trade Marks refusing registration of the word "SOLO" as a trade mark for cigarettes and tobacco products. The appellant's application was opposed by the second respondent on grounds of deceptive similarity with their registered mark "POLO". Although the Registrar rejected the objection regarding similarity, he refused registration suo motu on the ground that the word "SOLO" possessed geographical significance under section 6(1)(d) of the Act, an objection raised belatedly without formal pleadings. The core legal question was whether the Registrar could take suo motu notice of an unpleaded geographical objection outside the statutory rules of opposition. The Sindh High Court held that the Registrar erred in taking suo motu notice of a belated objection without proper pleadings and evidence, and further found that the word "SOLO" lacks any prominent geographical significance known to the public in Pakistan. The appeal was allowed, the impugned order set aside, and registration directed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Registrar of Trade Marks take suo motu notice of an unpleaded objection regarding the geographical significance of a trade mark?
  • Whether the word "SOLO" possesses a geographical significance that bars its registration as a trade mark under the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • Does an objector need to raise specific grounds in the notice of opposition in accordance with the Trade Marks Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Pakistan Progressive Cement Industries Ltd. vs Superintendent, Central Excise and Land Customs and 4 Others1980 CLC 1845 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Pak. National Construction Co., Karachi vs Chief Engineer, P.W.D., Karachi and Another1980 CLC 226 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Nawab Brothers vs Government of Pakistan1980 PLD Karachi 600 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs National Motors Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Suleman Haji1980 CLC 600 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muhammad Aminmuhammad Bashir Ltd. vs Deputy1980 CLC 2132 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Macdonald Layton Costain Ltd., Karachi vs State Bank of Pakistan1980 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Latif Textile & Calendering Mills vs Collector of Customs, Karachi and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 335 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Karsaz Construction Co. vs Director of Works & Chief1980 CLC 890 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ideal Life Insurance Co. Ltd. and Another vs Mst. Khairunnisa A.1980 CLC 1375 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-17
  equitable mortgagedeposit of title deedspardanashin ladyregistration of mortgage memorandumOrder I Rule 10 CPClimitation for mortgage suitState Life Insurance Corporationsubstitution of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by an insurance company for the recovery of money secured by an equitable mortgage created through the deposit of title deeds. The defendant, a pardanashin lady, denied liability, contending that the plaint was improperly drafted and unverified, the mortgage was unregistered and unenforceable, the suit was barred by limitation under promissory note rules, and she had signed documents without understanding them in English. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was primarily a mortgage suit under Order XXXIV of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, not a promissory note suit, and was governed by the 12-year limitation period under Article 132 of the Limitation Act 1908. A memorandum merely recording a past deposit of title deeds as security does not require registration. The court further held that a pardanashin lady cannot escape liability without pleading fraud, and that the court retains the power under Order I Rule 10 CPC to substitute or add a statutory successor (State Life Insurance Corporation) before signing the judgment.

  Questions settled

  • Does a memorandum acknowledging a past deposit of title deeds as security for a loan require registration to create a valid equitable mortgage?
  • Can a court add or substitute a necessary party under Order I Rule 10 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 while dictating or before signing its judgment?
  • Can a pardanashin lady avoid contractual liability on the ground of not knowing English without pleading fraud or undue influence?
  • What limitation period applies to a suit for recovery of loan secured by an equitable mortgage created through deposit of title deeds?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ibad & Ca vs Province of Sind through Secretary to the Government Communication and Works Department and 2 Others1980 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-13
  arbitration awardobjections to awarderror apparent on face of awardassessment of damageslegal misconductinterest on damagesarbitration act
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves objections to an arbitration award dated 23-12-1978 passed by the sole arbitrator in a dispute arising from a road construction contract. The plaintiff contractor submitted a tender for road reconditioning, which was accepted, but subsequent disputes arose when the defendants failed to provide designs and drawings under clause 13 of the contract, halting the work. The plaintiff filed an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, leading to a reference to arbitration. The arbitrator awarded a sum to the plaintiff, prompting the defendants to file objections alleging errors apparent on the face of the award, lack of evidence, and that the arbitrator adopted a wrong basis for assessing damages and acted on equitable considerations rather than law. The Sindh High Court held that the interpretation of clause 13 and the assessment of damages fell within the competency of the arbitrator, that insufficiency of evidence or a wrong basis for assessing damages does not furnish a ground to set aside an award under section 30 of the Arbitration Act, and that mere use of the word 'penalize' did not convert damages into a penalty. However, the Court modified the award by setting aside the grant of interest on damages, as an arbitrator has no power to grant interest on damages, and made the award the rule of the court with that modification.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an erroneous view regarding the applicability of a contract clause constitutes an error apparent on the face of the award justifying judicial interference?
  • Can an arbitration award be set aside under section 30 of the Arbitration Act on the ground that the arbitrator adopted a wrong basis for assessing the quantum of damages?
  • Does insufficiency of evidence or a disagreement over the appreciation of evidence warrant setting aside an arbitration award?
  • Whether an arbitrator has the power to grant interest on damages?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hoechst Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Government of Pakistan1980 PLD Karachi 434 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ham Dard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan, Karachi vs Shah Syed1980 CLC 680 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Habib Bank Ltd. vs Messrs Kaycee Corporation, Karachi1980 PLD Karachi 143 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-24
  summary suitpromissory noteleave to defendlong cause suitnegotiable instrumentsrecovery of loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was brought under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by the plaintiff bank for the recovery of Rs. 1,97,169.11 based on a promissory note executed as security for a loan facility. The defendants, although served with summary summons, did not apply for leave to defend within the prescribed ten days. Instead, they moved an application under section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and the Sind Chief Court Rules, arguing that the suit did not fall within the scope of Order XXXVII because the claim included service charges, sales tax, and godown rent not covered by the promissory note, and required evidence to determine the bank interest rate. The High Court of Sindh held that for a suit to lie under Order XXXVII, the claim must be strictly confined to the instrument itself, allowing for an open-and-shut case without the need for external evidence. Since the plaintiff's claim required proof of additional charges and fluctuating interest rates, it could not be decreed summarily. Consequently, the Court ordered the suit to be tried as an ordinary long cause suit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit be maintained under the summary procedure of Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the claim includes charges and interest rates that require external evidence to prove?
  • Whether a defendant's failure to apply for leave to defend under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 automatically entitles the plaintiff to a decree if the plaint does not disclose an open-and-shut case based solely on a negotiable instrument?
  • Does a promissory note executed merely as security for a fluctuating loan facility qualify for summary recovery under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Excellsior Agencies vs Kassimali1980 CLC 1015 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Edulji Dinshaw Ltd. vs Deputy Commissioner, Karachi1980 CLC 2169 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs Crescent Star Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Messrs S. M. Abdullah &1980 CLC 1919 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Consolidated Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi and Another vs United1980 CLC 804 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Chaudhary Brothers, Karachi vs People's Municipality, Kotri, Sind and Another1980 CLC 2026 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Barisons (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Industries and Natural Sources and Another1980 CLC 470 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ansari Enterprises vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd.1980 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Amin Jute Mills Ltd., Chittagong and Another vs Pakistan1980 PLD Karachi 74 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Almuslim Goods Transport Co., Karachi and Another vs Muhammad Siddique1980 CLC 86 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alfarooq Shipping Co. Ltd. vs Messrs Vasa Shipping Co. Ltd.1980 CLC 1228 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-20
  specific performancead-interim injunctionsale of goodsreadiness and willingnessrepudiation of contractmovable propertypecuniary compensationadmiralty suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns a claim for specific performance or damages regarding the sale of a vessel, "m. v. ILION." The core legal question was whether an ad-interim injunction restraining the defendants from removing or selling the vessel should be confirmed, and whether specific performance was an appropriate remedy. The court vacated the ad-interim injunction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate continuous readiness and willingness to perform their contractual obligations, having previously repudiated the contract by claiming damages and instructing their bank to withhold payment. The court held that the vessel, being movable property, did not warrant specific performance as pecuniary compensation was an adequate remedy. The key principle laid down is that a party seeking specific performance must prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform; claiming damages for breach constitutes an election to treat the contract as terminated, precluding subsequent claims for specific performance. Furthermore, specific performance for movable property is generally unavailable where monetary compensation is adequate, and the court may instead order security for the claimed damages to safeguard the plaintiff's interest.

  Questions settled

  • Can specific performance be granted for the sale of a vessel if pecuniary compensation is an adequate remedy?
  • Does a claim for damages for breach of contract constitute an election to treat the contract as terminated?
  • Is a plaintiff required to prove continuous readiness and willingness to perform the contract to obtain specific performance?
  • Does the passing of property in goods necessarily occur upon delivery?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmed Investment Ltd., Karachi vs M. V. _Sunrise IV_ and Anothers1980 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court
  Admiralty jurisdictionarrest of shipaction in remaction in personamshort-landingbill of ladingmisjoinder of parties
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit was brought under the admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court for the recovery of Rs. 9,92,800 against a foreign vessel (defendant No. 1) and its foreign owner (defendant No. 2) for short-landing of cargo. The vessel was arrested under Rule 731 of the Chief Court Rules (O.S.). The defendants sought unconditional release, raising preliminary objections that the suit was barred under Section 35 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 because it joined both the ship in rem and the owner in personam, and that they were protected under the Carriage of Goods by Sea Act 1925 due to insufficiency of marks. The High Court modified the arrest order, reducing the security amount. It held that Section 35 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 is jurisdictional, not procedural, and does not bar the joinder of owners in an action in rem. The Court laid down that when an owner voluntarily appears to defend an action in rem, they submit to personal liability, and the action effectively proceeds as an action in personam.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 35 of the Admiralty Court Act 1861 bar a plaintiff from joining the owner of a vessel as a co-defendant in an action in rem?
  • What is the legal effect of a shipowner entering a voluntary appearance to defend an admiralty action in rem?
  • Can an action in rem be defeated under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 solely on the ground of misjoinder of the ship's owner as a party?
  Read full judgment →
• Maroo vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 363 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-27
  habitual offenderSection 110 CrPCquashing of proceedingsgeneral reputeabuse of processpreventive detentioncriminal revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application sought the quashing of proceedings initiated against the applicant under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, alleging he was a habitual thief and dangerous person. The core legal question was whether the material presented by the police sufficiently established the "habit" required by the statute to justify such proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings constituted an abuse of the process of the court and ordered them quashed. The Court emphasized that "habit" under Section 110 implies a tendency resulting from the frequent repetition of offenses, which must be proved by aggregate instances rather than isolated incidents or mere suspicion. Furthermore, the Court laid down the principle that evidence of general repute must be derived from respectable and independent witnesses within the accused's locality, rather than relying exclusively on police officers, whose testimony may be influenced by hostility or bias. Consequently, as the evidence failed to establish the requisite habitual criminality, the proceedings were terminated and the applicant's bail bonds were discharged.

  Questions settled

  • What constitutes "habit" for the purpose of initiating proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can proceedings under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be sustained based solely on police allegations of isolated incidents?
  • Is evidence of general repute from police officers sufficient to establish habitual criminality under Section 110 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • When can a High Court quash proceedings pending before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate?
  Read full judgment →
• Maqsood Aziz vs The State and 4 Others1980 P Cr. L J 427 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Goods Transport Company vs Muhammad Siddiq1980 CLC 373 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
• Makhdumzada Syed Hassan Mahmud vs City Cooperative Bank Ltd.1980 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09Read full judgment →
• Mahmood vs Settlement Commissioner, West Pakistan and 7 Others1980 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-09Read full judgment →
• Mahmoob Alam vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 368 · Sindh High Court · 1974-09-22Read full judgment →
• Mahfoozur Rehman Babar and 10 Others vs Federal Land Commission1980 PLD Karachi 427 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23
  suo motu revisionnatural justiceopportunity of hearingland reformsvested rightssale agreementFederal Land Commission
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the orders passed by the Member, Federal Land Commission and the Additional Chief Land Commissioner regarding agricultural land disputes. The core legal questions involved whether the authorities failed to properly construe the applicable circular regarding unconfirmed sale agreements and whether the principles of natural justice and mandatory procedural rules requiring notice and hearing to affected purchasers were violated during suo motu revisional proceedings. The Court held that the revisional authority acted without jurisdiction and in violation of mandatory rules by failing to provide an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners who possessed vested rights as purchasers under a part-performed agreement, and that the Federal Land Commission misconstrued the circular regarding sale agreements. The Court laid down that failure to afford a mandatory hearing under the applicable land reform rules renders a revisional order void, and that bona fide sale agreements must be scrutinized in accordance with applicable administrative circulars.

  Questions settled

  • Does a failure to afford an opportunity of hearing under the Sind Land Reform Rules render a revisional order without jurisdiction?
  • Whether purchasers under an agreement to sell acquire vested rights entitling them to notice in land revenue proceedings?
  • Did the Federal Land Commission misinterpret the circular regarding the scrutiny of unapproved sale agreements?
  Read full judgment →
• Maher Alavi vs Pakistan and 5 Others1980 PLD Karachi 609 · Sindh High Court · 1980-06-04
  trade organization electionannulment of electionjudicial reviewproxy votingconstitutional jurisdictionadministrative discretionmaterial irregularity
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the annulment of the petitioner’s election as President of the Federation of Chambers of Commerce and Industry by the Director, Trade Organization, under Section 9(2)(e) of the Trade Organizations Ordinance, 1961. The core legal question was whether the Director possessed the authority to annul the election based on the alleged irregularities cited in his report. The Court held that the impugned order was without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The ratio decidendi established that while the Director has the power to annul elections, this power is not unfettered; it must be exercised for "justifiable reasons" pertinent to the election. The Court emphasized that not every irregularity warrants annulment; only those that materially affect the election result or render it a nullity in law justify such drastic action. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that administrative decisions under this Ordinance are subject to judicial review to ensure they are not based on irrelevant considerations, misconstruction of law, or an absence of factual basis.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Director, Trade Organization, have the authority to annul the election of a trade organization's President?
  • Are irregularities in an election sufficient to justify annulment if they do not materially affect the election result?
  • Is an order of the Director, Trade Organization, annulling an election subject to judicial review by the High Court?
  • Can a person who is not a member-elect of a Managing Committee act as a proxy holder in a trade organization election?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali Dhalla vs Abdul Malik Ahmed Habib1980 CLC 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-27Read full judgment →
• M. A. Qadar Farooqui and 2 Others vs The Master Plan Department1980 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-04Read full judgment →
• Laloo vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 748 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-26Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Deputy Commissioner/Additional Settlement1980 CLC 288 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
• Lakhmir and Another vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 384 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-16Read full judgment →
• Krishan vs Tribunal & S. D. M. City, Hyderabad and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1198 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-03
  constitutional petitionSind Crimes Control Actquashing of proceedingsnon-bailable warrantscognizancemalafides
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed before the Sindh High Court to challenge the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, upon a police report. The core legal question was whether taking cognizance on a vague report lacking details of time and place, and issuing non-bailable warrants without assigning reasons, violates the mandatory provisions of the Act. The Court held that the proceedings and cognizance taken were unsustainable in law because the report failed to satisfy the requirements of Section 6 of the Act by not furnishing particulars of time and place in relation to the alleged prejudicial acts, and non-bailable warrants were issued without assigning reasons in violation of Section 5. The key principle laid down is that a report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 must contain specific details of time and place of the acts charged, and failure to do so vitiates the cognizance taken by the Tribunal.

  Questions settled

  • Does taking cognizance on a report lacking details of time and place vitiate proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Is it mandatory for the Tribunal to assign reasons when issuing non-bailable warrants under Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Can proceedings initiated under Section 4/14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be quashed through a constitutional petition?
  Read full judgment →
• Khurshid Hassan Siddiqui vs National Bank of Pakistan1980 PLC (C. S.) 92 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-28Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Waliul Hassan and 2 Others vs Settlement Commissioner1980 CLC 1631 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-26Read full judgment →
• Khatoon Begum and 4 Others vs Messrs Hyesons Commercial and Industrial Corporation Ltd., Karachi and 4 Others1980 CLC 1666 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-04Read full judgment →
• Kewalram vs Messrs Ismail Brothers1980 CLC 915 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-12Read full judgment →
• Kauro and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 519 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
• Kassim Ali vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd.1980 CLC 2089 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-01Read full judgment →
• Kasim Shah and Others vs Major Khalid Mahmood and Another1980 P Cr. L J 498 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-19Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Messrs Muhammad Ali Sheikh1980 PLD Karachi 9 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
• Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs National1980 PLC (C. S.) 305 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-18Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority and Another vs Mst. Haseena Begum1980 CLC 522 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
• Kaisar vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-16Read full judgment →
• Kadoo and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
• K. S. Talati, Advocate vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-21Read full judgment →
• Javed Iqbal Khan vs Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and 21980 CLC 558 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Javaid Akhtar and Another vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sangher and 5 Others1980 CLC 1248 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-19Read full judgment →
• Jamshed Sultan Taimoori vs Mst. Anisa Begum1980 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-01Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmad vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1255 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-15Read full judgment →
• James Hamilton Macfoy vs S. S. "Phoenix"1980 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-05Read full judgment →
• Jairam and 8 Others vs Jagdish and Another1980 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-13Read full judgment →
• Jafar Hussain vs Tribunal & S. D. M. City, Hyderabad and Another1980 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-10Read full judgment →
• J Mujeebur Rehman and Another vs Service Board, K. M. C., Karachi1980 PLC (C. S.) 158 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-07Read full judgment →
• Ismail and 7 Others vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Sind and 31980 PLD Karachi 251 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan vs Messrs William Son & Co.1980 PLD Karachi 576 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Income Tax Officer, Central Circle Hi, Karachi vs Mohammadi41 TAX 25 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Inayat Hussain Naqvi vs The Board of Trustees and Another1980 PLD Karachi 399 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
• In re : Trade Marks Act (v Of 1940) vs Assistant Registrar of Trade1980 CLC 660 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Imperial Paint and Varnish Works vs Commissioner of Income Tax41 TAX 51 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Imam Bux and Anothers vs Qaim and Another1980 P Cr. L J 763 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-03Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 4 Others1980 CLC 1245 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-04Read full judgment →
• Ibrahim Ghani SHOO/Accused vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 112 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-21Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1061 · Sindh High Court · 1980-02-19Read full judgment →
• Hussain Aftab vs The State Opponent1980 P Cr. L J 1226 · Sindh High Court · 1980-05-30Read full judgment →
• Humaira Ansar Kizilbash DecreeHolder vs Shujaat1980 PLD Karachi 436 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-23Read full judgment →
• Homoeopathic DR. A. M. Hameed and Another s vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1980 CLC 1780 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-05Read full judgment →
• Hmi Dawood vs Mst. Rahima Bai and Another1980 PLD Karachi 126 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-07
  ejectmentsublettingwritten consentwaiver by conductimplied consentlandlord and tenantsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from concurrent findings of the lower courts dismissing the appellant landlord's ejectment application filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against the respondent tenant. The appellant sought eviction on the ground that a portion of the premises had been sublet without his written consent. The core legal question was whether a landlord can waive the statutory requirement of obtaining prior consent in writing for subletting through conduct or implied consent. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that a lessor can waive by conduct the condition requiring prior permission in writing for subletting. The court established the key principle that where a landlord has by long-standing practice and conduct acquiesced in the sub-tenancy with knowledge and tacit consent, the requirement of written consent is deemed waived.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a landlord can waive by conduct the statutory requirement of obtaining prior consent in writing for subletting under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does section 13(2)(ii) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 preclude a finding of implied consent or acquiescence by the landlord?
  • Can a tenant be held liable to ejectment for subletting when the landlord has tacitly permitted the sub-tenancy through long-standing practice?
  Read full judgment →
• Hikmat Khan and 2 Others vs Major Muhammad Saleem, Presiding1980 CLC 586 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-18Read full judgment →
• Hassanally vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission and Another1980 CLC 1358 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hassan Ali vs Muhammad Ahsan Baloch and Another1980 CLC 412 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-13Read full judgment →
• Hangle alias Ali Nawaz vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1275 · Sindh High Court · 1980-04-06
  culpable homicidesudden provocationdying declarationretracted confessionconviction alterationhatchet blowcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, for the murder of his employee. The core legal question was whether the act constituted premeditated murder or culpable homicide not amounting to murder, given the circumstances of the incident. The prosecution case relied on eye-witness testimony and dying declarations, while the appellant retracted a judicial confession. The court found that the incident arose from a sudden, unpremeditated altercation regarding the lighting of a tobacco pipe, with no prior enmity between the parties. The court held that while the appellant lacked the specific intent to cause death, he possessed the requisite knowledge that his actions were likely to cause death. Consequently, the court converted the conviction from Section 302 to Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, sentencing the appellant to seven years of rigorous imprisonment, alongside a fine and compensation order. The judgment establishes that in cases of sudden provocation where a single fatal blow is struck without prior malice, the offence may be mitigated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

  Questions settled

  • Does a sudden, unpremeditated altercation resulting in a fatal blow constitute murder under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a conviction under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be converted to Section 304 when the accused lacked the specific intent to kill?
  • Is a retracted judicial confession sufficient to sustain a conviction when contradicted by other evidence?
  • Should an appellate court grant a rebate in sentence under Section 382-B of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for time spent in confinement?
  Read full judgment →
• Hamid Hussain vs Deputy Commissioner (South), Karachi and Another1980 P Cr. L J 461 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Syed Abbas and Another vs The State and Another1980 PLD Karachi 213 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-14Read full judgment →