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.

• Ahmed vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1283 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-17Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Rash1d vs Zarina Rashid1980 CLC 550 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs The State and 3 Others Opponents1980 P Cr. L J 979 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-14Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Mst. Zarmar Jan and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 566 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzak vs Government of Pakistan and 2 Others1980 P Cr. L J 375 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razaq vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner (Admn.), Hyderabad1980 CLC 1250 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf and 3 OTHERSs vs The State1980 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-04Read full judgment →
• Abdul Qadir vs Muhammad Azim and Another1980 CLC 612 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq vs Province of Sind through the Secretary, Local1980 CLC 1832 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 1081 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim and 2 Others vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 673 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jalil and Another vs Mansoor Ahmad1980 CLC 1815 · Sindh High Court · 1980-03-16
  civil revisionlist of witnessessettlement of issuescase decidedinterlocutory orderjurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff-applicant filed a civil suit for an injunction against the respondent-defendant in the civil court, Karachi. Issues were settled on 23rd March 1979, requiring parties to submit a list of witnesses within seven days. The plaintiff complied, but the defendant did not. Subsequently, after closing his evidence, the defendant applied to produce three witnesses, which the trial court allowed in the interest of justice. The plaintiff filed a revision application against this order. The core legal question was whether the trial court had the discretion to permit a party to examine witnesses when that party failed to file the list of witnesses within seven days of the settlement of issues under Order XVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. The court held that if a party fails to present the list of witnesses within the stipulated seven days, the court has no discretion to permit that party to call witnesses, and the trial court acted illegally in exercising its jurisdiction. The revision application was allowed and the trial court's order was set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Does a trial court have the discretion to permit a party to call witnesses when that party failed to present a list of witnesses within seven days after the settlement of issues?
  • What does the term 'case decided' under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 encompass?
  • Is a revision application under Section 115 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 competent against an interlocutory order permitting a party to examine witnesses?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs The State1980 P Cr. L J 236 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The Deputy Settlement Commissioner and 12 Others1980 CLC 273 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Bari vs The State and Another1980 P Cr. L J 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29Read full judgment →
• A. Qutubuddin Khan vs Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd., Karachi1980 CLC 1977 · Sindh High Court · 1980-01-29
  arbitration awardlimitation periodservice of noticesufficiency of evidencenon-speaking awardobjections to award
  Summary & questions settled

  This case involves objections raised by the defendant against an arbitration award of Rs. 56,000 granted in favor of the plaintiff following the termination of a construction contract. The core legal questions addressed by the court relate to whether the objections filed against the award were barred by limitation based on the date of service of notice, and whether an award can be set aside on the ground of insufficiency or lack of evidence when the sole witness's testimony remained unchallenged due to the defendant's non-participation in the proceedings. The court held that the objections were time-barred as the postal delivery slip conclusively established service of notice beyond the statutory period, and further held that an arbitration award cannot be set aside merely on the ground of insufficiency of evidence where some evidence existed, especially as it was a non-speaking award with no error apparent on its face. The key principle laid down is that while a court may set aside an award in a genuine case of 'no evidence', it cannot interfere with an award on the ground of insufficiency or credibility of evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration award can be set aside by a court on the ground of insufficiency of evidence?
  • How is the date of service of notice of the filing of an award determined for the purpose of limitation when postal delivery records and internal inward registers conflict?
  • Can a non-speaking arbitration award be challenged on the basis of an error apparent on the face of the award involving disputed questions of fact?
  Read full judgment →
• Zikrur Rehman vs The State and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 301 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-09Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 864 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-17Read full judgment →
• Zahid Nasim and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 953 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
• Zahid Hussain Khan vs Muhammad Abdulla1979 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-26
  rent restrictiondefault in rentstriking off defencecondonation of delaymedical groundssecond appealmixed question of law and factadditional evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, against the concurrent orders of the lower courts striking out the appellant-tenant's defence and directing eviction for failing to deposit arrears of rent by the date fixed under section 13(6). The core legal question was whether the tenant's eight-day delay in depositing the rent constituted a wilful default warranting the striking off of his defence, given that he suffered from hypertension and coronary insufficiency during the relevant period. The Sindh High Court held that the tenant's failure was due to circumstances beyond his control and not an avoidable cause, thus condoning the delay. The court laid down the principle that a finding on whether a tenant committed default in the payment of rent is a mixed question of law and fact which can be displaced in second appeal, and that default inviting the penalty of a struck defence requires a non-compliance due to an avoidable cause.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a finding by lower courts that a tenant committed default in the payment of rent is a finding of fact or a mixed question of law and fact subject to interference in second appeal?
  • Does a tenant's failure to deposit rent within the time fixed under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, due to serious illness amount to wilful default?
  • Under what circumstances may an appellate court summon additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to enable it to pronounce judgment?
  Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed and 2 Others vs The State---Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 109 · Sindh High Court · 1979-10-08Read full judgment →
• Zaheer Ahmed and 2 Other vs The State Opponent1979 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
• Zafar Iqbal vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 908 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
• Yaroo and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 900 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
• Yaqoob vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-09Read full judgment →
• Yacub and 2 Others vs The State and Another1979 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-02Read full judgment →
• Water and Power Development Authority through Resident Engineer1979 PLD Karachi 95 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
• Warner Lambert (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Sindh Labour Court No.III,Karachi1979 PLC 370 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-05
  medical representativesworkman definitionindustrial relationscollective bargaining agentmanagerial capacitylabour court jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This Constitution petition challenged a Labour Court order directing the petitioner to enforce the deduction of Union subscriptions from the salaries of its medical representatives. The core legal questions were whether these medical representatives qualified as 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and whether a local Union could represent employees stationed outside the province of Sindh. The Court held that the definition of 'workman' in the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, is broad and presumptive, covering all employees unless specifically excluded as managerial or supervisory. Finding that medical representatives possessed no power to hire or fire, were not in charge of the establishment, and operated under the control of the Head Office, the Court concluded they were 'workmen' rather than managerial staff. Furthermore, the Court held that a Collective Bargaining Agent based in Karachi could represent employees of the same company working outside the province, as they were employed, paid, and controlled by the Head Office. The petition was dismissed, affirming the Labour Court's order.

  Questions settled

  • Are medical representatives considered 'workmen' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Does the definition of 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, include intellectual or white-collar workers?
  • Can a Collective Bargaining Agent represent employees of an establishment who are posted outside the province where the Union is registered?
  • What is the burden of proof for establishing that an employee is not a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-28Read full judgment →
• Vakil Muhammad and Another vs Additional Deputy Commissioner1979 CLC 406 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-28Read full judgment →
• Usman and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
• United Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi vs District Magistrate, Sukkur and Another1979 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-02
  Section 144 Cr.P.C.ex parte orderDistrict Magistrateprohibition on transport of sugar-canepublic tranquillitySugar Factories Control Actwrit jurisdictionexhaustion of alternate remedies
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by United Sugar Mills Ltd. against an ex parte order dated 09.12.1978 passed by the District Magistrate, Sukkur under Section 144 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The impugned order prohibited the transport of sugar-cane from Sukkur District toward Punjab to preserve supply for two regional sugar mills located outside Sukkur. The High Court considered whether Section 144 Cr.P.C. could be invoked to enforce policy goals or statutory schemes under the Sugar Factories Control Act 1950, and whether an ex parte order was permissible without local imminent danger.

  The High Court held that Section 144 Cr.P.C. does not grant arbitrary power and can only be invoked where conditions like immediate prevention or speedy remedy exist to avert local danger, injury, or public tranquility breaches. Protecting supply for mills outside the District or securing lower prices lacked a nexus with Section 144 objectives. Furthermore, non-compliance with notice requirements rendered the ex parte order illegal. The Court declared the impugned order without lawful authority and set it aside.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate issue an order under Section 144 Cr.P.C. to assist facilities outside his territorial district where no imminent breach of peace exists within his jurisdiction?
  • Does the availability of specific statutory penalties under special legislation like the Sugar Factories Control Act prevent the use of Section 144 Cr.P.C. to enforce that legislation?
  • Are ex parte orders under Section 144 Cr.P.C. valid where no emergency exists and notice could have been served under Section 134 Cr.P.C.?
  • Can a High Court entertain a constitutional petition against an illegal order without the petitioner first exhausting statutory review remedies under Section 144(4) Cr.P.C.?
  Read full judgment →
• Umar and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 917 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
• Trustees of the Port of Karachi vs Syed Muzammil Hussain1979 CLC 64 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-12Read full judgment →
• Tota Khan vs VTH Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 97 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-21Read full judgment →
• Timsal Askari vs The State and Another1979 P Cr. L J 309 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-20Read full judgment →
• The State vs Tufail Muhammad1979 P Cr. L J 707 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-22Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Yaqoob And Another1979 P Cr. L J 927 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mian Muhammad Hafeez1979 P Cr. L J 46 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Iqbal Hussain1979 P Cr. L J 774 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ataullah and 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 170 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdullah and Another1979 P Cr. L J 891 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-10Read full judgment →
• The State and Another vs Dillu1979 P Cr. L J 793 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
• The Commissioner of Income-Tax (West), Karachi vs Messrs Jupiter1979 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
• Tanweer Ahmad Khan vs District Magistrate, Sanghar and Another1979 PLD Karachi 732 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-27
  firearm licencenatural justiceshow-cause noticeMartial Law Ordercancellation of licencedue processadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner challenged an order issued by the District Magistrate cancelling his firearm licence under Martial Law Order No. 64. The core legal question was whether the cancellation of a licence under this Martial Law Order, which requires the authority to be satisfied that the licensee is an 'undesirable person,' necessitates adherence to the principles of natural justice, specifically the provision of a show-cause notice and an opportunity for a hearing. The Court held that the impugned order was passed without lawful authority because it was issued on a cyclostyled pro forma without the District Magistrate applying his mind or recording a finding of undesirability. The Court emphasized that since the cancellation carries a stigma of being an 'undesirable person,' the law implicitly requires an inquiry and an opportunity for the licensee to be heard before such an adverse order is passed. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition, declaring the cancellation order to be without lawful authority, noting that the lack of stated grounds also rendered any potential appeal ineffective.

  Questions settled

  • Does the cancellation of a firearm licence under Martial Law Order No. 64 require the authority to provide the licensee with a show-cause notice and an opportunity to be heard?
  • Is an order cancelling a firearm licence valid if it is issued on a cyclostyled pro forma without the authority recording specific findings regarding the licensee's undesirability?
  • Can an order be considered passed without lawful authority if it fails to disclose the grounds for the adverse action taken against the petitioner?
  Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 10 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-24Read full judgment →
• Taj Muhammad vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division Akd 7 Others1979 CLC 237 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-29
  Permanent Residence Certificatelimitation periodex parte orderdomicilemedical college admissionsconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the appellate order of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, dismissing the petitioner's appeal regarding the issuance of Permanent Residence Certificates (P.R.C.s) to private respondents for medical college admissions. The core legal questions concerned the computation of limitation periods for appeals against P.R.C. grants where applicants had no prior notice, and the correct legal interpretation of permanent residence versus domicile under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971. The Sindh High Court held that limitation for filing an appeal against the grant of a P.R.C. does not run from the date of the ex parte order when the aggrieved party had no notice of it, but from the date of knowledge, applying principles enunciated by the Supreme Court. Furthermore, the Court held that the authorities must determine permanent residence based on substantive factors rather than merely fulfilling technical domicile-based criteria under rule 6. The petition was partially allowed, setting aside the Commissioner's orders as to certain respondents and remanding the matters for a decision on merits, while upholding the P.R.C. for another whose permanent residence was substantiated.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for filing an appeal against the grant of a Permanent Residence Certificate run from the date of the certificate when the aggrieved party had no prior notice of the proceedings?
  • Are domicile and permanent residence interchangeable concepts under the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971?
  • Must the appellate authority examine evidence of permanent residence beyond merely satisfying the conditions laid down in rule 6 of the Sind Permanent Residence Certificate Rules, 1971?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shafique Hussain vs Syed Abul Qasim1979 PLD Karachi 22 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-12
  power of attorneyirrevocable agencypower coupled with an interestContract Act 1872beneficial interestspecific reliefland sale agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges the appellate court's dismissal of a suit seeking a declaration that a power of attorney was irrevocable. The core legal question was whether the power of attorney, executed alongside an agreement to sell land, constituted a 'power coupled with an interest' under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872, thereby preventing its revocation. The court held that the power of attorney was indeed irrevocable. It determined that the applicant, having paid consideration and taken possession of the land with rights to its usufruct, held a substantial beneficial interest in the subject matter. The court established that Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872 protects an agent's interest when the agency is created to secure that interest. The key principle laid down is that an agent’s beneficial interest in the property forming the subject matter of the agency need not be expressly stated in the power of attorney; it may be inferred from the document, the course of dealings, and surrounding circumstances, rendering the agency irrevocable.

  Questions settled

  • When does a power of attorney become irrevocable under Section 202 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Must a beneficial interest be expressly mentioned in a power of attorney for it to be considered irrevocable?
  • Can an agreement to sell land be used to establish the existence of a beneficial interest in a power of attorney?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shabbir Ahmed Shah vs Pakistan 1Hrough the Secretary to the Govern1979 PLD Karachi 68 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-29
  smugglingPakistan Coast GuardsCustoms Act 1969jurisdictionseizure and detentionnotified goodsimport prohibition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from constitutional petitions challenging the seizure and detention of allegedly smuggled motor cars by the Pakistan Coast Guards. The petitioners contested the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973, arguing that their authority to seize goods is strictly confined to the prevention of smuggling. The core legal question was whether motor cars, which were not specifically listed in clause (s) of Section 2 of the Customs Act, 1969 nor notified thereunder by the Federal Government, fall within the legal definition of 'smuggling' merely because their import is prohibited or restricted under another law. The High Court held that the offence of smuggling under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 is strictly limited to goods specified in that provision or subsequently notified by the Federal Government. The Court affirmed its prior precedent, declaring that goods whose import is prohibited under other laws fall under Section 156(9) rather than Section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969. Consequently, the Court held the seizure of motor cars by the Coast Guards to be without jurisdiction and allowed the petitions.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards to seize goods is limited strictly to items defined as 'smuggled' under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  • Does the definition of 'smuggling' under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 include goods whose import is prohibited under other laws if they are not explicitly specified or notified under Section 2(s)?
  • Can the Pakistan Coast Guards seize and detain motor cars on allegations of smuggling if motor cars have not been notified by the Federal Government under Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Anayat Husain Naqvi vs Government of Sind1979 P Cr. L J 529 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Abbas Ali Shah vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate & Tribunal, Tands1979 P Cr. L J 303 · Sindh High Court
  constitutional petitionSind Crimes Control Actpreventive proceedingspolice reportquashment of proceedingsmandatory provisionsnon-bailable warrant
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate acting as a Tribunal, based on a police report. The core legal question concerns the sufficiency and validity of a police report containing vague allegations and past challans without particulars, and whether such a report complies with the mandatory requirements for taking cognizance under the Act. The Sindh High Court held that a police report devoid of specific details regarding the time, place, and outcome of past cases fails to satisfy the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, thereby vitiating the entire proceedings and the issuance of non-bailable warrants. The court laid down the principle that statutory provisions empowering a Tribunal to take cognizance must be read together with mandatory procedural safeguards, and vague police reports lacking necessary particulars cannot legally sustain preventive proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does a vague police report lacking details of time and place vitiate proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Can a Tribunal take cognizance based on a police report that lists past criminal cases without stating their outcomes?
  • Are the provisions regarding cognizance under Section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 subject to the mandatory requirements of Section 6 of the said Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Sultan Ahmad vs Junior Labour Court No.IV and 2 Others1979 PLC 322 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-19Read full judgment →
• State vs Shahbazdino and 2 Others- Respondents1979 P Cr. L J 547 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
• State vs Nabi Bux1979 PLD Karachi 419 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammadilyas and Another1979 P Cr. L J 491 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-13Read full judgment →
• State vs Iqbal Hussain1979 P Cr. L J 772 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
• Societe De Fabrication Et De Distribution De Parfumerie Et Cosmetique1979 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-23
  trade markproprietorshipforeign trade markbad faithpassing offrefusal of registrationregistrar's discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  These miscellaneous appeals arise from decisions of the Deputy Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing both the appellants' oppositions and the parties' respective trade mark applications regarding foreign-owned trade marks ('Cheramy' and 'Chant d'Aromes'). The core legal question is whether the second respondent could properly claim to be the proprietor of foreign-owned trade marks that had not yet been used or registered in Pakistan. The court held that although the foreign appellants had not used their marks in Pakistan, the respondent had prior knowledge of the foreign ownership and acted in bad faith by deliberately copying the marks, rendering its claim of proprietorship false and improper. The key principle laid down is that an applicant who knowingly appropriates a foreign-owned trade mark cannot claim good-faith proprietorship under trade mark law, and the Registrar must exercise discretion to refuse registration to prevent deception and maintain the purity of the register.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an applicant can claim to be the proprietor of a foreign-owned trade mark that has not been previously used in Pakistan?
  • Does prior knowledge of a foreign owner's trade mark render an applicant's claim to proprietorship false and improper?
  • Can the Registrar refuse a trade mark application in the exercise of discretion under section 14(1) of the Trade Marks Act 1940 due to the applicant's improper conduct?
  • Whether the absence of local use by a foreign owner permits a local trader to appropriate an international trade mark?
  Read full judgment →
• Smith Kline Andfrench of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs A. Rashid PM and AnothbrPL D 1979 Karachi 212 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Sind Alkalis Ltd., Karachi vs Workers' Union and Another1979 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-02
  Summary & questions settled

  The provided judgment text is empty. As the input contains no content, it is impossible to provide a summary, identify statutory provisions, extract keywords, formulate legal questions, or identify the author of the judgment. Please provide the text of the judgment to proceed with the analysis.

  Read full judgment →
• Sikandar Khan vs Muhammad Amin1979 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-12
  rent appealejectmentwilful defaultlandlord-tenant relationshipdenial of titlestatutory noticeWest Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This second rent appeal arises from an ejectment order passed by the Rent Controller and upheld by the Additional District Judge against a tenant for wilful default. The core legal question was whether the Rent Controller was justified in ordering the tenant's immediate ejectment without recording further evidence, despite the tenant's denial of the landlord's title and the existence of a landlord-tenant relationship. The High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the Rent Controller acted correctly. The court determined that the tenant’s denial of the landlord’s title was mala fide and frivolous, particularly as the tenant had failed to pay any rent despite being served with proper notices. The court affirmed the principle that where a tenant fails to pay rent and frivolously denies the landlord's title, further inquiry into the matter is unnecessary, and the Rent Controller is empowered to order ejectment straightaway to prevent futile litigation and delay. The court emphasized that a tenant cannot withhold rent while challenging title without depositing it in court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Rent Controller order ejectment without further evidence when a tenant denies the landlord's title and fails to pay rent?
  • Does a tenant's denial of the landlord's title absolve them from the obligation to pay rent?
  • Is a Rent Controller required to hold further inquiry into the rate of rent when the tenant has failed to pay any rent at all?
  Read full judgment →
• Shujaat Mirza vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-01Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs Director General of Pakistan, Telegraphs and Telephones Department and Another1979 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-03
  service tribunal jurisdictionterms and conditions of servicereversionconstitutional petitionouster of jurisdictionthreatened actioncivil servant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns twelve connected writ petitions challenging orders of reversion from the post of Assistant Engineer/Sub-Divisional Officer to Engineering Supervisor. The petitioners sought declarations that these orders were passed without lawful authority. The core legal question was whether the High Court retained jurisdiction to entertain these petitions, or if such jurisdiction was barred by Article 212 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 and the Service Tribunals Act 1973. The Court held that the petitions were not maintainable, ruling that the Service Tribunal possesses exclusive jurisdiction over all matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of civil servants, including disciplinary matters. The Court rejected arguments that the High Court could intervene regarding "threatened" actions or where departmental remedies were not exhausted. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional framework established by Article 212 and the Service Tribunals Act 1973 creates a comprehensive, exclusive forum for service disputes, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the High Court in all matters pertaining to service terms and conditions, regardless of whether the impugned action is completed or merely threatened.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to entertain a writ petition regarding a threatened service-related action?
  • Does the Service Tribunal have exclusive jurisdiction over matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of a civil servant?
  • Can a civil servant approach the High Court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 without first exhausting departmental remedies?
  • Does an order of reversion from a higher post to a lower post constitute a matter relating to the terms and conditions of service?
  Read full judgment →
• Shamoon and 4 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 137 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Shahzad Mumtaz vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 336 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
• Shafi Muhammad vs Federal Land Commission and Another1979 CLC 91 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-18Read full judgment →
• Shabir Ali and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 829 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Hussain vs Mst. Mubina Begum and Another1979 CLC 42 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-11
  rent restrictionsection 13-A noticeeviction petitiondefault in renttransferee landlordstatutory protectionregistered post notice
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment resolves two second appeals filed by a transferee-landlord against the dismissal of his eviction applications sought solely on the ground of non-payment of rent. The primary legal issue was whether notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 is mandatory to establish default in payment of rent, and whether a tenant's deposit of rent after informal knowledge creates an enforceable tenancy that waives the requirement of such statutory notice. The Sindh High Court held that the service of notice in writing by registered post under Section 13-A is an imperative statutory requirement, not a mere formality. The court held that without the prescribed written notice sent via registered post by the new landlord, a tenant cannot be deemed to have committed a default in paying rent for the purposes of eviction under Section 13. Furthermore, statutory protections provided under rent restriction legislation cannot be contracted out of or waived by implied conduct, such as depositing rent.

  Questions settled

  • Is notice under Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 mandatory before a tenant can be held to be in default of rent by a transferee-landlord?
  • Can a tenant be deemed to have defaulted in payment of rent to a new landlord in the absence of written intimation sent by registered post under Section 13-A of the Ordinance?
  • Does a tenant's deposit of rent to a transferee-landlord constitute a waiver or contract out of the statutory protection afforded by Section 13-A of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  Read full judgment →
• Sardar Taj Muhammad Odho and Other vs Deputy Land Commissioner1979 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
• Saleh Muhammad vs Presiding Officer, Summary Military Court, Karachi and 2 Others1979 P Cr. L J 968 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
• Saleem Akram vs Muhammad Zakir Khan Changezi and Another1979 P Cr. L J 972 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-06Read full judgment →
• Saiful Haque Hashmi vs Government of Sind through the Chief1979 PLD Karachi 298 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-11Read full judgment →
• Sadruddin vs Messrs MITCHELL's Fruit Farms Ltd., Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 694 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-12Read full judgment →
• S. W. H. Jafri vs Muhammad Salim Shaikh and 2 Others1979 PLC 431 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-06
  grievance noticelimitation perioddismissal from serviceconcurrent findings of factconstitutional petitionindustrial dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arises from an order passed by the Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, which upheld the dismissal of the petitioner's labour application as time-barred. The petitioner, a bank clerk dismissed from service following allegations of misappropriation and forgery, challenged the concurrent findings of the Labour Court and the Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding the limitation period under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether the lower forums correctly computed the period of limitation based on the date of the petitioner's initial grievance notice. The court held that the concurrent factual findings regarding the service of the grievance notice and the resultant computation of limitation were unexceptionable and could not be reopened under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that concurrent findings of fact recorded by labour forums on the question of limitation based on evidence will not be disturbed in a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 can be dismissed as time-barred based on the first grievance notice served by the employee?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact recorded by the Labour Court and Labour Appellate Tribunal regarding limitation be interfered with under Article 199 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• S. Nizamuddin Qadri vs The Deputy Secretary to Government of West1979 CLC 217 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-07Read full judgment →
• S. M. Tahir Ali vs THS State1979 P Cr. L J 990 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-20Read full judgment →
• S. Atiqad Hussain Naqvi and 5 Others vs Chief Officer, Karachi and Another1979 CLC 391 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-20Read full judgment →
• Riaz and Another vs Razi Muhammad1979 PLD Karachi 227 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08
  revision applicationspecific reliefpossessiondispossessiontemporary repairslandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application under section 115 of the Civil Procedure Code was directed against the judgment and decree of the Senior Civil Judge, Mirpurkhas, which decreed the respondent's suit for possession under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act. The core legal question was whether a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act lies only in cases of forcible dispossession, or whether it extends to dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, such as when temporary possession given for repairs is not returned. The Sindh High Court held that section 9 applies to dispossession otherwise than in due course of law, which encompasses cases where possession is withheld after being handed over temporarily for a limited purpose, and actual physical possession is not a strict pre-condition if constructive possession or the right to use remains. The court laid down the principle that a person temporarily permitting another to use premises for a specific purpose remains in possession for the purposes of section 9, and refusal to return such premises constitutes dispossession otherwise than in due course of law.

  Questions settled

  • Does section 9 of the Specific Relief Act apply only where a person has been forcibly dispossessed of immovable property?
  • Can a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act be maintained when possession was temporarily handed over for a specific purpose like repairs?
  • Is actual and physical possession an essential pre-condition for filing a suit under section 9 of the Specific Relief Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz & Kandawalla Ltd., Karachi vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan, Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 300 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-18
  cost priceimported sugarstatutory notificationlanded costwaiverstrict interpretationtrade and commerce
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit before the Sindh High Court involved a dispute regarding the calculation of the 'cost price' of imported sugar under a government notification. The plaintiff company imported a consignment of sugar, which was subsequently required by a West Pakistan Government notification issued under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, to be sold to the Trading Corporation of Pakistan at 'cost price plus 6% profit thereon.' The core legal question was whether the 6% profit was payable strictly on the C.I.F. value of the goods or on the total landed cost including customs duties, sales tax, and other clearance charges. The court held that in construing statutes and delegated legislation encroaching upon private property and contractual rights, a strict interpretation in favour of the subject must be adopted. The court decided that 'cost price' meant the total imported cost of the goods to the importer, inclusive of customs duties and other necessary expenses incurred to make the goods ready for sale. The court further held that the plaintiff had not waived its right to claim the full profit. The suit was consequently decreed in favour of the plaintiff.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the expression 'cost price' in a statutory notification for compulsory acquisition of imported goods includes customs duties, sales tax, and other clearance charges?
  • Can an importer waive statutory rights regarding the calculation of a fixed price under a regulatory control statute?
  • What are the principles of interpretation applicable to subordinate legislation that encroaches upon private property and contractual rights?
  Read full judgment →
• Riaz & Kandawalla Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan and Another1979 PLD Karachi 807 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-31Read full judgment →
• Raza Ansari vs Maula Bahhsh1979 PLD Karachi 568 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
• Rano vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 781 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-03Read full judgment →
• Rang Ali Shah and 5 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-27Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-22Read full judgment →
• Rais Ahmad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 175 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
• Rahim Bux vs The State and 6 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 241(2) · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
• Rafique vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 936 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
• Qaisar Raza vs TF E State---Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 758 (2) · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
• Popular Tobacco Co. Workers' Union vs Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Others1979 PLC 62 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-27Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 747 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
• Peeral and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 101 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-02Read full judgment →
• Peer Bakhsh vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-10
  double jeopardysimultaneous prosecutionSind Crimes Control ActWest Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinancequashing of proceedingsanti-social activities
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenged an order passed by the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, concerning proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The petitioner had previously been prosecuted under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1969, based on the same allegations and specific instances of anti-social activities. The core legal question was whether a person could be subjected to simultaneous prosecutions under two different statutes for the same set of facts and allegations. The Court held that the second prosecution under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, was not maintainable while the earlier proceedings under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance, 1969, remained pending. The Court emphasized that subjecting an individual to double jeopardy by prosecuting them on the same facts in separate, concurrent proceedings is repugnant to Article 13 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973, which protects against being prosecuted or punished for the same offence more than once. Consequently, the Court allowed the petition and quashed the pending proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person be prosecuted simultaneously under two different statutes for the same set of facts and allegations?
  • Does the initiation of a second prosecution on identical facts violate the constitutional protection against double jeopardy?
  • Are proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 maintainable if prior proceedings under the West Pakistan Control of Goondas Ordinance 1969 are still pending for the same conduct?
  Read full judgment →
• Paryo vs The State and 4 Others--1979 P Cr. L J 945 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-23Read full judgment →
• Pakistan, Ministry of Commerce, Karachi-- vs Messrs Rizvi & Co., Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-05Read full judgment →
• Pakistan vs Messrs Rizvi & Co., Karachi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 744 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
• Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Karachi vs S.1979 PLD Karachi 117 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Security Press Employees Union vs Sindh Labour Court No.II1979 PLC 410 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-19Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Railways vs Junior Labour Courts v And Others1979 PLC 320 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-19
  industrial relationsworkman definitionretired employeegrievance petitionjurisdiction of labour courtpro forma promotionsuperannuation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of Labour Court orders directing Pakistan Railways to grant pro forma promotion to a retired employee. The core legal question was whether a retired employee qualifies as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance and is thus entitled to initiate grievance proceedings under Section 25-A. The Court held that the Labour Courts lacked jurisdiction, as the respondent was a retired employee and not a 'workman' at the time of instituting the proceedings. The Court reasoned that the definition of 'workman' in the Ordinance requires current employment in an establishment, or specific circumstances such as dismissal or discharge related to an industrial dispute. Retirement upon superannuation does not satisfy these criteria. The Court emphasized that the legislature did not extend the definition of 'workman' to include past employees, contrasting this with the broader definition of 'civil servant' found in the Service Tribunals Act, 1973. Consequently, the proceedings were deemed legally incompetent, and the petition was allowed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a retired employee qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Can a retired employee initiate grievance proceedings under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  • Is retirement from service equivalent to dismissal or discharge for the purpose of defining a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Medical Association, Karachi vs Government of Sind and 51979 CLC 382 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-09
  allotment cancellationwrit jurisdictionstatutory bodynatural justiceKarachi Development Authoritypublic building siteadministrative law
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Pakistan Medical Association, challenged the cancellation of its allotment of a plot by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) and the subsequent allotment of the same land to a private housing society. The core legal question was whether the government or the KDA could unilaterally cancel a valid, subsisting allotment without notice or legal justification, and whether the government could override KDA's statutory functions by directly allotting land already committed to another party. The Court held that the cancellation of the petitioner's allotment was unlawful, as the petitioner had committed no breach of terms, and the principles of natural justice required a hearing before such cancellation. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the government lacked the authority to make direct allotments or override the KDA’s statutory functions in this manner. The allotment to the housing society was declared to be of no legal effect. The Court affirmed that the KDA’s actions in managing housing schemes constitute the performance of statutory obligations, rendering the matter amenable to writ jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Is the cancellation of a plot allotment by a statutory body subject to the court's writ jurisdiction?
  • Does the principle of natural justice require a hearing before a statutory body cancels an existing allotment of land?
  • Can the provincial government or Chief Minister unilaterally override a valid allotment made by the Karachi Development Authority?
  • Is an allotment of land by a statutory body considered a performance of statutory obligation rather than a simple agreement?
  Read full judgment →