Pakistan Case LawLatest Judgments
Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporationand 5 OTHERSs vs Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi1979 CLC 88 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, Karachi and 4 Other vs Allah Ditta Bugti1979 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Pakistan International Airlines Corporation and 5 Other vs Muhammad Izharul Ahsan Qureshi1979 PLD Karachi 640 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-02Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application arises from a dispute where the respondent, an employee of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation, filed a civil suit seeking a declaration and injunction to prevent the corporation from conducting a departmental inquiry into his alleged misconduct and to restrain his suspension. The trial court initially dismissed the suit, ruling that the civil court lacked jurisdiction because the respondent’s remedy lay under the Industrial Relations Ordinance. The appellate court reversed this, asserting civil court jurisdiction. The High Court, in revision, held that the civil court lacked jurisdiction. The court reasoned that where a special statute, such as the Industrial Relations Ordinance, creates specific rights and provides a dedicated forum and procedure for enforcing those rights, the jurisdiction of ordinary civil courts is excluded. Consequently, an employee aggrieved by service-related actions must seek redress through the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance rather than filing a declaratory suit under the Specific Relief Act, as rights arising from a service contract do not constitute a 'legal character' under that Act.
Questions settled- Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding service grievances when a special forum is provided under the Industrial Relations Ordinance?
- Can a suit for declaration under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act be maintained for rights and liabilities arising solely from a contract of service?
- Where a special statute creates a right and provides a specific mechanism for its enforcement, is the jurisdiction of civil courts excluded?
- Pakistan Industrial Developmentcorporation, Karachi vs Aziz Qureshi1979 CLC 16 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Fisheries Ltd., Karachi vs Asghar Ali and 2 Others1979 PLC 437 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Burmah-Shell Ltd., Karachi and 3 Others vs Sind Labour1979 PLC 25 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Burmah Shell Ltd., Karachi- vs S. S. Phoenix and 4 Other1979 PLD Karachi 789 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an admiralty suit brought by Pakistan Burmah Shell Limited against the ship s. s. Phoenix and others for the recovery of the price of furnace oil supplied to the vessel. The core legal questions involve whether the furnace oil constituted necessaries, whether the supplies were made upon the credit of the ship or the personal credit of the local agent, and whether an admiralty action in rem is maintainable when supplies are made on a third party's personal credit rather than the ship's or owners' credit. The Sindh High Court held that while furnace oil qualifies as 'necessaries' under admiralty law and is prima facie presumed to be supplied on the credit of the ship, this presumption was rebutted by evidence showing the supply was made exclusively on the personal credit of the local agent, defendant 3. Consequently, the court ruled that the action in rem was not maintainable against the vessel and dismissed the suit against the owners and agents, vacating the order of arrest.
Questions settled- Whether furnace oil supplied to a ship qualifies as 'necessaries' under admiralty law?
- Does the presumption that necessaries are supplied on the credit of the ship stand rebutted when supplies are made on the personal credit of a local agent?
- Is an admiralty action in rem maintainable against a vessel when the supplies were furnished upon the personal credit of a third party?
- Can a plaintiff simultaneously proceed both in rem and in personam in an action for necessaries under admiralty jurisdiction?
- Nooruddin Badruddin and ANOTHERs vs Amanullah D. Dharani and Another Opponents1979 CLC 252 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
- Niaz Ali vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-14Read full judgment →
- Nazar Qasim vs Mst. Shaista Rarveen1979 CLC 462 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenged an appellate order that remanded a suit to the Civil Court, despite the trial court having rejected the plaint for lack of jurisdiction. The respondent had filed a suit seeking a declaration that no marriage existed between her and the applicant, and that the alleged Nikahnama was a forgery. The core legal question was whether such a suit constitutes a "jactitation of marriage," falling under the exclusive jurisdiction of the Family Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964. The High Court held that the suit was essentially for jactitation of marriage, as its primary object was to silence a false claim of marriage, with the cancellation of the Nikahnama being merely a consequential relief. The Court ruled that the Family Court has exclusive jurisdiction over such matters. Furthermore, it clarified that Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, does not bar a party from challenging a marriage on grounds of fraud or non-existence, as fraud vitiates even solemn transactions. The revision was allowed, and the plaint was directed to be returned for presentation to the Family Court.
Questions settled- Does a suit seeking a declaration that a marriage never existed and that a Nikahnama is a forgery constitute a suit for jactitation of marriage?
- Does the Family Court have exclusive jurisdiction to hear a suit for jactitation of marriage?
- Does Section 23 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 prevent a party from proving that a marriage never took place or that a Nikahnama was forged?
- Can a civil court entertain a suit for the cancellation of a Nikahnama when the underlying dispute is essentially a jactitation of marriage?
- Nawaz Ali and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 571 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- Nawad and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 736 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-23Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Sukkur, dated 31-7-1976, convicting the appellants for the murder of their relation, Allahbux, and sentencing them to imprisonment for life. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony, the evidentiary value of judicial confessions rendered after prolonged illegal police detention without remand, and the corroborative weight of circumstantial evidence and motive. The Sindh High Court held that the eyewitness account was unconvincing due to inconsistent medical evidence and poor visibility at the material time, the judicial confessions were vitiated by illegal detention and mechanical certification by the magistrate, and the recoveries of weapons were doubtful. Consequently, the court set aside the convictions and sentences, giving the benefit of the doubt to the appellants. The key principle laid down is that motive, however strong, cannot provide corroboration to other pieces of evidence that are themselves infirm and unworthy of credence, and that confessions preceded by unexplained illegal police custody are inadmissible.
Questions settled- Can a judicial confession recorded after prolonged illegal detention without remand be relied upon?
- Does motive alone provide sufficient corroboration for infirm ocular evidence in a murder trial?
- Whether delayed lodging of the first information report without plausible explanation casts doubt on the prosecution case?
- Can mechanical appending of certificates by a magistrate vitiate the voluntariness and truth of a judicial confession?
- National Marble Industries Ltd. Petitioner vs Karachi Municipal1979 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- National Marble Industries Ltd. and 2 Others vs Superintendent, Octroi1979 P Cr. L J 261 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
- National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Kurban Hussain Througn His 101979 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-27Read full judgment →
- Nasiruddin Qureshi and 6 Other vs Deputy Commissioner and Additional1979 PLD Karachi 176 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
- Nannh Ay Khan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 381 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-16Read full judgment →
- Nan Fling Textiles Ltd., Hong Kong-.Petitioner vs H. Pir Muhammad1979 PLD Karachi 762 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This petition sought the enforcement of a foreign arbitration award under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937. The petitioner, a Hong Kong-based entity, obtained an award against a Pakistani respondent following a dispute over cotton supply contracts. The respondent challenged the enforcement, arguing that no concluded contract existed, that their agent lacked authority, that the contract was frustrated by the State Bank of Pakistan’s refusal to approve the export, and that the award was not a valid foreign award due to a lack of reciprocal arrangements. The Court held that the agents possessed the requisite authority, or their actions were ratified, and that the doctrine of frustration under the Contract Act, 1872 did not apply as the export restrictions were not a condition of the contract and the respondent failed to act diligently. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the award was enforceable under the Act, as amended by Ordinance LIII of 1962, and that the arbitrators acted within their powers in awarding interest under the relevant association by-laws. The petition was granted.
Questions settled- Can a party plead frustration of contract under Section 56 of the Contract Act, 1872, due to the refusal of the State Bank of Pakistan to grant export permission when such permission was not a condition of the contract?
- Does the lack of reciprocal arrangements for the enforcement of Pakistani awards in a foreign country prevent the enforcement of a foreign award in Pakistan under the Arbitration (Protocol and Convention) Act, 1937?
- Can an arbitrator award interest for the period prior to the date of the award if the governing by-laws of the arbitration association expressly authorize it?
- Does an agent have apparent authority to bind a principal to a contract if the principal later ratifies the agent's actions?
- Nadir Hussain and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 838 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq vs Mst. Fareeda1979 CLC 457 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-19Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 843 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmed and Another vs Shafiqullah Khan and Two Others-1979 P Cr. L J 741 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-20Read full judgment →
- Mushtaq Ahmad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-24Read full judgment →
- Munshi vs Muhammad Ishaque and Another1979 PLD Karachi 488 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mundhoo and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1060 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-06Read full judgment →
- Munawar Ahmed vs Sind Mercantile Co-Operative Bank Ltd. and Another1979 PLC 365 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-12Read full judgment →
- Mumtaz vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 415 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-05Read full judgment →
- Mukhtiar vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 851 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-19Read full judgment →
- Mukhtiar Ali vs The State---Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 108 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-26Read full judgment →
- Muhram and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-07Read full judgment →
- Muhammd Shafiq Waheed vs Muhammad Hasan Khan and Another1979 P Cr. L J 906 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-26Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Yousuf vs Muhammad Iqbal and 3 Ott Xs1979 PLD Karachi 430 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The provided judgment text is empty. Consequently, it is impossible to provide a summary of the nature of the matter, the core legal questions, the court's decision, or the key principles laid down.
- Muhammad Yousuf Azad vs Government of Sind and 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 763 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-04Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Younus vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 695 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Tufail vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 579 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-21Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Sulaiman Malik and Another vs Royal Trust Corporation1979 CLC 48 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This administration suit was filed by the parents of the deceased, Dr. Altaf Begum Shapero, seeking the distribution of her estate according to Sunni Hanafi Muslim Law. The deceased, a Pakistani national domiciled in Karachi, had executed a will in Canada in favor of a foreign trust, naming her minor daughters as beneficiaries. The core legal questions were whether the deceased was a Sunni Hanafi Muslim, whether her estate was governed by the law of her domicile, and whether a will bequeathing property to heirs without the consent of other heirs is valid under Islamic law. The Court held that the deceased was a Sunni Hanafi Muslim and that her estate must be administered under the laws of Pakistan, her place of domicile. The Court further ruled that the will was invalid and inoperative because it bequeathed property to heirs without the consent of the other legal heirs, a principle firmly established in Islamic jurisprudence. Consequently, the Court ordered the administration of the estate and its distribution among the parents and daughters according to their respective shares under Muslim law.
Questions settled- Is a will made by a Muslim in favor of an heir valid without the consent of the other heirs?
- Does the law of the country of domicile govern the administration of a deceased person's movable estate?
- Can a court presume a person is a Sunni Hanafi Muslim in the absence of evidence to the contrary in Pakistan?
- Does a summons sent by registered post constitute sufficient service under the General Clauses Act 1897?
- Muhammad Siddique vs Tee State1979 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-13Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal revision application is directed against the appellate order of the Additional Commissioner rejecting the petitioner's application for quashment of proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question involves determining whether the police report and the subsequent trial conducted by the Tribunal satisfied the mandatory procedural and substantive requirements of the Act, including the proper specification of acts, details of time and place, and valid grounds for taking cognizance and issuing a non-bailable warrant. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings suffered from severe perversion of procedure, vague allegations devoid of nexus to the statutory clauses, and non-compliance with mandatory provisions regarding the issuance of warrants and conduct of inquiries. The ratio decidendi is that provisions of special preventive statutes affecting the liberty of citizens are mandatory and must be strictly followed, requiring tangible proof and specific particulars rather than generalized police assertions. Consequently, the High Court set aside the orders of both the Tribunal and the Additional Commissioner.
Questions settled- Whether the provisions of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 prescribing the circumstances and mode of initiating proceedings are mandatory and must be strictly followed?
- Can a Tribunal take cognizance under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 upon a police report that merely reproduces the language of the statute without giving particulars of acts, time, and place?
- What are the legal prerequisites under section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 for a Tribunal to issue a non-bailable warrant instead of a summons?
- Does a person's expression of willingness to furnish security dispense with the necessity of a proper judicial inquiry under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
- Muhammad Siddique vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is a civil matter originating from the Sindh High Court reported in PLD 1979 Karachi 560. The judgment addresses labor law disputes involving the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal. The core legal question revolved around the rights of a workman and the jurisdiction of the tribunal. The court dismissed the petition, holding that the orders passed by the Tribunal were in accordance with law and did not warrant constitutional interference. The key principle laid down is that findings of fact recorded by competent labor tribunals based on evidence shall not be lightly disturbed in constitutional jurisdiction unless shown to be perverse or without jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Whether the Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal has jurisdiction to interfere with factual findings of a lower forum?
- When can the High Court interfere with the orders of the Labour Appellate Tribunal under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Muhammad Shareee and 9 Other vs Messrs Hotel Columbus Ltd. and Another1979 PLD Karachi 463 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Rafiq vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-20Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Panna H and Another vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 519 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Noorul Husnain (through His 6 Heirs) and Another vs Sind1979 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Muhammad Issa vs Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 21979 PLD Karachi 783 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ismail vs Tam State1979 PLD Karachi 31 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges a conviction for possession of unlicensed arms under section 13(E) of the Arms Ordinance, primarily based on the prosecution's failure to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question concerns whether the failure to secure two respectable inhabitants of the locality as witnesses to a police search vitiates the subsequent conviction. The Court held that the mandatory requirement of section 103 is designed as a safeguard against police chicanery and the potential for false implication. While acknowledging that rare, exigent circumstances might justify a departure from this rule, the Court emphasized that such exceptions must be clearly established. In this instance, the police failed to provide a valid justification for bypassing the statutory requirement. Consequently, the Court allowed the application, setting aside the conviction and sentence, holding that the gross violation of section 103 resulted in a failure of justice. The principle established is that courts must strictly enforce the requirement for independent search witnesses to ensure transparency and prevent the fabrication of evidence.
Questions settled- Does the failure to comply with section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 automatically vitiate a search?
- Can police officers serve as the required respectable inhabitants of the locality for a search under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Under what circumstances may a police officer be relieved of the obligation to secure independent witnesses for a search under section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- Muhammad Ismail vs Sher Khan and 4 Others-1979 P Cr. L J 438 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-02Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Irshad vs Sind Labour Court No. IV, Karachi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-23Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Aslam vs National Shipping Corporation, Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 246 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The petitioner, a former 4th Engineer of the National Shipping Corporation, challenged his termination of service on the grounds that the inquiry was not conducted in accordance with Regulation 25 of the (Establishment Officers) Service Regulation 1965 and that he was denied a proper opportunity to defend himself. The respondent corporation contended that the termination was a termination simpliciter under Rule 10 of the Regulations and that the relationship was governed by the law of master and servant. The High Court considered whether a writ petition is maintainable for the reinstatement of an employee of a statutory corporation. Relying on established Supreme Court precedent, the Court held that employees of statutory corporations do not hold public offices and are not entitled to constitutional safeguards against arbitrary dismissal. The relationship between such corporations and their employees is governed by the general law of master and servant, and the remedy for wrongful termination lies in a suit for damages rather than a writ of mandamus or certiorari. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether the employees of a statutory corporation can claim the status of government servants or invoke constitutional safeguards against arbitrary dismissal?
- Is a writ of mandamus or certiorari maintainable for the reinstatement of an employee of a statutory corporation whose services are terminated?
- What is the legal remedy available to an employee of a statutory corporation for wrongful dismissal under the law of master and servant?
- Muhammad Ashraf vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 811 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-16Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashfaq vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone "C", Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 465 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Ashfaq Khan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 932 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-30Read full judgment →
- Muhammad Amin vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 28 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-15Read full judgment →
- Mst. Zaitoon vs The State and Anothhr-1979 P Cr. L J 279 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 filed by the petitioner, Mst. Zaitoon, seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings and process issued against her under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 upon a direct complaint alleging the murder of her husband. The core legal question revolves around whether the continuation of criminal proceedings, based purely on circumstantial evidence and weak inferences where no probability of conviction exists, constitutes an abuse of the process of the court. The Sindh High Court held that the circumstantial evidence relied upon—including motive, alleged delay in reporting the disappearance, recovery of blood-stained articles from a flat not in the exclusive possession of the petitioner, and being last seen together—was insufficient, speculative, and incapable of sustaining a conviction. The court established the principle that where the material on record, even if accepted as true, fails to connect the accused with the crime and excludes all reasonable hypotheses of guilt, allowing the prosecution to continue is a futile exercise and an abuse of process, warranting quashment under section 561-A.
Questions settled- Whether criminal proceedings can be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the available evidence is insufficient to secure a conviction?
- Does the recovery of blood-stained articles from a premises not in the exclusive possession of the accused constitute sufficient ground for a murder charge?
- Whether the last-seen theory alone can sustain a charge of murder when a significant time gap exists and alternative possibilities are not excluded?
- Is motive alone sufficient to establish the guilt of an accused in the absence of corroborative and direct evidence?
- Mst. Samina Begum vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 424 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-25Read full judgment →
- Mst. Sajjan and 3 Others vs THS State and Another-----1979 P Cr. L J 814 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-22Read full judgment →
- Mst. Noor Jehan and Another vs Syed Muhammad Hassan Shah and Another1979 PLD Karachi 796 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-16Read full judgment →
- Mst. Masroor Sultana vs The State and Another!1979 P Cr. L J 518 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-20Read full judgment →
- Mst. Bibi Amirunnissa and 2 Other vs Thechief Land Commissioner Sind1979 PLD Karachi 200 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-08Read full judgment →
- Mst. Anwar Bat vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 21979 PLD Karachi 706 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-18Read full judgment →
- Msssrs Asahi Industries vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Moso and 3 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 466 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-15Read full judgment →
- Mohan vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 722 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-15Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Siddiq vs Sultan Ahmed1979 CLC 394 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-06Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Qasim vs Pakistan and 2 Others1979 CLC 453 · Sindh High Court · 1979-06-09Read full judgment →
- Mohammad Bashir vs S. D. M., City Tribunal, Hyderabad and 3 Others--1979 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-07Read full judgment →
- Miss Meher Sultana and 2 Other vs Pakistan Pharmaceutical Products1979 PLD Karachi 257 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-11Read full judgment →
- Miss Benazeer Bhutto vs District Magistrate, Karachi and Another1979 P Cr. L J 62 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-13Read full judgment →
- Mirza Zahid Baig vs Government of Sind and Another1979 PLD Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-15Read full judgment →
- Mirza Iqrar Beg vs M. V. Hanna N1979 PLD Karachi 620 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Mirpurk Has Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Moulvi Muhammad Salehand 31979 CLC 7 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-11Read full judgment →
- Miro vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 191 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- Mir Zaman vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 305 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-31Read full judgment →
- Mir Allahi Bux vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 887 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-30Read full judgment →
- Mian, Jazhar Ali and 6 Others vs The Member1i, Federal Land1979 CLC 478 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-15Read full judgment →
- Mian Mohammad Bashir and Another vs Incometax Officer, Karachi1979 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- Messrs Union Cold Storage Company Ltd. vs Muhammad Akram and 21979 PLC 185 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-14Read full judgment →
- Messrs Shalimar Ltd., Karachi vs Raisuddin Siddiqui and 3 arms1979 CLC 338 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-08Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This High Court appeal arose from a suit filed by the appellant, a private limited company, seeking a declaration, injunction, and recovery of documents. The appellant contended that seven agreements for the purchase of agricultural land, executed in the name of respondent No. 1, were entered into benami for the benefit of the appellant company (both before and after its incorporation). The core legal questions were whether the agreements were executed benami for the appellant's benefit, whether the suit was maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without a prayer for possession or specific performance, and whether the suit was incompetent for failing to seek relief against subsequent transferees. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was maintainable under Section 42 as possession remained with the sellers and was not in issue. However, on the merits, the Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the appellant failed to prove the benami nature of the transactions. The Court laid down that the most critical criterion for establishing a benami transaction is the source of the purchase money at the time of inception, and the burden of proof lies heavily on the party asserting the benami character.
Questions settled- Whether a suit for declaration and recovery of documents is maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877 without seeking the consequential relief of possession when the possession remains with third-party sellers?
- What is the primary criterion to determine the character of a benami transaction where a property or agreement is claimed to be held for the benefit of another?
- Can a company claim the benefit of agreements executed by its promoters prior to its incorporation under Section 23(g) of the Specific Relief Act 1877 if there is no proof that the contracts were intended for the company's benefit at their inception?
- Is a declaratory suit incompetent if the plaintiff fails to seek cancellation of subsequent agreements or relief against subsequent transferees whose interest in the suit property was known to the plaintiff?
- Messrs Shafquat Silk Factory vs Presiding Officer, Second Sind1979 PLC 400 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-06Read full judgment →
- Messrs Rashid Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Bakht Zaman and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 204 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-11Read full judgment →
- Messrs Quality Builders Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs J. P. Brockhoven V. V.1979 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This order addresses two applications: one for a temporary injunction and another for action against defendant No. 1 for breach of an ad interim order. The dispute arose from an alleged sub-contract for civil works within the Port Qasim Project, where the plaintiffs claimed a concluded sub-contract with defendant No. 1, the main contractor, and sought to restrain defendant No. 1 from awarding the sub-contract to another party (defendant No. 8) or executing the work themselves. The court dismissed the application for temporary injunction, holding that the plaintiffs failed to establish a prima facie case. It reasoned that even if a concluded contract existed, it was for services and thus not specifically enforceable under Section 56(f) of the Specific Relief Act. The court further clarified that Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act, concerning negative covenants, cannot be invoked to indirectly enforce a positive agreement that is not specifically enforceable, particularly where the implied negative stipulation is not severable or specific. The court also dismissed the application for breach of injunction, finding that defendant No. 1's act of hiring equipment and staff to perform the work directly did not constitute 'awarding the contract' to another party in violation of the ad interim order.
Questions settled- Can a temporary injunction be granted to prevent the breach of a contract for services that is not specifically enforceable?
- Does Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act allow for the enforcement of an implied negative covenant when the positive agreement is not specifically enforceable?
- What criteria must be met for a negative stipulation to be enforced by injunction under Section 57 of the Specific Relief Act?
- Does hiring equipment and staff to perform work directly constitute a breach of an injunction prohibiting the awarding of a contract to another party?
- Is a general positive undertaking in a contract to do a thing sufficient to imply a negative agreement not to do the contrary for the purpose of an injunction?
- Messrs National Tyre & Rubber Co. vs Sindh Labour Court No,III1979 PLC 440 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
- Messrs National & Grindlays Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Homi F. Behrana1979 PLD Karachi 692 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was directed against the appellate order of the Sind Labour Court maintaining the Junior Labour Court's decision to reinstate a bank employee dismissed for defalcation. The core legal questions involved whether a time-barred grievance application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance could be legally condoned without sufficient cause, and whether labor courts could interfere with a domestic inquiry's findings where the employee admitted guilt. The High Court held that the grievance application was clearly barred by limitation, that delay cannot be condoned without explaining each day's delay, and that domestic inquiry findings regarding bank fraud and loss of confidence should not be lightly interfered with. The key principles laid down are that labor courts must strictly enforce limitation periods for labor grievances and that employer discretion in dispensing with the services of bank employees involved in financial defalcations warrants no interference when legal formalities are fulfilled.
Questions settled- Whether an application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance filed beyond the prescribed period of limitation is maintainable without a proper and sufficient explanation for each day's delay?
- Can a labor court interfere with the findings of a domestic inquiry where a bank employee admitted to participating in financial defalcation?
- Whether an accountant holding a senior rank in a bank is competent to issue a charge-sheet to a subordinate employee in disciplinary proceedings?
- Whether labor courts can substitute their own judgment for the employer's discretion in dispensing with the services of bank employees involved in fraud?
- Messrs Macdonald Lyyton & Company Ltd, vs Messrs Airports1979 PLD Karachi 444 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Ladha Silk Mills, Karachi vs Ladha Silk Mills Workers' Union1979 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-03Read full judgment →
- Messrs K. S. B. Pumps Co. Ltd., Lahore vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan, Karachi through the1979 PLD Karachi 269 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Ibrahim Sons vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi, West1979 PLD Karachi 102 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-25Read full judgment →
- Messrs Everday Pictures Ltd. vs Government of Pakistan and 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 155 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenges orders passed under the Censorship of Films Act, 1963, suspending and subsequently decertifying the film "Begam Jan" in the Province of Sindh. The core legal questions involve whether the petitioner, as a sole distributor holding exhibition rights, has the requisite locus standi to challenge the decertification orders, and whether the principle of audi alteram partem applies to require a hearing for the affected distributor before a final decertification order is passed by the Central Government. The Sindh High Court held that the petitioner has sufficient personal interest and locus standi since its commercial rights were adversely affected, and that the principle of natural justice requiring a fair hearing must be read into the statute. The court declared the notification decertifying the film in Sindh to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect, remanding the matter for fresh decision after granting the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. The key principles laid down include that locus standi in writ jurisdiction extends to any person whose interests or benefits are curtailed by unlawful executive action, and that the right to a hearing is an implied requirement in administrative adjudications affecting rights unless expressly excluded.
Questions settled- Does a film distributor holding sole distribution and exhibition rights possess the locus standi to challenge an order suspending or decertifying a film under the Censorship of Films Act, 1963?
- Is the principle of audi alteram partem to be read into the Censorship of Films Act, 1963 and the rules framed thereunder when an adverse order is passed affecting a party's commercial interests?
- Can executive orders passed without affording a right of hearing to an affected party be declared without lawful authority and of no legal effect under constitutional jurisdiction?
- Messrs Burmah Shell Oil Storage & Distributing Company Ltd., Karachis vs Abdur Rashid and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-17Read full judgment →
- Messrs Bawani Sugar Mills Ltd. vs PEOPLE's Town Committee, Talhar1979 PLD Karachi 458 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Messrs Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Third Sind Labour Court, Karachi1979 PLC 405 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-28Read full judgment →
- Messrs Adamjee Industries Ltd. vs Messrs Associated Italian1979 CLC 376 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-31Read full judgment →
- Messerssterling Products (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Deputy Collector, Central Excise and Land Customs, Karachi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 643 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-22Read full judgment →
- Messers Sainrapt & Et. Brice, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income1979 PLD Karachi 591 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Mehrab vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 743 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-18Read full judgment →
- Mehmood Shah and 8 Others vs Usman Shah and ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 924 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
- MBSSRS Janna T Textile Mills Ltd. vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal,1979 PLD Karachi 725 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged the Labour Appellate Tribunal's refusal to exercise revisional jurisdiction under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1968, regarding appellate orders passed by the Labour Court. The core legal questions were whether the Tribunal's revisional power extends to appellate orders of the Labour Court and whether a private party has the right to file a revision application under this provision. The Court held that while the Tribunal's revisional jurisdiction is broad and extends to all orders of the Labour Court, including appellate orders, the statute does not confer a right upon aggrieved parties to invoke this jurisdiction. The Court established that Section 38(3-a) is strictly limited to the Tribunal’s suo motu exercise of power. Consequently, the Court ruled that revision applications filed by private parties are misconceived and not permissible under the Ordinance. The petitions were dismissed as the Court found no merit in the petitioners' challenge to the underlying labour proceedings.
Questions settled- Does the revisional jurisdiction of the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1968 extend to appellate orders passed by a Labour Court?
- Can a private party file a revision application before the Labour Appellate Tribunal under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1968?
- Is the exercise of revisional power under Section 38(3-a) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1968 limited to suo motu action by the Tribunal?
- Manzoor Alias Mujan and Another vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 276 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal concerns the convictions of two appellants, Manzoor and Gul, for murder and related offences. The appellants challenged their convictions under sections 302, 325, and 323 of the Pakistan Penal Code, and section 13-E of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions involved the credibility of eyewitness testimony, the applicability of the right of private defence, and the evidentiary value of a ballistic expert's report submitted without supporting reasons or expert testimony. The Court held that the eyewitness testimony was reliable and sufficient to sustain the convictions, despite minor discrepancies. It rejected the plea of private defence, noting that the appellants were the aggressors and the victims were unarmed. Crucially, the Court ruled that while section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure allows the reception of expert reports without calling the expert, such reports are merely opinions and lack probative weight if they do not contain the underlying reasons for the conclusion. Consequently, the Court excluded the flawed ballistic report but upheld the convictions based on the corroborated ocular evidence and other recoveries.
Questions settled- Does the amendment to Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 relieve the prosecution of the duty to provide reasons for a ballistic expert's opinion?
- Can a court rely on an expert report submitted under Section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 if it lacks the underlying reasoning for the conclusion?
- Is the right of private defence available to an accused who initiates a confrontation with an unarmed victim?
- To what extent can an appellate court reconstruct the prosecution's case when eyewitness testimony contains minor discrepancies?
- Manjhi vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 393 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-11Read full judgment →
- Mamoo vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 866 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-24Read full judgment →
- Malqok vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 234 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-29Read full judgment →
- Mahmudul Hassan Tajki and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 923 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-25Read full judgment →