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.
- M. P. A. Inc. Houston, U. S. A. and Another Plaintiff vs Federation of Pakistan and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 453 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- M. H. Jan Muhammad vs Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 31979 PLC 22 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-16Read full judgment →
- Liaquat Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 365 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-28Read full judgment →
- Latif Hussain vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 167 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-29Read full judgment →
- Lal Chand and Another vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-15Read full judgment →
- Lal Bux and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 915 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- Kouro and 5 Others vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 253 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-30Read full judgment →
- Khuda Bux and 9 Other vs The State Opponent1979 PLD Karachi 17 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-05Read full judgment →
- Khalid Majid vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 232 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-14Read full judgment →
- Khair Muhammad vs Chairman, Federal Land Commission, Islamabad, Rawalpindi and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-15Read full judgment →
- Kazi Nizamuddin vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 294 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-03Read full judgment →
- Karo Alias Sulleman vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 588 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-28Read full judgment →
- Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. vs Muhammad Aslam1979 PLD Karachi 635 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-29Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 for the appointment of an arbitrator following a dispute over demurrage charges between a principal and a clearing agent. The core legal questions were whether the application was barred by limitation under Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908, and when the limitation period for such an application commences. The Court held that Article 181 applies to applications under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940. Crucially, the Court distinguished the commencement of limitation for Section 8 from Section 20, ruling that the right to apply under Section 8 accrues only upon the expiry of fifteen clear days after the service of a notice to concur in the appointment of an arbitrator, rather than when the underlying differences first arose. Furthermore, the Court determined that the question of whether the underlying claim itself was time-barred is a mixed question of law and fact to be decided by the arbitrator, not the Court. The application was deemed within time.
Questions settled- Does Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 apply to applications filed under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- When does the limitation period for an application to appoint an arbitrator under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940 commence?
- Is the question of whether an underlying claim is time-barred a matter for the Court or the arbitrator to decide in proceedings under Section 8 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Karachi Dock Labour Board, Karachi vs Gul Bahadur and Another1979 PLC 349 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Kabeer Ali vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 485 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-18Read full judgment →
- Jamil Silk Industries, Karachi vs Sind Labour Court No. v And 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 723 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-23Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmed vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 432 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
- Island Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs V/O Technoexpert and Another1979 CLC 307 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter involves an application under section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the first defendant seeking a stay of a civil suit instituted by the plaintiffs for the recovery of damages and price adjustments arising from an agreement for the supply of a complete textile plant. The core legal questions centered on whether the arbitration clause excluded the jurisdiction of the civil courts, whether subsequent memoranda fell within the scope of arbitration, whether the defendant had taken steps in the proceedings disentitling them to a stay, whether allegations of fraud ousted arbitration, whether the location of evidence in Karachi rendered arbitration in Moscow inconvenient, and whether the presence of a second defendant not party to the arbitration barred the stay. The Sindh High Court held that the arbitration clause validly excluded court jurisdiction, that subsequent agreements incorporated the arbitration term, that contesting an injunction without prejudice did not constitute a step in the proceedings, and that allegations of fraud or foreign location did not vitiate the agreement. The court stayed the suit against the first defendant and referred the disputes to arbitration, laying down that parties must strictly honor international commercial arbitration commitments.
Questions settled- Whether an arbitration clause providing for reference to a foreign arbitration tribunal excludes the jurisdiction of civil courts?
- Does contesting an interim injunction application without prejudice amount to taking a step in the proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
- Whether allegations of fraud and misrepresentation against a defendant bar the reference of a dispute to arbitration?
- Can a suit be stayed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 when there are multiple defendants and one of them is not a party to the arbitration agreement?
- Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Omer Halim1979 CLC 356 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-09Read full judgment →
- Indus Dyeing and Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Sindh Albour1979 PLC 53 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-01Read full judgment →
- Imdadullah and Anotier vs The State--Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 236 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-03Read full judgment →
- Imdad Ali Khoso vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 496 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-09Read full judgment →
- Imam Bux vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1008 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-28Read full judgment →
- Imam Bux and 4 Others vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 943 · Sindh High Court · 1979-11-19Read full judgment →
- Imam Box vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 731 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- Illahi Bux and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 554 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-07Read full judgment →
- Hussain Bux vs Additional District Judge, Khairpur and 8 Other1979 PLD Karachi 475 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- Holy Family Hospital Society vs Third Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Anothbr1979 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter relates to a case titled Holy Family Hospital Society vs Third Sind Labour Court, Karachi and another, before the Sindh High Court. However, no text of the judgment was provided in the context to summarize the factual background, legal questions, court decisions, or ratio decidendi.
- Hakoo and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 677 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-18Read full judgment →
- Haji Wali Muhammad and Another vs Karachi Development Authority1979 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Haji Jain and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 41 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
- Haji Fazal Ellahi Kushtiwala and 2 Others vs Abdul Khaliq1979 CLC 76 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Amir Bux vs Sono Khan1979 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-06Read full judgment →
- Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Zaki Muhammad Siddiquie and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 179 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-14Read full judgment →
- Gullan and 3 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 325 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- Gul Mohammad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 845 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-17Read full judgment →
- Gul Amir vs The State and 2 Others - Respondents1979 P Cr. L J 995 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
- Government of Pakistan vs Registrar of Trade Unions, Karachi and 31979 PLC 422 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-18Read full judgment →
- Government of Pakistan vs Messrs Moris Jacob & Co.1979 CLC 32 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- Gopal vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 590 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-30Read full judgment →
- Glaxo Laboratories (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Second Sind Labour1979 PLD Karachi 500 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Shabbir vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 511 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-17Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Nabi vs The State and 5 Other1979 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State--1979 P Cr. L J 859 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Hyder vs Muhammad Haneef and Other1979 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-16Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment arose out of two connected appeals (a Second Appeal by the landlord and a Letters Patent Appeal by an inducted tenant) challenging concurrent orders of the Rent Controller and Additional District Judge directing the restoration of possession of a newly constructed shop to the legal heirs of an evicted tenant under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. The core legal issues pertained to the territorial jurisdiction of the Rent Controller, the locus standi of legal heirs of a deceased statutory tenant, the prospective application of Section 13(5-B), the scope of the phrase 'party aggrieved' under Section 15, natural justice regarding third-party occupants, and the interpretation of the phrase 'before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person'. The High Court held that the legal heirs are entitled to pursue reinstatement, the word 'and' in Section 13(5-B) is conjunctive (requiring both completion and occupation to bar an application), and 'party aggrieved' under Section 15 includes any person adversely affected. The court upheld the eviction/restitution orders, modifying only the determined monthly rent.
Questions settled- Can legal heirs of a deceased evicted statutory tenant maintain or continue an application for reinstatement under Section 13(5-B) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
- Is the phrase 'before the completion of the new building and its occupation by another person' in Section 13(5-B) conjunctive, such that completion alone without occupation does not bar a tenant's application for restitution?
- Does the expression 'party aggrieved' under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 include a third-party occupant who was not formally impleaded in the original proceedings before the Rent Controller?
- Is an order of the Rent Controller vitiated for breach of natural justice where an inducted tenant was not given prior notice but actively testified as a witness, had full knowledge, and subsequently had a full hearing on appeal?
- Ghulam Hussain vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 775 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-20Read full judgment →
- Ghulam Bahauddin Qureshi vs Mits. Hawa Bai1979 PLD Karachi 597 · Sindh High CourtRead 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 in this specific case.
- Ghulam Abbas and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 987 · Sindh High Court · 1959-04-13Read full judgment →
- Ghafoor vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 803 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-10Read full judgment →
- Francisco Xavier Pinto vs Julie Pinto and Another1979 PLD Karachi 716 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-01Read full judgment →
- Foundation Engineering Ltd. vs Second Sind Labour Court and Others1979 PLC 316 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-24Read full judgment →
- Fazal Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 286 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-31Read full judgment →
- Fazal Karim Alias Bibo vs Muhammad Mursaleen and Another1979 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1979-07-29Read full judgment →
- Fazal Elahi vs Khurshid Khan and Another1979 PLC 362 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
- Farooq and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 1074 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-21Read full judgment →
- Fakhro and Another vs Settlement Commissioner (Land). Hyderabad1979 PLD Karachi 486 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Faiz Muhammad vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 513 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-13Read 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. No legal analysis can be performed without the text of the judgment.
- Eastern Federal Union Insurance Company Ltd. vs Bawany Industries1979 CLC 321 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-04Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff insurance company filed a suit against the defendant for the recovery of Rs. 90,586.71, representing its 49% share of the premium for four joint fire insurance policies. The defendant contended that the policies were illegal and unenforceable under Section 3-C(4) of the Insurance Act 1938 and Rule 44 of the Insurance Rules 1958 because the premium was not paid in advance. The High Court of Sindh examined the policies and found that they were backed by a bank guarantee of Rs. 1,50,000 and partial cash payments, which fully satisfied the statutory requirements. The Court held that the policies were valid and enforceable. Furthermore, the Court noted that the defendant had explicitly admitted its liability in writing in response to a notice under Section 163 of the Companies Act 1913. The Court decreed the suit in favor of the plaintiff with interest, establishing that general insurance policies backed by a bank guarantee or partial payments to a co-insurer comply with the law and are fully enforceable.
Questions settled- Whether a general insurance policy is legally enforceable if the premium is secured by a bank guarantee rather than paid in cash?
- Does payment of the full premium to one co-insurer satisfy the statutory requirements for all co-insurers under a joint insurance policy?
- Can a party avoid liability for an insurance premium by claiming a mistake of law after having explicitly admitted the liability in writing?
- Can a court grant relief under Section 65 or Section 70 of the Contract Act 1872 if a contract is found to be technically non-compliant but not illegal or immoral?
- Eastern Bank Ltd. vs A. Karim & Co., Karachi and 4 Other1979 PLD Karachi 632 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
- DR. Badrul Haq vs Ahmad and Another1979 PLD Karachi 482 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-21Read full judgment →
- Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Fourth Sind Labour1979 PLC 367 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-03Read full judgment →
- Divisional Superintendent, Pakistan Railway, Karachi vs Labour Court1979 PLD Karachi 443 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-24Read full judgment →
- Dodo and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 241(1) · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-21Read full judgment →
- Ditto and 4 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 713 · Sindh High Court · 1979-12-11Read full judgment →
- Deutache Dampschiffahrts Gesellschaft "Hansa" vs Muhammad Aquil1979 PLD Karachi 409 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. Karachi vs Presiding Officer ,Labour Court1979 P LC 50 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-19Read full judgment →
- Dawood and 2 Others vs The State and Another---1979 P Cr. L J 569 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-20Read full judgment →
- Darya Khan and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 625 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-04Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs United Insurance Co.1979 PLD Karachi 243 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-12Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs H100sa Omar & Co. Ltd.1979 PLD Karachi 739 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- Chowdhry Riaz Ahmed vs The State and AnotherPLD 1979 Karachi l l9 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
- Chamber of Commerce & Industry, Karachi vs Karachi and Another1979 PLC 179 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-26Read full judgment →
- Bukhsh Elahi and 5 Others vs The State-Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 585 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-27Read full judgment →
- Bhooro vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 49 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-21Read full judgment →
- Beero vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 816 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-24Read full judgment →
- Bawany Sugar Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Province of West Pakistan and 111979 PLD Karachi 750 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-11Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-02Read full judgment →
- Bashir Ahmed vs Settlement Commissioner, Sind and 4 Other1979 PLD Karachi 534 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-19Read full judgment →
- Baghali and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 947 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-07Read full judgment →
- Bagh and 3 Other vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-17Read full judgment →
- Bachal Alias Mukhtiar and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 455 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-05Read full judgment →
- Babu and 2 Other vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 540 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-22Read full judgment →
- Aziman vs Additional City Magistrate, North Nazimabad, Karachi and Another1979 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-17Read full judgment →
- Atlas Battery Ltd., Karachi vs Superintendent, Central Excise and Land1979 PLD Karachi 545 · Sindh High CourtRead 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. Without the text of the judgment, no factual analysis or legal extraction can be performed.
- Associated Drillers Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Dirk Verstoop H. V., Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 734 · Sindh High Court · 1979-04-27Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, filed by the plaintiff against a foreign defendant. The core legal question was whether the mere fact that a foreign entity is winding up its business in Pakistan and exporting its assets, thereby potentially rendering a future decree unexecutable, constitutes sufficient grounds for attachment before judgment. The Court dismissed the application, holding that the plaintiff failed to establish the requisite intent on the part of the defendant to obstruct or delay the execution of any potential decree. The Court emphasized that the defendant was exporting its machinery in the ordinary course of business upon contract completion, not with a mala fide intent to defeat the plaintiff's claim. The key principle laid down is that the provisions of Order XXXVIII, Rule 5, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 are not triggered solely by the difficulty of executing a decree against a foreign entity; rather, the plaintiff must affirmatively prove that the defendant’s actions are specifically motivated by an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree.
Questions settled- Is the mere fact that a foreign defendant is winding up its business in Pakistan and exporting assets sufficient to justify attachment before judgment?
- Must a plaintiff prove an intent to obstruct or delay the execution of a decree to invoke Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the court have the power to order attachment before judgment for an unliquidated claim where the defendant is acting in the ordinary course of business?
- Ashraf Tariq vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 526 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-23Read full judgment →
- Ashiq Hussain vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 13 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-04Read full judgment →
- Ashfaq Ali vs Syed Athar Ali Naqvi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-23Read full judgment →
- Asghar Ali and 10 Other vs Rationing Controller, Hyderabad and Another1979 PLD Karachi 194 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-19Read full judgment →
- Arbab and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 538 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-02Read full judgment →
- Anwar Ali vs Chief' Martial Law Administrator and 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 804 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-25Read full judgment →
- Anis Ahmed vs Government of Pakistan and 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 709 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the legality of orders passed by customs authorities ordering the confiscation of imported air-conditioning machines and imposing a redemption fine on the alleged ground that the items were not covered by a valid import licence because they were of less than three brake horsepower. The core legal question was whether the imported air-conditioners fell within the prohibited category of domestic air-conditioners requiring less than three brake horsepower, and whether the customs authorities correctly calculated the brake horsepower and efficiency of the machines. The court held that the customs authorities failed to discharge the strict burden of proof required in penal proceedings under the Customs Act to establish unlawful import, as their calculation of motor efficiency and brake horsepower relied on theoretical assumptions and extraneous material rather than conclusive evidence. The court laid down the principle that provisions of the Customs Act carrying penal consequences must be strictly construed, and where the authorities fail to establish the alleged contravention, the benefit of doubt must be resolved in favour of the importer.
Questions settled- Whether the customs authorities can confiscate imported goods on theoretical and conjectural calculations of motor efficiency without discharging the strict burden of proof?
- Does a court have the power in constitutional jurisdiction to review the decision of a subordinate authority if it is based on an erroneous assumption or interpretation of facts?
- Are provisions of the Customs Act involving penal consequences to be construed strictly?
- Whether the term 'brake horsepower' in import trade control headings can be treated as a clerical error or a prospective policy change?
- Amir Bux and 2 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 314 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-03Read full judgment →
- Amir Bux Alias Amir vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 568 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-16Read full judgment →
- Amir Ali vs Mohammad and 13 Others1979 CLC 373 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-26Read full judgment →
- Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Employees' Union and Another1979 PLD Karachi 47 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The judgment text provided is empty. Consequently, no summary, legal analysis, or case-specific details can be extracted or generated. Please provide the full text of the judgment to enable the creation of the required metadata.
- Allah Rakhio and 3 Others vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 443 · Sindh High Court · 1978-12-17Read full judgment →
- Allah Jurio vs The State and 5 OTHERSs1979 P Cr. L J 531 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-05Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 877 · Sindh High Court · 1979-05-05Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz and Another vs The State-1979 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-05Read full judgment →