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.

• Ali Hussain vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 941 · Sindh High Court · 1979-08-27Read full judgment →
• Ali Hassan vs The State1979 PLD Karachi 661 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-10Read full judgment →
• Akhtar vs Deputy Martial Law Administrator,1979 PLD Karachi 680 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-13Read full judgment →
• Akbar vs Summary Military Court, Hyderabad1979 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-06Read full judgment →
• Akbar Hussain and Another vs The State and ANOTHERs1979 P Cr. L J 931 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-15Read full judgment →
• Aijazud Din vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 106 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
• Ahmad vs The State-Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam Alias Matoo vs Province of Sind and Other1979 PLD Karachi 503 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-23Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam Alias Matoo vs Province of Sind and 2 Other1979 PLD Karachi 645 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-23
  surveillance registerhistory sheethabitual offenderpolice rulespolice surveillanceconstitutional petitioncriminal record
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the orders of the police authorities to open a history sheet and enter the petitioner's name in a surveillance register. The core legal question was whether the police could initiate such surveillance measures against a person based solely on pending criminal cases where no conviction had been secured. The Court held that the impugned actions were without lawful authority and of no legal effect. The ratio of the decision is that the terms 'habitually addicted to crime' and 'habitual offender' under the Police Rules require a demonstrated pattern of criminal behavior, not merely the pendency of criminal cases or allegations. The Court established that 'reasonable belief' under the relevant rules cannot be based on suspicion or the mere initiation of criminal proceedings, especially when those proceedings are private complaints or have not resulted in convictions. The judgment emphasizes that such surveillance measures carry a significant stigma and prejudice, and therefore, must be supported by reliable evidence of habitual criminal conduct rather than just a history of unproven accusations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a history sheet be opened or a name entered in a surveillance register based solely on the pendency of criminal cases where no conviction has been secured?
  • Does the term 'habitually addicted to crime' under the Police Rules include the commission of multiple offences within a single transaction?
  • Does the requirement of 'reasonable belief' in the Police Rules for surveillance allow for subjective satisfaction, or does it require objective material?
  • Are the rules regarding the opening of a history sheet and surveillance registration ultra vires the Police Act 1861?
  Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Foundation and Another vs First Sind Labour Court, Karachi1979 PLD Karachi 510 · Sindh High Court
  constitutional jurisdictionlabor disputegrievance petitionjurisdiction of Labour Courtwrit petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a brief judgment from the Sindh High Court concerning a labor dispute. The core legal question involved the jurisdiction of the Labour Court and the maintainability of the grievance petition under labor laws. The Court dismissed the petition, holding that the impugned order of the Labour Court was in accordance with law and did not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction. The key principle laid down is that the constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass the statutory remedies and findings of fact recorded by specialized tribunals unless jurisdictional errors are apparent on the face of the record.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court can interfere with the factual findings of the Labour Court under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a grievance petition maintainable without fulfilling the preconditions of the relevant labor statutes?
  Read full judgment →
• Abul Khair and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 785 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-24Read full judgment →
• Abrar Hassan vs Pakistan and Another1979 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1975-01-28Read full judgment →
• Abdullah Shaikh vs Haji Amin Shaikh and 3 Others1979 P Cr. L J 753 · Sindh High Court · 1979-09-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs VTH, Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Others1979 PLC 297 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and Another vs The State Opponent1979 PLD Karachi 72 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sami vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 820 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-28Read full judgment →
• Abdul Samad vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 409 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rehman vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 734 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-21Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid vs Ibrahim1979 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1978-10-15Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 217 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-08Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid and 3 Others vs The State and 4 Others-1979 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1978-09-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majid Ahmed Bawany and 7 Other vs III Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 3 Other1979 PLD Karachi 549 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and Another vs The State1979 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · 1979-02-17Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid Khan vs Tat Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land1979 CLC 211 · Sindh High Court
  land reformsalienation of landbona fide transactiongift under muslim lawadequate considerationrevisional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  These consolidated constitutional petitions challenge an order passed by the Officer on Special Duty, Federal Land Commission, declaring certain agricultural land alienations by sale and gift as void under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972. The core legal questions involved whether the revisional authority could disregard concurrent factual findings of lower revenue authorities regarding the bona fide nature of transactions, adequacy of consideration, and validity of gifts to minor children without formal acceptance or physical transfer of possession. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned order was arbitrary, unsustainable, and based on unfounded assumptions, as the mere inadequacy of consideration cannot be the sole basis to reject a transaction without considering other statutory factors, and gifts by a father to minor children require no separate delivery of possession or formal acceptance. The court established that concurrent findings of bona fides by the Land Commissioner cannot be overturned on subjective or extraneous grounds, thereby restoring the validity of the alienations.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the mere inadequacy of consideration can be the sole basis for declaring an agricultural land alienation non-bona fide under the Land Reforms Regulation, 1972?
  • Does a gift of agricultural land by a father to his minor children require formal acceptance and physical delivery of possession under Muslim Law?
  • Can a revisional authority set aside concurrent findings of fact regarding the genuineness of land alienations without positive contrary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed and Another vs The State-Opponent1979 P Cr. L J 913 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hai Badat vs Syed Sibte Haider1979 CLC 348 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor and Another vs The State and Another-1979 P Cr. L J 766 · Sindh High Court · 1979-01-26Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghaffar vs The State and 2 Others-1979 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1979-03-31Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz and Another vs The State and Another-1979 P CR. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-24Read full judgment →
• A. Aziz vs Pakistan Paper Corporation Ltd., Karachi and Another1979 PLD Karachi 490 · Sindh High Court · 1978-11-19Read full judgment →
• Zarina Khatoon vs District Magistrate, (South). Karachi and 5 Other1978 PLD Karachi 374 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
• Zaheeruddin Pathan and 8 Other vs Mst. Hajiani Zainab and Another1978 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
• Zabiullah and 3 Others vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 795 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-04Read full judgment →
• Yusuf vs Messrs Valika Textile Mills Ltd, Karachi Ahd 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 95 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-23Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Aziz vs Mst. Aqeela Begum and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 205 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-11
  Letters Patent Appealarbitration awardrule of the courtexecuting courtde facto guardianapprobate and reprobatelimitationnullity of decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from an order of a Single Judge dismissing an execution application for amendment of a writ of possession. The underlying decree was based on an arbitration award made the rule of the court with the consent of the parties. The appeal was barred by limitation, and the application for condonation of delay had already been dismissed. The appellant contended that because the initial arbitration agreement was executed by a de facto guardian on behalf of minors, the award was void ab initio and a nullity, rendering the bar of limitation inapplicable. The High Court rejected this contention, holding that the executing court cannot go behind the decree to examine the validity or executability of an award that has merged into a decree. Furthermore, the appellant had consented to the decree, acted upon it, and could not approbate and reprobate. Consequently, the challenge failed and the appeal was dismissed as time-barred.

  Questions settled

  • Can an executing court go behind a decree under Section 47 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to determine the validity of the underlying arbitration award?
  • Can a party who consented to an arbitration award being made the rule of the court later challenge that award as a nullity in execution proceedings?
  • Can an appeal barred by limitation be entertained on the ground that the underlying decree or award is void, when the executing court's order itself was within jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Yousuf and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
• You Saf Ali and Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 111 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-18Read full judgment →
• Yar M Uham Mad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 619 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
• Yaqub Ali vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 158 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-11Read full judgment →
• Yakhtiar Khan and 2 Other vs Rahim Bux and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 401 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-13Read full judgment →
• Works Co-Operative Housing Society, Karachi and Another vs The Karachi Development Authority1978 PLD Karachi 529 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-13
  land allotmentexecution proceedingsco-operative societygovernment commitmentwrit jurisdictionspecific performancestatutory duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the execution of a Supreme Court judgment directing the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) to honor government commitments regarding the allotment of land to the Works Co-operative Housing Society. The petitioner-Society sought the allotment of 350 acres of land originally reserved for Police Headquarters, which the KDA resisted by attempting to limit the acreage and impose revised, higher land prices. The core legal questions were the precise extent of the land entitlement and the applicable pricing rates for the allotment. The Court held that the KDA was bound by previous government commitments and Supreme Court directives to allot the full 350 acres originally reserved for Police Headquarters. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the price payable by the Society must be determined based on the rates prevailing on the date of the government notification (June 9, 1964), rejecting the KDA's attempt to apply subsequently revised rates. The principle established is that a statutory body cannot unilaterally depart from government policy commitments once judicially affirmed, and execution proceedings must strictly adhere to the original terms of the commitment.

  Questions settled

  • Is a statutory body bound to honor government commitments regarding land allotment once they have been judicially affirmed?
  • Can a development authority unilaterally revise land prices to defeat a prior government commitment to allot land at a specific rate?
  • Does a court in execution proceedings have the authority to determine the extent of land entitlement based on historical government records and notifications?
  • Can a development authority rely on subsequent policy changes to avoid implementing a Supreme Court directive regarding land allotment?
  Read full judgment →
• Wazeer and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 1 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 2 Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
• Usman vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 593 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
• The Surti Muslim Co-Operative Housing Society, Karachi vs The Islamic1978 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
• The State vs Zafar Muhammad1978 P Cr. L J 480 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
• The State vs Shafiuzzaman and Another1978 P Cr. L J 564 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
• The State vs Sadiq Hussain1978 Cr. PLJ 523 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-05Read full judgment →
• The State vs Raja Muzaffar Ali and Another1978 P Cr. L J 118 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• The State vs Khaliqur Rehman1978 PLD Karachi 617 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Jaffar and 4 Others1978 P Cr. L J 225 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ghulam Yasin1978 PLD Karachi 655 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Tee State through Advocategeneral Sind and Exofficio Public1978 P Cr. L J 171 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Tahir Hussain vs Ghulam Faruque and 7 Other1978 PLD Karachi 182 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-16
  Letters Patent Appealexchange of propertypart performancetransfer of propertyevacuee propertysuit for possessionlicence
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a suit for possession and mesne profits filed by the respondents against the appellant regarding a plot of land. The core legal questions involved whether the transaction between the parties constituted an exchange of property under section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882, whether the appellant could claim protection of part performance under section 53-A of the same Act, and whether his occupation could be defended as an irrevocable licence under section 60 of the Easements Act 1882. The Sindh High Court held that the transaction did not amount to an exchange since there was no mutual transfer of ownership, that section 53-A was inapplicable as there was no written contract satisfying its requirements, and that the plea of irrevocable licence could not be raised for the first time in appeal without an underlying factual basis or issue. The court affirmed the judgment of the Single Judge decreeing the suit for possession, while permitting the appellant to remove his structures, and dismissed the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the surrender of tenancy rights in exchange for the ownership of another plot satisfy the definition of 'exchange' under section 118 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Can correspondence addressed to third parties or government departments serve as a written contract or agreement for the purposes of invoking the doctrine of part performance under section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • Is a plea of irrevocable licence under section 60 of the Easements Act 1882 permissible for the first time in an appellate court when no specific issue was framed or evidence led thereon at the trial stage?
  • Can a plaintiff maintain a suit for possession on the basis of title after abandoning an alternative plea of landlord-tenant relationship?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Weedhal Shah and 8 Other vs Province of Sind and Alsoraar1978 PLD Karachi 464 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-18
  ouster of jurisdictioncivil court jurisdictionpublic propertyencroachment removalabatement of suitsexclusive jurisdictionstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit filed by the petitioners seeking a declaration of ownership and permanent injunction regarding a large tract of land, which was subsequently dismissed by the lower courts following the enactment of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, on the ground of abatement and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal. The core legal question was whether the ouster of civil court jurisdiction and abatement of suits under sections 11 and 13 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, applies universally to all ownership disputes or is restricted strictly to disputes arising out of proceedings initiated under the Act for the removal of encroachments. The court held that the ouster of civil court jurisdiction and exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal are not absolute, but apply only when a dispute regarding whether a property is public property arises in relation to proceedings contemplated by the Act. The key principle laid down is that ouster clauses in statutes must be strictly construed, and the bar on civil court jurisdiction regarding public property disputes is limited exclusively to matters connected with proceedings undertaken for the removal of encroachments under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the bar on civil court jurisdiction under section 11 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, applies to independent civil suits regarding property ownership?
  • Does the exclusive jurisdiction of the Tribunal under section 13 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, extend to disputes not arising out of proceedings contemplated by the Act?
  • Whether suits pending before civil courts automatically abate under section 11 of the Sind Public Property (Removal of Encroachments) Act, 1975, irrespective of the nature of the dispute?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Shafiuddin vs Abdul Hakim Khan1978 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-01
  default in rentsecurity deposittenancy agreementillegal premiumejectmentrent restrictionexercise of discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from ejectment proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, on the ground of default in rent payment and violation of the tenancy agreement. The core legal questions involved whether a security deposit specified in the agreement could be treated as advance rent to negate default, whether the deposit constituted an illegal premium under section 7 of the Ordinance rendering the contract void under section 23 of the Contract Act 1872, and whether a technical default warranted the exercise of judicial discretion in favour of the tenant. The Sindh High Court held that the sum deposited was clearly designated as security for performance of covenants rather than advance rent, that a receipt cannot alter the unambiguous terms of a written contract, and that the tenant failed to plead or prove that the amount was an illegal premium. The court further held that subsequent rent payments cannot wash out an established default and dismissed the appeal, laying down that security deposits serving as covenant guarantees do not offset accrued rent unless explicitly agreed as advance rent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a security deposit specified in a tenancy agreement can be treated as advance rent to offset defaults in rent payments?
  • Does a rent receipt describing a deposit as advance rent override the unambiguous terms of a written tenancy agreement designating it as security?
  • Whether a security deposit paid under a tenancy agreement constitutes an illegal premium under section 7 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 rendering the agreement void?
  • Can subsequent payment of rent through money order during the pendency of rent proceedings wash out a prior established default?
  • Whether a tenant can be permitted to produce additional evidence under Order XLI Rule 27 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to fill lacunae left during the trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Mushtaque Hussain Shah vs Riaz Muhammad Hazarvi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 612 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-04
  rejection of plaintimplied bar of jurisdictiontrade union registrationspecial statuteexclusive jurisdictioninjunction against public duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision application challenges an appellate judgment that reversed a trial court order rejecting a plaint under Order VII Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether general civil courts possess jurisdiction to entertain a suit for declaration and injunction seeking to restrain the registration or cancel the status of a trade union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The High Court allowed the revision, set aside the appellate court's judgment, and held the suit barred. The Court established that where a special statute creates a right or liability not existing at common law and prescribes a specific forum and procedure for its enforcement or adjudication, such right or liability must be pursued exclusively through the statutory machinery, thereby impliedly excluding the jurisdiction of general civil courts. Additionally, under Section 56(d) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, no injunction can be issued to interfere with the Registrar of Trade Unions in performing statutory public duties regarding union registration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit regarding rights and liabilities created exclusively by the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Where a special statute creates a right and provides a specific remedy before a special tribunal, is the jurisdiction of general civil courts impliedly barred?
  • Can an injunction be granted under the Specific Relief Act 1877 to restrain the Registrar of Trade Unions from performing statutory duties of union registration?
  Read full judgment →
• Syed Imam Mehdi Shah vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Home Department, Karachi and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Grulam Ali Shah vs Commissioner, Hyyderabad Division and 41978 P Cr. L 1592 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 168 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-16Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs Nazar Muhammad and 5 Others Opponents1978 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-21Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division and 41978 P Cr. L J 762 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Amanullah vs Additional City Magistrate No. 2, East, Karachi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 934 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
• Sycd Ghulam Ali Shah vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 596 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-21Read full judgment →
• Sungreen & Co. Ltd., Karachi (With The Powers Of The Custodian Of Evacuee Property) vs Noman Bai and 4 Other1978 PLD Karachi 100 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-07
  evacuee propertyrepeal of lawspending proceedingsjurisdictioncustodian of evacuee propertyrecovery of rentgeneral clauses act
  Summary & questions settled

  This miscellaneous application raised the question of the maintainability of proceedings before an officer appointed under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975, seeking orders for the deposit and recovery of rent in respect of property previously adjudicated upon by the Custodian. The core legal question was whether fresh or incidental applications concerning rent recovery could be entertained by the designated officer after the repeal of the Pakistan (Administration of Evacuee Property) Act, 1957, when no such proceedings were pending immediately before the repeal. The Sindh High Court held that the designated officer lacks jurisdiction to entertain fresh or incidental applications for rent assessment and recovery, as section 2(2) of the Repealing Act restricts jurisdiction strictly to proceedings that were actually pending immediately before the repeal or cases remanded by superior courts. The key principle laid down is that upon the repeal of evacuee property laws, statutory offices cease to exist, and the jurisdiction of officers appointed under the repealing legislation is strictly confined to pending proceedings or specific remands, excluding fresh or collateral applications regarding residual matters like rent recovery which fall under the purview of the Provincial Government and Board of Revenue.

  Questions settled

  • Does an officer appointed under section 2(2) of the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975 have jurisdiction to entertain fresh applications filed after the repeal?
  • Can the recovery of rent for evacuee property be treated as a consequential proceeding to a finally disposed of revision by the Custodian?
  • Does section 6 of the General Clauses Act preserve the right to initiate fresh remedies under a repealed enactment when the repealing statute contains contrary provisions?
  • What is the extent of jurisdiction of officers notified by the Provincial Government under the Evacuee Property and Displaced Persons Laws (Repeal) Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 24 Other vs Province of Sind, Karachi Arid Another1978 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-25Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Akram Accused1978 P Cr. L J 87 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-26Read full judgment →
• State through Advocate-General, Sind vs Nabi Bux1978 PLD Karachi 380 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Soomar vs The State Etc1978 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-02Read full judgment →
• Sony Kabushiki Kaisha vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Karachi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 161 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-07
  trademark registrationlikelihood of confusiontrade marks actpassing offintellectual propertypublic interesttrade connection
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenges the Registrar of Trade Marks' decision allowing the registration of the trademark 'SONY' for sports goods (Class 28), opposed by the appellant, who holds registrations for 'SONY' in Class 9 for electronic goods. The core legal question was whether the registration of an identical trademark for unrelated goods is likely to cause deception or confusion under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, and if the appellant established sufficient reputation to warrant refusal. The court held that the appeal must be dismissed, finding that the appellant failed to prove that the use of 'SONY' for sports goods would cause deception or confusion among the public, given the distinct nature of the goods, different trade channels, and insufficient evidence of the appellant's reputation in the sports goods market. The court affirmed that while Section 8(a) protects the public from deception, the likelihood of confusion must be determined based on the totality of facts, including the nature of the mark, class of customers, and trade channels, rather than mere identicality.

  Questions settled

  • Does the registration of an identical trademark for unrelated goods automatically constitute deception or confusion under Section 8(a) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • Is a common or related field of trade a prerequisite for establishing the likelihood of confusion in trademark opposition cases?
  • Does the refusal of a trademark registration on the grounds of potential deception create a monopoly for the opponent in the trademark?
  • On whom does the initial burden of proof lie to establish the likelihood of deception or confusion in trademark opposition proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Fine Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs PEOPLE's Municipality, Shikarpur1978 PLD Karachi 449 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07
  octroimunicipal limitscolourable exercise of powerconstitutional petitiontaxationlocal government
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the levy, demand, and recovery of octroi by the People's Municipality, Shikarpur, on goods imported by the petitioner factory, based on Provincial Government notifications dated 21-3-1973 and 7-5-1973 extending municipal limits. The core legal questions were whether the extension of municipal limits specifically and exclusively for the purpose of collecting octroi was valid under the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972, and whether procedural requirements for inviting objections were properly fulfilled. The Sindh High Court held that extending municipal boundaries solely for the purpose of levying octroi, while treating other municipal provisions as unsuited or inapplicable, constitutes a colourable exercise of power and is not permissible under the scheme of the Ordinance. The Court declared the impugned notifications and the consequent demand and recovery of octroi to be without lawful authority, directing the refund of all sums recovered.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Provincial Government extend municipal limits solely for the purpose of collecting octroi without applying other municipal provisions?
  • Whether a public notice published for the extension of municipal limits satisfies the requirements of law without individual notices to affected factory owners?
  • Does the power of the Government to alter municipal limits under the Sind People's Local Government Ordinance, 1972 include piecemeal extension for selective taxation?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees Social Security Institution, Karachi vs Muhammad1978 PLC 119 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• Shujauddin vs Pakistan Coast Guards, Karachi and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-18
  territorial jurisdictionPakistan Coast Guardscoastal arealimits of the portcustoms-portsmugglingstatutory interpretationconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses several consolidated constitutional petitions challenging the territorial jurisdiction of the Pakistan Coast Guards regarding searches, seizures, and arrests conducted at various locations within Karachi, including markets, residential areas, and highways. The core legal question is whether these disputed locations fall within the 'limits of the port' of Karachi and are thus excluded from the 'coastal area' under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973. The court held that the word 'port' and its limits in the Act must be interpreted in their ordinary popular and commercial sense as places intended for the landing and shipment of goods and passengers, rather than by reference to specialized definitions under the Customs Act or Ports Act. Finding that the disputed inland locations do not constitute part of the port and fall within the defined coastal area, the court dismissed the petitions and upheld the legality of the actions and subsequent proceedings. The key principle laid down is that terms used in a statute without cross-definition must be construed in their ordinary, popular, or commercial sense, and cannot be limited or expanded by reference to unrelated enactments in pari materia.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the term 'port' in the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973 should be interpreted according to its ordinary popular meaning or by reference to definitions in customs and port legislation?
  • Do inland locations in Karachi such as markets and residential housing societies fall within the 'limits of the port' as excepted from the 'coastal area' under the Pakistan Coast Guards Act, 1973?
  • Does the Pakistan Coast Guards have the territorial jurisdiction to operate, arrest, and investigate smuggling offences in areas of Karachi outside the port limits?
  Read full judgment →
• Shero Alias Sher Muhammad vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 368 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-10
  interim detentionhabitual offendergeneral reputepreventive detentioncriminal revisionquashment of proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  These connected revision applications under Section 22(2) of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 challenged the orders of the Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, which had dismissed the petitioners' appeals against interim detention orders passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal under Sections 8(1) and 8(3)(b) of the Act. The prosecution alleged that the petitioners were habitual offenders, drug dealers, or associated with prostitution, but the underlying police reports contained only vague, general allegations without specifying any concrete acts, times, or places, and lacked evidence of general repute. The High Court held that because the Act curtails personal liberty, its provisions must be strictly observed. To establish a 'habit', the prosecution must prove a repetition of similar acts, and general reputation must be distinguished from inadmissible rumour or police suspicion. Since the reports lacked the particulars required under Section 6 of the Act, and the interim detention orders were passed without any objective inquiry to establish an emergency, the Court quashed the proceedings as being without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • What evidentiary standard is required to prove a person is a thief or offender 'by habit' under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
  • Can a police officer's report based on suspicion or police records of suspected cases be treated as admissible evidence of general repute?
  • Is an order for interim detention under Section 8(3)(b) of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 valid if passed without a formal inquiry to establish an emergency?
  • What is the legal effect of failing to provide specific particulars of time, place, and acts in a police report under Section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Sher Shah vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 541 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-24Read full judgment →
• Sheedo vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 385 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-26Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs District Council, Hyderabad1978 PLD Karachi 760 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-01Read full judgment →
• Shari F U L Hassan vs The State and 3 Others1978 P Cr. L J 821 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-17Read full judgment →
• Shamshad Ali Qureshi vs Additional Commissioner, Karachi Another1978 PLD Karachi 429 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-17Read full judgment →
• Shamimul Haq and 2 Other vs Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Finance Department and Another1978 PLD Karachi 800 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Shaikh Nasir Ali Shaikh Nazar Ali vs Muhammad Salim1978 PLD Karachi 1096 · Sindh High Court · 1969-06-09Read full judgment →
• Shahzado vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 664 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-24Read full judgment →
• Shahan and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-19Read full judgment →
• Shafi Mu Hammad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 557 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-12Read full judgment →
• Sh. Rehmat Ali Etc vs Muhammad Ishaque and Another1978 PLD Karachi 686 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-10Read full judgment →
• Sh. Rehmat Ali Etc vs Collector of Customs1978 PLD Karachi 668 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
• Zardosh Khan vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 787 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
• Sbeikh Rehmat Ali and Another vs Collector of Customs, Karachi and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 510 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
• Sarwar Khan vs Tem State1978 P Cr. L J 574 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-08Read full judgment →
• Saeed Jan vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-29Read full judgment →
• Sadruddin vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 87 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-02Read full judgment →
• Sadiq Masih vs Bashir Masih and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 108 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-20Read full judgment →
• Saadat Ali Khan vs Muhammad Yaqoob and 10 Other1978 PLD Karachi 55 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
• S. Shahzad Ali Jafri vs S. Muhammad Sajjad Abdi and 2 Others1978 P Cr. L J 742 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08Read full judgment →
• S. Mumtaz Hussain vs Syed Aftab Hussain and 8 Others1978 P Cr. L J 629 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-17Read full judgment →
• S. Ch. Niaz Ahmed and Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 774 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-24
  smugglingcharasquashment of proceedingscustoms actdangerous drugsprohibited goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves seven identical applications for the quashment of proceedings against applicants standing trial before the Special Judge, Customs, for allegedly attempting to smuggle charas under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969, read with sections 7 and 38 of the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930. The core legal question was whether the offence of smuggling under section 156(8) of the Customs Act applies to goods whose import or exportation is prohibited under other laws, even if such goods are not notified under section 2(s) of the Customs Act. The court held that the offence of smuggling under section 156(8) is limited strictly to goods specified in or notified under section 2(s) of the Customs Act, whereas other prohibited goods fall under clause (9) of section 156. Since charas was not notified under section 2(s) at the relevant time, no offence of smuggling under clause (8) could be maintained. The court laid down the principle that clauses (8) and (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969, operate in mutually exclusive categories, and an act cannot constitute smuggling under clause (8) unless the goods are specifically covered by section 2(s) or a notification issued thereunder.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the offence of smuggling under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 applies to goods not notified under section 2(s) of the said Act?
  • Do clauses (8) and (9) of section 156 of the Customs Act, 1969 cover distinct and mutually exclusive categories of goods?
  • Does the prohibition of the export or import of a substance under the Dangerous Drugs Act, 1930 automatically constitute smuggling under section 156(8) of the Customs Act, 1969 without a specific notification under section 2(s)?
  Read full judgment →
• Rustom vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 182 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
• Rustam Ali vs Martial Law Administrator, Zone `C' and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 736 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-08
  Martial Law Regulationsdoctrine of necessitySummary Military Courtsconstitutional petitionsjudicial reviewfundamental rightsPakistan Army Rules
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of a batch of constitutional petitions challenging orders awarding sentences by Summary Military Courts for offences under various Martial Law Regulations and Martial Law Orders. The core legal questions involved the validity of the Martial Law Regulations and Orders under the doctrine of necessity, whether normal laws ousted their application, and whether alleged procedural irregularities regarding legal representation and open trials vitiated the proceedings. The Sindh High Court held that the impugned Martial Law Regulations and Orders were validly promulgated by the Chief Martial Law Administrator under the law of necessity as laid down in Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case, and that the executive actions and legislative measures fell within permissible categories. The Court further held that procedural rules of Summary Military Courts did not invalidate the trials where no injustice was caused and where accused persons had spontaneously admitted guilt. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Martial Law Regulations and Orders promulgated by the Chief Martial Law Administrator are governed and validated by the doctrine of necessity?
  • Whether the superior courts retain the power of judicial review to examine legislative measures taken under Martial Law in light of Begum Nusrat Bhutto's case?
  • Does the right to be defended by a legal practitioner in a Summary Military Court trial survive the suspension of fundamental rights under the Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977?
  • Whether procedural irregularities or the absence of counsel vitiate a trial by a Summary Military Court where the accused admits guilt?
  Read full judgment →
• Riazuddin vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-12Read full judgment →