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.

• Messrs Karachi Industrial and Textile Mills, Karachi and Another vs Settet Ement Commissioner (Industries), Lahore and Another1978 PLD Karachi 328 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Jaffer Bros. Ltd. vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1978 PLD Karachi 585 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10
  arbitration awarderror of law on the face of the awarddoctrine of frustrationcontract Actdemurragesale of goodsletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two cross Letters Patent Appeals arising from a single judgment of a learned Single Judge on the Original Side, which had modified an arbitration award concerning a dispute over a cement supply contract. The core legal questions involved whether an arbitrator can award extra expenses due to unexpected labor wage increases under the doctrine of frustration or implied terms, whether an error of law on the face of the award vitiates it, and whether a buyer is liable for care and custody charges when failing to take timely delivery. The court held that an uncontemplated turn of events does not frustrate a contract unless performance becomes impossible, and courts cannot rewrite contracts on notions of fairness. Furthermore, an arbitrator commits an error of law by misinterpreting contract terms or granting claims without establishing breach of contract. The court laid down that fixed-price contracts remain binding despite increased operational costs, that general references to arbitration can be reviewed for errors of law apparent from the reasons given, and that buyers are liable for reasonable custody charges under the Sale of Goods Act when failing to take delivery.

  Questions settled

  • Does an unexpected rise in operational costs or wages frustrate an executory contract under section 56 of the Contract Act 1872?
  • Can an arbitrator qualify the express terms of a contract and award extra expenses based on notions of fairness and equity?
  • What constitutes an error of law on the face of an arbitration award?
  • Is a buyer liable to pay reasonable charges for the care and custody of goods under the Sale of Goods Act 1930 if they fail to take delivery within a reasonable time?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Industrial Management vs Not1978 PLD Karachi 673 · Sindh High Court · -
  income taxrevenue receiptcapital receipttaxable incomemanaging agencyshare transactionsmixed question of law and fact
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference under Section 66(1) of the Income-tax Act 1922 arose from an assessment year where the assessee, a private limited company acting as a managing agent and financier, realized a net gain of Rs. 76,114 from the purchase and sale of shares. The Income-tax Officer treated this surplus as taxable revenue receipt, whereas the assessee contended it was a non-taxable capital gain resulting from the realization of investments. The Income-tax Appellate Tribunal upheld the taxability, finding the transactions incidental to the assessee's business objects. The High Court of Sindh affirmed the Tribunal's decision, holding that whether a gain is capital or revenue is a mixed question of law and fact. The Court ruled that because the assessee's Memorandum of Association empowered it to act as a financier and capitalist, and because it purchased the shares using borrowed capital on a large scale, the transactions constituted a normal step in carrying on its business rather than a mere realization of capital investment. Consequently, the surplus was held to be a taxable revenue receipt.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the determination of whether a profit is a capital gain or a revenue receipt constitutes a pure question of fact or a mixed question of law and fact?
  • Can the purchase and sale of shares by a company with financing powers under its Memorandum of Association be treated as a taxable business activity rather than a mere realization of capital investment?
  • Does the fact that shares were purchased using borrowed capital and sold to a sister concern at market rates prevent the transaction from being classified as an adventure in the nature of trade?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hakimuddin Harmusji & SONS's vs Messrs Ghafoor Textile Mills1978 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-31
  arbitration agreementstay of arbitrationinterim injunctionvested rightfurnishing securityaward objections
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves consolidated proceedings arising from an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement, and subsequent proceedings for filing an award. The core legal questions concern whether pending proceedings under section 33 challenging an arbitration agreement bar arbitration, whether an interim stay order affects the arbitrators' jurisdiction similarly to an injunction, and whether a party's failure to furnish security bars their objections under section 33 while prior substantive proceedings remain pending. The Sindh High Court held that while the defendants' failure to furnish security as ordered prevents the entertainment of their objections under section 30, it does not extinguish their previously vested substantive remedy under section 33 to challenge the validity of the arbitration agreement. The Court established that a statutory right to a legal remedy invoked prior to the award is a vested right that cannot be defeated merely by the subsequent passing of the award or procedural defaults in separate stages.

  Questions settled

  • Whether pending legal proceedings challenging the existence of an arbitration agreement under section 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 operate as a statutory bar under section 35 to ongoing arbitration proceedings?
  • What is the effect of a party's failure to furnish security on their ability to pursue objections against an arbitration award under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the passing of an arbitration award extinguish a previously and lawfully invoked substantive remedy seeking a declaration that no arbitration agreement exists?
  • Whether the power to grant interim relief or stay proceedings is reasonably incidental or ancillary to the main statutory jurisdiction of a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Gulberg Textile Mills vs Commissioner of Income Tax (West), Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 218 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ghani Textile Mills Ltd. vs Abdullah and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 857 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs General Carriers Ltd., Karachi and 2 Other vs Karachi Port1978 PLD Karachi 1041 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Electric Lamp Manufacturers of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 972 · Sindh High Court · 1978-07-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Diamond Engineering, Mechanical, Electrical & Marine1978 PLD Karachi 837 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-22
  admiralty jurisdictionmaritime lienship repairsnecessariesarrest of shipchange of ownershipAdmiralty Court Act 1861
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed an admiralty suit seeking recovery of costs for ship repairs and material supplied in 1956, asserting a maritime lien over the vessel. The vessel had subsequently been sold to a new owner. The core legal question was whether a claim for repairs and necessaries under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, creates a maritime lien that attaches to the vessel regardless of changes in ownership. The Court held that the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court is governed by the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, as applied by the Colonial Courts of Admiralty Act, 1890. Upon interpreting Sections 4 and 5 of the 1861 Act, the Court determined that these provisions do not confer a maritime lien for repairs or necessaries. Jurisdiction under these sections is contingent upon the ship being under arrest at the time of the suit, rather than an inherent lien that travels with the vessel. Consequently, the Court ruled that no maritime lien existed, and the claim could not be enforced against the new owner. The arrest order was discharged.

  Questions settled

  • Does a claim for ship repairs or necessaries create a maritime lien under the Admiralty Court Act, 1861?
  • Is the Admiralty jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh limited to the provisions of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861?
  • Can a claim for ship repairs be enforced against a new owner of the vessel in the absence of a maritime lien?
  • Does the arrest of a ship under Section 4 of the Admiralty Court Act, 1861, constitute a maritime lien?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Central Insurance Co. Lid., Karachi vs Messrs Khyber Textile1978 PLD Karachi 908 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Capri Cinema, Karachi vs Government of Sind and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 229 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs British India Engineering Works, Karachi vs Messrs Globe1978 PLD Karachi 375 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bawani Voilin Textile Mills Ltd. vs Theemployees' Social Security1978 PLD Karachi 890 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-06
  wagessocial security contributionconveyance allowanceattendance allowanceefficiency allowancenatural justiceremuneration
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition before the High Court of Sindh challenged the inclusion of good attendance allowance, efficiency allowance, and conveyance allowance within the definition of 'wages' for determining contributions under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The petitioner argued that such allowances were not paid as a matter of course and thus fell outside section 2(30). The High Court dismissed the petition, interpreting the terms 'paid' and 'payable' in section 2(30) as having distinct meanings: 'payable' refers to remuneration owed as a legal obligation, whereas 'paid' additionally encompasses all actual payments made to a worker for rendition of services in connection with employment. The Court held that allowances paid for regular attendance and efficiency are covered as remuneration under the Ordinance, noting that the statutory definition explicitly excludes only four specific categories. The Court further ruled that determination of contribution based on data submitted by the employer satisfies section 22(3) as an admission, without violating the principles of natural justice.

  Questions settled

  • Do attendance, efficiency, and conveyance allowances fall within the definition of wages under Section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • What is the distinction between the terms 'paid' and 'payable' in the definition of wages under Section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Can data submitted by an employer constitute sufficient evidence for assessing social security contribution under Section 22(3) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance 1965?
  • Are principles of natural justice violated when an assessment of social security contribution is based on data provided by the employer itself?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ali & Abdulaziz Alkadhi and Another vs S. S. Phoenix and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 855 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ahmad Investments Ltd. vs Sind Labour Court No. 4 and 31978 PLC 567 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-21Read full judgment →
• Messes Ameejeb Valleejeb & Sons vs As. V. Azeem and 2 Otxhra S1978 PLD Karachi 467 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-24Read full judgment →
• Messers Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Social Security1978 PLD Karachi 744 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-19
  social security contributiondefinition of wagesleave encashmentcanteen subsidyovertimeex gratia paymentmotor-cycle allowancewest pakistan employees social security ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  These miscellaneous appeals involve the interpretation of clause (30) of section 2 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965, regarding whether various payments made to employees—such as leave encashment, festival holiday payments, sick and casual leave payments, motor-cycle allowances, amenities to labor, rewards, and canteen subsidies—fall within the definition of "wages" for the purpose of assessing social security contributions. The core legal questions concern the proper scope of "wages" under the Ordinance, whether certain allowances and ex gratia payments constitute wages, and the effect of statutory wage ceilings on contribution liability. The Sindh High Court held that leave encashment, festival holiday payments, and sick and casual leave payments constitute wages as they relate to periods of authorized leave or work done in lieu thereof, whereas true ex gratia payments, welfare expenses, and general canteen subsidies do not form part of wages. The Court laid down that payments not made under a contractual or statutory obligation, or those intended to defray special expenses tied to the nature of employment, are excluded from wages, and remanded the matters for re-assessment in light of statutory wage limits.

  Questions settled

  • Whether payments made for leave encashment fall within the definition of wages under section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Does a subsidy provided by an employer for a employee canteen constitute wages for the purpose of calculating social security contributions?
  • Are ex gratia payments, rewards, and general labor amenities subject to social security contributions under the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  • Whether conveyance and motor-cycle allowances paid to employees irrespective of the specific nature of their duties are excludable as special expenses under section 2(30) of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965?
  Read full judgment →
• Messers Caltex Oil (Pakistan) Ltd vs Province of Sindg And 6 Other1978 PLD Karachi 958 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-16Read full judgment →
• Mehar alias Fazal Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 176 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-27
  post-arrest bailidentification paradecorroborationrecovery of weaponscriminal trialmurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a bail application filed by three applicants facing trial for various offences, including murder and attempted murder, before the Sessions Judge, Larkana. The core legal question was whether the applicants were entitled to post-arrest bail given that they were not named in the First Information Report (FIR) and the identification parade was conducted 18 days after the incident. The Court held that while the identification parade alone might be insufficient, the recovery of blood-stained hatchets from two of the applicants, corroborated by medical evidence of injuries consistent with such weapons, provided sufficient grounds to deny bail to those specific individuals. However, regarding the third applicant, from whom only a non-blood-stained lathi was recovered, the Court found his case distinguishable and granted him bail. The key principle laid down is that where identification evidence is potentially weak due to delay, the presence of incriminating physical evidence, such as blood-stained weapons linked to the injuries sustained by prosecution witnesses, serves as sufficient corroboration to disentitle an accused to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does an identification parade conducted 18 days after the incident, in the absence of a description in the FIR, automatically entitle an accused to bail?
  • Can the recovery of blood-stained weapons provide sufficient corroboration to deny bail even if the accused was not named in the FIR?
  • Is an accused entitled to bail if the only evidence against them is an identification parade conducted after a significant delay and no incriminating physical evidence is recovered?
  Read full judgment →
• Medical-Educational Uplift Fund Association of Seventh Day1978 PLD Karachi 536 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-08
  charitable hospitalworkmancommercial establishmentindustrial establishmenttermination of servicesno-profit basis
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from the termination of an Assistant Business Manager's services by the petitioner, a registered charitable society running the Seventh Day Adventist Hospital on a no-profit basis. The respondent employee challenged his termination under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 before the Junior Labour Court, alleging violations of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968. The Junior Labour Court dismissed the application, holding that the hospital was neither an industrial nor a commercial establishment. However, the Sindh Labour Court reversed this decision on appeal, relying on Indian case law. On revision, the High Court of Sindh held that to enforce rights guaranteed under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968, the claimant must qualify as a 'workman' under that specific Ordinance, rather than the broader definition in the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The Court further ruled that a charitable hospital run on a no-profit basis does not fall within the definitions of 'industrial establishment' or 'commercial establishment' under the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968. Consequently, the petition was allowed, and the appellate order was quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Which statutory definition of 'workman' applies when an employee seeks to enforce rights guaranteed under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Does a charitable hospital operated on a no-profit basis qualify as an 'industrial establishment' or a 'commercial establishment' under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968?
  • Can an employee of a non-profit charitable hospital invoke the jurisdiction of the Labour Court under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 for violations of the Standing Orders Ordinance 1968?
  Read full judgment →
• Mechanical Engineer, V. S. M. D., Sukkur and 4 Other . vs Andrew John1978 PLD Karachi 503 · Sindh High Court
  Industrial Relations Ordinanceadministration of the Statelabour disputePublic Works Departmentjurisdiction of labour courtredesignation of post
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a challenge to orders passed by labour authorities directing the redesignation of certain employees (Fitters) as Mechanical Mistris in the Public Works Department of the Government of Sindh. The core legal question was whether the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, applies to employees of the Public Works Department, specifically whether they fall under the exclusion of persons employed in the 'administration of the State' as per Section 1(3) of the Ordinance. The Court held that the Ordinance is applicable to these employees. Relying on established precedent, the Court determined that the phrase 'administration of the State' must be interpreted narrowly, referring only to the practical management and direction of the executive machinery or the operation of the sovereign's organs, rather than broadly encompassing all government service. Consequently, the Court affirmed that the employees were not excluded from the Ordinance's purview, and the petitions challenging the labour authorities' jurisdiction were dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 apply to employees of the Public Works Department?
  • What is the scope of the phrase 'administration of the State' under Section 1(3) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Are government employees automatically excluded from the application of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Mbsm Rehmat Jan Muhammad Haji Dossal & Sons-- vs Tlle Assistant1978 PLD Karachi 518 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
• Mat. Iffat Sultan Begum and 3 Other vs Aziz Hussain and 25 Other1978 PLD Karachi 139 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-27Read full judgment →
• Master Abdul Ghafoor Khan and Another vs Commerce Bank Ltd..1978 PLD Karachi 861 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
• Master Abdul Aziz Ghafoor Khan and Another vs Messrs Commerce1978 PLD Karachi 36 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-05Read full judgment →
• Masoodul Hasan vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-02Read full judgment →
• Marble Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Khair Muhammad and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-20Read full judgment →
• Managing Director, WAPDA, Guberg III, Lahore and 4 Others vs Abdul1978 PLC 506 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-24Read full judgment →
• Malik Mir Hassan Khan and Another vs Commissioner Op Income Tax1978 PLD Karachi 408 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-13Read full judgment →
• Mairaj Muhammad Khan vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-27
  seditionopen trialin camera proceedingsfair trialright to defenceSpecial TribunalDefence of Pakistan Rulesjudicial discretion
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal appeal against the conviction of Mairaj Muhammad Khan, a former Minister of State, by a Special Tribunal under the Defence of Pakistan Rules. The appellant challenged his conviction on grounds of procedural irregularities, specifically the denial of an open public trial due to the venue being shifted to a jail, and the denial of the right to defend himself. The Court held that the Tribunal's decision to hold the trial in camera within jail premises, without sufficient judicial justification, violated the fundamental principle of open justice. Furthermore, the Court found that the Tribunal erred by pronouncing judgment without allowing the appellant to present his defence, effectively denying him a fair trial. Consequently, the conviction was set aside. The Court emphasized that publicity in the administration of justice is a vital safeguard against judicial abuse and persecution. Given the appellant's prolonged incarceration, the harshness of the sentence, and the lack of evidence supporting the sedition charge, the Court declined to order a retrial, setting aside the conviction entirely.

  Questions settled

  • Does the proviso to Section 352 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 require a Magistrate to exercise judicial discretion based on material evidence before excluding the public from a trial?
  • Can a Special Tribunal lawfully proceed to judgment without affording the accused an opportunity to present a defence?
  • Is a trial held within jail premises inherently inconsistent with the requirement of an open public trial?
  • Should a retrial be ordered when the accused has already served a substantial portion of the sentence and the prosecution's case lacks merit?
  Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Ali alias Pawa vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 769 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-27Read full judgment →
• M. H. Jan Muhammad vs Second Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 31978 PLD Karachi 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-16Read full judgment →
• M Ustafa vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 761 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-27Read full judgment →
• M Uhammad Idris vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 808 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-10Read full judgment →
• Leemon vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 232 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
• Lakh Mir and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 472 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-15Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd., Karachi and 2 Other vs Karachi Municipal1978 PLD Karachi 233 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-31Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd. vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1978 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-30Read full judgment →
• Khatija vs The State and Another1978 PLD Karachi 348 · Sindh High Court · 1973-06-17
  quashment of proceedingscognizance of offencecriminal breach of trustcheatingabuse of processpolice reportC Class Summary
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a criminal petition seeking the quashment of proceedings initiated against the petitioner for alleged offenses under Sections 420 and 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The core legal question was whether the Magistrate legally took cognizance of the case where the initial complaint was filed with Martial Law authorities, not a Magistrate, and the police report recommended a 'C Class Summary' rather than a charge sheet. The Court held that the Magistrate’s cognizance was illegal under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, as the document did not qualify as a complaint, and the police report did not support prosecution. Furthermore, the Court found the allegations regarding a breach of marriage promise failed to establish the essential ingredients of cheating or criminal breach of trust. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings against all accused, ruling that continuing the case would constitute an abuse of the process of the Court. The judgment establishes that a Magistrate cannot take cognizance based on an invalid complaint or a police report recommending closure, nor can they record witness statements to manufacture grounds for cognizance.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Magistrate take cognizance of an offence based on a complaint filed with Martial Law authorities?
  • Does a police report recommending a 'C Class Summary' constitute a valid basis for a Magistrate to take cognizance under Section 190 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is a breach of promise to marry sufficient to constitute the offence of cheating under Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can a Magistrate record witness statements under Section 202 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 before taking cognizance of an offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Khan and Another Convict vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 24 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-24Read full judgment →
• Khalid Shamim a pplicant/Accused vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 605(1) · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-06Read full judgment →
• Khairpur Textile Mills Lm., Khairpur vs Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 505 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-22Read full judgment →
• Kewalram Dayaram Shahani vs Nawab Ali1978 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-07
  striking off defencerent arrearsfuture rentdefaultinterlocutory orderlimitationejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance was filed by the appellant landlord against an order of the Additional District Judge, which had set aside the Rent Controller's order striking off the tenant's defence for non-compliance with a rent deposit order. The tenant had failed to pay rent since 1949 and subsequently failed to deposit both the arrears and the future monthly rent as directed by the Rent Controller under Section 13(6) of the Ordinance. The tenant argued that the deposit order was illegal because it demanded arrears beyond the three-year limitation period. The High Court held that a rent deposit order contains two distinct, non-cumulative directions: one for arrears and another for future rent. Even if the direction regarding arrears was legally flawed or barred by limitation, the direction to deposit future rent remained valid and binding as an interlocutory order. Since the tenant admittedly failed to deposit any future rent, he committed a willful default, justifying the striking off of his defence. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the appellate order, and restored the Rent Controller's eviction order.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a tenant's failure to deposit future rent under an interim order justifies striking off their defence even if the direction to deposit past arrears is legally disputed?
  • Are the statutory provisions requiring the deposit of rent arrears and future rent cumulative or independent in character?
  • Does an interlocutory rent deposit order remain operative and binding on the tenant during the pendency of ejectment proceedings until a final order is made?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Warehouse and Carriers Workers' Union vs Pakistan1978 PLC 554 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10Read full judgment →
• Karachi Warehouse and Carriers Workers Union vs Pakistan1978 PLD Karachi 417 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-10
  Collective Bargaining Agentsecret ballottrade unionindustrial relationsconstitutional jurisdictionprocedural irregularitylaches
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the declaration of respondent No. 1 as the Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for a group of establishments handling food grains and cargo. The petitioner, a registered trade union, alleged that the secret ballot process conducted by the Registrar of Trade Unions was procedurally flawed, specifically asserting that the date of the poll was not communicated to the petitioner and that the verified list of voters was not supplied in accordance with statutory requirements. The court examined the record and found that the Registrar failed to comply with the mandatory procedures prescribed under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, regarding notice and voter list distribution. Furthermore, the court noted that the respondent No. 1 failed to secure the requisite one-third of the total votes cast as mandated by law. Consequently, the court held that the certification of respondent No. 1 as the CBA was illegal. The court quashed the certificate, emphasizing that statutory procedural requirements for secret ballots are mandatory, and permitted the Registrar to conduct a fresh, lawful poll.

  Questions settled

  • Are the procedural requirements for holding a secret ballot under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, mandatory?
  • Can a trade union be declared a Collective Bargaining Agent if it fails to secure one-third of the total votes of the workmen employed in the establishment?
  • Are the President and Vice-President of a trade union considered principal officers competent to sign and verify pleadings under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908?
  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to adjudicate upon factual disputes in a constitutional petition when the determination relies on documentary evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Jumma Khan vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 534 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
• Jalil vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 155 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-24
  foreign exchange regulationcriminal appealburden of proofreasonable doubtunauthorized sale of currencypossession of foreign exchangeacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction by the Foreign Exchange Tribunal for offences under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, specifically regarding the alleged sale and possession of foreign currency. The prosecution alleged that the appellant, a taxi driver, was caught during a sting operation involving a bogus purchaser. The core legal questions were whether the prosecution proved the sale of foreign currency beyond a reasonable doubt and whether the mere possession of foreign currency constituted an offence under the Act. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove the transaction, noting that the alleged foreign currency was recovered from the appellant rather than the bogus purchaser, and that the financial calculations regarding the alleged sale were inconsistent. Furthermore, the Court held that possession of foreign currency alone does not constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, without proving a failure to offer it for sale to an authorized dealer within the prescribed timeframe. Consequently, the conviction was set aside, and the appellant was acquitted, with the Court emphasizing the necessity of strict proof in criminal proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere possession of foreign currency constitute an offence under Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  • Is a conviction for the sale of foreign currency sustainable when the currency is recovered from the seller rather than the alleged purchaser?
  • Must the prosecution prove that a person failed to offer foreign exchange to an authorized dealer within the statutory timeframe to establish a violation of Section 9 of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act 1947?
  Read full judgment →
• Jadal vs Abdul Majeed and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 732 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-07
  pre-emptionTalab-e-IshhadTalab-e-MawasibatIslamic LawShafi-e-JarShafi-e-Khalitsecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal challenges the judgment of the District Judge, Sukkur, which decreed a suit for pre-emption in favor of the respondent. The core legal question is whether the respondent validly performed the 'Talab-e-Ishhad' (the second demand) required under Islamic law to sustain a right of pre-emption. The appellant contended that the respondent failed to make the necessary reference to the 'Talab-e-Mawasibat' (the first demand) during the performance of the 'Talab-e-Ishhad', rendering the claim defective. The Court held that while 'Talab-e-Mawasibat' and 'Talab-e-Ishhad' may be performed simultaneously, the 'Talab-e-Ishhad' must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including the presence of at least two witnesses and an explicit reference to the prior 'Talab-e-Mawasibat'. Finding that the respondent failed to establish that he made such a reference during the performance of the 'Talab-e-Ishhad' in the presence of the defendant, the Court set aside the appellate decree and restored the trial court's dismissal of the suit, affirming that failure to comply with these essential procedural requirements defeats the right of pre-emption.

  Questions settled

  • Is a reference to the Talab-e-Mawasibat a mandatory requirement when performing the Talab-e-Ishhad in a pre-emption claim?
  • Can the Talab-e-Mawasibat and Talab-e-Ishhad be performed simultaneously?
  • Does the Talab-e-Ishhad require the presence of at least two witnesses to be legally valid?
  Read full judgment →
• J. J. Miranda vs FISHERMEN's Co Operative Society Ltd., Karachi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 990 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-21
  wrongful dismissalco-operative societiesstatutory noticetouching the business of the societymaster and servantdamages for wrongful terminationservice rulesmaintainability of suit
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff, a former Accounts Officer of the defendant Co-operative Society, filed a civil suit challenging his dismissal from service and seeking damages for wrongful termination along with unpaid emoluments and allowances. The defendant society raised preliminary objections asserting that the suit was barred under Sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 due to lack of a mandatory two-month prior statutory notice and non-referral to arbitration. On the preliminary issue of maintainability, the High Court held that disputes concerning service matters between a society and its employees do not fall within the ambit of 'touching the business of the society' as contemplated under Sections 54 and 70 of the 1925 Act; hence, no statutory notice under Section 70 was required. On merits, the Court found that although a master-servant relationship generally precludes specific performance or reinstatement in service for employees of non-statutory entities, non-compliance with the disciplinary enquiry procedure prescribed in the society's service rules constituted a breach of contract entitling the employee to damages. The suit was decreed in part for damages and specified monetary claims.

  Questions settled

  • Does a dispute relating to the termination or service conditions of an employee of a co-operative society fall within the phrase 'touching the business of the society' under Sections 54 and 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925?
  • Is a statutory notice under Section 70 of the Co-operative Societies Act 1925 mandatory before filing a suit for wrongful termination against a co-operative society?
  • Can an employee of a co-operative society maintain a civil suit for damages for wrongful dismissal based on non-compliance with the society's internal service rules?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 718 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-25Read full judgment →
• Islamuddin vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 106 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Irshad Ahmed and 2 Others vs Abdul Ghaffar and Another1978 P Cr. L J 661 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-08Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmad vs Mst. Al Hamidi Begum and Another1978 PLD Karachi 697 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Imdad Hussain vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 521 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
• Ikram-Ud-Din vs Syed Mahboob Ali1978 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25
  eviction applicationtentative rent depositstriking off defenserent defaultreview of orderRent Controllerlandlord-tenant dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an eviction application filed by a landlord against a tenant for alleged rent default. The Rent Controller issued an order for the tentative deposit of rent under the Rent Ordinance. Following the tenant's failure to comply, the landlord successfully moved to strike off the tenant's defense, a decision upheld by the appellate court. The tenant appealed, challenging the Rent Controller's power to review the tentative rent order and arguing that he should have been permitted to prove that the rent had already been paid, thereby invalidating the deposit order. The High Court held that the Rent Controller possesses the authority to review orders to correct errors or at the instance of parties. Crucially, referencing the precedent in Ibrahim v. Muhammad Hussain, the Court determined that a tenant is entitled to demonstrate that a tentative rent order is factually incorrect due to prior payment. Consequently, the Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order striking off the defense and remanding the matter to the Rent Controller to allow the tenant an opportunity to prove the alleged rent payments.

  Questions settled

  • Does a Rent Controller have the authority to review or alter an order for the tentative deposit of rent?
  • Can a tenant challenge the factual basis of a tentative rent order during proceedings to strike off their defense?
  • Is a tenant entitled to prove prior payment of rent to contest an order for tentative deposit of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Idris Ahmed Khan vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Hyderabad and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hyderabad Rehabilitation Trust, Karachi vs Government of Sind and 21978 PLD Karachi 802 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-20Read full judgment →
• Hussain Buy and 4 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 708 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-13Read full judgment →
• Himat Hau vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 394 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-13Read full judgment →
• Hashmat Ali Chawla and 3 Other vs Director General, Excise &1978 PLD Karachi 691 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-29Read full judgment →
• Hashim and Another vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 1106 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-22Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Ali Akbar vs Manzoor Hussain and Another1978 P Cr. L J 639 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-29Read full judgment →
• Haji vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 558 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-15Read full judgment →
• Haji Rashiduddin and 2 Other vs DR. Ahmed Sadiq1978 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Ghulam Shabbir and Another vs Tim State Opponent1978 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-29Read full judgment →
• Haji and 3 Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 476 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-13Read full judgment →
• Hail Moosa vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 835 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-07Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Ghazanfarullah Khan and Another1978 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18
  recovery suitletter of guaranteecomparison of signaturessummary suitmaintainabilityOrder XXXVIIcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a recovery suit instituted by Habib Bank Ltd. against the principal debtor and a guarantor for the recovery of an outstanding loan amount. The core legal questions pertained to whether the guarantor executed the letter of guarantee and whether a summary suit under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is maintainable against a guarantor when leave to defend is granted and the matter proceeds as an ordinary suit. The court held that the execution of the guarantee was duly proved through comparison of signatures under the Evidence Act 1872 and that the suit was maintainable against the guarantor even if it initially commenced under summary procedure, as multiple decrees can be passed and procedure furthering the administration of justice is permissible. The key legal principles laid down include the permissibility of signature comparison by the court under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872 and the flexibility of the court to treat a summary suit as an ordinary suit against a defendant once leave to defend is granted.

  Questions settled

  • Whether comparison of a disputed signature with an admitted signature by the court is a lawful mode of proof under Section 73 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Is a suit filed under Order XXXVII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 against a guarantor maintainable as an ordinary suit once unconditional leave to defend is granted?
  • Can more than one decree be passed in a suit against one or several defendants during or at the conclusion of proceedings under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Ltd. vs Green Garments Manufacturers and 2 Other S1978 PLD Karachi 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-07
  equitable mortgageoverdraft facilitymisjoinder of causes of actionplaint verificationbanker-customer relationshiprecovery suitOrder II Rule 2 CPC
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit concerns a banking company's claim for the recovery of money and enforcement of an equitable mortgage against a partnership firm and its partners. The core legal questions involved the maintainability of a suit combining a money claim with a mortgage enforcement, the applicability of the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the competency of the signatories verifying the plaint, and the validity of an equitable mortgage without registration. The Court held that the suit was maintainable, finding no misjoinder of causes of action, as the plaintiff is entitled to seek both relief on the promissory note and the sale of mortgaged property. Furthermore, the Court determined that the bar under Order II, Rule 2 did not apply because the suits were filed simultaneously and involved distinct transactions. It was also held that the memorandum of deposit of title deeds did not require registration as it merely evidenced a past transaction, and the plaint was validly verified by authorized bank officers. The judgment reaffirms that banks may pursue consolidated recovery actions for secured debts.

  Questions settled

  • Can a suit for the recovery of money and the enforcement of an equitable mortgage be joined in a single proceeding?
  • Does a memorandum of deposit of title deeds that records a past transaction require registration under the Registration Act 1908?
  • Does the bar under Order II, Rule 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply when two suits are filed simultaneously?
  • What is the scope of authority for a bank official to verify a plaint under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Gullab Convict vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-18Read full judgment →
• Gul Hassan and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 392 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-19Read full judgment →
• Gul Dad Khan vs Rahim Shah1978 PLD Karachi 19 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-10
  second appeallandlord and tenantrent restrictionremand ordermaintainabilitypreliminary issue
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, challenges an appellate order of the Additional District Judge which reversed the Rent Controller's finding and held that the relationship of landlord and tenant existed between the parties. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of a second appeal against an appellate order reversing a finding on the preliminary issue of the landlord-tenant relationship and remanding the case, and the evaluation of evidence regarding such relationship. The court held that a second appeal is maintainable under section 15(4) of the Ordinance against an order of remand or an appellate finding on the existence of tenancy, as the statutory phrase 'any order passed on appeal' is wide enough to cover such orders. On merits, the court upheld the finding that the landlord-tenant relationship was established based on oral testimony and corroborative property tax records. The key principle laid down is that unlike first appeals under section 15(1) which are restricted to specific sections, second appeals under section 15(4) lie against any order passed on appeal, including orders of remand or preliminary findings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a second appeal under section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 is maintainable against an appellate order reversing a Rent Controller's finding on the relationship of landlord and tenant and remanding the case?
  • Does the phrase 'any order passed on appeal' in section 15(4) of the Sind Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 cover interlocutory or remand orders passed by the first appellate authority?
  • Are entries in the Excise and Taxation registers relevant to the determination of the relationship of landlord and tenant?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Ahmed Textile Mills Ltd. vs Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court1978 PLD Karachi 35 · Sindh High Court · 1978-08-26Read full judgment →
• GRINDLAY's Bank Ltd., Karachi- vs P. D. Bhadha and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-26Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Industries vs Messrs National1978 PLD Karachi 827 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-21
  arbitration awardlegal misconductno evidencedisputed questions of factsetting aside awardremittal of dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This case concerns objections raised against an arbitration award arising from a dispute over the supply and rejection of cotton canvas waterproof tarpaulins. The core legal question was whether an arbitrator can adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact and issue an award without recording any evidence or having any evidence before them. The Sindh High Court held that although an arbitrator is not bound by the technical rules of the Evidence Act, they cannot decide disputed questions of fact in the complete absence of evidence, and doing so constitutes legal misconduct which vitiates the award. The key principle laid down is that while courts will not interfere with the sufficiency of evidence before an arbitrator, an award based on 'no evidence' amounts to legal misconduct, and an arbitrator must require parties to formally prove disputed documents.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitrator adjudicate upon disputed questions of fact without having any evidence before them?
  • Does deciding a matter without evidence amount to legal misconduct on the part of an arbitrator?
  • Is a court competent to scrutinize arbitration proceedings to ascertain whether an award is based on no evidence?
  • Must a party formally prove documents through witnesses when their correctness is denied by the opposing party before an arbitrator?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of Pakistan vs Presiding Officer, Labour Court No. 6, Sukkur and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 940 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs Ashraf and 3 Others1978 P Cr. L J 114 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and 4 Others vs The Tate1978 P Cr. L J 448 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-07Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 6 Others vs Mst. Jamila Begum and Another1978 P Cr. L J 817 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Nabi and 5 OTHERS/Accused vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 792 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam NAB! and 3 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Muhammad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 650 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-11Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mohammad and 3 Other vs Government of Sind and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 696 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-02Read full judgment →
• Gahi vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 253 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
• Fazal Illahi vs Assistant Commissioner & S. D. M., Karachi and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 730 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and 2 Other vs The State and Another1978 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-15Read full judgment →
• Fariha Jabeen vs Government of Sind and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 172 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-16Read full judgment →
• Fakir Muhammad vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 520 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-17Read full judgment →
• Fakir Maulvi Abdul Halim vs Haji Darya Khan (Represented by His Legal1978 PLD Karachi 406 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-24Read full judgment →
• Faiz Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State and Another1978 P Cr. L J 833 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-16Read full judgment →
• Evacuee District Trust Committee, Hyderabad vs Muhammad Ismail1978 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-21
  evacuee trust propertyprivate religious trustcompensation poolletters patent appealcondonation of delaylimitationHindu lawextinguishment of trust
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal concerned property in Hyderabad claimed by the Evacuee District Trust Committee to be attached to a private Hindu religious trust ('private Mandir') and thus excluded from the compensation pool under Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Single Judge had held that 'religious trust' in Section 4(2) covers only public trusts, and alternatively that the trust was extinguished when the family migrated and removed the idols. The High Court reversed, holding that the statutory phrase 'religious trust' encompasses both private and public religious trusts without distinction. Condoning a 23-day delay in filing due to bona fide mistaken advice of counsel under Rule 4, Chapter 1-A, Vol. V of the High Court Rules and Orders, the Bench held that mere migration of beneficiaries and removal of idols does not prove consensus to extinguish a private Hindu trust. The appeal was allowed, and the property was held to remain attached to a religious trust.

  Questions settled

  • Does the expression 'religious trust' in Section 4(2) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 include private as well as public religious trusts?
  • Can mistaken legal advice of counsel constitute good cause for extending time to file a Letters Patent Appeal under High Court Rules?
  • Does the migration of beneficiaries and permanent removal of family idols automatically extinguish a private Hindu religious trust?
  Read full judgment →
• Essar Dass and Another vs Government of Sind through The Secretary, Revenge1978 PLD Karachi 454 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-07Read full judgment →
• Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee, Karachi vs Muhammad Idris1978 PLD Karachi 125 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-12Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad and 6 Other vs Mehar Ali Khan and 2 Other/S1978 PLD Karachi 267 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-27
  civil procedureplaint rejectionjurisdictionprivate partitionland revenuedeclaration of titlespecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision petition challenged the rejection of a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by the lower courts, which held that the suit was barred by the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967. The plaintiffs sought a declaration of title based on an alleged private partition of land completed in 1960. The core legal question was whether such a suit constituted a claim for partition, thereby ousting the jurisdiction of the civil court. The High Court held that the lower courts erred by isolating the prayer clause and considering the defendants' pleadings, rather than reading the plaint as a whole. The court ruled that the suit was for a declaration of title regarding a past, completed transaction, not a new claim for partition. Furthermore, the court affirmed that even in partition-related matters, the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 explicitly preserves civil court jurisdiction over questions of title. Consequently, the rejection of the plaint was set aside, and the suit was remanded for trial on merits.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11, Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by considering the defendant's pleadings?
  • Does a suit for declaration of title based on a past private partition fall under the bar of jurisdiction provided by the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967?
  • Does the exclusion of jurisdiction for civil courts under the West Pakistan Land Revenue Act, 1967 apply to questions of title?
  Read full judgment →
• Dhani Parto vs Muntharand Another1978 PLD Karachi 371 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-28Read full judgment →
• Dentogene Laboratories Ltd., Karachi vs Sind Labour Appellate1978 PLC 196 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-15Read full judgment →
• Darya Khan and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 195 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax, Karachi vs Messrs Bankers, Traders and Insurance Co1978 PLD Karachi 411 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax (East), Karachi vs Messers Forbes1978 PLD Karachi 1047 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →