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.

• Commissioner of Income Tax vs Messrs Excide Batteries of Pakistan1978 PLD Karachi 768 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-03Read full judgment →
• Ch. Zahur Illahi vs The State1978 PLD Kar 342 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-08Read full judgment →
• Central Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Khyber Textile Mills Ltd. and Other1978 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
• Carlos Graiben vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 209 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-06
  smugglingcriminal revisionsentence enhancementmitigation of sentenceforeign nationaldefault sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal revision application arose from the conviction of the applicant by the City & A.D.M., Karachi, for the offence of smuggling under the Customs Act, 1969. Following a plea of guilt, the applicant was sentenced to detention until the rising of the court and a fine of Rs. 50,000, with a default sentence of six months rigorous imprisonment. After an unsuccessful appeal in the Sessions Court, the applicant sought revision in the High Court. The High Court initially issued a show-cause notice regarding the enhancement of the sentence. However, considering the applicant's status as a foreign national, his lack of local support, and the fact that he had already served four months in custody, the court exercised its discretion to vacate the enhancement notice. The court held that while deterrent sentences are generally appropriate for organised smuggling, the specific circumstances of the applicant’s inability to pay the fine warranted leniency. Consequently, the court ordered that the sentence in default of payment of the fine be reduced to the period of imprisonment already undergone, directing his immediate release.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court reduce a sentence of imprisonment in default of payment of a fine to the period already undergone?
  • Does the status of a foreign national without local support constitute a ground for leniency in sentencing for smuggling?
  • Under what circumstances may a High Court vacate a show-cause notice for the enhancement of a sentence?
  Read full judgment →
• Cap. Yousuf Kazi and Another vs S. S. Phoenix and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 1052 · Sindh High Court · 1978-06-20
  admiralty jurisdictionsuit in remnecessaries supplied to a shipdisbursement accountshipping agencyfreight earningscustoms licence
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs, partners of a shipping agency, filed an admiralty suit in rem and in personam against a foreign-registered ship and its owners for the recovery of a balance amount claimed on a disbursement account, having acted as the ship's local agents. The core legal questions involved whether the suit was maintainable in the admiralty jurisdiction of the court for 'necessaries' and whether an agent could sue on a balance of accounts after adjusting freight receipts. The Sindh High Court held that the plaintiffs failed to prove the total disbursements alleged, had suppressed essential freight earnings and accounts, and that the payments proved were less than the freight receipts already in their hands, rendering the suit liable to dismissal. The court also examined the statutory provisions regarding necessaries supplied to ships and the effect of failing to hold a proper customs licence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an agent can maintain an admiralty action in rem for the balance of a disbursement account after adjusting sums received on account of freight earnings?
  • What constitutes 'necessaries' supplied to a ship under section 5 of the Admiralty Courts Act 1861?
  • Does a suit for the recovery of a balance on a disbursement account lie in the admiralty jurisdiction of the court when the proven disbursements are less than the freight earnings in the plaintiff's hands?
  • What is the effect of not holding a licence under section 207 of the Customs Act 1969 on a person acting as a shipping agent?
  Read full judgment →
• Buxo alias Khuda Bux vs The State1978 P Cr. L 1455 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-30Read full judgment →
• Bata Shoe Ca. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Registrar of Trade Unions of Sind and 2 OtherPLD 1978 Karachi 56'7 · Sindh High Court
  trade union registrationamendment of constitutionlocus standi of employernatural justicecollective bargaining agentindustrial relationswrit of certiorari
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition by an employer challenged an appellate order of the Labour Court which had reversed the Registrar of Trade Unions' decision and permitted a registered trade union of store managers to amend its constitution to change its name and widen its membership scope. The core legal questions revolved around whether an employer is entitled to notice and a hearing under the law during trade union registration or amendment proceedings, and whether an employer has the necessary locus standi to challenge such administrative and appellate decisions concerning union internal changes. The Sindh High Court held that the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, does not contemplate notice to or participation by employers in trade union registration or amendment proceedings, as such matters exclusively concern the union and the Registrar, and an employer suffers no direct or immediate prejudice thereby since legality objections can be raised later when the union seeks Collective Bargaining Agent status. The court dismissed the petition, establishing that employers lack locus standi to challenge trade union registration or internal constitutional amendments prior to the initiation of formal industrial disputes or collective bargaining proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 contemplate notice to an employer during proceedings for the registration of a trade union or the approval of amendments to its constitution?
  • Does an employer have the locus standi to challenge an order of the Labour Court or Registrar of Trade Unions registering or amending a trade union's constitution?
  • At what stage can an employer raise objections regarding the legality of a trade union or the status of its members as workmen?
  Read full judgment →
• Barkat Bhai and 2 Other vs Settlement Commissioner and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 193 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-20Read full judgment →
• Bachal vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 710 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-29
  capital sentencedying declarationsection 509 CrPCinterested witnessocular evidencecorroborationfalse implication
  Summary & questions settled

  Criminal appeal and death reference before the High Court of Sindh challenging the conviction and death sentence of the appellant under Sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, alongside Section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance. The core legal questions centered on whether ocular evidence from interested witnesses, an unproved dying declaration, and a lack of independent corroboration could sustain a capital conviction when physical evidence from the alleged crime scene was absent. The High Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentences, and acquitted the appellant. The Court held that medical officer testimony concerning non-expert matters, such as the recording or attestation of a dying declaration, cannot be brought onto the trial record under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the doctor at trial. Furthermore, where ocular testimony is exaggerated, comes from interested or inimical sources, and lacks independent corroboration or physical evidence connecting the accused to the crime, it is unsafe to form the basis of a capital conviction.

  Questions settled

  • Can medical officer testimony regarding the recording of a dying declaration be admitted under Section 509 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without examining the doctor at trial?
  • Can a conviction on a capital charge be sustained solely on the ocular testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • What is the evidentiary value of an uncorroborated dying declaration where a background of deep-rooted enmity exists between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Aziz Fatima Begum vs Oils & Gas Development Corporation, Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 316 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-03Read full judgment →
• Awal Shah vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 662 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-05Read full judgment →
• Atta Muhammad and 3 Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 570 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-26Read full judgment →
• Aspi Gustadji Dinshaw vs Habib Bank Ltd. Arbitrator1978 PLD Karachi 376 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
• Arbab alias Bagh vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 745 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-06Read full judgment →
• American International Underwriters (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi vs Tins1978 PLC 87 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
• Ameejee Valijee & Sons vs M. V. Azeem and 3 Other1978 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-18Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and ANOTHERs vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 623 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-26Read full judgment →
• Amanullah and 4 Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 792 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-25
  murderbenefit of the doubtidentification in moonlightdying declarationballistic expert reportcriminal appealcapital sentence
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the convictions and death sentences awarded by the Sessions Judge, Jacobabad, to the appellants for murder and related offences. The core legal questions involved the reliability of ocular testimony regarding identification in moonlight at a distance, the evidentiary value of a dying declaration, and the credibility of weapon recoveries and ballistic reports. The Sindh High Court held that identification from a considerable distance on an 18th-lunar-day night following a sudden awakening from sleep was unsafe for sustaining capital convictions, that the dying declaration and recoveries suffered from significant infirmities and tutoring, and that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down that where identification under moonlight from a distance is doubtful and corroborative evidence is unconvincing, the accused must be given the benefit of the doubt, resulting in the acquittal of the appellants and the rejection of the reference for the confirmation of death sentences.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification of culprits in moonlight from a distance of 52 to 70 feet safe for recording a conviction in a murder case?
  • Does a dying declaration retain credibility when recorded in the presence of interested relatives and when inconsistent with ocular testimony?
  • Can a conviction be sustained on weapon recoveries when independent witnesses are not associated and the defense claims the weapons were foisted by the police?
  • Does uncorroborated medical and motive evidence suffice to prove the guilt of the accused when eyewitness testimony is found unreliable?
  Read full judgment →
• Allan vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 269 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-08Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 241 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-04Read full judgment →
• Allah Bux alias Huda Bux vs TBB Statb1978 P Cr. L J 346 · Sindh High Court · 1977-12-18Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar vs Chairman, Summary Military Court and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 773 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-14Read full judgment →
• Akbar Ali and Another vs Gul Mohomed Shah and Another Opponents1978 P Cr. L J 143 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmed and Another vs Messrs Karachi Steam Navigation Co. Ltd., Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 387 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali Khan vs Mst. Abeda Bano1978 PLD Karachi 136 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ali vs THF State and 2 Other1978 PLD Karachi 807 · Sindh High Court · 1978-04-29Read full judgment →
• Aftab Alam Alias Matoo vs Tribunal and A. C. 8T S. D. M. (Central), Karachi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-09
  Sind Crimes Control Actpreventive detentionnon-bailable warrantsabuse of processconstitutional petitionprocedural irregularityapplication of mind
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the petitioner under Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, following a police report alleging the petitioner was a person of bad character. The core legal question was whether the police report and the subsequent order of the Tribunal satisfied the statutory requirements regarding the specificity of allegations and the procedural mandates for issuing warrants. The High Court held that the proceedings were legally flawed because the police report failed to provide essential details regarding the nature, time, and place of the alleged acts. Furthermore, the Tribunal failed to apply its mind to the facts, did not record reasons for issuing non-bailable warrants, and neglected to specify which clause of the Act was applicable. The Court established that a Tribunal must strictly adhere to procedural requirements, including providing specific details of charges and recording reasons for coercive orders, as failure to do so constitutes an abuse of the process of law and renders the proceedings liable to be quashed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 require specific details of the time, place, and nature of the alleged acts to be legally valid?
  • Is a Tribunal required to record reasons when issuing non-bailable warrants under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  • Can proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 be quashed if the Tribunal fails to specify which statutory clause is attracted to the case?
  Read full judgment →
• Aftab Ahmed vs The State Opponent1978 P Cr. L J 632 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-24Read full judgment →
• Afaquz Zubair vs Muhammad IdrisPLD 1978 Karachi 9 84 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar vs Government of Sind through the Secretary, Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 59 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-22
  constitutional petitionmedical college admissionmerit listforged admissionclosed academic year
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by Abdul Sattar seeking admission to a medical college in Sind after being wrongfully deprived of a reserved seat for the academic year 1975-76. The core legal question was whether the authorities could deny admission to a qualified candidate on the ground that academic admissions for that year had already closed, where the vacancy arose due to the unlawful admission of other candidates through forgery and administrative default. The Sindh High Court held that the respondents could not take advantage of their own wrong actions and defaults to the detriment of a legitimate candidate. The court ruled that since the petitioner was entitled to admission on merit but was pushed down due to improper admissions later cancelled, he was entitled to be accommodated. The key principle laid down is that authorities cannot defeat a meritorious candidate's lawful right to admission through delays or defaults of their own making, and where necessary, an additional seat must be created to rectify such injustice.

  Questions settled

  • Can authorities deny admission to a meritorious candidate on the ground that admissions for the academic year are closed when the vacancy arose due to administrative default or forgery?
  • Whether the respondents can take advantage of their own wrong action to deprive a petitioner of a rightful admission?
  • Can the court direct the government to create an additional seat to accommodate a candidate wrongfully deprived of admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 682 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq vs Tim State1978 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1978-01-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 964 · Sindh High Court · 1977-11-16Read full judgment →
• Abdul Latif vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 682 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Abdul Karim Alias Tare En vs Tribunal Dt A. C. and S. D. M. and Another1978 PLD Karachi 496 · Sindh High Court · 1978-02-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Kadir and 15 Other vs The State1978 PLD Karachi 543 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Jabbar Khan vs Official Assignee of Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 938 · Sindh High Court · 1978-05-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Haq alias Abdullah vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 453 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hameed Khan and Another vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 150 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-15
  post-arrest bailfurther inquirymurderfiring from roofdelayed FIRballistic expert report
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application for post-arrest bail arising from a case registered under sections 302, 307, and 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code. The applicants, who are brothers, were accused of firing from the roof of their house onto a procession, resulting in injuries and one death. The core legal question before the court was whether the applicants made out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, given the distance of the house from the scene of the incident, the presence of charring around the injuries indicating close-range firing, delayed FIR lodging, lack of identification by injured witnesses, and absence of a ballistic expert report linking the recovered weapons to the crime. The Sindh High Court held that the case warranted further inquiry into the applicants' liability, and the Assistant Advocate-General having no objection, the court granted post-arrest bail subject to sureties, while permitting the trial court to cancel bail if direct incriminating evidence later emerged.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the absence of a ballistic expert report and identification by injured witnesses makes out a case for further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
  • Can post-arrest bail be granted when medical evidence regarding charring contradicts the prosecution's version of the distance from which shots were fired?
  • Does a delay of four hours in lodging the FIR, when police were already present at the scene, create doubt warranting bail?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and 2 Others vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 515 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim Ahd 2 Other vs The State and Another Opponents1978 PLD Karachi 359 · Sindh High Court · 1977-10-02
  quashing of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcheatingpartnership disputerendition of accountsabuse of process of court
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 seeking to quash criminal proceedings initiated on a direct complaint for offences under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 against partners of a firm. The core legal question is whether a partner can be prosecuted for criminal breach of trust or cheating by another partner for withholding profits, failing to render accounts, or managing partnership assets. The Sindh High Court held that partners are joint owners or co-owners of partnership property and cannot be entrusted with dominion over their own property, rendering criminal prosecution under section 406 or 420 unsustainable. The court ruled that the proper remedy for a partner seeking settlement of accounts or share of profits is to file a civil suit for dissolution of partnership and rendition of accounts, rather than invoking criminal jurisdiction. Consequently, the criminal proceedings were quashed as an abuse of the process of the court, laying down the principle that disputes regarding partnership accounts and withheld profits are civil in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Can a partner be prosecuted under section 406 of the Pakistan Penal Code for withholding the share of profits or failing to render accounts to another partner?
  • Is a partner considered to be entrusted with property or dominion over it in respect of partnership assets for the purposes of criminal breach of trust?
  • What is the appropriate legal remedy for a partner claiming a share of profits or settlement of accounts from co-partners?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Farukh vs Presiding Officer, Junior Labour Court No. IV, Karachi1978 PLD Karachi 867 · Sindh High Court · 1978-03-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul AZIZAccused vs The State1978 P Cr. L J 11 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs Seven Up Co., Karachi and Another1978 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-27
  rectification of registertrade mark non-usetrade mark removalgoods of same descriptionbona fide intentionperson aggrievedtrade mark registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions for the rectification of the register of trade marks under Section 37 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, seeking the removal of two registered trade marks held by the respondents in Class 30 (candy and confectionery) due to non-use. The core legal question was whether the proviso to Section 37(1), which allows a proprietor to defend against non-use by proving bona fide use on "goods of the same description," permits reliance on use of the mark in a separate registration (Class 32). The Court held that the proviso is only applicable where the use occurs on goods covered by the same registration as the impugned mark. Since the respondents admitted to non-use of the mark in relation to the goods in the Class 30 registration, and their use in Class 32 could not be invoked as a defense, the Court ordered the removal of the marks. The principle established is that the statutory protection against removal for non-use is strictly confined to use within the specific registration under challenge, not across different registrations.

  Questions settled

  • Can a registered proprietor defend against the removal of a trade mark for non-use by citing use of the mark in a different registration?
  • Does the proviso to Section 37(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940 require that the goods used be within the same registration as the impugned mark?
  • Who qualifies as a 'person aggrieved' for the purpose of seeking rectification of the trade mark register?
  • Is non-use of a trade mark for a period of five years sufficient grounds for its removal from the register?
  Read full judgment →
• A. Javaid, President, Pakistan International Airlinescorporation1978 PLC 132 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• A. Javai D, President, Pakistan International Airlines Corporation1978 PLD Karachi 64 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-07
  Trade Union registrationIndustrial Relations OrdinancePakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Actstatutory repugnancycollective bargaining agentconstitutional petitionlabour law
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the refusal of the National Industrial Relations Commission to register the Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees' Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The Commission had rejected the application, citing Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, arguing that the Act and the Ordinance were mutually inconsistent and that the Act occupied the entire field, thereby precluding registration. The core legal question was whether the application of the Essential Services Act to an organization renders the registration of a Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance legally impossible due to repugnancy. The Court held that the two statutes are not wholly irreconcilable. It established that mere potential for conflict in specific functions, such as the right to strike or wage regulation, does not invalidate the registration of a Trade Union. The Court ruled that inconsistency must be positive and absolute to displace a statute. Consequently, the Court directed the Registrar to register the petitioner-Union, affirming that the existence of a Trade Union is not incompatible with the Essential Services Act.

  Questions settled

  • Does the application of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, to an organization automatically prohibit the registration of a Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • What is the legal test for determining whether the provisions of two statutes are inconsistent or repugnant to the extent that one displaces the other?
  • Does the mere potential for conflict in specific functions between two statutes render the entire registration of a Trade Union under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, invalid?
  Read full judgment →
• Zakir Ali vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 833 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-31
  concurrent sentencesconsecutive sentencesappellate jurisdictionseparate trialsflick-knifeArms Ordinancecriminal sentencing
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal concerns the sentencing of an appellant convicted for the possession of an unlicensed flick-knife under the Arms Ordinance 1965, following a separate conviction for causing hurt with the same weapon. The core legal question was whether the High Court, in its appellate jurisdiction, possesses the authority to direct that sentences awarded in separate trials run concurrently, notwithstanding the default rule under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, which mandates consecutive sentences in the absence of a specific judicial direction. The Court held that it maintains the discretionary power to order separate sentences from distinct trials to run concurrently. The principle laid down is that while Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 generally requires sentences to take effect in the order passed, the High Court retains the power, during appeal or revision, to modify this and direct concurrent execution of sentences. Given the inter-related nature of the offences, the Court exercised this discretion to order the sentences to run concurrently, partially allowing the appeal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to order separate sentences awarded in separate trials to run concurrently?
  • Does the default rule of consecutive sentencing under Section 397 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to separate trials?
  • Are flick-knives considered 'arms' under the Arms Ordinance 1965 regardless of blade size?
  Read full judgment →
• Zafiurul Hassan & Brothers vs Abdul Hussain and Another1977 PLD Karachi 252 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
• Zaffar Ali Khan vs The Board of Revenue, Government of Sind through Secretary, Board of Revenue, Sind,Hyderabad1977 PLD Karachi 566 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-16Read full judgment →
• Yousuf Re-Rolling Mills, Karachi vs Collector of Customs, Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 911 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
• Yasmin Etc. vs Muahammad Khalid1977 P Cr. L J 54 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-06Read full judgment →
• Wazir Ali vs Government Op Sind and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 742 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-12
  Betterment taxRevisional jurisdictionProperty taxEqual protection of lawDouble taxationLegislative competenceClassification for taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition challenged an order by the Director-General, Excise & Taxation, which revised a previous revisional order regarding the gross annual rental value of the petitioner's property, and also contested the imposition of a betterment tax. The core legal questions were whether a second revision of a tax assessment is permissible and whether the betterment tax imposed under the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, is unconstitutional due to lack of specific benefit, discrimination, or double taxation. The Court held that a second revision of an order already passed in revision is without lawful authority and jurisdiction. Regarding the betterment tax, the Court held that the Provincial Legislature has sovereign power to levy taxes within its legislative competence, and such tax does not require a specific benefit to the property owner. Furthermore, the classification distinguishing commercial and industrial properties from residential ones for taxation purposes is reasonable and not discriminatory under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973. The principle established is that the legislature may classify properties for taxation, and double taxation is not constitutionally prohibited.

  Questions settled

  • Is a second revision of an order passed in revision by a competent authority maintainable under the Sind Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958?
  • Does the imposition of a betterment tax require a specific benefit to the property assessed?
  • Is the classification of commercial and industrial properties for the purpose of betterment tax discriminatory under Article 25(1) of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Is there a constitutional prohibition against double taxation in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 783 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
• Wali Muhammad and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
• Wahid Bux alias Wah1du vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 257 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-05
  constitutional petitionSind Crimes Control Actquashing of proceedingsnon-bailable warrantpreventive actionhabitual offender
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 filed to challenge proceedings initiated under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, along with the consequential issuance of non-bailable warrants by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate and Tribunal, Sukkur. The core legal question was whether preventive proceedings and the issuance of warrants could be legally sustained on the basis of stale, untrialed past instances or a solitary single incident. The Sindh High Court held that the proceedings were without lawful authority, noting that the petitioner was not even challaned in earlier alleged instances and that action could not be founded on a single incident or unsubstantiated past cases. The court accordingly quashed the impugned orders and allowed the petition, establishing that statutory preventive action under the Act requires proper legal foundation and cannot rely on isolated or unprosecuted events.

  Questions settled

  • Can proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 be initiated on the basis of a solitary or single incident?
  • Whether a tribunal can issue a non-bailable warrant immediately upon receipt of a complaint without applying its mind to the statutory requirements?
  • Are proceedings initiated without proper foundation and unprosecuted past instances liable to be quashed under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Wah Stone and Lime Quarry Ltd., Hassan Abdal vs The Province of Sind1977 PLD Karachi 497 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-01Read full judgment →
• Ust. Shamshad Begum vs Abdul Haque alias Nawaz and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 855 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-12
  Khuladissolution of marriageFamily Court decreeconsideration for KhulaMuslim Family Lawconstitutional jurisdictiondower
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner sought to challenge a condition imposed by a Family Court in a decree for dissolution of marriage by way of Khula, which required her to pay Rs. 5,000 to the respondent. The petitioner argued that this condition was contrary to Muslim Law principles and illegal. The core legal question was whether the Family Court lawfully determined the consideration for Khula and whether such a conditional decree was sustainable. The High Court held that the Family Court’s determination of the Rs. 5,000 consideration was based on invalid grounds, including unsupported surmises regarding ornaments and irrelevant considerations like the husband's future marriage expenses. The Court affirmed that while Khula may involve consideration, it must align with Islamic legal principles, specifically noting that if Khula arises from the husband's ill-treatment, he cannot lawfully demand consideration. Furthermore, the Court clarified that failure to pay the consideration does not invalidate the Khula itself, as the husband may recover the amount through other legal means. Consequently, the Court quashed the condition regarding the payment of consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Can a Family Court impose a condition of monetary payment for a Khula decree based on speculative future expenses of the husband?
  • Does the failure of a wife to pay the consideration fixed for a Khula decree invalidate the dissolution of the marriage?
  • Is a husband entitled to demand consideration for Khula if the divorce is necessitated by his own ill-treatment of the wife?
  • Can a High Court exercise constitutional jurisdiction to set aside a condition in a Family Court decree that is based on patent illegality?
  Read full judgment →
• Uris vs Tribunal and Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Kotri and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 506 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-05
  Sind Crimes Control Actcognizance of casepolice reportdetention ordertribunal jurisdictionmandatory provisionsbad in law
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves petitions assailing proceedings initiated by a Tribunal under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, following police reports that merely reproduced statutory clauses without providing particulars of time, place, or specific acts. The core legal question is whether a police report under section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 must contain the specific particulars outlined in section 6 of the Act, and whether a Tribunal can validly take cognizance upon a report lacking such details. The Sindh High Court held that the Tribunal's cognizance and subsequent proceedings were illegal and without lawful authority because the report failed to provide the mandatory material and details of the acts complained against. The court laid down the principle that taking cognizance requires proper material in writing indicating a case under the Act, and a mere reproduction of statutory clauses without supporting instances or particulars does not furnish a valid legal foundation for the Tribunal to assume jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Tribunal can validly take cognizance under section 4 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 upon a police report that merely reproduces statutory clauses without detailing specific acts, times, and places?
  • Does the omission of particulars in a police report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 vitiate the cognizance taken by the Tribunal?
  • Are the particulars specified in section 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 required to form part of a report for taking cognizance?
  Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Qazi Amir Ali1977 PLD Karachi 905 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
• United Bank Ltd., Karachi vs K. S. Kamal1977 PLD Karachi 521 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-10Read full judgment →
• Tyke State vs StilLEMAN Hoodbhoy and 2 omens1977 P Cr. L J 639 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
• Travel Air Ltd. vs The Director, Exchange Control Department, State1977 PLD Karachi 785 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Shah and Another1977 P Cr. L J 484 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Muhammad Azimuddin and Another1977 P Cr. L J 674 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Moinuddin Haider and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 512 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-16Read full judgment →
• The State vs Mirza Muhammad Iqbal Baig1977 P Cr. L J 432 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-11Read full judgment →
• The State vs Hamzo1977 PLD Karachi 138 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Hamayoon Shafi1977 P Cr. L J 553 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-01Read full judgment →
• The State vs Devraj1977 P Cr. L J 357 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-14Read full judgment →
• The State vs Ali Hussain1977 P Cr. L J 352 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-17Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Haleem1977 P Cr. L J 525 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Ghani1977 P Cr. L J 822 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
• The State vs Abdul Aziz and Another1977 P Cr. L J 192 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-11Read full judgment →
• The National Electric Radio, Refrigeration Co. (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 264 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-18
  bill of ladingcarriage of goods by seacargo damage claimmarine insurance policyKarachi Port Trustex-parte survey reportclean out-turn reportproof of damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by a consignee seeking recovery of damages amounting to Rs. 1,28,398 for alleged damage caused to a consignment of refrigerators imported from Italy to Karachi. The claim was brought against the sea carrier, its local shipping agent, the cargo insurer, and the Karachi Port Trust (KPT). The central questions pertained to whether the carrier or KPT were liable for damage occurring during transit or custody, whether the insurer was bound to extend coverage beyond the 60-day post-discharge period, and whether the carrier was bound by an ex-parte survey report. The High Court dismissed the suit in its entirety. It held that the carrier was not bound by a survey report conducted at the plaintiff's godown without prior notice to the carrier. Furthermore, clean discharge receipts and out-turn reports rebutted allegations of damage during sea transit or KPT custody. Additionally, the insurance policy had lapsed after 60 days from discharge, and delay in custom clearance did not extend coverage. Finally, the plaintiff failed to prove actual damages.

  Questions settled

  • Is a sea carrier bound by a damage survey report conducted without notice to the carrier after the goods have been removed from port custody?
  • Does an endorsement on a bill of lading stating 'contents unknown' create any presumption regarding the condition of goods inside outer packaging?
  • Can delay in custom clearance by an importer extend the period of coverage under a standard marine cargo insurance policy?
  • Whether secondary evidence of a notice is admissible under Section 65 of the Evidence Act 1872 without issuing notice to produce the original?
  Read full judgment →
• The Government of West Pakistan through the Deputy Commissioner, Sangear and 2 Others vs Hab1bullah1977 PLD Karachi 829 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-27Read full judgment →
• Tariq Sayeed and Another vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 235 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-24Read full judgment →
• Talib vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 796 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• Syed Rashidullah Shah and Others vs Officer on Special Duty, Federal1977 PLD Karachi 1061 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Syed Nazakat Raza vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 694 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-13Read full judgment →
• Syed Ghulam Ali Shah vs Commissioner, Hyderabad Division, Hyderabad and 4 Others1977 P Cr. L J 112 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-28Read full judgment →
• Sunshine Diaries Ltd. vs Commissioner. Sind Employees' Social Security1977 PLC 145 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-20Read full judgment →
• Suleman and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 406 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-11Read full judgment →
• State vs Muhammad Hassan and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 554 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-09Read full judgment →
• State vs Chuttal alias Chutto and 4 Others1977 P Cr. L J 960 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• State vs Budo alias Badal1977 P Cr. L J 954 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• Souvenir Tobacco Co. Ltd. vs Najammuddin and Others1977 PLD Karachi 250 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-22
  reinstatementcanteen employeeCanteen Managing Committeeemployer-employee relationshipindustrial relationsconstitutional petitionlabor dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the petitioner company against orders of the Junior Labour Court and Labour Court which reinstated respondent No. 1, a canteen worker, with full back benefits under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969. The core legal question was whether an employee of a factory canteen, managed and controlled by a Canteen Managing Committee under the Karachi Factories Canteen Rules 1953 and a settlement agreement, can be considered an employee of the factory management itself for the purpose of seeking reinstatement. The High Court held that the Canteen Managing Committee was exclusively responsible for the management and control of the canteen's affairs, and that respondent No. 1's services were terminated by said Committee and not the petitioner company. The High Court declared the impugned orders illegal and allowed the petition, establishing that reinstatement proceedings under labor laws cannot be maintained against a company for employees managed and terminated independently by a legally constituted Canteen Managing Committee.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an employee of a canteen managed by a Canteen Managing Committee under the Karachi Factories Canteen Rules 1953 can be considered an employee of the factory management for filing a grievance under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can an application for reinstatement under labor laws be maintained against a factory owner when the order of termination was issued by an independent Canteen Managing Committee?
  Read full judgment →
• Soomar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 70 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-21Read full judgment →
• Soomar and 6 otherss vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 18 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-18Read full judgment →
• Siraj Uddin vs Mst. Amtul Rauf and 12 Others1977 PLD Karachi 933 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-26
  partition suitadministration suitwithdrawal of suittransposition of partiesCode of Civil Procedureunconditional withdrawal
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiff filed a suit for the partition of joint property inherited from the deceased. The defendant contested the suit, arguing it was essentially an administration suit and sought to be transposed as the plaintiff. Before issues were framed, the plaintiff applied to withdraw the suit unconditionally under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The court held that the nature of a suit is determined by the plaint, not the defendant's pleadings. It distinguished between a partition suit, which seeks separate possession of shares, and an administration suit, which involves the comprehensive realization of assets and discharge of debts. The court affirmed that a plaintiff possesses an absolute right to withdraw a suit unconditionally at any time, provided no preliminary decree has been passed, no compromise exists, or no valuable rights have accrued to the defendant. As no such rights had vested in the defendant, and the suit was not in a representative capacity, the court allowed the withdrawal, dismissing the suit and rejecting the defendant's request for transposition.

  Questions settled

  • Does a plaintiff have an absolute right to withdraw a suit unconditionally under Order XXIII, Rule 1, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Is a suit for partition of inherited property equivalent to a suit for administration of the estate?
  • Can a defendant be transposed as a plaintiff as a matter of right in a partition suit?
  • Does the filing of an application for the appointment of a receiver create a valuable right that prevents a plaintiff from withdrawing a suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi vs Philips1977 PLC 447 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees' Social Security Institution, Karachi vs Muhammad1977 PLD Karachi 889 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-04Read full judgment →
• Sind Employees Social Security Institution, Karachi vs Philips1977 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-16
  Social SecurityIndependent ContractorContract of ServiceEmployer LiabilityHead Office EmployeesContribution ArrearsStatutory Increase
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses two appeals under Section 64 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965. The primary legal issue was whether factory owners are liable to pay social security contributions under Section 20 for canteen and fair price shop workers engaged by independent contractors. Additionally, the court examined whether employees at a head office working in connection with a notified mill are covered, and whether statutory increase under Section 23 applies to retrospective arrears. The High Court held that workers employed by an independent contractor are not 'employees' of the factory owner because no direct or indirect contract of service exists between them, nor are wages paid by the owner. However, head office employees working directly in connection with the mill's manufacturing operations are covered irrespective of physical location, necessitating factual determination on remand. The court further held that the penalty increase under Section 23 requires willful default or neglect; hence, no penalty was leviable due to bona fide ambiguity and institutional delay.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an establishment is liable under Section 20 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to pay contributions for workers employed by an independent contractor to run a canteen or fair price shop?
  • Does the application of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 to a factory establishment extend to head office staff working in connection with the factory's manufacturing work?
  • Whether the statutory increase under Section 23 of the West Pakistan Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1965 can be levied in the absence of intentional default or neglect by the employer?
  Read full judgment →
• Siddique vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 30 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
• Shoukat Ali vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 690 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-07Read full judgment →
• Sher Muhammad vs The State and Another1977 PLD Karachi 683 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Abdul Karim vs Mst. Irshadunnisa Begum and 6 Others1977 PLD Karachi 477 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-21Read full judgment →
• Sheedon vs Ahmad Khan and 6 Others1977 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
• Shaukat Ali vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 259 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-13Read full judgment →
• Shamsuddin vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 495 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-15Read full judgment →
• Shamim Ahmed vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 67 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-20Read full judgment →