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.

• Shah Nazar Khan vs Assistant Commissioner and S. D. M., Malir, Karachi and 3 (Mims-s1977 PLD Karachi 582 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07
  Sind Crime Control Acthabitual offenderpreventive detentionhabit and reputationnarcotics smugglingconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the detenu under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, based on a police report alleging habitual illegal trafficking of charas. The core legal question was whether the isolated criminal cases and recovery incidents involving the detenu constituted sufficient grounds to bring him within the scope of habitual offences under section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, or whether they amounted merely to solitary unlawful acts better suited for ordinary criminal law. The court held that the allegations and instances relied upon did not establish a customary habit, persistent conduct, or general reputation as required by clause (xvii) of section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975, thereby rendering the proceedings without jurisdiction. The key legal principles laid down include the definitions and distinctions between 'habit', 'habitually', and 'reputation' in preventive detention jurisprudence, establishing that solitary or isolated unlawful acts cannot substantiate a charge of being a habitual offender under the Act.

  Questions settled

  • Whether isolated criminal acts are sufficient to establish the habit or reputation of a person under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975?
  • What constitutes 'habit' and 'habitually' in the context of preventive criminal laws?
  • How is a person's general 'reputation' established for the purposes of proceedings under section 14 of the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975?
  • Do proceedings under the Sind Crime Control Act, 1975 apply to solitary unlawful acts that fall under the ordinary criminal law?
  Read full judgment →
• Shafi Ahmed vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 717 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. Muhammad Alt vs Messrs China Silk House, Lyallpur1977 PLD Karachi 736 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-28Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fazluddin Qureshi vs Muhammad Hasan Zuberi1977 PLD Karachi 418 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-29Read full judgment →
• Sh. Fazal Elam vs Assistant Incometax Officer, Karachi and Another1977 P Cr. L J 538 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-01Read full judgment →
• Sh. Abdul Aziz vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 304 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-03Read full judgment →
• Schindler Fatehally & Merin Ltd. vs Sales Tax Officer, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 232 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-21Read full judgment →
• Sardar Khan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 634 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-11Read full judgment →
• Samiullah vs Muhammad Ahmed and 6 Others1977 PLD Karachi 49 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-28
  guardianshiprendition of accountsjudicial biaspartnership accountingadmissibility of evidencestamp dutyminor's propertyletters patent appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns two Letters Patent Appeals arising from a suit for rendition of accounts filed by minor heirs against their former guardian, Samiullah, regarding assets and partnership profits of their deceased father. The core legal questions were whether the trial judge's interventions constituted bias vitiating the proceedings; whether the document (Exh. 5/3) acknowledging custody of assets was genuine and admissible; whether the minors were partners in the firm 'Sami & Co.'; and whether the final decree for accounts was correct. The Court held that while the trial judge's interventions were numerous, they did not constitute bias vitiating the proceedings, as the decision reached was inevitable based on the evidence. The Court affirmed that Section 36 of the Stamp Act, 1899, bars challenging the admissibility of a document once it has been admitted into evidence. It further held that the minors were partners in the firm and the guardian was liable to account for their share. The Court dismissed the appeal against the preliminary decree but modified the final decree to allow for maintenance deductions.

  Questions settled

  • Does a judge's active participation in examining witnesses and interventions in proceedings automatically constitute bias that vitiates a judgment?
  • Can the admissibility of an unstamped document be challenged in an appellate court once it has been admitted into evidence by the trial court?
  • Is a guardian liable to render accounts for assets and partnership profits of a deceased person held by them on behalf of minor heirs?
  • Does the evidence recorded before a Commissioner for taking accounts become part of the suit record for all purposes, including challenging findings of the preliminary decree?
  Read full judgment →
• Salim Akhtar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 140 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-25Read full judgment →
• Saleem Ahmed vs Mst. Khadija Begum and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 469 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-01Read full judgment →
• Sal L Ar and 2 Others vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 865 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
• S. M. Rizvi vs Fourth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Others1977 PLC 640 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-16
  workman definitionmanagerial capacityindustrial relationstermination of servicelabour court jurisdictionsupervisory dutiesclerical nature of work
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, a Project Engineer and Departmental Head, challenged the dismissal of his application under Section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, by the Labour Courts. The core legal question was whether the petitioner, given his managerial duties and responsibilities, qualified as a "workman" under the relevant labour laws, thereby entitling him to seek redress for his termination. The Labour Courts had concurrently held that the petitioner, as a Manager responsible for policy framing, wage fixation, and administrative matters, fell outside the definition of a workman. The High Court upheld these findings, affirming that the petitioner's duties were managerial and supervisory rather than clerical. The Court held that merely working under the direction of others does not automatically confer "workman" status, as even high-level managers operate under company directors. The key principle laid down is that the determination of whether an employee is a "workman" is a question of fact dependent on the specific nature of duties performed, and the burden lies on the employee to establish that their functions are primarily clerical or manual in nature.

  Questions settled

  • Does the fact that an employee works under the direction of others automatically qualify them as a workman?
  • Is a person holding a managerial position and responsible for policy framing considered a workman under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • What is the test for determining whether an employee is a workman or a member of the management?
  Read full judgment →
• S M. Yaqus and Another; vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 418 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
• Rustom Khan and Another vs The STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 687 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-07Read full judgment →
• Rustam Khan and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1109 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
• Rogers vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 138 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-26Read full judgment →
• Razz Ahmed vs Mst. Uzma Akbari and ANoTHLR1977 P Cr. L J 730 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ranjha vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 806 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• Ramzan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 646 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-08Read full judgment →
• Rajal Mal vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 13 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-26Read full judgment →
• Rafiq Hussain vs Islamuddin and 6 Others1977 PLD Karachi 183 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-01Read full judgment →
• Rabdino vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 280 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-07Read full judgment →
• Quadri Brothers Foundry & Workshop, Karachi vs Sind Employees'1977 PLD Karachi 112 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-20
  social security contributionwages definitionnatural justiceex gratia paymentleave encashmentcontractor liabilityappellate hearing
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 64 of the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1972, challenged a decision of the Social Security Court affirming a demand for social security contributions on ex gratia payments, leave encashment, and payments to contractors. The core legal questions concerned whether the lack of a pre-demand show-cause notice violated natural justice and whether these specific payments constituted 'wages' under the Ordinance. The court held that while the initial lack of a show-cause notice was a procedural defect, it was cured by the full hearing provided during the appellate proceedings. Regarding the payments, the court ruled that ex gratia payments made pursuant to a government directive, rather than statutory obligation, and payments to contractors—where evidence failed to establish the workers met the twenty-four-hour weekly threshold—did not constitute 'wages' subject to contribution. Conversely, leave encashment was deemed 'wages' as it related to authorized leave. The court established that natural justice is satisfied if an adequate opportunity for hearing is provided at the appellate stage, and 'wages' require a legal obligation to pay.

  Questions settled

  • Does the failure to provide a show-cause notice before an administrative demand violate natural justice if a full hearing is provided at the appellate stage?
  • Do ex gratia payments made by an employer in compliance with a government directive constitute 'wages' subject to contribution under the Sind Employees' Social Security Ordinance, 1972?
  • Does leave encashment constitute 'wages' for the purpose of levying social security contributions?
  • Are payments made to contractors subject to social security contributions if there is no evidence that the contractor's workers meet the statutory threshold of working twenty-four hours per week?
  Read full judgment →
• Quadri Brother Foundry & Workshop, Karachi vs Sind Employees'1977 PLC 236 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-20Read full judgment →
• Qamardin (rukouGH His Legal Heirs) vs Custodian, Evacuee Property, Hyderabad and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 162 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-22Read full judgment →
• Qamar Elahi vs Government of Si ND and Another1977 PLD Karachi 421 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-23
  price controlfair pricedelegated legislationWest Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Actadministrative lawconstitutional petitioncost structure
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged a notification issued by the Commissioner of Karachi fixing prices for mutton and beef under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958. The petitioner contended that the notification was invalid due to lack of consultation with trade representatives, improper investigation, and excessive delegation of authority. The court held that the Act does not require the association of trade representatives in price fixation, as the government possesses adequate machinery to determine relevant cost factors. Furthermore, the court affirmed that the power to issue orders under the Act, when delegated, inherently includes the authority to determine the necessity of such orders. Crucially, the court established that the statutory requirement of fixing 'fair prices' necessitates a reasonable profit margin for the seller. Consequently, when subsequent government studies demonstrated that production costs had escalated significantly, the fixed prices ceased to be 'fair.' The court ruled that the notification lost its validity from the date such cost escalations rendered the prices unreasonable, as they no longer fulfilled the legislative objective of ensuring fair prices.

  Questions settled

  • Does the power to fix prices under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, require the government to consult or associate trade representatives?
  • Can the government delegate the power to determine the necessity of issuing a price control order under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958?
  • Does a price control notification issued under the West Pakistan Foodstuffs (Control) Act, 1958, remain valid if subsequent cost escalations render the fixed prices no longer 'fair'?
  Read full judgment →
• Qaim Din and 3 Others vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-06Read full judgment →
• Qadir Aumad Siddiqui and 6 Others vs Ramzan Ali and 6 Others1977 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-12
  execution of decreeobjection to executabilitySection 47 CPCOrder XXI Rule 23-A CPCsecurity for decretal amountinherent jurisdictionevacuee propertysettlement laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns the execution of a decree for ejectment and mesne profits, where judgment-debtors raised objections to the decree's executability under Section 47 read with Section 151, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The decree-holder raised a preliminary objection, contending that such objections could not be entertained unless the judgment-debtors furnished security or deposited the decretal amount as required by Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The core legal question was whether the penal provisions of Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to objections raised under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court held that Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, are not independent; Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, defines the scope of objections, while Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, governs the procedure for their disposal. Consequently, the Court ruled that judgment-debtors cannot object to the execution of a decree without complying with Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, by furnishing security or depositing the decretal amount. The preliminary objection was upheld, and the judgment-debtors were directed to furnish security.

  Questions settled

  • Do the provisions of Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, apply to objections raised under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a judgment-debtor raise objections to the executability of a decree under Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, without furnishing security or depositing the decretal amount as required by Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Are Section 47, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, to be read independently or in conjunction with each other?
  • Is the requirement of furnishing security or depositing the decretal amount under Order XXI Rule 23-A, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, applicable only when a notice under Order XXI Rule 22, Code of Civil Procedure 1908, has been issued?
  Read full judgment →
• Punhoon and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 221 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-11Read full judgment →
• Province of West Pakistan vs Mustafa R. C. C. Pipe Works, Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 397 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-09
  arbitration agreementcivil suitunfiled awardquasi-judicial determinationconstruction contracttimberingarbitrator vs valuer
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arose from a civil suit regarding payment disputes under construction contracts for laying pipe lines. The core legal questions were whether a contract clause designating a Superintending Engineer to decide disputes constituted an arbitration agreement, whether his decision functioned as an arbitration award, and whether an unfiled award bars a civil suit on the original cause of action. The Court held that the clause in question did not constitute an arbitration agreement because it lacked the essential requirement of a quasi-judicial determination; the Superintending Engineer acted as an expert or valuer rather than an arbitrator. Furthermore, the Court held that an unfiled arbitration award does not preclude a party from instituting a civil suit on the original cause of action unless the award has been fully performed or acted upon by the parties. The key principle laid down is that for a decision to constitute an arbitration award, it must emanate from a quasi-judicial process, and an unfiled award does not extinguish the original cause of action. The appeal was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a contract clause designating an engineer to decide disputes constitute an arbitration agreement if it lacks a requirement for quasi-judicial determination?
  • Can an unfiled arbitration award be pleaded as a bar to a civil suit on the original cause of action?
  • What is the legal distinction between an arbitrator and a valuer or expert in the context of construction contracts?
  Read full judgment →
• Pir Bux vs Government of Sind and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 158 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-20Read full judgment →
• Pervez vs Tim State1977 P Cr. L J 463(2) · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-09Read full judgment →
• Partabrai and Another vs Kabir Khan1977 PLD Karachi 759 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Paracha Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Nanikram Shamandas1977 PLD Karachi 37 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-22
  arbitration agreementex parte proceedingsstamp duty exemptionmercantile contractarbitration awardservice of noticebreach of contract
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application filed under Sections 30 and 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, challenging an arbitration award granted in a dispute over a breach of contract for the sale of cotton. The core legal questions were whether an unsigned broker’s note containing an arbitration clause constitutes a valid arbitration agreement; whether such a contract requires stamping under the Stamp Act, 1899; and whether arbitrators may proceed ex parte when a party refuses service of notice. The Court held that an arbitration agreement need not be signed to be valid if the parties' intention to refer disputes is established. It further held that a mercantile contract for the sale of goods containing an arbitration clause is exempt from stamp duty as the arbitration clause is ancillary to the main contract. Finally, the Court ruled that arbitrators may proceed ex parte if a party refuses a properly served notice of hearing. The key principle laid down is that an arbitration agreement is valid without signatures if the underlying contract is proven, and arbitrators may proceed ex parte after serving a peremptory notice.

  Questions settled

  • Is a signature required on a written document for it to constitute a valid arbitration agreement under the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does a contract for the sale of goods containing an arbitration clause require stamp duty under the Stamp Act, 1899?
  • Are arbitrators justified in proceeding ex parte if a party refuses to accept a properly addressed notice of the arbitration hearing?
  • Can arbitrators award interest on damages from the date of the award if the contract incorporates by-laws allowing such interest?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Warranted Warehouse Ltd., Karachi vs Government of Pakistan and 4 other1977 PLD Karachi 954 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Pak. Cigarette Labour Union1977 PLD Karachi 586 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-21
  statutory bonuscontractual bonusprofit bonusindustrial disputecollective bargainingsettlementlabour court
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, Pakistan Tobacco Company Limited, challenged an order of the III Sindh Labour Court, which held that the petitioner was liable to pay statutory profit bonus under Standing Order 10-C(1) of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968, in addition to the annual bonus agreed upon under a settlement dated 26th January 1972. The petitioner contended that the settlement bonus was a profit-linked bonus and therefore the workmen were not entitled to receive profit bonus twice. The High Court analyzed the nature of bonuses in industrial jurisprudence, noting that while the settlement bonus was historically linked to profits, the statutory bonus under Standing Order 10-C was a mandatory minimum. The Court interpreted clause (4) of Standing Order 10-C, holding that the phrase 'other than' means 'apart from', thereby preserving the validity of any bonus payable under an existing settlement, usage, or award. Consequently, the Court held that the employer remains bound to pay the settlement bonus in addition to the statutory bonus as long as the settlement remains in force, unless the employer legally terminates the settlement.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a statutory profit bonus under Standing Order 10-C is payable in addition to a contractual bonus agreed upon under a settlement?
  • How is the phrase 'other than' in clause (4) of Standing Order 10-C of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 to be interpreted?
  • Can extrinsic evidence outside a settlement deed be considered to determine the true nature and character of a bonus agreed therein?
  • What is the remedy for an employer if the financial burden of paying both statutory and settlement bonuses becomes unsustainable?
  Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Pak. Cigarette Labour Union1977 PLC 430 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-21Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Tobacco Co. Ltd., Kakachi vs Pak Cigarette Labour Union and Another1977 PLD Karachi 879 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-16Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Steel Products, Karachi vs The Controlling Authority, Karachi Municipal Corporation, Karachi AliD 2 Others Respondents1977 PLD Karachi 1027 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-29Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Insurance Corporation, Karachi vs P. T. Indones Oriental1977 PLD Karachi 562 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Chrome Mines Ltd. vs Enqui Ry Officer, War Risks. Insurance1977 PLD Karachi 978 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-19Read full judgment →
• Pak National Construction Co., Karachi vs State Bank of Pakistan1977 PLD Karachi 838 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-15
  arbitration agreementlimitation periodtime-barred applicationcause of actionappointment of arbitratorvagueness of pleadings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, wherein the plaintiff sought a court order directing the defendants to file an arbitration agreement and appoint an arbitrator to adjudicate disputes arising from a construction contract. The core legal questions were whether the application was time-barred and whether the plaintiff had sufficiently specified the nature of the dispute to warrant the appointment of an arbitrator under the arbitration clause. The Court held that the application was time-barred, as the cause of action arose either upon the final payment on June 22, 1971, or upon the plaintiff's initial request for an arbitrator on March 29, 1971, both of which occurred more than three years prior to the filing of the application on September 3, 1974. Furthermore, the Court held that the application was meritless due to its vagueness, as the plaintiff failed to articulate the nature of the dispute or demonstrate that it fell within the scope of the arbitration clause. Consequently, the application was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does the limitation period for an application to appoint an arbitrator under the Arbitration Act 1940 commence from the date of the final payment or the date of the initial request for arbitration?
  • Is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 maintainable if the applicant fails to specify the nature of the dispute or its relation to the arbitration clause?
  • Can an application for the appointment of an arbitrator be dismissed on the grounds of vagueness?
  Read full judgment →
• Olympia Spinning and Weaving Mills Lto., Karachi vs Government of Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Islamabad P.No Another1977 PLD Karachi 307 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-15Read full judgment →
• Nooruddin vs Muhammad Shafi and 9 Others1977 P Cr. L J 275 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-24Read full judgment →
• Noor Muhammad. vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 500 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-15Read full judgment →
• Nizamuddin vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 648 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-24Read full judgment →
• Nick Kajtazi vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-04
  smugglingnarcoticsplea of guiltymitigating circumstancesquantum of sentenceforeignerdeterrent punishment
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under the Customs Act 1969 was filed by an American citizen challenging his sentence of six months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 30,000, which was imposed by the Special Judge Customs and Taxation, Karachi, following the appellant's plea of guilty to smuggling 44 kilograms of Charas. The sole issue before the High Court was the quantum of sentence. The appellant contended that as a foreigner who pleaded guilty at the earliest opportunity, a sentence of fine alone was sufficient. The High Court analyzed the five primary aims of sentencing—retribution, individual deterrence, general deterrence, public protection, and rehabilitation—and emphasized that the legislature's increase of the maximum penalty for smuggling under the Act reflected a need for deterrent sentences. However, the Court held that a genuine plea of guilty must be treated as a mitigating factor reflecting remorse. Consequently, the Court partially allowed the appeal, reducing the sentence of imprisonment from six months to three months' simple imprisonment while maintaining the fine.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plea of guilty by an accused person operates as a mitigating factor that warrants leniency in sentencing?
  • What are the primary principles and theories that govern the judicial exercise of discretion in determining the quantum of criminal sentences?
  • Can an appellate court entertain an appeal solely on the question of the extent of a sentence where the conviction is based on a plea of guilty?
  Read full judgment →
• Niaz Ahmed Khan vs Province of Sind and Others1977 PLD Karachi 604 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-04
  aid of civil powercurfewmartial lawconstitutional amendmentsuspension of jurisdictionrigging of electionselection petitionproclamation of emergency
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment arises from a constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenging the deployment of the Armed Forces in aid of civil power, the imposition of curfew/Martial Law, press censorship, and the trial of civilians by military courts following political unrest after the 1977 general elections. During the proceedings, the Parliament enacted the Constitution (Seventh Amendment) Act 1977, introducing Clauses (3) and (4) to Article 245, which ousted the High Court's Article 199 jurisdiction in areas where the Armed Forces act in aid of civil power and mandated the suspension of pending proceedings.

  The Sindh High Court unanimously held that the petition must remain suspended for the duration of the military's deployment in aid of civil power. The Court held that general elections cannot be collaterally challenged via Article 199 due to the bar in Article 225, that Parliament possesses unfettered constitutional amendment powers under Articles 238 and 239, and that the territorial suspension under Article 245 is a temporary, constitutional measure. However, judges noted that military actions must remain strictly subject to law and within the scope of aiding civil power.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199 can be validly suspended by a constitutional amendment when the Armed Forces are deployed in aid of civil power?
  • Can the general election of Members of the National Assembly be challenged through a writ petition under Article 199 in light of Article 225 of the Constitution?
  • Whether the deployment of Armed Forces under Article 245 of the Constitution supplants the civil authority or operates strictly subject to law?
  • Can the validity of a Proclamation of Emergency issued under the Constitution be subjected to judicial review?
  Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs American Orient1977 PLD Karachi 569 · Sindh High Court
  marine insurancereimbursementprimary liabilityshort deliverysubrogationlimitationres judicatathird-party proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved a suit for reimbursement brought by an insurance company against ship owners and local agents after the insurer was compelled to satisfy a joint and several decree obtained by the consignee for short delivery of goods under a marine insurance policy. The core legal question was whether an insurer, having paid a decretal amount for which it was jointly liable with the carriers, could claim reimbursement under Section 69 of the Contract Act, and whether such a claim was barred by limitation, res judicata, or the failure to initiate third-party proceedings under procedural rules. The Sindh High Court held that the carriers were primarily liable for the loss of goods, and the insurer, being interested in the payment and legally bound, was entitled to reimbursement. The court established that Section 69 of the Contract Act covers persons legally bound who also possess an interest in the payment, that the suit governed by Article 61 of the Limitation Act is within time when filed from the date of payment, and that procedural rules regarding third-party notices do not extinguish independent substantive rights to indemnity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a person who is legally bound to pay a debt claim reimbursement under Section 69 of the Contract Act if they are also interested in the payment?
  • Whether an insurer's suit for reimbursement against a primary wrongdoer is governed by Article 61 or Article 31 of the Limitation Act?
  • Does the dismissal of an execution application seeking substitution in a previous decree operate as res judicata to bar a subsequent regular suit for reimbursement?
  • Is a defendant barred from filing a separate suit for indemnity if they failed to initiate third-party proceedings under the Sind Chief Court Rules?
  Read full judgment →
• New Era Builders, Karachi vs Pakistan Insurance Corporation and Another1977 PLD Karachi 822 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nazeer vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 751 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 277 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-07
  cancellation of bailbailwitness tamperingcriminal revisionSection 307 PPCadministration of justiceliberty of the subject
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application challenges an order by the Additional Sessions Judge cancelling the petitioner's bail in a case under Section 307 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The bail was initially granted due to cross-versions of the incident. The subsequent cancellation was based on allegations that the petitioner threatened witnesses, evidenced by police reports filed by the complainant. The High Court examined whether these reports constituted sufficient grounds for bail cancellation. The Court held that the cancellation of bail is a drastic measure that requires tangible evidence of the misuse of liberty, such as tampering with witnesses or obstructing justice. Mere allegations in police reports, unsupported by affidavits or independent evidence, are insufficient to warrant the revocation of bail. Furthermore, the Court noted that the State did not support the cancellation. Consequently, the High Court set aside the impugned order, emphasizing that bail cannot be cancelled based on unverified private grievances. The principle established is that the prosecution must produce reliable evidence of witness tampering to justify the cancellation of bail once granted.

  Questions settled

  • Is a police report alleging witness intimidation sufficient grounds to cancel bail without supporting affidavits?
  • Can bail be cancelled based on the accused's non-appearance at a hearing if they were represented by counsel?
  • What is the standard of evidence required to justify the cancellation of bail once it has been granted?
  Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and Others vs Presiding Officer, Send Labour1977 PLD Karachi 247 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-03Read full judgment →
• Nazar Muhammad and 14 Others vs Presiding Officer, Sind Labour.1977 PLD Karachi 214 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-03Read full judgment →
• Nawab Din vs Settlement Commissioner (Land). Nawab- Shah and 61977 PLD Karachi 929 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Nawab Brothers vs Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 947 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-29
  regulatory dutycustoms dutyofficial gazetteconstitutional petitionlegislative competencepublication of notificationimport license
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 challenged the imposition of regulatory duty on imported iron and steel scrap by the Collector of Customs. The petitioner raised two primary contentions: first, that the Federal Government lacked the legislative competence to impose "regulatory duty" as it was not explicitly listed in the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution; and second, that the notification imposing the duty was not effectively published in the official Gazette before the goods were imported. The Court held that "regulatory duty" falls within the scope of "duties of customs" under the Federal Legislative List, confirming the government's authority. Regarding publication, the Court ruled that a notification is effective once the official Gazette is made available for sale or distribution to the public, rather than upon its arrival at a specific destination. Since the Gazette was available in Rawalpindi and distributed to subscribers before the import date, the notification was deemed validly published. The petition was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Federal Government have the power to impose regulatory duty under the Customs Act 1969?
  • Is 'regulatory duty' included within the expression 'duties of customs' under the Federal Legislative List of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • When is a notification in the official Gazette considered effectively published for the purpose of imposing a tax or duty?
  • Does the effective date of a notification depend on the availability of the official Gazette at a specific geographic location?
  Read full judgment →
• NAUKAFConvict vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 898 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
• National Tyre and Rubber Co., Karachi vs Subedar Fazal Rahman and 21977 PLD Karachi 33 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-12
  retrenchmentreinstatementcategory-wise retrenchmentfirst come last golabour disputeconstitutional petitionmisreading of evidence
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 was filed against the orders of the Junior Labour Court and the Labour Court, Karachi, which had directed the reinstatement of respondent No. 3, a Security Inspector. The respondent's services were terminated by the petitioner-employer as a measure of economy and reorganization, resulting in the abolition of his post. The lower courts ordered reinstatement on the ground that the respondent was a general worker and, as other general workers appointed after him were retained, his retrenchment violated the principle of 'first come last go'. The High Court, however, observed that the lower courts misread the evidence and ignored Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, which mandates that retrenchment must be conducted category-wise. The Court held that the respondent belonged to a specialized category of watch and ward staff, and since he was the junior-most in that category, his retrenchment was lawful. The petition was accepted, and the lower courts' orders were declared to be without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether retrenchment under Standing Order 13 of the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 must be carried out category-wise or across the entire establishment generally?
  • Can a finding of fact by a labour court be disturbed by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction if it is based on a clear misreading of evidence?
  • Does the Civil Procedure Code 1908 apply to proceedings before the Junior Labour Court regarding the framing of issues?
  Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Fakir Muhammad Malik and Another1977 PLD Karachi 256 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-17Read full judgment →
• Nasrullah and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 132 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-22
  Abkari Actcharas recoverypost-arrest bailsearch witnessesmashirs of localityfurther inquiry
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application arose out of proceedings under Section 43(3) of the Abkari Act, following a raid by excise and police officers who recovered over four maunds of charas from a residential house where both applicants were present. The applicants' counsel contended that all offences under the Abkari Act are bailable by virtue of Section 41-B thereof, and further argued that the search violated Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 read with Section 38 of the Abkari Act as the mashirs were not from the locality. The High Court declined to decide the general bailability question, holding that the applicants were entitled to bail on the merits. Regarding applicant Sher Mohammad, the Court noted that the house did not belong to him and he was merely lying on a cot. Regarding applicant Nasrullah, the search witnesses not being from the locality necessitated scrutiny at trial and made the case one of further inquiry. Consequently, the High Court admitted both applicants to bail.

  Questions settled

  • Does the non-association of search witnesses from the immediate locality per se vitiate a search or merely require cautious scrutiny of their evidence?
  • Is a person found merely present on a cot in another individual's house entitled to bail when contraband is recovered from the premises?
  • Can the requirement of thorough scrutiny of recovery witnesses not belonging to the locality constitute a ground for further inquiry at the bail stage?
  Read full judgment →
• Nasim Silk. Industries vs Fifth Sind Labour Court Etc.1977 PLD Karachi 793 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-31Read full judgment →
• Nasim Silk Industries vs Fifth Sind Labour Court Etc.1977 PLC 489 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-31
  individual grievanceindustrial establishmentjurisdiction of labour courtnullity of applicationretrospective effectstatutory noticetermination of employmentindustrial relations
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner firm challenged an order of the Labour Appellate Tribunal which had reversed a Junior Labour Court's decision dismissing the second respondent's application for reinstatement. The second respondent, a weaver, had been dismissed after being charge-sheeted for wilful absence and subsequently filed an application under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 without serving the mandatory prior notice of grievance on the employer. The core legal question was whether an incompetent application filed without statutory notice could be automatically resurrected or saved by a subsequent retrospective amendment to the statute, and whether the Labour Court had jurisdiction. The Sindh High Court held that the initial application, filed without complying with the mandatory pre-condition of statutory notice, was a nullity and void ab initio, and could not be automatically revived by the subsequent enactment of section 25-A(6) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 without filing a fresh application. The petition was allowed, setting aside the Appellate Tribunal's order and restoring the Junior Labour Court's dismissal of the application.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application filed before a Labour Court without serving the mandatory statutory notice of grievance is a nullity?
  • Can an incompetent application that was a nullity when filed be automatically revived by a subsequent change in the law?
  • Does the definition of an industrial establishment under the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 apply prospectively to establishments employing twenty or more workmen?
  • Is the service of a grievance notice a mandatory pre-condition for the exercise of jurisdiction by a Labour Court under section 25-A of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Nairnuddin, Muhammad Hussain vs Government of Sind and Another1977 P Cr. L J 645 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• Mush Faq Hussain and Another vs The Deputy Commissioner, Sanghar1977 P Cr. L J 711 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-16Read full judgment →
• Munir Ahmad and 8 Others vs Kishomal1977 PLD Karachi 466 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• Mujtaba Ahmad Khan Ano 2 Others vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 565 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-06Read full judgment →
• Muhib and Another vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 726 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammadoo vs Tee State1977 P Cr. L J 1092 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-16Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Zaman vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 8 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-24Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yousuf vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry Op1977 PLD Karachi 1064 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs Dhanji Bai and Others1977 PLD Karachi 284 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Yamin vs Dhanj1bai B. Katherani and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 190 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 878 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad vs Government of Sind through Secretary, Home1977 PLD Karachi 523 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-26Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Usman vs 5TH Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1977 PLC 445 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Umer and Another vs DR. Am1na Ashraf1977 PLD Karachi 305 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-02
  eviction applicationsubstitution of landlordinterlocutory orderappealabilitylimitationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959. During the pendency of the eviction application, the original landlord sold the tenement to the respondent landlady, who sought substitution of her name. The Rent Controller rejected her substitution application, but the First Appellate Court set aside the order and granted the application. The tenant appealed, contending that the order refusing substitution was an unappealable interlocutory order under Section 15 and that the first appeal was time-barred. The High Court, relying on Supreme Court precedent, held that the Rent Controller's order was not merely interlocutory or collateral, as its effect was the rejection of the eviction application for the landlady, thus making it an appealable order under Section 15. However, as the First Appellate Court failed to decide the tenant's plea regarding limitation, the High Court remanded the matter to the First Appellate Court for determination on that limited question.

  Questions settled

  • Is an order of the Rent Controller refusing substitution of a transferee landlord an appealable order under Section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Does an order that disposes of a party's eviction application constitute an interlocutory order exempt from appeal under the Rent Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Tufail vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and Another1977 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-23Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sharif and Another vs The State and Another1977 PLD Karachi 432 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-20Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saleem vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 75 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Saeed vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 141 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Razaullah Khan Durrani, Muhammad Idris vs TM Official1977 PLD Karachi 434 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-05
  insolvencyproof of debtofficial assigneecreditors meetingvoting rightsdividend paymentledger entryrejection of claim
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under section 86 of the Insolvency (Karachi Division) Act, 1909 arises from a decision of the Official Assignee of Karachi rejecting the appellant's claim of Rs. 16,000 as a creditor of the insolvent, Muhammad Razaullah Khan Durrani. The core legal questions were whether an entry scored out by the insolvent in his ledger book constituted sufficient proof of debt, and whether allowing a creditor to vote at a creditors' meeting under the First Schedule of the Act amounted to a binding acceptance of the debt for all purposes, including dividend payment. The Sindh High Court held that the Official Assignee rightly rejected the claim because the scored-out ledger entry was not contemporaneous or reliable, and the oral statement of the claimant lacked corroboration. Furthermore, the court held that admission of a creditor to vote at a meeting under rule 15 of the First Schedule is exclusively for voting purposes and distinct from the admission of proof for payment of dividends under rule 25 of the Second Schedule. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does allowing a creditor to vote at a meeting of creditors under the Insolvency (Karachi Division) Act, 1909 amount to a final acceptance of the creditor's claim for the purpose of paying dividends?
  • Can a scored-out entry in an insolvent's ledger book serve as sufficient legal proof of a debt in the absence of corroborating oral or documentary evidence?
  • Are the powers of the Official Assignee to admit or reject a proof of debt for voting purposes distinct from his powers to admit or reject proofs for the payment of dividends?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Mustafa Abbas and 5 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 677 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Iqbal Ahmed1977 PLD Karachi 351 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-30
  arbitration agreementpartnership at willsham documentappointment of receiverexistence of disputerent laws
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940 seeking an order to direct the defendant to file a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause, for the appointment of an arbitrator, and for the appointment of a Receiver pending the award. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that no sufficient cause was shown as there was no dispute and that the partnership deed was a sham document designed to circumvent rent laws, constituting a landlord-tenant relationship instead. The Court held that allegations and counter-allegations regarding rendition of accounts, dissolution, and secret profits sufficiently demonstrate the existence of disputes. Furthermore, the explicit partnership deed, capital contribution, and sharing of profits established a valid partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932. The Court also held that an arbitration clause lacking a specified number of arbitrators is governed by the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940. Finally, the Court allowed the application, directed the appointment of an arbitrator, and appointed a Receiver under Order XL Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908.

  Questions settled

  • Whether allegations of a partnership deed being a sham document demonstrate the existence of a dispute under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • What are the essential ingredients of a partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act, 1932?
  • Does an arbitration clause that fails to specify the number of arbitrators or the mode of their appointment become void, or does the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act, 1940 apply?
  • When should a Receiver be appointed in a partnership at will involving two equal partners?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Jamil vs Iqbal Ahmad1977 PLD Karachi 886 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-30
  arbitration agreementpartnership-at-willappointment of receiversham partnershipexistence of disputearbitration clauserendition of accounts
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940, seeking a court order to file a partnership deed containing an arbitration clause, the appointment of an arbitrator, and the appointment of a Receiver for the firm's assets. The defendant opposed the application, arguing that no dispute existed and that the partnership deed was a sham document intended to circumvent rent laws. The Court held that the allegations and counter-allegations regarding the rendition of accounts and secret profits sufficiently demonstrated the existence of a dispute. Furthermore, the Court rejected the claim that the partnership was a sham, finding that the essential ingredients of a partnership under Section 4 of the Partnership Act 1932 were satisfied. The Court ruled that the arbitration clause was valid and enforceable, with the First Schedule of the Arbitration Act 1940 governing the appointment of a sole arbitrator. Consequently, the application was allowed, and the Court appointed a Receiver for the partnership business, establishing that in a partnership-at-will, a Receiver is appropriate when partners are in conflict and allegations of mismanagement exist.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause that fails to specify the number of arbitrators or the mode of appointment remain valid?
  • What are the essential ingredients required to establish a partnership under the Partnership Act 1932?
  • Is the appointment of a Receiver justified in a partnership-at-will where partners are in conflict and allegations of secret profits are made?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ishaque vs TiE State1977 P Cr. L J 977 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-02Read full judgment →
• Muhammad ILYAS/Decree-Holder vs Haroon Textile Mills an Another-1977 PLD Karachi 681 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-08Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ibrah1m vs Rahim Dad and 4 Others1977 P Cr. L J 126 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-30Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Habeeb Walt Muhammad and Otheer1977 PLD Karachi 1031 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain vs Ghulam Ali1977 PLD Karachi 285 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-04
  evictiondefault in payment of rentpersonal bona fide useunregistered leasecollateral purposeadmissibility of documentburden of proof
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant concerning shop premises on the grounds of default in rent payment and personal bona fide use. The landlord claimed a monthly rent of Rs. 230 and later demanded Rs. 250, while the tenant asserted the rent was Rs. 115 with a monthly adjustment of Rs. 15 from a security deposit, leaving a payable amount of Rs. 100, which he had tendered via money orders. The Rent Controller found the tenant to be a defaulter but granted eviction on the ground of personal use. The First Appellate Court reversed this finding, holding that the tenant was not a defaulter and that the landlord's personal need was not established. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that an unregistered lease agreement could be looked into for collateral purposes such as proving the rate of rent, that a document admitted without objection cannot later be challenged on admissibility, and that the landlord failed to prove a genuine personal requirement for the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Can an unregistered lease agreement be looked into for collateral purposes to show the rate of rent?
  • Does a document admitted into evidence without objection preclude a party from raising admissibility objections at a later stage?
  • What constitutes proof of signature under the Evidence Act when the author of the document has died?
  • Whether a landlord demanding excessive rent can claim the tenant is in default when the tenant tenders the actual lawful rent.
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hussain and Another vs Muhammad Safdar and ANcrrHER1977 P Cr. L J 768 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-27Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hassan and 3 others vs The STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 652 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hashiwi and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 957 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haleem, Muhammad Usman vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 499 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Haleem, Khawaja Abdul Latif vs Administrator, Abandoned1977 PLD Karachi 290 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-15Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Farooq Khan vs Sulaiman A. G. Panjwani and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 88 · Sindh High Court
  partnership dissolutionnotice of dissolutionequitable mortgagedeposit of title deedsoverdraft facilitydeclaratory suitspecific relief
  Summary & questions settled

  This consolidated judgment of the Sindh High Court disposes of two connected suits: a declaratory suit filed by a partner seeking absolution from liability regarding overdraft facilities obtained by his co-partner post-dissolution, and a recovery suit filed by the lending bank against the partnership firm and its partners. The core legal questions involved whether the firm's dissolution was duly communicated to the bank so as to absolve the plaintiff partner of subsequent liabilities, whether the bank had implied notice, and whether the deposit of title deeds constituted a valid equitable mortgage without registration. The court held that individual or actual notice of dissolution was not proved, implied notice could not be established from the circumstances, and the memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds was a record of a past transaction requiring no registration. Consequently, the court decreed the bank's recovery suit and preliminary mortgage decree, while dismissing the partner's declaratory suit as not maintainable under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act. The key principles laid down relate to the requirements of notice under partnership law, the admissibility of memoranda of equitable mortgage, and the limits of declaratory relief in pecuniary disputes.

  Questions settled

  • Whether individual notice of partnership dissolution to a third-party creditor is sufficient to relieve a partner from subsequent liabilities in the absence of public notice?
  • Does a memorandum evidencing the deposit of title deeds require registration if it records a past transaction rather than operating in praesenti to create a mortgage?
  • Can a suit for a negative declaration regarding pecuniary liability and to restrain legal proceedings be maintained under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Azam Muhammad Fazil & Co., Karachi vs Messrs N. A.1977 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High Court
  arbitration agreementspecific performancetemporary injunctionpartnership authorityratification by conductuncertainty of contractarbitrability of disputes
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a suit under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act 1940 to enforce an arbitration agreement and a cross-application under Sections 31 and 33 of the Arbitration Act 1940 challenging the validity of said agreement. The core legal questions were whether the arbitration clause was void for uncertainty, whether the dispute was arbitrable, and whether the agreement was binding despite being signed by only one partner. The Court held that the arbitration agreement was valid and binding. It established that an arbitration clause is not void for uncertainty merely because it is capable of different interpretations, provided it can be reconciled. Furthermore, it affirmed that a submission to arbitration by one partner can be ratified by the conduct of other partners. The Court also held that where a contract is for the sale of goods compensable in money, specific performance is barred under Section 21(a) of the Specific Relief Act 1877, and thus, interim injunctions to preserve the subject matter (a vessel for scrap) were refused.

  Questions settled

  • Can an arbitration clause be declared void for uncertainty if it is capable of multiple interpretations?
  • Does a partner have implied authority to submit a firm's business dispute to arbitration?
  • Can an arbitration agreement be ratified by the conduct of partners who did not sign it?
  • Is a contract for the sale of a vessel for scrap specifically enforceable under the Specific Relief Act 1877?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ayub vs THB Province of West Pakistan through the Vice-1977 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashraf vs Jamaludd1n and 3 Others1977 P Cr. L J 130 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-11Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ashfaq vs Muhammad Tahir1977 PLD Karachi 853 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →