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.

• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs J. & P. Coats Pakistan Ltd., Karachi and 21977 PLC 162 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Khan vs J. & P. Coats Pakistan Ltd. Karachi and 21977 PLD Karachi 83 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04
  industrial relationsillegal dismissalback benefitsreinstatementfresh inquirylabour courtconsequential benefitsstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition concerns the legality of withholding back benefits following an order of reinstatement for an illegally dismissed workman. The petitioner challenged the Labour Court's decision, which, while setting aside the dismissal due to procedural defects and ordering a fresh inquiry, made the payment of back benefits contingent upon the outcome of that inquiry. The core legal question was whether a Labour Court, upon ordering reinstatement under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969, possesses the discretion to withhold consequential benefits. The Court held that Section 36-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 is a special provision that mandates the granting of consequential benefits alongside reinstatement. The Court determined that the word 'and' in the statute is conjunctive, creating a binding duty on the Court to award benefits once reinstatement is ordered. Consequently, the Court ruled that back benefits cannot be withheld pending a fresh inquiry, as the illegal dismissal entitles the workman to wages for the period of deprivation. The principle established is that reinstatement and consequential benefits are inseparable legal consequences of setting aside an illegal dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the word 'and' in Section 36-B(4) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 mandate that consequential benefits must accompany an order of reinstatement?
  • Can a Labour Court lawfully withhold back benefits pending the outcome of a fresh inquiry after setting aside an illegal dismissal?
  • Does a special provision in a statute control a general provision within the same statute regarding the powers of a Labour Court?
  • Is an employee entitled to wages for the period of deprivation following an illegal dismissal that has been set aside by a court?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anwar Khan Ghouri vs Sheikh Muhammad Taqi1977 PLD Karachi 391 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-20
  specific performanceagreement to sellundue influencelachestime as essence of contractlimitationincome tax clearance certificateoral evidence bar
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was instituted by the plaintiff seeking specific performance of an agreement to sell immovable property located in Karachi. The defendant resisted the suit, alleging undue influence, misrepresentation, inadequacy of consideration, laches, limitation, and a subsequent oral modification shifting the obligation to obtain income-tax clearance certificates to the plaintiff. The core questions before the High Court of Sindh were whether the agreement was voluntarily executed, whether the defendant breached his contractual obligation to furnish necessary clearance documents, whether delay simpliciter and subsequent rise in property prices constituted laches barring equitable relief, whether the suit was barred by limitation, and whether oral evidence was admissible to prove a modification of the written agreement. The Court held that the agreement was voluntary, time was not the essence of the contract, and the defendant committed breach by failing to obtain the required clearance certificates. Delay short of the limitation period does not bar specific performance unless it causes prejudice or indicates abandonment. Furthermore, sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1872 barred oral evidence to vary the written terms. The suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff subject to deposit of the balance consideration.

  Questions settled

  • Does a general rise in the value of immovable property during a period of delay disentitle a purchaser to a decree for specific performance?
  • Can delay short of the prescribed period of limitation bar a suit for specific performance under the doctrine of laches in the absence of prejudice or abandonment?
  • Is a plaintiff absolved from proving readiness and willingness to perform up to the date of suit where the vendor has repudiated or breached the contract?
  • Can a party adduce oral evidence to establish a subsequent modification of obligations under a written contract for the sale of immovable property?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad and 4 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 665 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-10Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Amir dins Mushki and 3 Others vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 695 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-23
  robberydacoitydeadly weaponvicarious liabilityminimum sentencerecoveryeyewitness testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction and sentencing of the appellants by the trial court under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for robbery involving a transport corporation bus carrying cash. The core legal question concerns the reliability of eyewitness testimony, the veracity of recoveries of looted money from the appellants, and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt through consistent eyewitness accounts and credible recovery evidence, notwithstanding flaws in the identification parade. However, the court ruled that Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, being a rider provision regulating minimum punishment, does not attract vicarious liability and applies only to those offenders who personally carry deadly weapons, cause grievous hurt, or attempt to cause death or grievous hurt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant who was not armed and did not cause grievous injury was altered from Section 394 read with Section 397 to Section 394 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, while the convictions and minimum sentences of the remaining armed appellants were upheld.

  Questions settled

  • Does Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 attract the principle of vicarious liability for co-accused who are not personally armed or who do not cause grievous hurt?
  • Can a conviction be sustained under Section 394 read with Section 397 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 when identification parade evidence is ruled out due to delay?
  • Whether the recovery of looted currency notes from an accused upon credible police testimony and mashirs is sufficient to corroborate a charge of robbery?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Afsar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 346 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
• Mubammad Lund vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 966 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-18Read full judgment →
• Mst. Zakia Khatoon and Another vs Additional Commissioner, Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 6 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-12
  constitutional petitionrequisition of immovable propertyactual occupancydisputed questions of factright of hearingtemporary powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition assails an order passed by the Additional Commissioner, Karachi, confirming a provisional requisition order and sealing a residential house under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956. The petitioners claimed they were joint owners in actual physical occupation of the property after cancelling a prior tenancy agreement. The core legal questions involved whether the premises were lawfully requisitioned while in the petitioners' occupation and whether they were denied a right of hearing. The Sindh High Court held that disputed questions of fact regarding physical occupancy cannot be investigated in the exercise of constitutional jurisdiction, especially where objections filed before the authority failed to substantiate actual occupation at the relevant time and the objector was heard. The petition was accordingly dismissed without costs, affirming that factual controversies outside the record do not warrant interference under constitutional jurisdiction.

  Questions settled

  • Can disputed questions of fact regarding physical occupancy of a property be investigated in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court?
  • Whether an owner in actual occupation of a residential house can be required to vacate it under the West Pakistan Requisitioning of Immovable Property (Temporary Powers) Act, 1956?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Surraiya Begum vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 291 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Saeeda Begum and 7 Others vs Government of Pakistan through Central Board of Revenue, Islamabad and Another1977 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-27
  tax exemptionretrospective legislationvested rightsordinance making powerincome taxinterim constitutionpeace and good government
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns petitions challenging provisional assessment orders and consequential penal actions arising from amendments to Section 15-BB of the Income-tax Act, 1922, introduced by the Finance Ordinance, 1972. The petitioners contended that the President lacked the constitutional authority to impose taxes via Ordinance under Article 94 of the Interim Constitution and that the retrospective withdrawal of previously granted tax exemptions violated vested rights. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the President’s power to promulgate Ordinances for the "peace and good government of Pakistan" encompasses the power to levy taxes. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that the legislature possesses plenary powers to enact laws with retrospective effect. Consequently, the retrospective withdrawal of tax exemptions through legislative action is valid, as the legislature may override vested rights provided it uses clear and unambiguous language. The judgment establishes that the authority to legislate includes the power to tax and the power to legislate retrospectively, even where such measures impact existing exemptions or previously accrued rights.

  Questions settled

  • Does the President's power to promulgate Ordinances for the peace and good government of Pakistan include the power to levy taxes?
  • Can the legislature retrospectively withdraw tax exemptions previously granted by notification?
  • Does the authority to legislate include the power to enact laws with retrospective effect?
  • Can a legislative enactment override vested rights if the language used is clear and unambiguous?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Rukhsana Ahmad vs Tariq Ataullah1977 PLD Karachi 564 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-06Read full judgment →
• Mst. Khatu and 2 Others vs Barrage Mukh Tiar Kar, TH Atta1977 PLD Karachi 203 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-20
  land acquisitioncompensationmarket valuebatai rental systemretroactive operationcondonation of delayuniform rate
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal arises out of land acquisition proceedings under the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, wherein 300 acres of agricultural land belonging to the appellants was acquired by the Public Works Department for the Kalri Lake Project in District Thatta. The core legal question was whether the compensation awarded to the appellants was adequate and whether the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance, 1961 retroactively modified the mode of determining market value under section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act. The Sindh High Court held that the appellants were entitled to compensation at a uniform rate for the entire 300 acres of arable land based on the prevailing batai rental system formula (Baker's Circular No. 6183), which worked out to Rs. 375 per acre, rather than differential rates arbitrarily imposed by the Commissioner. The Court laid down the principle that in assessing compensation for compulsorily acquired land, consideration must be given to all potential uses and advantages, and that an amendment altering the mode of determining compensation to the detriment of an owner's vested entitlement from the date of the section 4 notification is not presumed retroactive unless explicitly stated.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an amendment to section 23 of the Land Acquisition Act 1894 introduced by the West Pakistan Agricultural Development Corporation Ordinance 1961 has retroactive application to acquisition proceedings initiated prior to its promulgation?
  • Can land acquired as a single tract of arable land be subjected to differential rates of compensation for cultivated and uncultivated portions without legal justification?
  • Whether sufficient cause is made out under section 5 of the Limitation Act 1908 for condoning delay in filing an appeal where the appellant was misled by a representative into awaiting the outcome of a connected appeal?
  • Does the statutory formula under the batai rental system override arbitrary executive instructions in determining compensation for agricultural land?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamila Subhan Fateh vs Mst. Zahoor Fatima1977 PLD Karachi 749 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mst. Jamil and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 948 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
• Mst. Husan Bano and Anothers vs Board of Revenue, West Pakistan, Lahore and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 805 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-12Read full judgment →
• Mst. Fatima Bat vs Mst. Fatima Begum1977 PLD Karachi 1007 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-16
  second appealurban rent restrictiondefault in renttentative rent orderstriking off defenceinterlocutory orderfinal orderejectment
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal under section 15(4) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 arises out of an ejectment proceeding initiated by the respondent-landlord against the appellant-tenant on the ground of default in rent payment. The Rent Controller dismissed the application for striking off the defence, holding that the delay was due to a bona fide misunderstanding, but the lower appellate court reversed this decision, finding the tenant in willful default and holding a rent deposit receipt to be ungenuine, thereby ordering ejectment. The core legal questions involved the competency of an appeal against an interlocutory or final order under section 13(6) of the Ordinance and whether late deposit or non-genuine receipts constitute default. The High Court held that an order deciding on the non-compliance of a tentative rent deposit order and striking off defence is a final order and thus appealable under the Ordinance, and upheld the appellate court's finding of default and non-genuine receipt. The key principle laid down is that orders regarding the violation of tentative rent deposit orders under section 13(6) are final, appealable orders, and default in complying with monthly deposit timelines entails summary ejectment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an appeal lies under section 15 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 against an order refusing or directing to strike off the defence of a tenant under section 13(6)?
  • Is an order passed by the Rent Controller under section 13(6) regarding non-compliance with a tentative rent deposit order an interlocutory order or a final order?
  • Does the deposit of monthly rent on the 15th day of the month instead of before the 15th day constitute a default under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a High Court in second appeal interfere with a finding of fact regarding the genuineness of a rent deposit receipt?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ayeshabi vs Abdul Ghafoor and Others1977 PLD Karachi 542 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Sajda Arshid vs Messrs International Import & Export Co., Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 221 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-29Read full judgment →
• Moosa and 4 Others vs Yar Khan and Another1977 P Cr. L J 733 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-23Read full judgment →
• Moosa & Co. vs Collector of Customs Karachi and AM/Irina1977 PLD Karachi 710 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-14
  customs dutyregulatory dutypublication of notificationbill of entrybank guaranteerefund of excess duty
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from seven constitutional petitions filed against the Collector of Customs Karachi and others, challenging the imposition of regulatory duty or enhanced Customs Duty based on notifications purportedly issued on 21-8-1975. The core legal question was whether the impugned notifications could be given legal effect and enforced against the petitioners prior to their actual printing, publication, and distribution to the public. The Sindh High Court held, relying on Supreme Court precedent, that a notification is only published when steps are taken to communicate it to the public or parties concerned. Since the notifications were not printed until 17-9-1975 and not distributed until 16-10-1975—whereas the petitioners' bills of entry were submitted prior to the latter date—the customs authorities were not competent to levy the enhanced duty. The court accordingly allowed the petitions, discharged the bank guarantees furnished by the petitioners, and ordered the refund of any excess duty paid.

  Questions settled

  • When can a statutory notification be legally said to have been published?
  • Are customs authorities competent to levy enhanced duty based on an unpublished notification?
  • What is the effect of delayed publication and distribution of a notification on bills of entry submitted prior to distribution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohsin vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 159 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-24
  post-arrest bailmedical evidenceocular evidenceconflict of evidencefurther inquirymurder
  Summary & questions settled

  This bail application was filed by an accused sent up for trial under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Saadat Ali. The prosecution alleged that the applicant held the deceased, hit him on the back with a danda (or iron rod), while a co-accused stabbed him. The applicant sought bail on the ground of a patent inconsistency between the ocular evidence and the medical evidence, as the autopsy report did not show any injury on the back of the deceased, despite eye-witnesses asserting that the applicant hit the deceased on his back. The Sindh High Court held that a clear conflict between ocular and medical evidence creates a case of further inquiry under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The Court ruled that explaining such discrepancies is a matter for the trial court to determine upon considering the entire evidence. Consequently, the Court granted post-arrest bail to the applicant.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a patent inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical evidence regarding the seat of injury justifies the grant of bail under Section 497(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Can bail be granted to an accused when eye-witnesses assert a specific blow was struck on the victim's back but the autopsy report shows no corresponding injury?
  Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Khan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 543 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Akbar Tariq vs The STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 540 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17
  post-arrest bailcircumstantial evidencelast seen theorymurdermotive
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal miscellaneous application seeking post-arrest bail in a case registered under section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, pending before the Sessions Court at Karachi. The core legal question involves determining whether reasonable grounds exist to connect the accused with the murder based on circumstantial evidence, including motive, purchase of alleged weapons, and the 'last seen' theory. The court held that the circumstantial evidence presented, particularly regarding the time the accused was last seen with the deceased and the existence of multiple other potential enemies of the deceased, weakened the prosecution's case at the bail stage. Consequently, the High Court accepted the application and granted post-arrest bail to the applicant subject to furnishing security. The key principle laid down is that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must show that the accused was in the company of the deceased within a very short time of his death, and bail should be granted when reasonable grounds connecting the accused to the crime are not prima facie established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether bail should be granted when a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory is temporally remote from the time of death?
  • Does the existence of alternative suspects and multiple motives weaken the prosecution's case for withholding bail?
  • What is the duty of the court when examining data available in the case to find reasonable grounds connecting an accused to an offense punishable with death?
  Read full judgment →
• MLSSRS Butt Engineering Industries vs Karachi Shipyards & Engineering1977 PLC 224 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mitho and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 18 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-11Read full judgment →
• Mitho and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 124 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
• Mit. Momin Bai and 3 Others vs Ghulam Muhammad and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-05
  Fatal Accidents Actrash and negligent drivingres ipsa loquiturcompensation for deathinsurance liabilitymotor vehicle accident
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit instituted under the Fatal Accidents Act by the legal heirs of the deceased for the recovery of compensation arising from a fatal motor vehicle accident. The core legal questions involve determining liability for rash and negligent driving causing death, establishing the earning capacity and life expectancy of the deceased, and ascertaining the extent of liability of the vehicle's owner, driver, and insurer under relevant statutory provisions. The court held that the driver's act of running a bus onto a footpath and causing instantaneous death attracted the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur, rendering the driver and owner jointly liable, while limiting the insurer's liability statutorily. The key principles laid down include the application of res ipsa loquitur in pedestrian fatalities on footpaths, the assessment of dependency compensation based on life expectancy, and the statutory limits of insurer liability under the Motor Vehicles Act and West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance.

  Questions settled

  • Does the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur apply when a vehicle goes out of control and runs over a pedestrian on a footpath?
  • Are the driver and owner of a bus jointly liable to pay compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act for a fatal accident caused by negligent driving?
  • How is the normal expectancy of life and quantum of compensation determined for the dependents in a fatal accident claim?
  • Is the defense regarding lack of notice to the insurer available to an insurance company under section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act read with the West Pakistan Motor Vehicles Ordinance?
  Read full judgment →
• Miran BUXConvict vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 678 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hayat Industries Ltd. vs The Fourth Sind, Labour Court and 21977 PLC 584 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs Beco Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Sind Labour Court No. 5 And 21977 PLC 544 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
• Messes Hayat Industries Ltd. vs The Fourth Sind Labour Court and 21977 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
• Messes H. Nizam Din & Sons Ltd., Karachi vs M. V. "Oroomee" and 41977 PLD Karachi 722 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-13
  admiralty jurisdictionbill of ladingattachment before judgmenttemporary injunctioninterlocutory reliefcarriage of goods by seabalance of convenience
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a civil suit filed by manufacturers and exporters of tents for the recovery of money for the loss of goods shipped for export to Bahrain, originally brought under the admiralty jurisdiction and later treated as a suit on the ordinary original side. Along with the plaint, an application was submitted for interlocutory relief by way of a temporary injunction to restrain the vessel from leaving the Port of Karachi and for an order requiring defendants to furnish security. The core legal question revolved around whether interim relief, including attachment before judgment, could be granted and whether the vessel sought to be attached was the property of the defendants. The court held that an attachment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure cannot be ordered unless the statutory conditions are satisfied, and crucially, only property owned by the defendants can be attached. Since it was admitted that none of the defendants owned the vessel, the court lacked jurisdiction to attach it, and the balance of convenience lay against detaining the ship. The application for interlocutory relief was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a vessel that is admittedly not the property of the defendants be attached before judgment?
  • Does a shipper retain a right of action under a bill of lading after the property in the goods has been transferred to the consignee?
  • What are the essential requirements for granting an attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Whether a temporary injunction to restrain a ship from sailing can be granted when the balance of convenience lies with the defendants and the plaintiff's claim is solely for monetary compensation?
  Read full judgment →
• Mehtab Khan vs Mir Khan and Another1977 P Cr. L J 36 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-23Read full judgment →
• Me4sr Muhammad Yousuf Iqbal Ahmed vs Ivth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 711 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-31
  constitutional petitionlabour lawsignature comparisonEvidence Actjurisdictional errorresignationremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges an order of the Sind Labour Court, which reversed a decision of the Junior Labour Court regarding the termination of an employee. The core dispute involved whether the respondent had voluntarily resigned or was illegally terminated. The Junior Labour Court had dismissed the respondent's application after comparing his admitted signatures with those on the alleged resignation letter. However, the Labour Court, on appeal, excluded this comparison from consideration, relying on foreign precedents, and ruled in favor of the respondent. The petitioner argued that the Labour Court misconstrued the scope of Section 73 of the Evidence Act. The High Court held that Section 73 empowers a court to compare signatures to establish genuineness. It determined that the Labour Court’s exclusion of this valid evidence constituted a jurisdictional error, as it ignored material evidence and led to an erroneous conclusion. Consequently, the High Court quashed the appellate order and remanded the case for a rehearing, affirming that courts may rely on their own comparison of signatures as a legitimate mode of proof.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court rely on its own comparison of signatures on a disputed document with admitted signatures under Section 73 of the Evidence Act, 1872?
  • Does the exclusion of valid evidence by a lower tribunal constitute a jurisdictional error that warrants interference by the High Court in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a court's own comparison of signatures a legally valid mode of establishing the genuineness of a document?
  Read full judgment →
• Mazhar Ali alias Majoo vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 825 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-26Read full judgment →
• Mat. Akhtari Begum and Another vs Mat. Jafri Begum (Represented by Her Hmso1977 PLD Karachi 850 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
• Mashooq vs TiE State1977 P Cr. L J 672 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-18Read full judgment →
• Maroof vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 489 · Sindh High Court · 1975-04-28Read full judgment →
• Marie Adelaide Leprosy Centreemployees Union vs Registrar of Trade1977 PLC 13 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-11Read full judgment →
• Marie Adelaide Leprosy Centre Employees Union vs Registrar of Trade1977 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-11Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Khan vs M. Munsif and Another1977 PLC 152 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Hassan vs Pakisan through Secretaly, Ministry Op Finance1977 PLD Karachi 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-26Read full judgment →
• Mandviwala Estates Ltd., Karachi vs Government of Islamic Republic1977 PLD Karachi 1057 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-23Read full judgment →
• Malook vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 481 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-14Read full judgment →
• Major Ali Hussain SIR/kJ vs Mst. Shahzadi BAKHr Shamsher and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 764 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-17Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali vs Mst. Mubina Khatoon and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 558 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-08Read full judgment →
• M. Siddique Kharal vs Pakistan through I BB Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Cabinet Secretariat, Islamabad1977 PLD Karachi 1044 · Sindh High Court · 1977-09-21Read full judgment →
• M. M. K. A. Zai, Advocate vs The State and 3 Others1977 P Cr. L J 176 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-08Read full judgment →
• M. Ameen M. Bashir Ltd. vs Haji Soomar Hail Hajjan Potoli1977 PLD Karachi 973 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-30Read full judgment →
• M Uham Mad Anwar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 82 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-11Read full judgment →
• Lutuf Ali vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 627 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
• Lipton (Pakistan) Ltd. vs Government of Sind through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Karachi and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 714 · Sindh High Court
  property taxsuo motu revisionindustrial unitcommercial propertyGross Annual Rental Valueadministrative reviewFactories Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges the reassessment of property tax for tea-blending and packing facilities, which authorities sought to reclassify from "industrial" to "commercial" to enhance the Gross Annual Rental Value (G.A.R.V.). The core legal questions concerned the Director-General's power to suo motu revise assessments, the authority to review a predecessor's orders, and the classification of tea-blending as an industrial process. The Court held that while the Director-General possesses wide suo motu revisional powers under the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, they lack the legal authority to review or revise orders passed by a predecessor. Furthermore, the Court determined that tea-blending and packing, being a manufacturing process under the Factories Act, 1934, qualifies the premises as an industrial unit, rendering the commercial classification invalid. The principle established is that administrative authorities cannot review their predecessors' decisions absent express statutory power, and property classification must align with the actual nature of the activity conducted on the premises, as defined by relevant manufacturing statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Director-General of Excise and Taxation possess the power to suo motu revise the Gross Annual Rental Value of property?
  • Does the Director-General of Excise and Taxation have the legal authority to review or revise an order passed by a predecessor?
  • Does the process of tea blending and packing qualify as a manufacturing process for the purpose of classifying premises as an industrial unit?
  • Can an assessment of Gross Annual Rental Value be amended with retrospective effect under the Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat National Hospital vs Government of Sind, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 843 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-08
  education cesscharitable hospitalnon-profit establishmentstatutory interpretationejusdem generisnoscitur a sociisbeneficial statuteconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment disposes of two constitutional petitions filed by non-profit charitable hospitals (Holy Family Hospital and Liaquat National Hospital) challenging notices and orders issued by the Excise and Taxation Department requiring them to pay education cess under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The petitioners argued that as non-profit, charitable institutions, they do not fall within the definition of 'establishment' under Section 2(b) of the Ordinance, contending that the term 'service' must be construed ejusdem generis or noscitur a sociis with business, trade, and manufacture, implying an element of profit or gain. The High Court rejected the petitioners' contention, holding that the definition of 'establishment' does not require a profit motive. Applying rules of statutory interpretation, the Court observed that the terms in the definition do not form a single genus and the ejusdem generis rule does not apply. As the Ordinance is a beneficial statute, it must be construed liberally. Furthermore, the explicit exclusion of state and municipal employees from the definition of 'worker' indicates that non-profit service providers fall within the scope of the law. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a non-profit charitable hospital falls within the definition of 'establishment' under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
  • Does the term 'service' in the definition of 'establishment' under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972 require an element of profit or gain?
  • Does the ejusdem generis rule of statutory interpretation apply to the words 'business, trade, manufacture, calling, service, employment or occupation' in Section 2(b) of the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972?
  • How should beneficial social welfare statutes be interpreted when determining liability to pay a statutory levy?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat Ali alias BilOORA vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 966 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-13Read full judgment →
• Lal Muham Mad alias Laloo vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 533 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-17Read full judgment →
• Laik and 31 Others vs Additional Chief Secretary Government of Sin D, District K Hairp Ur and 2 or H. Ens- Respondents1977 PLD Karachi 874 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 866 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Ghulam Sadique vs Najibullah KH a N1977 PLD Karachi 1073 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-29Read full judgment →
• Khalilur Rehman vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 850 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-31Read full judgment →
• Kassam vs Kassam and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 854 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-09Read full judgment →
• Karim Bux vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 108 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-09
  murdersentence mitigationlife imprisonmenteye-witnessessudden fightno premeditationrecovery
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and death sentence under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased. The prosecution's case rested on the direct testimony of five eye-witnesses, medical evidence of fatal knife injuries, and the recovery of a blood-stained knife and clothes from the appellant upon his arrest. The appellant pleaded total denial, raising no plea of self-defence despite having minor injuries. The High Court found the ocular and corroborative evidence overwhelming to sustain the conviction. However, on the question of sentence, the Court observed that the deceased and the appellant had been grappling and dragging each other for half an hour before the attack, indicating a lack of premeditation, and the genesis of the quarrel remained shrouded in mystery with no established motive. Consequently, the High Court maintained the conviction but commuted the death sentence to life imprisonment.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a death sentence can be commuted to life imprisonment if the murder was committed without premeditation during a sudden fight?
  • Does the absence of an established motive and the mystery surrounding the genesis of a quarrel constitute a mitigating circumstance for reducing a death sentence?
  • Can minor, unexplained injuries on the accused's person support a plea of self-defence in the absence of any evidence that the deceased was armed?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi.' Muhammad Azeem vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 671 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-02
  criminal appealunlicensed armsbenefit of doubtpolice witnessesindependent mashirsarms ordinance
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant under section 13-D of the Arms Ordinance for the alleged possession of an unlicensed single-barrel shot-gun and cartridges. The core legal question concerns the reliability of police testimony and the necessity of independent corroboration in the absence of public mashirs during recovery. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution case was rendered doubtful due to the sole reliance on police witnesses without producing supporting station-diary entries or independent public mashirs, particularly when enmity with a local zamindar was alleged. Consequently, the court extended the benefit of the doubt to the appellant, accepted the appeal, and set aside the conviction and sentence, laying down the principle that uncorroborated police testimony in the absence of independent witnesses in doubtful circumstances warrants acquittal.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a conviction for possession of unlicensed arms can be sustained solely on the testimony of police officers without independent public mashirs?
  • Does the failure to produce a station-diary entry proving patrol duty create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case?
  • Is the benefit of doubt to be extended when the possibility of false implication due to personal enmity is not excluded?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi) 1 Abdul Hamid vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 620 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
• Karachi Port Trust, Karachi and Others vs Sibghatulla and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 579 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Karachi Port Trust, Karachi and Another vs Sibghatulla and 2 Others1977 PLC 605 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-03Read full judgment →
• Karachi Gas Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Fancy Foundation1977 PLD Karachi 191 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-03
  temporary injunctionspecific performancebalance of conveniencelis pendensprima facie caseimmovable propertyagreement to sell
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application by the plaintiffs for a temporary injunction to restrain the defendants from transferring, alienating, or encumbering the suit property pending the decision of a suit for specific performance of an oral contract for sale. The core legal questions involve whether the plaintiffs established a strong prima facie case for specific performance despite prior correspondence indicating a willingness to accept monetary compensation, whether the contract was frustrated or uncertain regarding possession free from tenant rights, and where the balance of convenience lies. The court held that the plaintiffs failed to make out a clear prima facie case and that the balance of convenience favored the defendants, especially since the statutory doctrine of lis pendens under Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882 adequately protects the plaintiffs' interests against subsequent transfers. The key principle laid down is that temporary injunctions in specific performance suits are equitable and discretionary reliefs governed by the facts and circumstances of each case, and where adequate statutory protection exists via lis pendens, an injunction should be refused if the balance of inconvenience weighs against tying down the defendant's property, provided that equitable terms—such as depositing advance monies into court—are imposed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a plaintiff in a suit for specific performance is entitled to a temporary injunction restraining the transfer of immovable property when the statutory doctrine of lis pendens already protects their interest?
  • Does an initial willingness by a purchaser to accept monetary compensation as an alternative bar the grant of specific performance and equitable relief?
  • Where does the balance of convenience lie when a vendor is restrained from dealing with property for which a substantial advance was paid versus the prejudice caused by tying down the property during protracted litigation?
  • Whether a court can impose equitable terms requiring the deposit of advance consideration in court as a condition for vacating an ad interim injunction in a suit for specific performance?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Muhammad Umar vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 735 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-02Read full judgment →
• Karachi Dock Labour Board vs Province of Sind and Others1977 PLD Karachi 361 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-17Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority, Karachi Applicant vs N-43 Hells TM1977 PLD Karachi 101 · Sindh High Court · 1076-10-21Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Province of Sind through the Secretary, Excise & Taxation DkPARTMENT, Karachi and 4 OTHERs1977 PLD Karachi 152 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-02
  local authorityeducation cessstatutory bodylocal fundWorkers' Children (Education) OrdinanceKarachi Development Authoritytax exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition was filed by the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) to challenge the levy of education cess imposed upon it under the Workers' Children (Education) Ordinance, 1972. The core legal question was whether the KDA qualifies as a 'local authority' under the Ordinance, which would exempt its employees from the cess. The Court examined the definition of 'local authority' under the General Clauses Act, 1897, and relevant judicial precedents, noting that a local authority is an entity entrusted with the administration of a local fund and exercising powers delegated by the Province. Upon reviewing the Karachi Development Authority Order, 1957, the Court held that the KDA performs municipal functions, manages a local fund as defined in the Treasury Rules, and operates under government control, thus fulfilling the essential characteristics of a local authority. The Court rejected the argument that the KDA's specific inclusion as a local authority in the Land Acquisition Act, 1894, implied it was not one generally. Consequently, the Court held that the KDA is a local authority and exempt from the education cess.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Karachi Development Authority qualify as a 'local authority' under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  • What are the essential characteristics of a 'local authority' in the context of statutory interpretation?
  • Does the definition of 'local fund' in the Treasury Rules apply to the funds administered by the Karachi Development Authority?
  • Does the specific inclusion of an entity as a 'local authority' in one statute preclude it from being considered a 'local authority' under the General Clauses Act, 1897?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Province of Sind through THB1977 PLC 251 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-02Read full judgment →
• Karachi Abdul Ohapfar vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 119 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
• Karachi Abdul Majeed vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 991 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-17Read full judgment →
• Kanayalal vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 675 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-05Read full judgment →
• Kala Khan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 292 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-15Read full judgment →
• Junab Gul and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 328(2) · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• Janoo Jan Muhammad and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 776 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
• Jan Textile Mills, Karachi vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 21977 PLD Karachi 836 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad and 4 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1012 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-12Read full judgment →
• Jan Mueiammad vs Hassan and 4 Others1977 PLD Karachi 708 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• Jamil Ahmed vs Sayed Muhammad Ali and Another1977 PLD Karachi 901 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-21Read full judgment →
• Jamalan vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 73 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
• Jamal vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 818 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• Jalal and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 286 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-02Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ali vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 145 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-23Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmed vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 232 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-07Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ahmad vs Second Additional District Judge, Sukkur and 21977 PLD Karachi 733 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-14Read full judgment →
• Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan, Karachi vs Messrs Aamir1977 PLD Karachi 1000 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-09Read full judgment →
• Inayat vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 170 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-20Read full judgment →
• Inayat Ali vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 43 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-10Read full judgment →
• Inamur Rehman vs Federation of Pakistan and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 524 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-06
  repatriated foreign exchangevalidating legislationretrospective legislationlachesacquiescenceconstitutional jurisdictionlegislative competenceseparation of powers
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the legality of directions issued by the State Bank of Pakistan requiring banks to deposit funds held by the petitioner, representing repatriated foreign exchange proceeds, into the State Bank under the Foreign Exchange (Prevention of Payments) Act, 1972. The petitioner contended that the Act was unconstitutional, discriminatory, and violated the separation of powers, while also arguing that the legislation lacked legislative competence and could not be applied retrospectively. The Court held that the Federal Legislature acted within its constitutional competence, and the legislation was not discriminatory. It affirmed that the Legislature possesses plenary power to enact laws with retrospective effect and to cure legal defects through validating legislation. Furthermore, the Court determined that the petition was barred by laches and the petitioner’s acquiescence in the impugned directions. Additionally, the petitioner’s suppression of material facts regarding his own request for the reversal of entries disentitled him to discretionary constitutional relief. The petition was dismissed, establishing that curative legislation is a valid exercise of legislative power and that constitutional remedies are unavailable to those who acquiesce or suppress facts.

  Questions settled

  • Can the Federal Legislature enact laws with retrospective effect to validate previous actions?
  • Does the doctrine of separation of powers preclude the Legislature from enacting laws that divert judicial determination to non-judicial forums?
  • Does the suppression of material facts and acquiescence in an impugned order disentitle a petitioner from seeking relief under constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Is a statute invalid merely because it applies to a single person or class of persons?
  Read full judgment →
• In re t the Estate of Late Quaid-I-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinna H vs Not1977 PLD Karachi 178 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-28Read full judgment →
• Imam Ali Shah and Other vs Ahmad Shah and Other1977 PLD Karachi 688 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-09Read full judgment →
• Ilahi Bux and 3 Others vs The Deputy Commissioner, Sukkur and 31977 PLD Karachi 825 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-29Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-21Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs Mansoor Ali and 5 Others1977 PLD Karachi 8 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-12
  administration suitjoinder of partiesnecessary partyproper partylegateewillpreliminary decree
  Summary & questions settled

  This order of the Sindh High Court addresses an application under Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 by an intervener seeking to be joined as a defendant in an administration suit concerning the estate of late Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah. The applicant asserted that he was a beneficiary/legatee under an alleged last will of the deceased. The fifth defendant opposed the application, pointing out that an earlier succession certificate proceeding had already found that no valid will existed, and arguing that the applicant's inclusion would improperly alter the scope of the suit and cause delay.

  The High Court dismissed the application. Interpreting Order I Rule 10(2) alongside Order XX Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the Court held that while a legatee or creditor may file an administration suit, they are not necessary parties to an administration suit brought by next-of-kin. The statutory scheme permits monetary legatees and creditors to prove their claims following the preliminary decree, confirming that their presence is not required at the initial stage to pass an effective decree.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a legatee claiming under an alleged will is a necessary party to an administration suit instituted by the next-of-kin?
  • Can monetary creditors and legatees submit and prove their claims after the preliminary decree in an administration suit without being impleaded as original parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain vs Mansoor Ali and 5 Other1977 PLD Karachi 320 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-22
  administration suitShia law of inheritanceSunni law of inheritancesectarian beliefspresumption of Sunnismpersonal lawsuccession certificate
  Summary & questions settled

  This administration suit was filed by the grandson of the paternal uncle of the late Mohtarma Fatima Jinnah, seeking a decree for administration, accounts, and partition of her estate. The plaintiff claimed that the deceased practiced the Sunni/Hanafi faith, making the plaintiff and defendants Nos. 1 to 4 residuary heirs entitled to a share under Sunni law. Conversely, the contesting defendant (the deceased's surviving sister) asserted that the deceased was an Asna-Asharia Shia Muslim, making her the sole heir under Shia law. The core legal question was whether the deceased's succession was governed by Sunni or Shia personal law, and whether a Muslim declaring themselves 'only a Muslim' could be governed by a direct interpretation of the Qur'an free from sectarian jurisprudence. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the suit, holding that the preponderance of evidence, including the deceased's own past legal declarations and her Shia funeral rites, established she was governed by Shia law. The Court further ruled that under Section 2 of the West Pakistan Muslim Personal Law (Shariat) Application Act 1962, courts must apply established sectarian laws and cannot formulate a new, non-sectarian system of personal law.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the initial presumption of fact that a Muslim in Pakistan is a Sunni Hanafi applies when full evidence regarding sectarian beliefs has been led by the parties?
  • Can a court directly interpret the text of the Holy Qur'an to evolve a new, non-sectarian system of inheritance for a deceased Muslim who declared themselves to be 'only a Muslim'?
  • Does the manner in which public funeral prayers are conducted conclusively establish the sectarian faith of a deceased person for the purposes of inheritance?
  • Is a suit for administration maintainable by a next of kin whose status as an heir is disputed by other claimants prior to the filing of the suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bux and 3 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 261 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-09Read full judgment →
• Hussain Bakhsh and Others vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 293 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-09Read full judgment →
• Humayoon/ vs Noor Muhammad Khokhar and Anothm1977 P Cr. L J 539 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →