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.

• Hoot Khan and 6 Others vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-03
  NIRCunfair labour practicedouble jeopardyindustrial relationsjurisdictiontrade unionconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition called in question the validity of proceedings and conviction of the petitioners by the National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC) under section 16(1)(d) read with section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal questions involved whether the NIRC had jurisdiction over a union pertaining to a single mill, whether a private complaint without authorization from the Registrar of Trade Unions was maintainable, and whether the prosecution violated the double jeopardy protection under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973, given a prior withdrawn police challan before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate under the Pakistan Penal Code. The Sindh High Court held that the NIRC possessed jurisdiction under the amended statute, that complaints are not exclusively restricted to the Registrar, and that the ingredients of the offences before the Magistrate and the NIRC were distinct, meaning the bar against double jeopardy was not attracted. The petition was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the National Industrial Relations Commission has jurisdiction to try offences relating to a Trade Union pertaining to a single mill under section 53 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  • Is a complaint before the National Industrial Relations Commission maintainable when filed by a private individual without prior authorization from the Registrar of Trade Unions?
  • Does the constitutional bar against double jeopardy under Article 13(a) of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 apply when a subsequent prosecution arises from the same incident but involves entirely different legal ingredients and statutory offences than a prior proceeding?
  Read full judgment →
• Hoot Khan and 6 Other vs National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad and 2 Others1977 PLC 244 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-03Read full judgment →
• Honest Trading Co., Karachi vs Mst. Muhammad Nisa1977 PLD Karachi 80 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-07Read full judgment →
• Hero vs Hanif and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 943 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-31Read full judgment →
• Hashim vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 215 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-25Read full judgment →
• Hakeem Moulvi Sirajuddin vs The Tribunal & S. D. M., Larkana and Another1977 P Cr. L J 724 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• Haji vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 655 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Sharif Khan and Another vs Raja Abdur Rehman and 6 Others1977 PLD Karachi 814 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-22
  share transfertemporary injunctionbalance of convenienceduress and coercionminor directorsCompanies Actprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a dispute over the transfer of shares and control of a private limited company, Khawaja Autocars Limited. The plaintiffs, former directors and shareholders, sought a declaration that an agreement transferring their shares to the defendants was void, alleging it was obtained through duress, coercion, and threat. They also challenged the appointment of minor defendants as directors and the validity of the transfer process under the Companies Act, 1913. The defendants contended the transfer was voluntary, part of a prior arrangement to resolve internal management disputes, and that substantial consideration was paid. The Court held that while the plaintiffs raised arguable questions regarding the validity of the share transfer under Section 34 of the Companies Act, 1913, and the legality of appointing minors as directors, the balance of convenience did not favor granting a temporary injunction to restore the plaintiffs to management. The Court emphasized that injunctions require more than a prima facie case; they require consideration of irreparable loss and balance of convenience. Consequently, the Court refused to restore the plaintiffs but imposed conditions on the defendants to maintain accounts and prohibited further changes to the Board of Directors.

  Questions settled

  • Can a minor be appointed as a director of a company under the Companies Act, 1913?
  • Does the failure to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 34 of the Companies Act, 1913, render a share transfer ineffective?
  • Is a prima facie case sufficient to grant a temporary injunction, or must the court also consider the balance of convenience and irreparable loss?
  • Can a party to a contract who alleges it was obtained through fraud or coercion seek a declaration of invalidity while having already accepted the consideration?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Ali vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 289 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-14Read full judgment →
• Haji Hasham Haji Ahmed & Bros. vs Messrs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 480 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-23
  arbitration agreementinstallment contractrescission of contractapprobate and reprobatesplitting of claimssuccessive arbitrationssale of goods
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an application under section 33 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, wherein applicants sought a declaration that the arbitration agreement between them and respondents, dated 29-3-1968, has ceased to have effect and is inoperative regarding a subsequent claim. The core legal questions involved whether a single contract with installment deliveries can be split into multiple successive arbitrations, and whether the respondents, having successfully taken the plea in a prior arbitration that the contract was terminated on 1-1-1969, were estopped from later invoking the arbitration clause for a subsequent period. The Sindh High Court held that while installment contracts can theoretically give rise to severable breaches and successive arbitrations, a party cannot approbate and reprobate by taking inconsistent stances; having maintained in the first arbitration that the contract was terminated on 1-1-1969, the respondents were estopped from asserting that the contract remained alive for the fourth shipping period. Consequently, they could not split their claim. The court allowed the application, declaring the arbitration agreement inoperative as to the newly raised dispute.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration agreement get exhausted after a single arbitration reference under a contract?
  • Can a party that successfully claimed in prior proceedings that a contract was terminated on a specific date later initiate a fresh arbitration on the premise that the contract remained alive?
  • Does a breach of an installment contract regarding one or more installments ipso facto result in the repudiation of the whole contract?
  • Are parties permitted to split their claims arising out of the same cause of action into successive arbitrations?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajee Imdad Hussain vs Commissioner, Sukkur Division, Sukkur and Another1977 P Cr. L J 755 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• Hadi Bux vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 1 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-21Read full judgment →
• Habibijr Rahman vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-07Read full judgment →
• Gul vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 1019 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-30
  murdercriminal appealocular testimonyinterested witnesseschemical examiner reportadmissibility of evidencebenefit of doubtblood-stained recoveries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment handed down by the Additional Sessions Judge, Hyderabad, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of Taj Muhammad. The core legal question centered on whether the prosecution had established the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt based on ocular testimony, corroborative evidence of recoveries, and a motive rooted in prior blood feud. The Sindh High Court held that the ocular testimony of interested witnesses required strong corroboration, which was lacking because the chemical examiner's report was an unproved, attested copy and thus inadmissible under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Consequently, the prosecution failed to prove that the blood-stains recovered from the appellant's clothes and weapon were of human origin. The court laid down the principle that an attested copy of a chemical examiner's report is inadmissible under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 unless the original is duly proved to be lost and the copy is properly proved, as the statute mandates the original report bearing the personal signature of the examining officer.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an attested copy of a chemical examiner's report is admissible in evidence under section 510 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without proof of the loss of the original report?
  • Can the uncorroborated ocular testimony of interested and related witnesses sustain a murder conviction where material contradictions exist?
  • What constitutes legal proof of a chemical examiner's report under criminal procedure law?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Bahar and 7 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1097 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-20Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan vs Syed Zainul Ebad Rizvi1977 PLD Karachi 297 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-26
  limitation periodacknowledgment of liabilityburden of proofcivil contractmeasurement booksfirst appealpleading exemption
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal challenged a civil court decree awarding partial payment to a contractor for construction work in the former State of Khairpur. The core legal questions concerned whether the suit was time-barred under the Limitation Act 1908, whether the plaintiff failed to plead exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, and whether the plaintiff sufficiently proved the work performed. The Court held that while the suit was not time-barred due to various government letters constituting an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908, the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proof regarding the actual completion of the work. The Court emphasized that judicial conclusions cannot rest on presumptions or the S.D.O.'s unverified comments when primary evidence, such as measurement books, was available but not produced. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's decree and dismissed the suit, establishing that a plaintiff must provide clear, cogent evidence to substantiate claims for payment, rather than relying on conjectural findings.

  Questions settled

  • Does an acknowledgment of accountability in government correspondence constitute an acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act 1908?
  • Can an appellate court entertain an objection regarding the failure to plead exemption from limitation under Order VII Rule 6 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 if the evidence was admitted without objection at the trial stage?
  • Is a plaintiff entitled to a decree for contract payments based on presumptions when primary evidence, such as measurement books, is available but not produced?
  Read full judgment →
• Glaxo Laboratories Ltd. England vs Assistant Registrar, Trade Marks, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 858 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-30
  trade mark oppositiondeceptive similaritypharmaceutical productslikelihood of confusioncomparison of word marksprior usertrade mark registration
  Summary & questions settled

  This is an appeal under section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1949, challenging the decision of the Assistant Registrar of Trade Marks dismissing the appellant's opposition and allowing the registration of respondent No. 2's trade mark 'Vistamycin' in Class 5 for antibiotics. The core legal question is whether the proposed trade mark 'Vistamycin' so nearly resembles the appellant's prior registered trade mark 'Crystamycin' as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion under sections 8(a) and 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. The Sindh High Court held that the Assistant Registrar erred by improperly breaking up the word marks and failing to compare them as wholes. The Court found that both marks share a common suffix and similar four-syllable structures, creating a high likelihood of deception and confusion among consumers and medical practitioners, especially considering local buying habits and illegible prescriptions. The appeal was allowed, the Assistant Registrar's decision was set aside, and the trade mark application was refused registration, establishing that word marks must be compared as wholes rather than dissecting common elements.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the trade mark 'Vistamycin' so nearly resembles the registered trade mark 'Crystamycin' as to be likely to deceive or cause confusion under section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  • Should competing word marks be compared as wholes or by dissecting them into prefixes and suffixes?
  • What is the scope and distinction of the enquiry regarding the likelihood of confusion between section 8(a) and section 10(1) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940?
  Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 1103 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-14Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Qadir and 2 Others vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-16Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Dastgir vs Special Tribunal, Sind and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 440 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-28Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Ali Shah vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 185 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-26Read full judgment →
• Gharibul Hassan and 2 Others vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 315 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-26Read full judgment →
• Gasper Periera vs MRS. Jennifer Periera and Another1977 P Cr. L J 307 · Sindh High Court · 1976-08-24Read full judgment →
• Fazal vs Abdul Hussain and 6 another1977 PLD Karachi 772 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-17Read full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 706 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-25Read full judgment →
• Exxon Corporation, New York, U. S. A. vs Registrar of Trade Marks, Government of Pakistan, Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 781 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-28Read full judgment →
• Esso Pakistan Fertilizer Co. Ltd., Karchi vs Bashir Ahmad and Another1977 PLD Karachi 922 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-23Read full judgment →
• Employees Union vs Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd., Karachi and araomart1977 PLD Karachi 790 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
• Employees Union vs Pakistan Security Printing Corporation Ltd., Karachi and Another1977 PLC 590 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
• Eastern Express Co. Ltd. vs Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 168 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-04Read full judgment →
• Din Muhammad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 37 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-27Read full judgment →
• Dharani Enterprises, Karachi vs WSW the Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 415 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dawooi) Foundation vs Director-General, Excise & Taxation, Sin D, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 120 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Dhani Bakhsh and 3 Others vs Usman and 2 Other1977 P Cr. L J 116 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-23Read full judgment →
• Custodian of Enemy Property, Islamabad vs Hoshang M. Dastur and 61977 PLD Karachi 377 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-11
  specific performanceoption to purchaseenemy propertyLetters Patent Appealres judicatalimitationconcluded contractlease
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arises from a judgment and decree of a learned Single Judge decreeing a suit for specific performance of a contract for lease with an option to purchase, along with damages. The property in question originally belonged to an owner who became an enemy alien during the 1965 Indo-Pakistan war, vesting the property in the Custodian of Enemy Property. The plaintiffs (Dasturs) had acquired a cinema business and leasehold rights, which led to a tripartite arrangement embodied in a letter dated 30th August 1956, granting a 25-year lease and an option to purchase. The appellant challenged the decree on grounds of limitation, lack of a concluded contract, res judicata, alleged breaches by the plaintiffs, statutory bar under the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965, and the award of damages. The Sindh High Court held that the suit was within time, a binding and concluded contract existed, the prior litigation did not operate as res judicata on the core contract, the option to purchase was an independent covenant unaffected by alleged lease defaults, execution was legally permissible through court officers despite custody, and the damages awarded were reasonable. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a suit for specific performance of a lease contract is barred under Article 113 of the Limitation Act 1908 when the defendant has not made a clear, unequivocal, and unconditional refusal to perform?
  • Whether an option to purchase contained in the same document as a lease agreement constitutes an independent and separate contract whose enforcement is unaffected by alleged breaches of the lease covenants?
  • Whether a decree for specific performance against enemy property vested in the Custodian is incapable of execution in view of clause 5 of the Enemy Property (Custody and Registration) Order, 1965?
  • Whether an implied finding based on an admission or agreement in a former suit operates as constructive res judicata in a subsequent suit between the same parties?
  Read full judgment →
• Crescent Pak Industries Lid., Karachi vs Government of Pakistan1977 PLD Karachi 1035 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-08Read full judgment →
• Corning Glass (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Karachi Gas Co. Ltd., Karachi1977 PLD Karachi 1068 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-17Read full judgment →
• Ch. Inayat Masih vs Shafi and Another1977 P Cr. L J 714 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-13Read full judgment →
• Capt. Muhammad Yunus vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 970 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-16Read full judgment →
• Canteen Stores Department, Karachi vs Sind Labour Court No. v And 21977 PLC 421 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
• Canteen Stores Department, Karachi vs Sind Labour Court No, v And 21977 PLD Karachi 314 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-15Read full judgment →
• Butt Engineering Industries vs Sind Labour Court No. 1, Karachi and Another1977 PLD Karachi 166 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-05Read full judgment →
• Beco Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Sind Labour Court No, 5 and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 799 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-14Read full judgment →
• Baradi vs Khairoo and Another1977 P Cr. L J 17 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-17Read full judgment →
• Bagh-E-Shah vs Sh. Muhammad Akhtar Hussain1977 PLD Karachi 460 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-01
  landlord and tenantundisclosed principalejectmentpersonal requirementurban rent restrictionpreliminary issueratification
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a second appeal arising from rent restriction proceedings where the appellant-tenant challenged an order of ejectment passed against him by the Rent Controller and affirmed by the Appellate Authority. The core legal questions involved whether an owner of a property can maintain an ejectment application as a 'landlord' when the tenancy agreement was executed by an agent without disclosing the principal, and whether the non-framing of a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant vitiated the proceedings. The court held that an undisclosed principal or real owner can enforce the tenancy contract and act as a landlord to seek ejectment, as the statutory definition of landlord encompasses persons entitled to receive rent on behalf of another, and principles of agency and ratification apply. Furthermore, the failure to frame a preliminary issue does not vitiate proceedings if necessary facts are already on record and no prejudice is caused. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Can the real owner of a property maintain an ejectment application as a landlord when the tenancy agreement was executed by an agent without disclosing the principal?
  • Does the failure of a Rent Controller to frame a preliminary issue regarding the relationship of landlord and tenant automatically vitiate the eviction proceedings?
  • Can there be multiple landlords in respect of the same premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959?
  • Whether subsequent ratification by the principal validates a tenancy agreement initially entered into by an agent without express permission?
  Read full judgment →
• Azimullah Shah and 2 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 333 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-22Read full judgment →
• Azim and Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 699 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-01Read full judgment →
• Azad Pakistan Goods Transport Co. Karachi vs Karachi Municipal1977 PLD Karachi 1076 · Sindh High Court · 1977-08-06Read full judgment →
• Asohar Ali vs Abdul Hussain and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 280 · Sindh High Court · 1974-07-08
  appointment of receiverdissolution of partnershippartnership at willaccountspartnership deedinterim reliefjust and convenient
  Summary & questions settled

  This order arises out of an application for the appointment of a receiver in a suit for dissolution of partnership and accounts among five brothers sharing profits and losses equally. The defendants contested the application, alleging that one partner had not signed the partnership deed, that the partnership was not at 'will' due to a clause requiring three months' notice for termination, and that the plaintiff was guilty of embezzlement. The Sindh High Court held that a partnership can exist even without a written agreement and that the partnership was carried on by conduct. Regarding the termination clause, the Court observed that even if it regulated the mode of withdrawal, it did not disentitle the plaintiff from seeking dissolution, accounts, and protective interim relief. Finding the allegations of embezzlement unproven on a prima facie basis and relying on a similar order passed in a previous suit between the same parties, the Court held it 'just and convenient' to appoint a receiver to protect the partnership assets.

  Questions settled

  • Can a valid partnership exist and be enforced in law without a written partnership agreement?
  • Does a clause in a partnership deed requiring prior notice of withdrawal prevent a partner from seeking the appointment of a receiver in a suit for dissolution and accounts?
  • Whether the court can appoint a receiver in a dissolution suit to protect the joint assets of partners when allegations of misconduct are not prima facie established?
  Read full judgment →
• Asloob Elahi vs Mst. Maimoona Bibi1977 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-19
  ejectmentlandlord and tenantbona fide personal useownership disputeconcurrent findingssecond appealdefault in rent
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from an ejectment application filed by the respondent landlady against the appellant tenant for default in payment of rent, bona fide personal use, nuisance, and demolition. The Rent Controller ordered ejectment solely on the ground of bona fide personal use, which decision was upheld by the first appellate court. In the second appeal, the appellant contested the respondent's ownership and landlady status based on discrepancies in the K.D.A. allotment order, and challenged the concurrent findings regarding personal use. The High Court held that minor discrepancies in administrative allotment documents do not negate ownership when the tenant admits occupying the premises and the landlord's title is established, and further held that concurrent findings of fact regarding bona fide personal requirement cannot be disturbed in second appeal. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, granting the appellant four months to vacate the premises.

  Questions settled

  • Whether minor discrepancies in an allotment document regarding the extent of property negate the established relationship of landlady and tenant?
  • Can concurrent findings of fact by the lower courts regarding bona fide personal requirement be disturbed in a second appeal?
  • Is a notice under section 13(A) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959 required when ejectment is also sought on the ground of non-payment of rent?
  Read full judgment →
• Ashique Hussain vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 668 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-23Read full judgment →
• Ashiq Ali vs Administrator, Peoples Town Committee, Moro and 21977 PLD Karachi 1025 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-29Read full judgment →
• Asgliar Ali vs Abdul Hussain and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-01Read full judgment →
• Arsa La Khan vs District Magistrate (South) & Tribunal, Karachi1977 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-14
  Sind Crimes Control Actconstitutional petitionpreventive detentionpolice reportprocedural compliancedue process
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the petitioner by the District Magistrate under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. The core legal question was whether the police report, which formed the basis of the Tribunal's proceedings, satisfied the mandatory procedural requirements of the Act. The petitioner argued that the report lacked essential particulars regarding the time, place, and nature of the alleged acts, and failed to provide necessary documentation like FIRs or specific complaints. The Court held that the proceedings were initiated without lawful authority because the police report failed to comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 5 and 6 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975. Specifically, the report lacked the requisite particulars of the alleged acts and was not accompanied by supporting evidence. Consequently, the Court quashed the proceedings. The judgment establishes the principle that proceedings under the Act are invalid if the initiating report fails to provide specific, documented particulars of the allegations, thereby denying the accused the ability to understand the case against them.

  Questions settled

  • Does a police report under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, require specific particulars of time and place for alleged acts to be valid?
  • Can proceedings be initiated under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, without the production of FIRs or supporting complaints?
  • Does a conviction under Section 294, Pakistan Penal Code 1860, automatically fall within the ambit of Section 14 of the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975?
  Read full judgment →
• Anjuman Lashkarehussaini, Karachi vs Tiie State and 7 Others1977 P Cr. L J 211 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-12Read full judgment →
• Anis Ahmad vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 650 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-15Read full judgment →
• Amin Shah vs Tim State1977 P Cr. L J 631 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-20Read full judgment →
• Aman vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 199 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-26Read full judgment →
• Alt Nawaz vs The State and 2 Gibers1977 P Cr. L J 956 · Sindh High Court · 1977-06-01Read full judgment →
• Allied Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs VITd Sind Labour Court, Hyderabad1977 PLD Karachi 428 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-25Read full judgment →
• Alliance Insurance Co. Ltd. vs Buriorjee & Co., Karachi and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 765 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-28
  service of summonsshipping agentforeign companyrecognized agentcustoms agentcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two connected suits for the recovery of damages for short delivery and cargo damage against foreign shipowners, charterers, and carriers, where the central legal question is whether the service of summons effected upon the local shipping agents of foreign defendants constitutes good service in law. The court examined the scope of agency under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 and statutory duties under the Customs Act 1969. The holding of the court is that service of summons on a local shipping agent does not constitute valid service on foreign principals under Order V, rules 12, 13, or 25 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, unless the agent holds an explicit appointment in writing or a power of attorney to accept service or conduct business as a recognized agent. The court laid down the principle that a shipping agent performing statutory licensing duties under the Customs Act for various clients acts in their own name and does not possess an implied authority or independent discretionary power to receive legal process on behalf of foreign principals, necessitating direct service abroad under Order V, rule 25.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the service of summons effected on the local shipping agent of a foreign vessel owner, charterer, or carrier constitutes good service in law under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Does a petition under rule 15 of the former Sind Chief Court Rules require support by an affidavit as an interlocutory application under rule 74?
  • Must the appointment of a recognized agent for accepting service of process be made by an instrument in writing?
  • Can a shipping agent licensed under the Customs Act 1969 be considered an agent carrying on business for a foreign principal so as to bind them for service of summons under Order V rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhio Khan vs Mohkmuddin and 2 Others1977 P Cr. L J 14 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-04Read full judgment →
• Alim Khan vs Muhammad Yasin Khan1977 PLD Karachi 308 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-13Read full judgment →
• ALIConvict vs The STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 136 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-12Read full judgment →
• Ali Muhammad and 6 Others vs Secretary, Board of Revenue, Sind, Hyderabad and 9 Others1977 PLD Karachi 747 · Sindh High Court
  rejection of plaintcivil court jurisdictionland reforms regulationmartial law regulationinterim injunctionbar of jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This first appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the Additional District Judge, Jacobabad, rejecting the appellants' plaint under Order VII, Rule 11(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 on the ground that the civil court lacked jurisdiction to entertain the suit. The appellants had challenged partition and allotment orders made by the Land Commission regarding agricultural lands resumed under Martial Law Regulation No. 64 (West Pakistan Land Reforms Regulation, 1959), and sought declarations of entitlement and injunctions. The core legal questions involved whether the civil court had jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging actions and allotments under the Land Reforms Regulations, and whether a court can reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 without a formal application from the defendant. The Sindh High Court held that the civil court's jurisdiction was expressly barred by paragraph 27 of Martial Law Regulation No. 64 and that the grant of resumed land fell within the exclusive domain of the authorities. Furthermore, the court held that it is the inherent, mandatory duty of the court to examine a plaint and reject it under Order VII, Rule 11 if barred by law, even without an application or notice from the opposite party. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does a civil court have jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging partition and allotment orders made by the Land Commission under Martial Law Regulation No. 64?
  • Can a court reject a plaint under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without a formal application or notice from the defendant?
  • Is the exclusive authority to grant resumed land to tenants vested in the Government rather than the civil courts under the Land Reforms Regulations?
  • What is the inherent duty of a court regarding the examination of a plaint to determine if it is barred by law?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Hussain vs Karachi Municipal Corporation and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 601 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-03Read full judgment →
• Al-Nawazish Commercial Corporation, Karachi vs Messrs Commerce1977 PLD Karachi 369 · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-14Read full judgment →
• Akram vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 434 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-26Read full judgment →
• Akhlaq Ahmed vs The STATEOpponent1977 P Cr. L J 196 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
• Ahsan Moquim Ansari and 6 Others vs Mst. Asghari Begum Ansari1977 PLD Karachi 551 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-31Read full judgment →
• Ahmed vs Mst. Hawa Bai1977 PLD Karachi 840 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-02Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Mastoo and 2 Others vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 354 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-27Read full judgment →
• Ahmad Bux and 6 Others vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 921 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-03Read full judgment →
• Ahmad and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 662 · Sindh High Court · 1977-02-21
  murderdeath sentence confirmationinterested witnesseschance witnessbenefit of doubtcorroborationcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and death sentence of two appellants under section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as handed down by the Sessions Court. The prosecution alleged that the appellants brutally murdered the deceased by severing his head and inflicting multiple incised wounds. The core legal questions involved the reliability of interested and chance eye-witnesses, the necessity of independent corroboration, and the evaluation of circumstantial evidence in a murder trial. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of the alleged eye-witnesses suffered from major contradictions and discrepancies, making them unreliable. Furthermore, the recovery mashirs were closely related to the complainant, failing to provide independent and trustworthy corroboration. Finding the prosecution's case unproven beyond a reasonable doubt, the court set aside the conviction and sentences, giving the appellants the benefit of the doubt, and declined to confirm the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the testimony of related and chance witnesses can be relied upon without independent corroboration in a capital case?
  • Can a conviction for murder be sustained when the recovery mashirs are closely related to the complainant and lack independence?
  • Is an accused entitled to the benefit of doubt when material contradictions and discrepancies riddle the prosecution's eyewitness accounts?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Ahmed and Another vs Tee State1977 P Cr. L J 950 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-17Read full judgment →
• Afzal Stores vs Sind Labour Court No. 5, Karachi And 4 Others1977 P LC 587 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-06Read full judgment →
• Afzal Stores vs Sind Labour Court No, 5, Karachi and 4 Others1977 PLD Karachi 756 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-05
  industrial relationsrepresentation of partiescollective bargaining agentworkman representationstatutory interpretation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenges orders passed by the Junior Labour Court and the Sindh Labour Court regarding the representation of workmen under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969. The core legal question was whether Section 49(1) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 restricts a workman's representation exclusively to an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent, or whether a workman may be represented by any other duly authorised person. The Sindh High Court dismissed the petition, holding that the words 'shall be entitled to be represented' confer a statutory right upon a workman to be represented by an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent but do not exclude representation through another duly authorised person. The Court laid down the principle that statutory provisions granting a right of representation should be interpreted according to their plain and natural meaning without reading in exclusive or restrictive bars unless explicitly provided by the legislature, thereby avoiding absurdities or leaving workmen remediless in the absence of a Collective Bargaining Agent.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 restricts a workman's representation exclusively to an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
  • Can a workman be represented in proceedings under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 by a person other than an officer of a Collective Bargaining Agent?
  • What is the legal effect and interpretation of the phrase 'shall be entitled to be represented' under Section 49 of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
  Read full judgment →
• Abu Bakar vs Government of Sind and 3 Others1977 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1976-12-20Read full judgment →
• Adam vs Tde State1977 P Cr. L J 1107 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-28Read full judgment →
• Abdull vs Excise and Taxation Officer,F. & G. Division, Karachi and 21977 PLD Karachi 702 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 256 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Shakoor and Another vs Tile State1977 P Cr. L J 741 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 788 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Saeed vs The State and Another1971 P Cr. L J 952 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-23Read full judgment →
• Abdul Razzaq and Another vs The State and Another1977 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1976-07-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Rauf vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 268 · Sindh High Court · 1976-11-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul QAYYUMAppeliant vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 980 · Sindh High Court · 1977-07-19Read full judgment →
• Abdul Naeem vs Abdul Shakoor and Another1977 PLD Karachi 750 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Majeed vs The State1977 PLD Karachi 760 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-24
  hostile witnesssection 288 CrPCjudicial confessionmurder convictionappreciation of evidenceretracted testimonycriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife, sentenced to life imprisonment under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The prosecution alleged the appellant killed his wife following a domestic dispute over meals. At trial, the primary eye-witnesses retracted their earlier statements given during the committal proceedings, prompting the prosecution to transfer those statements to the trial record under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The core legal question was whether a conviction could be sustained based solely on evidence transferred under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when witnesses turn hostile at trial. The Court held that while such evidence requires careful scrutiny, it may form the basis of a conviction if the witnesses are found to have retracted their testimony due to social pressure or bias rather than lack of truthfulness. The Court affirmed the conviction, establishing that where eye-witnesses have no motive for false implication and their earlier depositions are credible, their subsequent retraction at trial does not preclude reliance on their prior statements.

  Questions settled

  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the basis of statements transferred to the record under section 288 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Does a delay in recording a judicial confession render it inadmissible or devoid of evidentiary value?
  • What is the legal status of the contents of a First Information Report in relation to substantive evidence at trial?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khalique vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 649 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-22Read full judgment →
• Abdul Khaliq and Another vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 614 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-30Read full judgment →
• Abdul KARIMConvict vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 5 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-18Read full judgment →
• Abdul Karim vs Secretary, Government of Sind and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 802 · Sindh High Court · 1977-04-07Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hamid vs Sub-Divisional Magistrate City & Tribunal, Hyderabad1977 PLD Karachi 575 · Sindh High Court · 1977-03-01
  Sind Crimes Control Act 1975constitutional petitionquashing of proceedingsexcess of jurisdictionnon-bailable warrantmandatory provisionsalternative remedy
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged proceedings initiated against the petitioner under the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975 pursuant to a police report. The report alleged general misconduct and cited two past criminal cases involving the petitioner: one under Section 294 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, and another under Section 13(d) of the West Pakistan Arms Ordinance, 1965, both of which had resulted in his discharge.

  The High Court held that the Sind Crimes Control Act, 1975, being a special law affecting citizen liberty, must be strictly construed and complied with. It observed that the single instance under the Arms Ordinance (involving a knife) and the past charge under Section 294 PPC did not fall within any clause of Section 14 of the Act. Additionally, the Tribunal failed to comply with the mandatory requirement of recording the substance of the report under Section 5 before issuing a warrant. Consequently, the assumption of jurisdiction was based on a clear misreading of law. The proceedings and non-bailable warrant were quashed as being without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Whether proceedings under the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 can be initiated based on past cases that do not fall within the scope of Section 14 of the Act?
  • Is the requirement under Section 5 of the Sind Crimes Control Act 1975 to record the substance of the police report before issuing a warrant mandatory?
  • Can a constitutional petition be entertained directly in the High Court without exhausting statutory remedies when the tribunal acts completely without jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghani vs Kandero and Another1977 P Cr. L J 135 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-12
  quashment of proceedingscriminal breach of trustcheatingcivil liabilityrecovery of moneyentrustmentcontractual dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal miscellaneous application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 was filed before the Sindh High Court seeking the quashment of criminal proceedings pending under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that he handed over two buffaloes to the applicant to sell at Karachi and remit the sale proceeds, but after selling them, the applicant failed and eventually refused to pay the agreed amount of Rs. 3,500. The core legal question was whether the failure to remit sale proceeds arising from an agreement to sell livestock constitutes criminal breach of trust or cheating, or merely creates a civil liability. The High Court held that the complaint disclosed no ingredients of Section 406 or Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, as the livestock was handed over willingly and the dispute pertained solely to the recovery of money. The Court ruled that where criminality is absent from inception, a breach of contract is purely civil in nature, making a civil suit the proper remedy, and accordingly quashed the proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the non-payment of sale proceeds of goods handed over under a mutual agreement constitutes an offence under Section 406 or Section 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Whether criminal proceedings are liable to be quashed under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the dispute is purely of a civil nature for the recovery of money?
  • Does the subsequent agreement to accept the sale proceeds of entrusted property eliminate any element of criminal liability?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Ghafoor vs The State and 4 Others1917 P Cr. L J 951 · Sindh High Court · 1977-05-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 235 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-10Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Khan vs Messrs Pakistan Cables Ltd., Karachi and 2 Others1977 PLD Karachi 474 · Sindh High Court · 1977-01-13Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz alias Aziz Golo vs The State1977 P Cr. L J 60 · Sindh High Court · 1976-10-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Burmah Oil Mills Ltd. vs Messrs Bengal Oil Mills Ltd., Karachi1976 PLD Karachi 544 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-23Read full judgment →