Latest Judgments

Newly reported judgments from the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the High Courts and tribunals, added as they are processed — free, full text, updated daily. Judgments marked NEW were added in the most recent update. 46,805 judgments in total from the Sindh High Court.

• Messrs British India Engineering Works, Karachi vs VTH Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Others1976 PLC 277 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asian Food Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Asian Food Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Pakistan through TBH1976 PLD Karachi 1056 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Allied Silk Mills, Karachi vs Sind Labour Appellate Tribunal and 2 Others1976 PLC 198 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Adil Brother Karachi Ltd. vs Messrs Amin Art Press and Another1976 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ad1l Broth RS Karachi Ltd. vs Amin Messrs Amin Aka Press and Another1976 PLD Karachi 53 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Majeed Khan vs Collector of Customs and Another1976 PLD Karachi 446 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs Abdul Hanna N Food Industries vs Sind Labour Courti and 21976 PLD Karachi 286 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-15Read full judgment →
• Messes Foundation Engineering Ltd. vs The 4TH Junior Labour Court, Karachi and 6 Other1976 PLD Karachi 98 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messers Fulbrite (Pakistan) Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs United Bank Ltd., KarachiPLD 1976 Karachi 478` · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-22Read full judgment →
• Meat and Cattle Merchants Association (Regd.), Karachi vs Karachi1976 PLD Karachi 373 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-01Read full judgment →
• Maulana Dos T Muh a M Mad vs Tin State1976 P Cr. L J 184 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-18
  quashment of proceedingsseditioncognizance of offencepolice reportcomplaintdelegation of authoritynon-cognizable offencesanction for prosecution
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of proceedings pending against the petitioner under Section 124-A of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 in the Court of the District Magistrate, Nawabshah. The core legal questions centered on whether the prosecution had been validly initiated under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, where the Provincial Government had specifically authorized the Superintendent of Police to file a complaint, but the Superintendent instead directed the Station House Officer to register an FIR and submit a police report (challan). The High Court held that Section 124-A creates a non-cognizable offence and Section 196 creates a mandatory bar to taking cognizance except upon a complaint made by or under the authority of the designated government or authorized officer. The Superintendent of Police had no authority to sub-delegate the duty to file a complaint or to order the registration of an FIR, and a police report under Section 173 cannot constitute a valid 'complaint' under Section 4(1)(h). The Court quashed the proceedings, clarifying that the authorities remained free to institute fresh proceedings in strict compliance with Section 196.

  Questions settled

  • Can a police report or challan submitted under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 be treated as a valid complaint under Section 4(1)(h)?
  • Can an officer authorized by the Provincial Government under Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to file a complaint further delegate that authority to a subordinate police officer?
  • Does the failure to comply with the statutory requirements of Section 196 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 invalidate the trial court's order taking cognizance of a non-cognizable offence?
  Read full judgment →
• Maula Bux vs The State1976 PLD Karachi 1188 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-06Read full judgment →
• Mast Ali vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-01Read full judgment →
• Masroorul Hassan vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 212 · Sindh High Court · 1975-02-04Read full judgment →
• Masood Sultan vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 499 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-17Read full judgment →
• Masood Iqbal Ahmed vs The State and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
• Masood Iqbal Ahmed vs The State Ahd Another1976 PLD Karachi 1141 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-10Read full judgment →
• Masood Armed vs The Government of Sind, through Secretary, Home1976 PLD Karachi 311 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-21Read full judgment →
• Mashkoor Khan vs Province of Sind through the Secretary to Government of Sind and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-31Read full judgment →
• Maqbool Khan vs M. Munsif and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1217 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-25Read full judgment →
• Manzoor Glass and Ceramics Ltd., Karachi vs Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance (Central Board of Revenue), Islamabad and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 410 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-16
  excise dutysales taxpenaltyremandtax evasionre-assessmentamnesty
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition arose from a dispute where the petitioner, a private limited company, was served with a show-cause notice for evading Central Excise duty, Sales-tax, Defence Surcharge, and Rehabilitation Tax. The petitioner claimed amnesty under Martial Law Regulation No. 32, asserting that its stocks had been declared and assessed under the regulation. The respondent authorities rejected the explanation, assessed the duty, and imposed a penalty. On revision, the first respondent remanded the matter to the Collector for re-assessment of the quantity of bottles and exclusion of those removed before a certain date, but simultaneously confirmed the penalty of Rs. 75,000. The High Court considered whether a penalty could be legally sustained and confirmed when the underlying assessment of tax evasion was itself remanded for fresh determination. The Court held that since penalty is directly relatable to the actual evasion of duty, confirming the penalty while remanding the matter for re-assessment was inconsistent and unlawful. The Court declared the confirmation of the penalty without lawful authority, while leaving the remand proceedings unaffected.

  Questions settled

  • Can a penalty for tax evasion be legally sustained or confirmed when the underlying assessment of the tax liability is remanded for fresh determination?
  • Is a penalty order enforceable if it is inconsistent with a remand order directing the re-assessment of the quantum of evaded goods?
  Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ali vs Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Hyderabad and Another1976 PLD Karachi 663 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-16Read full judgment →
• Mansoor Ahmad vs Z. H. Khawaja1976 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
• Mangio vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 243 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-14
  murderocular testimonymedical evidence conflictinterested witnessesrecovery of weaponsearch procedurecriminal appealacquittal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellant for the murder of his former wife. The core legal question concerns the reliability of ocular testimony provided by interested witnesses when it conflicts with medical evidence and when statutory requirements for recovery of incriminating evidence are not met. The Court held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It found that the ocular testimony was not only interested but also irreconcilably contradicted by the medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries. Furthermore, the Court ruled that the recovery of the weapon was legally flawed due to the failure to comply with mandatory search procedures under the Code of Criminal Procedure. The judgment reaffirms the principle that when ocular testimony is interested and lacks independent corroboration, and is further belied by medical evidence, it is unsafe to sustain a conviction. Consequently, the Court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant, emphasizing that the prosecution bears the burden of proving its case, including any motive, and that procedural lapses in evidence recovery undermine the prosecution's narrative.

  Questions settled

  • Does a conflict between ocular testimony and medical evidence regarding the number and nature of injuries render the prosecution's case unreliable?
  • Is the recovery of a weapon at the pointation of an accused valid if the mandatory requirements of Section 103 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 are not followed?
  • Can a conviction be sustained solely on the testimony of interested witnesses when that testimony lacks independent corroboration and is contradicted by other evidence?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to establish a motive, after having set one up, weaken the overall case against the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Man Soo Raiwad vs Z. H. Khawaja1976 PLD Karachi 526 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-13Read full judgment →
• Malik Taimur Shah vs The Commissioner of Incometax1976 PLD Karachi 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Taimur Shah vs The Commissioner of Income Tax1976 PLD Karachi 1030 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
• Malik Taimur Shah vs Commissioner of Income-Tax1976 PTD 246 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-15Read full judgment →
• Majidullah and 2 Others vs National Industrial Relations1976 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Majidullah and 2 Otbers S vs National Industrial Relations1976 PLD Karachi 207 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Mairaj Muhammad Khan vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 199 · Sindh High Court · 1974-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mahmood Azam Farooqi vs Maulana Muhammad Shafi Okarvi and 91976 PLD Karachi 381 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-05Read full judgment →
• Mahbub Ahmad vs First Additional District Judge and Another1976 PLD Karachi 978 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
• Mahbub Ahmad vs First Additional District Judge and Anote1er1976 PLD Karachi 978 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-26Read full judgment →
• M. M. K. A. Zai vs The District Magistrate and Tribunal Ano Another1976 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-22Read full judgment →
• M,st. Saida Naim Hussain vs Abdul Ghani and 6 Others1976 PLD Karachi 756 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-15Read full judgment →
• M Uham M Ad Sadiq (through His Legal Representatives) vs Haji Wali1976 PLD Karachi 961 · Sindh High Court · 1974-10-16Read full judgment →
• LT: Col,. (R) G. M. Nizamuddin vs Irshad Hussain Khan and Another1976 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• LT.Cot. (Reid.) G. M. Nizamuddin vs Irshad Hussain Khan and Another1976 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-11Read full judgment →
• Loung vs The State Opponent1976 P Cr. L J 204 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-15
  plea of guiltgrave and sudden provocationremand for re-trialrecording of pleacriminal procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellant challenged his conviction and five-year sentence under Section 304 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, which was based on a plea of guilty entered after the charge was amended from Section 302. The appellant contended that he killed his wife under sudden and grave provocation upon finding her with another man. The High Court observed that the trial court failed to record the appellant's plea of guilty in his own words as required by Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. Furthermore, the Court reiterated that while there is no absolute bar to accepting a plea of guilt, judicial consensus dictates that in cases involving capital punishment or life imprisonment, courts should not normally base convictions on such pleas. Instead, trial courts must record the evidence and decide the case on its merits. Finding a non-compliance with statutory procedure, the High Court set aside the conviction and remanded the case for a de novo trial from the stage of recording the plea.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a trial court can legally accept a plea of guilt without reducing the accused's actual words into writing under Section 271 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Should a trial court base a conviction solely on a plea of guilt in cases involving capital punishment or life imprisonment?
  • What is the proper procedure for a trial court when an accused pleads guilty to a serious criminal charge?
  Read full judgment →
• Liaquat alias Laiqui vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 155 · Sindh High Court · 1975-08-24Read full judgment →
• Lalan and 2 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 52 · Sindh High Court · 1975-05-26
  murderocular evidenceinterested witnessesbenefit of doubtrecovery evidencecorroborationcapital chargecriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal arises from the conviction of three appellants for murder under Section 302/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 by an Additional Sessions Judge. The prosecution alleged that the appellants murdered the deceased due to a motive involving a marriage dispute, relying on ocular evidence from two relatives of the deceased and alleged recoveries of weapons. The core legal question was whether the ocular evidence, provided by interested witnesses, was sufficiently corroborated to sustain a conviction on a capital charge, particularly given significant discrepancies in the recovery evidence and the prosecution's failure to examine independent witnesses. The Court held that the prosecution's case was riddled with improbabilities and material contradictions, particularly regarding the alleged recoveries and the conduct of the investigation. Consequently, the Court set aside the convictions and sentences, granting the appellants the benefit of the doubt. The judgment reinforces the principle that where ocular evidence comes from interested witnesses, it requires independent corroboration, and that significant discrepancies in recovery evidence, coupled with the withholding of available independent witnesses, render a conviction unsafe.

  Questions settled

  • Is it safe to base a conviction on the testimony of interested witnesses without independent corroboration?
  • Does the failure of the prosecution to examine available independent witnesses warrant an adverse inference?
  • What is the legal effect of material discrepancies in the evidence regarding the recovery of incriminating articles?
  Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan vs Ali Khan and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1165 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-18Read full judgment →
• Lal Khan and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 1437 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-25Read full judgment →
• Lakho vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 358 · Sindh High Court · 1974-11-03Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd., Karachis vs Government of Sind and Another Government of Sind and Another1976 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
• Kohinoor Chemical Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Government of Sind and Another1976 PLD Karachi 548 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
• Khurshid and 4 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 177 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-04Read full judgment →
• Khurshed Ali Khan vs Mahmoodul Hussain and 4 01Hers1976 P Cr. L J 653 · Sindh High Court · 1974-06-13Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 412 · Sindh High Court · 1975-03-20Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bux vs The Province of Sind through the Secretary Home1976 PLD Karachi 518 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-21Read full judgment →
• Khuda Bakhsh vs Superintendent of Police, Badin and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1005 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-27Read full judgment →
• Khairpur Textile Mills. Ltd vs Central Board of Revenue and 4 Other1976 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
• Khairpur Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and 4 Others1976 PLD Karachi 164 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
• Khairpur Textile Mills Ltd. vs Central Board of Revenue and 4 Others , .1976 PTD 159 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-09Read full judgment →
• Kazi Abdul Majid vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Excise &1976 PLD Karachi 600 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-05
  promulgation of ordinancevires of ordinanceGovernor powersconstitutional emergencyArticle 279definition of Actinterpretation of statutesentertainment dutytaxation
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioner, proprietor of a cinema, filed a constitutional petition before the High Court of Sindh challenging the vires of the West Pakistan Entertainment Duty (Sind Amendment) Ordinance, 1974. The petitioner raised two principal grounds: first, that no emergency circumstances existed under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 to justify the Governor's promulgation of the Ordinance; and second, that under Article 279 of the Constitution, existing taxes could only be varied or abolished strictly by an Act of the appropriate Legislature, thereby excluding an Ordinance. The High Court rejected both arguments. The court held that under Article 128, the Governor is the sole judge of the existence of circumstances requiring immediate legislative action. Furthermore, by virtue of Article 260(2) of the Constitution, the phrase 'Act of Provincial Assembly' or 'Act of Parliament' includes an Ordinance promulgated by a Governor or the President. Consequently, an Ordinance possesses the full force and effect of an Act of the Legislature and can validly alter existing tax levies under Article 279. The petition was dismissed in limine.

  Questions settled

  • Is the Governor the sole judge of the existence of circumstances justifying the promulgation of an Ordinance under Article 128 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  • Does the term 'Act of the appropriate Legislature' in Article 279 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973 include an Ordinance promulgated by the Governor or President?
  • Can existing taxes and fees be varied or abolished by an Ordinance under Article 279 read with Article 260 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1973?
  Read full judgment →
• Kazi & Kazi Ltd. vs Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
• Kazi & Kazi Ltd vs Fifth Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 3 Other1976 PLD Karachi 79 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Stevedoring Co. Ltd. vs Vth Sind Labour Court and Others1976 PLC 638 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Stevedoring Co. Ltd vs Vim Sind Labour Court and Others1976 PLD Karachi 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Stevedoring Co. .Ltd. vs VTH Sind Labour Court and Other1976 PLD Karachi 1091 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-07Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Ali Hussain1976 PLD Karachi 995 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation Defendant vs Ali Hussain1976 PLD Karachi 995 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-01Read full judgment →
• Karachi Flour Millers' Union and 3 Others vs Province of Sind1976 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-04Read full judgment →
• Karachi Flour Millers' Union and 3 Other vs Province of Sind through Secretary, Department of Food, Government of Sind, Karachi and 4 Other1976 PLD Karachi 623 · Sindh High Court · 1975-07-04Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Presiding Officer, VTH Sind Labour1976 PLC 383 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
• Karachi Development Authority vs Presiding Officer, VTH Sind Labour1976 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-09Read full judgment →
• Kaiomarz R. Ferozepurwala and Others vs The Administrator, Dow1976 PLD Karachi 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
• Kaiomarz R. Ferozepurwala and Other vs The Administrator, Dow1976 PLD Karachi 1039 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-06Read full judgment →
• Jiomal and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 364 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-08Read full judgment →
• Jaro Amu 2 Others vs Na State1976 P Cr. L J 1391 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-03Read full judgment →
• Jan Muhammad alias Janu vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 278 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-21Read full judgment →
• Jamaluddin vs Shahmurad and 9 Other1976 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
• Jamal Uddin vs Shahmurad and 9 Others1976 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1975-10-30Read full judgment →
• Jagan and Another vs Tea State1976 P Cr. L J 760 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-10Read full judgment →
• J S. Zahid Ali vs Mst. Mubarak Bano1976 PLD Karachi 68 · Sindh High Court · 1975-06-08
  family courttransfer of suitsupervisory jurisdictionadministration of justiceWest Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964Code of Civil Procedure 1908judicial review
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from a reference to a Division Bench concerning whether the High Court possesses the authority to transfer a family suit from one Family Court to another. The applicant sought such a transfer under Section 24 and Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, citing convenience. The Court examined the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964, which excludes the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding such transfers. The Court held that while it indeed possesses the power to transfer family suits, this authority is derived from its constitutional supervisory jurisdiction over subordinate courts, not from the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. Crucially, the Court established that this supervisory power is intended solely to maintain the purity of the administration of justice—such as correcting jurisdictional defects, bias, or dereliction of duty—and cannot be invoked merely for the convenience of litigants. Consequently, the power is not a remedy available to parties ex debito justitia but a mechanism to ensure subordinate courts function correctly.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have the power to transfer a family suit from one Family Court to another?
  • Can a party invoke Section 24 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to transfer a family suit?
  • Is the High Court's supervisory jurisdiction under the Constitution intended to provide relief to parties or to ensure the purity of the administration of justice?
  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964 exclude the application of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 regarding the transfer of suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Ismail and Another vs Board of Revenue, Government of Sind and 41976 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-06Read full judgment →
• Ismail and Another vs Board of Revenue, Government of Sind and 41976 PLD Karachi 872 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-06Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Umer vs Muhammad Azizullah Qureshi and 2 Other.1976 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
• Iqbal Umer vs Muhammad Azizullah Qureshi and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-30Read full judgment →
• Intertrade Ltd., Karachi vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. and Another1976 PLD Karachi 496 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-04
  arbitration agreementappointment of arbitratordesignation of arbitratorsection 20 applicationarbitration actdomestic tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This judgment addresses an application under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, filed by the plaintiff seeking to file an arbitration agreement in court and appoint an arbitrator regarding disputes arising from an export contract containing an arbitration clause. The core legal questions involved whether the court was bound to refer the dispute to the arbitrator designated under the contract (an officer of the Government of Pakistan nominated by the first defendant) or could appoint an independent arbitrator due to the complexity of legal issues and the large financial sum involved. The court held that where an arbitration agreement designates a party or a person to appoint an arbitrator, such a nomination is valid under Section 4 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, and the court must enforce the parties' agreement rather than substitute an arbitrator of its own choice. The court ordered the arbitration agreement to be filed and directed the defendant to nominate an arbitrator in accordance with the contract terms, laying down the principle that the sanctity of a domestic arbitration forum chosen by parties must be upheld unless specific statutory grounds for substitution are established.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an arbitration agreement that designates a person or party to nominate an arbitrator in the future satisfies the requirement of an arbitrator appointed by the parties under Section 20(4) of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Can a court substitute an arbitrator agreed upon by the parties with an independent court-appointed arbitrator merely because the dispute involves complex questions of law or a large sum of money?
  • What are the mandatory duties of a court under Section 20 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, once it is established that a valid arbitration agreement exists and differences have arisen between the parties?
  Read full judgment →
• In re : Syed Sarwaruddin--Debtor vs Not1976 PLD Karachi 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-26Read full judgment →
• In Re : Syed Sarwaruddin vs Not1976 PLD Karachi 1049 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-26Read full judgment →
• I. C. P. Employees' Front, Karachi through Its General Secretary vs Presiding Officer, VTH Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
• I. C. P. Employees' Front, Karachi through Its General Secretary vs Presiding Officer, VTH Rind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-04Read full judgment →
• I Faiz Najmuddin Abdul Ali vs The Capital Development Authority, Rawal Pindi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 1084 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-03Read full judgment →
• Hmi and 3 Others vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 69 · Sindh High Court · 1974-12-16Read full judgment →
• Hirjina & Co. (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachiand 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
• Hirjina & Co. (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi vs The Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 1110 · Sindh High Court · 1976-05-17Read full judgment →
• Hidayat Shah and Another vs The State1976 P Cr. L J 482 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-11Read full judgment →
• Hassan Khan vs MRS. Munawar Begum1976 PLD Karachi 832 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-04
  ejectmentbona fide requirementwilful defaultrent paymentlandlord-tenantpersonal uselegal heirsurban rent restriction
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerned an ejectment application filed by a landlord against his tenant on grounds of default in rent payment and bona fide personal requirement. The lower courts dismissed the application, finding no wilful default due to the landlord's acceptance of lump-sum payments and disbelieving his medical evidence for personal use. The High Court, in appeal, held that the practice of accepting lump-sum rent payments, especially when initiated or acquiesced to by the landlord, negates wilful default, distinguishing it from cases where a tenant unilaterally asserts such a practice. On the issue of bona fide requirement, the Court ruled that the landlord's assertion of personal need, even if based on illness, should be accepted if consistent with his pleadings and not disproved, and that his choice of residence is his prerogative. Furthermore, it was held that the requirement for "own occupation" extends to the landlord's wife and family, allowing the deceased landlord's heirs to pursue the ejectment. The appeal was allowed, and the tenant was ordered to vacate.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be deemed in wilful default of rent payment if the landlord has a practice of accepting lump-sum payments?
  • Is medical evidence always necessary to prove a landlord's bona fide requirement of premises for personal use due to illness?
  • Does a landlord's choice of which of his properties to occupy for personal use fall within his prerogative?
  • Can the legal heirs of a deceased landlord continue an ejectment application based on bona fide personal requirement?
  • What is the scope of "own occupation" in the context of a landlord's requirement for premises?
  Read full judgment →
• Hakim Khan vs Government of Sind through the Holds Secretary, Karachi and Another1976 PLD Karachi 448 · Sindh High Court · 1976-01-08Read full judgment →
• Hakim Ali Ahmed (through Legal Heirs) vs Ramchand Manjimal1976 PLD Karachi 933 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-05Read full judgment →
• Hakeemuddin vs Mst. Mafia and 2 Others1976 PLD Karachi 969 · Sindh High Court · 1976-04-25Read full judgment →
• Hakeemuddin vs Mst. Mafia and 2 Other1976 PLD Karachi 969 · Sindh High Court · 1916-04-25Read full judgment →
• Haji Suleman vs Messrs Eastern Rice Syndicate, Karachi and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 263 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17Read full judgment →
• Haji Suleman vs Messrs Eastern Rice Syndicate and 3 Others1976 PLD Karachi 277 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-17
  earnest moneybreach of contractforfeiture of depositforward contractrestitutionreasonable compensationcustoms clearance
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal challenged a judgment dismissing a suit for the recovery of Rs. 36,000 paid as earnest money/advance under a forward contract for the purchase of goods. The core legal question was whether the respondent-seller was in breach of contract for failing to clear goods from customs, thereby justifying the appellant-buyer's termination and claim for a refund, and whether the respondent could retain the advance payment absent proof of actual loss. The Court held that the respondent was in breach of contract by failing to clear the goods as stipulated in the indemnity bond, despite the appellant's repeated requests. Furthermore, the Court established that even if a buyer is in default, a seller cannot automatically forfeit earnest money or advance payments without proving actual loss or setting up a counter-claim for reasonable compensation. Relying on the principle that forfeiture clauses are subject to the requirement of reasonable compensation under Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872, the Court set aside the dismissal and decreed the suit in favor of the appellant.

  Questions settled

  • Can a seller forfeit earnest money or advance payments without proving actual loss or sustaining damages?
  • Does a breach of a specific term of a contract justify the other party in terminating the contract?
  • Is a seller entitled to retain advance payments if they fail to perform their contractual obligation to clear goods from customs?
  • Does Section 74 of the Contract Act 1872 apply to the forfeiture of deposits or earnest money?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim vs Ismail and 9 Others1976 PLD Karachi 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →
• Haji Ibrahim vs Ismail and 9 Other1976 PLD Karachi 1075 · Sindh High Court · 1976-06-22Read full judgment →