Pakistan Case LawLatest 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.
- Jumo and 4 Others vs The State--Opponent1974 P Cr. L J 383 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-28Read full judgment →
- Jamilur Rehman vs State Bank of Pakistan-1974 P Cr. L J 601 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-30Read full judgment →
- Jamil Ahmed- vs Mst. Sultana Jehan Begum1974 PLD Karachi 319 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arose from eviction proceedings initiated by a landlord against a tenant occupying a shop in Karachi. The landlord sought eviction on the grounds of personal residential requirement for her son. The Rent Controller and the Additional District Judge allowed the eviction, finding the landlord's need bona fide. The core legal question was whether a landlord can evict a tenant from a non-residential premises to satisfy residential needs. The High Court allowed the appeal, holding that the statutory scheme of the Rent Ordinance creates distinct, mutually exclusive categories for residential and non-residential buildings. The court ruled that a non-residential building cannot be recovered for residential purposes, regardless of the bona fides of the landlord's requirement. The precedent relied upon by the lower court was distinguished as it involved a composite-use building. Consequently, the court established that eviction for personal use must strictly align with the nature of the building as defined by the statute, prohibiting the conversion of non-residential premises for residential occupation.
Questions settled- Can a landlord evict a tenant from a non-residential building to fulfill residential needs?
- Does the Rent Ordinance permit the recovery of a non-residential building for the residential occupation of the landlord or their children?
- Is the statutory right to seek eviction for personal use mutually exclusive between residential and non-residential building categories?
- In Re: Messrs Anwar H. Pir Bhai & Co vs Not1974 PLD Karachi 42 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-07Read full judgment →
- Imdad Hussain vs Noor Hassan and 5 Other Opponents1974 PLD Karachi 485 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal miscellaneous application was filed under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, seeking the production and release of a woman allegedly wrongfully confined by private respondents. The petitioner, along with his relatives, was already facing trial under Section 364/34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the alleged abduction of the same woman. During the proceedings, the petitioner shifted his allegations, requesting searches at a new address based on undisclosed sources. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the application, holding that while Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 does not contain express statutory restrictions on who may apply, a mere stranger or an interested party with doubtful credentials facing criminal charges regarding the detenu should not be permitted to abuse the court's extraordinary jurisdiction. The Court emphasized that habeas corpus petitions should normally be filed by close relatives or friends, and where alternative remedies under Section 552 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 exist, the discretionary extraordinary jurisdiction should not be exercised to interfere with ongoing criminal trials.
Questions settled- Whether a stranger or an accused person facing trial for abducting a woman has the locus standi to maintain a petition under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 for her production?
- Under what circumstances should a High Court decline to exercise its extraordinary jurisdiction under Section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 in favor of alternative statutory remedies?
- Can the extraordinary process of habeas corpus be utilized to interfere with or bypass an ongoing criminal trial where the alleged detenu is a crucial witness?
- Illahi Bux and 4 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 410 · Sindh High Court · 1972-07-19Read full judgment →
- Ibrahim and 4 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 22 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Huzoor Alam and 2 Other vs National: Industrial Relations1974 PLC 161 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-16Read full judgment →
- Hussain vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 329 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-17Read full judgment →
- Hussain Bux and Another vs The State-- Respondent1974 P Cr. L. J 302 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-04Read full judgment →
- Hussain Bux Alias Muhammad Hussain vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 591 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-17Read full judgment →
- Hasan Ali Karabhai vs Commissioner of Income Tax1974 PLD Karachi 473 · Sindh High Court · 1974-02-21Read full judgment →
- Haji Qabool Muhammad Shah vs Pir Sarfraz Ahmad1974 PLD Karachi 334 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-18Read full judgment →
- Haji Muhammad Ismail vs Lal Muhammad and 3 Other1974 PLD Karachi 248 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-09Read full judgment →
- Haji Ghulam Qadir vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-10Read full judgment →
- Gulistan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 608 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-31Read full judgment →
- Gul Muhammad Alias Gullo and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 400 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This criminal appeal challenges the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 and Section 302 read with Section 109 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder of the deceased Hussain Bux. The core legal question revolves around the reliability of ocular testimony where alleged eye-witnesses remained silent and failed to report the crime to the police or authorities promptly, despite having access to means of communication in an urban setting. The Sindh High Court held that the testimony of urban eye-witnesses who inexplicably keep silent and fail to report a murder for hours does not inspire confidence and must be discarded, and that the mere recovery of a blood-stained weapon, standing alone without reliable ocular or corroborative evidence, is insufficient to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The court laid down the principle that unexplained silence and delayed reporting by urban eye-witnesses renders their testimony untrustworthy, and an uncorroborated weapon recovery cannot sustain a murder conviction.
Questions settled- Whether the unexplained silence and delayed reporting of an incident by urban eye-witnesses renders their testimony unreliable?
- Can a conviction for murder be sustained solely on the basis of the recovery of a blood-stained weapon when ocular evidence has been discarded?
- What is the evidentiary value of eye-witness testimony where witnesses fail to report a cognizable offense to the police despite easy access to communication facilities?
- Guftar Shah vs Sind Labour Court No. 3, Karachi And Another1974 PLC 205 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-12Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions concern the termination of employees for "absence without leave for more than 10 days," a misconduct defined under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968. The core legal questions involve whether such absence constitutes misconduct regardless of intent, the adequacy of service by notice board when postal service fails, and the necessity of providing an enquiry report and a second show-cause notice. The Court held that the statutory definition of misconduct for absence exceeding ten days does not require proof of wilful intent. However, the Court ruled that employers must make reasonable efforts to serve notices; mere return of postal mail does not validate service by notice board. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that principles of natural justice mandate that an employee be furnished with the enquiry report and granted a second show-cause opportunity before dismissal. Finally, it was held that the limitation period for filing a grievance under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, only commences upon the actual communication of the dismissal order to the employee.
Questions settled- Does 'absence without leave for more than 10 days' constitute misconduct under the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance 1968 regardless of the employee's intent?
- Is the affixation of notices on a company notice board sufficient service when registered mail is returned unserved?
- Does the principle of natural justice require an employer to furnish an enquiry report and provide a second show-cause notice to an employee before dismissal?
- Does the limitation period for filing a grievance under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969 begin to run if the dismissal order is never communicated to the employee?
- Ghulam Nabi vs Syed Muqarab Hussain and 3 Other1974 PLD Karachi 408 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This revision application challenges an order of the 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi, who dismissed the petitioner's application to return a plaint for presentation before the proper court. The petitioner argued that under Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, the suit, valued at Rs. 25,000, should have been filed in the court of the lowest grade competent to try it—specifically a Civil Judge 1st Class—rather than the District Court, due to an alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Additional District Judge. The core legal question was whether Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deprives a court of higher grade of jurisdiction when a court of lower grade is also competent to try the suit. The court dismissed the revision application, holding that Section 15 is a procedural provision directing the choice of forum among competent courts, not a provision that ousts the jurisdiction of higher courts. The principle laid down is that Section 15 does not deprive a court of higher grade of its inherent jurisdiction; it merely regulates the institution of suits among courts of competent jurisdiction.
Questions settled- Does Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 deprive a court of higher grade of jurisdiction when a court of lower grade is also competent to try the suit?
- Is Section 15 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 a provision that ousts the jurisdiction of courts or merely a procedural rule for the institution of suits?
- Can a suit be validly instituted in a District Court if a Civil Judge of the appropriate class is unavailable?
- Ghulam Hussain- vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 91 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-20Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for murder and sentenced to death. The prosecution relied on ocular evidence, a dying declaration, and a retracted judicial confession. The High Court, upon review, found the ocular evidence insufficient to prove the appellant struck the fatal blow, as the witnesses did not testify to a head injury and the victim had walked away unaided. The court further held that the dying declaration was unreliable due to the potential influence of relatives. Crucially, the court examined whether a statement made by an accused to the police, recorded in a police diary, could be used by the accused to challenge the voluntariness of a subsequent judicial confession. The court held that while Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 prohibits using police statements against an accused, it does not bar the accused from using such statements in their favor. Finding the judicial confession was a verbatim copy of the police statement, the court rejected the confession, set aside the murder conviction, and convicted the appellant under Section 325 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860.
Questions settled- Can an accused person rely on their own statement made to the police during an investigation to challenge the voluntariness of a subsequent judicial confession?
- Does Section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 bar an accused from using their own statement to the police in their favor?
- Is a judicial confession that is a verbatim copy of a prior statement made to the police voluntary and genuine?
- Can a High Court use its powers under Section 375 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to admit additional evidence to ensure justice?
- Ghalib Pervez Alias Ghaliba and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 420 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-09Read full judgment →
- Gehlo vs Rehmatullah and ANOTHERs1974 P Cr. L J 345 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-28Read full judgment →
- Firdous Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs The Government of Pakistan1974 PLD Karachi 149 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-22Read full judgment →
- Feroze Mushke vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 567 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-17Read full judgment →
- Fazulullah vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 467 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-06Read full judgment →
- Fatqo Alias Fateh Muhammad Gadani vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 195 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-15Read full judgment →
- Farook Omar vs National Security Insurance Co. Ltd., Karachi, and Another1974 PLD Karachi 321 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-05Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The plaintiff instituted a suit for the recovery of damages for the loss of imported goods consisting of plastic moulding compound, which were insured with defendant No. 1 Insurance Company and carried by defendant No. 2 Shipping Company. The core legal questions involved whether the Insurance Company was absolved of liability due to the plaintiff's alleged failure to preserve rights against the carrier, whether the carrier was liable for the damaged goods, whether the suit against the carrier was barred by limitation, and whether the Karachi Port Trust was a necessary party. The court held that the Insurance Company remained liable under the policy as the survey report was binding and failure to give immediate notice to the carrier did not bar the claim against the insurer. However, the suit against the shipping company was dismissed as it was barred by limitation and the plaintiff failed to discharge the burden of proving that the damage occurred while the goods were in the custody of the carrier. The key principle laid down is that while failure to give notice of apparent damage to a carrier shifts the burden of proof to the consignee and does not extinguish the insurance policy's indemnity, the right to sue the carrier is extinguished after the expiry of the statutory limitation period of one year.
Questions settled- Does the failure of an insured to give immediate notice of damage to a carrier absolve the insurance company of its liability under the policy?
- Whether an ex parte survey report conducted without notice to the carrier is binding upon the carrier?
- Is a suit against a shipping company for cargo loss barred if brought after the expiry of one year from the delivery of goods?
- Is the Karachi Port Trust a necessary party in a suit for cargo loss against a shipping company?
- Fakir Mohammad Alias Fakiro and 4 Others vs The State-Opponent1974 P Cr. L J 431 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-25Read full judgment →
- Employees Union vs Pakistan Machine Tool Factory, Landhi and 21974 PLC 201 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-19Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
These constitutional petitions challenged orders of the Sind Labour Court, which declined jurisdiction over grievance petitions filed by employees of the Pakistan Machine Tool Factory following their dismissal. The core legal question was whether the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, and its ouster clause in Section 7-A, superseded the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, and the West Pakistan (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, thereby divesting Labour Courts of jurisdiction. The Court held that the 1952 Act constitutes a special law that overrides general industrial legislation. It determined that the phrase "any other law" in Section 7-A is broad and includes subsequent legislation, rendering the mechanisms under the 1969 and 1968 Ordinances inapplicable to employments governed by the 1952 Act. The Court affirmed that the 1952 Act provides an exclusive, albeit different, procedure for settling industrial disputes, and the Labour Courts correctly declined jurisdiction. The principle established is that special statutes prevail over general laws, and the ouster clause in the 1952 Act effectively excludes conflicting general industrial relations provisions, regardless of their enactment date.
Questions settled- Does the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, override the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969?
- Does the phrase 'any other law' in Section 7-A of the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952, include legislation enacted after the Act?
- Do Labour Courts have jurisdiction to hear grievance petitions filed by employees of an establishment governed by the Pakistan Essential Services (Maintenance) Act, 1952?
- DR. Muhammad Rafiq Khan Awan vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 58 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-18Read full judgment →
- Daim and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 172 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-21Read full judgment →
- Commissioner of Income-Tax. (West), Karachi vs Mew Nageena Talkies1974 PLD Karachi 6 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This reference before the Sindh High Court concerned whether the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 applies to income assessed under Section 12 of the Act. The assessee had leased out properties, including buildings and machinery, and was assessed under Section 12, receiving depreciation allowances under Section 12(4). Upon selling the property for an amount exceeding its written down value, the Assessing Officer sought to tax the excess under the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii). The Court held that the language of Section 12(4) explicitly states that an assessee is 'entitled to allowances' in accordance with the provisions of Section 10(2). The term 'entitled' denotes a benefit, rebate, or deduction, and cannot be construed to impose a liability to tax. Since fiscal statutes must be interpreted strictly based on their plain language without reading in implications, the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii), which creates a tax liability, cannot be imported into Section 12.
Questions settled- Whether the second proviso to Section 10(2)(vii) of the Income-tax Act 1922 applies to income assessed under Section 12 of the Act?
- Does the phrase 'entitled to allowances' in Section 12(4) of the Income-tax Act 1922 permit the imposition of a tax liability under the provisos of Section 10(2)?
- How should fiscal statutes be interpreted when a provision granting an entitlement references another section containing a liability-imposing proviso?
- Chottey Khan vs The Settlement & Rehabilitation Commis Sioner, Karachi and 2 Other1974 PLD Karachi 226 · Sindh High Court · 1974-03-18Read full judgment →
- Barkat Ali and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 473 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-05Read full judgment →
- Bakhir and 2 Other vs The State Opponent1974 PLD Karachi 66 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-16Read full judgment →
- Bajoo and 2 Other vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 199 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-28Read full judgment →
- Azizullah vs The State--Opponent1974 P Cr. L J 187 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-05Read full judgment →
- Asad Ali and 9 Other vs Settlement & Claims Commissioner, Karachi and Another1974 PLD Karachi 345 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-14Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns appeals against the dismissal of constitutional petitions by Single Judges of the High Court. The core legal questions were whether constitutional petitions pending before the enforcement of the Interim Constitution abated upon its commencement, and whether an appeal lies against a Single Judge's decision in a constitutional petition under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972. The Court held that pending constitutional petitions did not abate, as they were saved by Article 295 of the Interim Constitution, which operated to protect legal proceedings upon the repeal of prior laws. Regarding the right of appeal, the Court held that the phrase "original civil jurisdiction" in the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, refers strictly to the Court's power to try suits as a court of first instance, distinct from constitutional writ jurisdiction. Consequently, no appeal lies against a Single Judge's order in a constitutional petition under the Ordinance. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is not synonymous with original civil jurisdiction, and a right of appeal is not available unless expressly provided by statute.
Questions settled- Do constitutional petitions pending before the enforcement of the Interim Constitution abate upon its commencement?
- Does the term 'original civil jurisdiction' in the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972, encompass the High Court's writ jurisdiction under Article 98 of the 1962 Constitution?
- Is a Single Judge's order in a constitutional petition appealable under the Law Reforms Ordinance, 1972?
- Did the Interim Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan re-enact and subsequently repeal the Proclamation of Martial Law of 25th March 1969?
- Anwar and Another vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 293 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-09Read full judgment →
- Allah Dad- vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 130 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-06Read full judgment →
- Ali Nawaz and 7 Others vs The State1974 P Cr. L J 561 · Sindh High Court · 1973-04-19Read full judgment →
- Ali Mahmood vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 249 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-04Read full judgment →
- Ali Hussain Jamali vs Government of Sind through Its Deputy1974 PLD Karachi 283 · Sindh High Court · 1974-01-18Read full judgment →
- Ali Bux and 2 Others vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 305 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-21Read full judgment →
- Adamjee Cotton Mills, Karachi vs Sind Employees' Social Security1974 PLC 213 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-05Read full judgment →
- Abu Bakar vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 393 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Salam (Represented by 10 Heirs) vs Messrs Hafeez Sons Ltd.1974 PLD Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Rauf vs Tim State-1974 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1992-11-05Read full judgment →
- Abdul Qayum Ansari vs Salahuddin Qureshi1974 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal arises from an eviction proceeding initiated under section 13 of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit tentative rent, which the tenant failed to do while challenging the landlord's title and appealing the order. The Additional District Judge dismissed the tenant's appeal and subsequently passed an order striking off the tenant's defence. The core legal question concerned the scope and power of an Appellate Authority under section 15 of the Ordinance to make an order for the deposit of tentative rent and strike off a tenant's defence, and whether an appellate judge becomes functus officio after dismissing an appeal. The court held that while appellate authorities possess powers under section 107 and Order XLI, rule 33 of the Civil Procedure Code to order rent deposits and strike off defences, the lower appellate court became functus officio upon dismissing the appeal and lacked jurisdiction to subsequently strike off the defence. The appeal was allowed, and the case was remanded to the Rent Controller.
Questions settled- Does an appellate authority under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance possess the power to order the deposit of tentative rent and strike off a tenant's defence?
- Does an Additional District Judge become functus officio after dismissing an appeal against an interlocutory order in rent proceedings?
- Can an appeal be maintained against an order passed without jurisdiction?
- Whether the provisions of section 107 and Order XLI rule 33 of the Code of Civil Procedure apply to rent appeals under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance?
- Abdul Nabi vs The State-1974 P Cr. L J 320 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-03Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majid and Another vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 309 · Sindh High Court · 1973-10-14Read full judgment →
- Abdul Majeed vs The State1974 PLD Karachi 71 · Sindh High Court · 1973-05-07Read full judgment →
- Abdul Jabbar vs Muhammad Khan Junejo and 3 Other1974 PLD Karachi 62 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-04Read full judgment →
- Abdul Hamid Arif Khanzada-- vs The State and Another1974 PLD Karachi 167 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-16Read full judgment →
- Abdul Bashir vs Muhammad Rafiq Khan Sherwani1974 PLD Karachi 451 · Sindh High Court · 1974-05-30Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The appellant filed an ejectment application against the respondent, a tenant of evacuee property, alleging default in rent payment and personal requirement for the premises. The Rent Controller and the first Appellate Authority dismissed the application, finding that the respondent was not in default as he had paid rent at the revised municipal assessment rate, and that the appellant failed to prove the requirement for personal use in good faith. On appeal, the High Court examined whether the application was maintainable during the statutory protection period afforded to the tenant under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, 1958. The Court held that the ejectment application was premature and incompetent because the provisions of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, governing the landlord-tenant relationship, do not apply until the expiry of the statutory protection period under the 1958 Act. Consequently, the Court affirmed the dismissal, noting that the landlord failed to establish the requirement for personal use in good faith.
Questions settled- Is an ejectment application filed under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 against a tenant protected under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 competent if filed before the expiry of the statutory protection period?
- Does the landlord-tenant relationship under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance 1959 apply to a tenant protected under Section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 before the expiry of the statutory protection period?
- Can a landlord claim default in rent payment when the tenant has paid rent according to the revised assessment fixed by the local municipal authority?
- Abdul Aziz Baloch vs Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Another1974 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1974-04-29Read full judgment →
- Zahurudin vs Muhammad Inayatullah Khan and Another1973 P Cr. L J 288 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Zahoor Ahmed and 3 Others vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 849 · Sindh High Court · 1972-07-26Read full judgment →
- Zafar Iqbal vs The Province of Sind and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 383 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-07Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This judgment addresses applications for ad interim release in constitutional petitions challenging preventive detentions under the West Pakistan Maintenance of Public Order Ordinance, 1960 and the Defence of Pakistan Rules 1971. The core legal questions involved whether the High Court possesses the inherent or statutory power—under section 491, 496, 497, or 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 or Article 201 of the Interim Constitution—to grant bail or suspend a preventive detention order pending the final disposal of a habeas corpus or writ petition. The court held that while the Code of Criminal Procedure applies strictly to offences and accused persons and does not govern preventive detention proceedings, the High Court possesses an implied power under Article 201 of the Interim Constitution to grant interim suspension of a detention order, akin to a stay. However, the court established that such an extraordinary interim measure should be exercised only in rare and exceptional cases where the detention is manifestly unlawful on the face of the record. Finding no such exceptional circumstances in the present petitions, the interim relief was denied.
Questions settled- Whether the High Court has the power to grant bail or interim release to a detenu pending the final disposal of a constitutional petition challenging preventive detention?
- Do the provisions of sections 496, 497, and 498 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to persons held under preventive detention orders rather than as accused persons in criminal offences?
- Does section 491 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 confer an implied power to grant bail to a detenu pending the disposal of an application under that section?
- Under what circumstances can a High Court issue an interim order suspending the operation of a preventive detention order pursuant to Article 201 of the Interim Constitution?
- Wali Muhammad vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 873 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-18Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application for bail arises from a criminal case registered regarding a violent clash between two rival groups of labourers at Fateh Textile Mills Ltd., Hyderabad, resulting in serious injuries and the subsequent death of one individual belonging to the management group. First Information Reports were lodged under various provisions including sections relating to rioting, attempt to murder, and assault on public servants. The applicant, who is the Chairman and proprietor of the mills, sought pre-arrest bail. The High Court considered whether a petitioner should approach the Sessions Court first in cases of concurrent jurisdiction, holding that once an application has been entertained and fixed for final disposal by the High Court, it should be decided on its merits. Examining the merits, the Court noted that while police statements placed the applicant at the scene, there was no reliable evidence showing instigation on his part, especially as the mills were his place of business where he could be present in the ordinary course. Consequently, the Court confirmed the interim bail previously granted, while granting liberty to the prosecution to apply for bail cancellation if evidence of instigation emerges.
Questions settled- Whether an application for bail in a case of concurrent jurisdiction should be dismissed solely on the ground that the lower Court was not approached first?
- Can the presence of an accused at his place of business during a clash be used to necessarily infer an intention to instigate the offence without direct evidence?
- Under what circumstances can the prosecution apply for the cancellation of bail already granted?
- Vakil Khan vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 578 · Sindh High Court · 1973-08-08Read full judgment →
- Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd., Karachi vs Messes Aslam Saeed1973 PLD Karachi 65 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-10Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter concerns an application to set aside an arbitration award arising from a contractual dispute between the Trading Corporation of Pakistan and Messrs Aslam Saeed & Co. regarding the sale of Basmati rice. The core legal question was whether the arbitrator committed legal misconduct by awarding damages for breach of contract without sufficient contractual provision, failing to decide specific issues, and failing to provide notice of resale under the Sale of Goods Act. The court upheld the award, holding that an arbitrator is the final judge of both law and fact. The court ruled that it cannot act as an appellate body to re-examine evidence or re-interpret contract clauses. Interference with an award is permissible only if an error of law is patent on the face of the award itself or a document incorporated therein. The court further established that arbitrators are not required to provide reasons for their decisions or record separate findings on every issue raised, provided the decision is intelligible and determines the rights of the parties.
Questions settled- Can a court interfere with an arbitration award on the basis of an error of law not apparent on the face of the award?
- Is an arbitrator required to provide written reasons or separate findings for every issue raised by the parties?
- Does an arbitrator's failure to strictly follow legal provisions regarding notice of resale constitute legal misconduct sufficient to set aside an award?
- To what extent can a court review the evidence and proceedings before an arbitrator when an award is challenged?
- The State vs Victor Henry and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-01Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
The matter arose from a reference under Section 438 read with Section 435 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, challenging a Magistrate's order granting exemption from personal appearance to two female accused. The Magistrate had granted the exemption primarily due to the complainant's delay in prosecuting the case. The core legal question was whether such an order was sustainable under the relevant provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898. The High Court held that the order was improper and illegal. The Court clarified that Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 requires the accused to be "incapable of remaining before the Court," which was not established. Furthermore, Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 applies to summons cases, not warrant cases, unless converted, while Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 provides broader discretion to dispense with attendance. The Court emphasized that procedural exemptions must be grounded in specific statutory criteria rather than extraneous factors like trial delays. Consequently, the impugned order was set aside, and the case was remanded for reconsideration under the correct legal framework.
Questions settled- Can a Magistrate grant exemption from personal appearance to an accused solely on the ground of the complainant's delay in proceedings?
- Does the provision of Section 540-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 apply to cases where the accused is not incapable of remaining before the Court?
- Can a Magistrate dispense with the personal attendance of an accused in a warrant case under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 without converting the warrants into summons?
- Is the status of being a pardanashin lady a mandatory condition for granting exemption from personal appearance under Section 205 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
- The State vs Sujag and 5 OTHERSs1973 P Cr. L J 47 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-17Read full judgment →
- The State vs Rais Ahmad-1973 P Cr. L J 385 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-08Read full judgment →
- The State vs DR. Syed Nisar Ali1973 P Cr. L J 827 · Sindh High Court · 1972-07-31Read full judgment →
- The State vs Azizurrehman and Another1973 P Cr. L, J 225 · Sindh High Court · 1972-04-12Read full judgment →
- The Premier Bank Ltd., Karachi vs Mohammad Abdul Qasim Acid1973 PLD Karachi 509 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Teki`Ronix Incorporated vs M. Abdul Ivianna N1973 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-21Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal arose from a trial court order varying a temporary injunction in a trademark infringement and passing-off suit. The appellants, owners of the registered trademark "Tektronix," alleged that the respondent, a former employee of their distributor, adopted the trading name "Techtronics Corporation" to deceive the public and pass off goods as those of the appellants. The core legal question concerned whether the respondent’s use of a phonetically similar name constituted actionable passing off and if the appellants were entitled to a temporary injunction despite a delay in filing the suit. The Court held that "Tektronix" is a distinctive, not descriptive, name, and the respondent’s adoption of a similar name was not innocent, particularly given his prior employment. Consequently, the Court set aside the trial court's order, reinstating the injunction. The judgment affirmed that passing off injures the property right in a business's goodwill and that in cases of prima facie fraud, the defense of delay is immaterial to the grant of interlocutory relief.
Questions settled- Does the adoption of a phonetically similar trading name by a former employee of a distributor constitute actionable passing off?
- Is the defense of delay in filing a suit immaterial when there is prima facie evidence of fraud in a passing-off case?
- Can a temporary injunction be granted to restrain the use of a trading name that is phonetically similar to a registered trademark?
- Syed Wahidul Hasan vs Mazhar Ali and 3 Others1973 P Cr. L J 231 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Syed Sharifuddin Pi Rzada vs Federation of Pakistan and Another1973 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-25Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This matter arose from a constitutional petition filed by a senior advocate challenging the refusal of the government to permit him to travel abroad to attend a United Nations Sub-Commission session, following his election as a member. The petitioner sought an order restraining the government from preventing his departure, arguing that the executive action lacked lawful authority and that the order prohibiting exit under the Defence of Pakistan Rules was ultra vires and invalid. The core legal questions involved the validity of the exit control order issued under Rule 31 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules, the scope of the rule-making power, the requirement of providing a statutory mechanism for exit permits, and the interpretation of the right to liberty under the Interim Constitution of Pakistan. A majority of the court held that the petition should be dismissed, ruling that the general power to restrict exit was validly supported by the Defence of Pakistan Ordinance and Rules, and that the executive's restrictions did not violate the constitutional provisions or fundamental principles. The key principle laid down is that the executive may restrict travel and exit under duly promulgated emergency rules where authorized by statute, and that the absence of detailed individual permit machinery in a general prohibitory notification does not render the underlying rule ultra vires.
Questions settled- Whether an order restricting the exit of citizens from Pakistan under Rule 31 of the Defence of Pakistan Rules 1971 is ultra vires in the absence of an explicit permit-granting mechanism within the notification?
- Does the term 'liberty' under Article 3 and Article 8 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan include the unfettered right of locomotion and freedom to travel abroad?
- Whether the principles of natural justice and the requirement of a show-cause notice apply to a general executive order prohibiting a class of persons from leaving the country during a state of emergency?
- To what extent are executive actions and delegated legislation protected by Article 281 of the Interim Constitution of Pakistan?
- Syed Parial Shah vs The State and 4 Other1973 PLD Karachi 265 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-04Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Rizvi vs THB State1973 P Cr. L J 1015 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-08Read full judgment →
- Syed Muhammad Abbas Zaidi vs The Director, Animal Husbandry, Government of Sind and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 21 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-25Read full judgment →
- Syed Hisamuddin and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 683 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-18Read full judgment →
- Syed Ghous Muhammad Jilani and Another vs Province of Sind1973 PLD Karachi 338 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-26Read full judgment →
- Syed Ali Akbar Shah vs Hussain Bux and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-01Read full judgment →
- Star Textile Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Third Sind Labour Court, Karachi1973 PLC 376 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the validity of an order passed by the Sind Labour Court No. III, which reviewed its previous orders and directed the reinstatement of the respondent workers with continuity of service following an illegal strike. The core legal question concerned whether notice under section 46-A(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, must be given to registered trade unions concerned with the dispute other than the Collective Bargaining Agent. The Sindh High Court held that the Labour Court's jurisdiction is founded on the submission of a report and the mandatory issuance of notice to the employer and the trade union concerned with the dispute under section 46-A(2). The Court ruled that where multiple trade unions exist and workers belonging to other unions are involved in an illegal strike, notice must be served to those concerned trade unions to satisfy the principles of natural justice and statutory requirements. Consequently, the failure to issue notice rendered the initial proceedings and subsequent dismissal orders invalid, and the petition was dismissed.
Questions settled- Whether notice under section 46-A(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 is mandatory to be served upon all registered trade unions concerned with a dispute in an establishment?
- Does the exclusive status of a Collective Bargaining Agent deprive other registered trade unions of the right to receive notice under section 46-A(2) when their members are involved in an illegal strike?
- What is the effect of a failure to issue notice under section 46-A(2) of the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 on the subsequent proceedings and orders passed by a Labour Court?
- Can a Labour Court review and recall its earlier orders of dismissal passed against striking workers if the foundational requirement of notice was not fulfilled?
- Siraj and 6 Others vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 649 · Sindh High Court · 1973-07-25Read full judgment →
- Sind Industrial Trading Estates Ltd., Employees Union, Karachi vs The Registrar Trade Unions, Government of Sind and 2 Others1973 PLC 88 · Sindh High Court · 1973-01-10Read full judgment →
- Shukar Ali vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 149 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
- Shaikh Muhammad Bashi R vs The Collector of Customs, Karachi1973 PLD Karachi 188 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-22Read full judgment →
- Shahu Alias Shah Murad vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 1069 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
- Shafaqat Hussain vs Gohar Rehman and Another!1973 P Cr. L J 148 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-06Read full judgment →
- Sh. Abdul Hamid and Another vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 858 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-31Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This is an appeal against the judgment of conviction passed by the City and Additional District Magistrate, Karachi, convicting the two appellants under section 167(81) of the Sea Customs Act and sentencing them to rigorous imprisonment. The core legal questions involved whether the seized goods were restricted under the law, whether an admission by an advocate in a bail application can be used against an accused in a criminal trial, and whether a magistrate can take cognizance or try an accused who was initially placed in column 2 or omitted in an interim charge-sheet. The court held that the import of the watches and foreign textiles was legally banned under relevant notifications, that statements or admissions made by an advocate in bail proceedings cannot be used to the detriment of the accused as admissions under the Evidence Act without statutory exception or client consent, and that a magistrate is not bound by police reports and can proceed against persons initially not sent up for trial. The court dismissed the appeals while reducing the sentence.
Questions settled- Whether an admission made by an advocate in a bail application can be used as an admission against the accused in a criminal trial?
- Does a magistrate have the power to try an accused person who was initially not sent up for trial or placed in column 2 of an interim charge-sheet?
- What constitutes being concerned in the keeping or concealment of contraband goods under the Sea Customs Act?
- Whether the burden of proving valid import of restricted goods shifts to the accused under the Sea Customs Act once the prohibition is established?
- Sattar Muhammad Atlas Deedari vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 718 · Sindh High Court · 1972-09-06Read full judgment →
- Samad Hussain vs The State1973 P Cr. L, J 952 · Sindh High Court · 1972-07-25Read full judgment →
- Sajjad Hussain Zaidi vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 19 · Sindh High Court · 1972-06-13Read full judgment →
- Sajid Raza and 3 Other vs The Commissioner, Quetta Division. Quetta1973 PLD Karachi 332 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This constitutional petition challenged the admission process for the Dow Medical College, Karachi, for the 1971-72 academic session. The petitioners, candidates from the Quetta Division, sought admission against reserved seats, contending that the selection of candidates from the Kalat Division—who were third-divisioners—violated the Prospectus rules. The core legal question was whether the petitioners possessed a vested right to admission under the original Prospectus that precluded the government from issuing a subsequent executive order relaxing eligibility criteria. The Court held that the petitioners had no vested right to be considered for surplus seats until such seats were formally determined to be available, a process occurring after the issuance of the amending executive order. Consequently, the Court ruled that the government’s modification of admission criteria was valid and applicable. Furthermore, the Court declined to exercise its discretionary jurisdiction, noting that the petitioners had secured alternative admissions and that displacing the selected respondents would cause undue hardship. The judgment affirms that executive instructions governing admission to government-controlled institutions are binding and subject to modification by the competent authority.
Questions settled- Does an applicant for a reserved seat in a government institution acquire a vested right to admission upon the submission of an application?
- Can the government modify admission criteria for state-run educational institutions through executive orders after the application process has commenced?
- Are the instructions contained in a medical college prospectus legally binding on the administration?
- Under what circumstances will a court decline to exercise discretionary jurisdiction in a matter involving admission to an educational institution?
- Saifuddin vs Zainuddin1973 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1972-04-03Read full judgment →
- Sadar Ud Din Alias Sadroo vs Abdul Khaliq and Another1973 P Cr. L J 370 · Sindh High Court · 1973-09-20Read full judgment →
- Saboo vs The State1973 P Cr. L J 436 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-03Read full judgment →
- S. M. Zakaria and Another vs The Registrar, Co Operative Societies, Hyderabad and 2 Other1973 PLD Karachi 433 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
- Rounaq Ali Ahd 8 Other vs The Settlement & Rehabilitation1973 PLD Karachi 224 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-18Read full judgment →
- Rizvi Traders Ltd. vs J. Tyler & Co., Ltd. and 3 Other1973 PLD Karachi 594 · Sindh High Court · 1973-03-06Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent challenged a decision holding that a private company could file a suit in forma pauperis. The core legal question was whether a limited company, as a juristic person, falls within the definition of person under Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, despite procedural requirements necessitating personal appearance and examination. The Court held that a company is entitled to sue as a pauper. It reasoned that the term person in Order XXXIII must be interpreted broadly to include juristic persons, consistent with the General Clauses Act 1897. The Court further held that procedural hurdles, such as the inability of a company to present a plaint in person, are overcome by Order XXIX Rule 3, which permits the court to examine a company's Director or officer. The key principle established is that procedural rules must be interpreted to advance the remedy and avoid injustice, and a company's inherent incapacity to perform certain acts personally does not negate its substantive right to sue as a pauper.
Questions settled- Can a private limited company file a suit in forma pauperis under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
- Does the term person in Order XXXIII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 include juristic or artificial persons?
- Can a court examine a Director or officer of a company to satisfy the requirements of Order XXXIII regarding the examination of a pauper applicant?
- Risaldar Azimuddin vs Dilshad Hussain1973 PLD Karachi 284 · Sindh High Court · 1972-08-22Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This second appeal concerns the applicability of the rule of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872, in a dispute over land ownership. The appellant, having leased property to the respondent, sought to enforce his title, while the respondent contended that the land belonged to the Karachi Estate Board and that he had received eviction notices from the City Deputy Collector. The core legal question was whether the tenant remains estopped from denying the landlord's title when threatened with eviction by a superior title holder. The Court held that the estoppel created by Section 116 disappears if the landlord's title is extinguished or if there is eviction by title paramount. The Court established that physical dispossession is not required; a threat of eviction from a true owner armed with legal process constitutes symbolic eviction in law. Consequently, once the tenant is threatened with eviction by the true owner, the landlord-tenant relationship terminates, and the tenant is no longer estopped from denying the landlord's title.
Questions settled- Does the rule of estoppel under Section 116 of the Evidence Act 1872 apply when a tenant is threatened with eviction by a true owner holding paramount title?
- Is physical dispossession necessary to constitute eviction by title paramount for the purpose of terminating a landlord-tenant relationship?
- Does a notice to quit from a true owner armed with legal process constitute symbolic eviction?
- Rahmatullah and 3 Others vs The State-1973 P Cr. L J 373 · Sindh High Court · 1972-12-05Read full judgment →
- Rahim Ali and Another vs The State-Opponent1973 P Cr. L J 200 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-28Read full judgment →
- Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Ltd. vs Premier Rubber Belting & Manufacturing Co. Ltd., Karachi1973 PLD Karachi 326 · Sindh High Court · 1972-10-15Read full judgment →
Summary & questions settled
This application was filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 by the respondent company, seeking to stay a winding-up petition filed by the petitioner creditor under Sections 162 and 163 of the Companies Act 1913. The respondent argued that the underlying loan agreement contained an arbitration clause covering any controversy or claim, and thus the matter should be referred to arbitration. The petitioner contended that winding-up proceedings are not legal proceedings in respect of a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration. The High Court of Sindh dismissed the application, holding that Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 does not apply to winding-up proceedings under Section 162 of the Companies Act 1913. The Court ruled that a winding-up petition is not a proceeding to enforce a debt or money claim, but rather an action to wind up a company on the ground of insolvency. Since the arbitration clause did not cover the question of winding up, the statutory jurisdiction of the Court could not be stayed.
Questions settled- Does Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 apply to stay winding-up proceedings initiated under Section 162 of the Companies Act 1913?
- Can a dispute regarding a company's inability to pay its debts, raised in a winding-up petition, be considered a matter agreed to be referred to arbitration under a standard commercial arbitration clause?
- Is a winding-up petition under the Companies Act 1913 deemed a legal proceeding to enforce a debt or money claim for the purposes of an arbitration stay?
- N/A vs N/A1973 PLC 347 · Sindh High Court · 1972-11-15Read full judgment →