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.

• Mst. Hajiani Fatima Bai and 6 Other vs Ibrahim and 13 Other1972 PLD Karachi 610 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-23
  functus officiofinal transfer deedPermanent Transfer RulesSettlement Commissionerrevisional jurisdictionDisplaced Persons Actevacuee propertypublic auction
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged an order of the Settlement Commissioner dated 26th May 1966, which cancelled a final transfer deed issued to the petitioners for a building site and directed its disposal via public auction under Section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958. The petitioner had purchased structures from evacuees, had the transaction confirmed by the Custodian, and was issued a final transfer deed in 1961. The High Court held that upon the issuance of a final transfer deed (PTD), the settlement authorities become functus officio and lose jurisdiction to reopen or set aside the transfer under the general revisional powers of Section 20(3) of the Act, absent statutory authority under the Permanent Transfer Rules. Furthermore, following Supreme Court precedent, since Rules 6 and 7 of the Permanent Transfer Rules had been deleted and no fraud or misrepresentation was alleged, the Settlement Commissioner lacked jurisdiction to set aside the final transfer deed. The petition was accordingly accepted and the impugned order declared without lawful authority.

  Questions settled

  • Does the Settlement Commissioner become functus officio after a final transfer deed is issued under the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958?
  • Can the suo motu revisional power under Section 20(3) of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act 1958 be invoked to cancel a final transfer deed in the absence of fraud or statutory rules empowering such cancellation?
  • Does a judgment of the Supreme Court prevail over conflicting High Court decisions under the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Dilbari Begum vs The State and 3 otherss1972 P Cr. L J 307 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-22Read full judgment →
• Mst. Bachi Bai vs Not1972 PLD Karachi 278 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-13
  second appealurban rent restrictionstriking off defencedefault in rent depositwaiverestoppelevictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959, concerning an eviction application filed by the respondent landlord against the tenant appellant for irregular payment of rent regarding an open plot of land in Karachi. The Rent Controller ordered the tenant to deposit arrears and monthly rent pursuant to section 13(6) of the Ordinance. Subsequently, the landlord applied to strike off the tenant's defence due to persistent delays in depositing monthly rent. The Rent Controller allowed the application and ordered eviction, a decision upheld in first appeal by the Additional District Judge. In the second appeal before the High Court, the tenant argued that old age excused compliance, that the landlord's delay in filing the striking-off application constituted waiver, and that a subsequent overlapping deposit order created confusion. The High Court held that old age without evidence does not excuse statutory non-compliance, that mere delay or inaction by a landlord in seeking remedies does not amount to waiver or create an estoppel in the absence of a statutory duty not to be silent, and that principles from section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act cannot be imported into the Rent Restriction Ordinance. The appeal was dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Does old age alone excuse a tenant from complying with an order for the deposit of rent under section 13(6) of the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does mere delay or inaction by a landlord in filing an application to strike off a tenant's defence amount to a waiver of the landlord's rights?
  • Can the statutory principles of waiver governing the acceptance of rent under section 112 of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882 be imported into proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Does a landlord's withdrawal of rent deposited in court after a tenant's default constitute a waiver or create an estoppel against prosecuting an eviction application?
  Read full judgment →
• Mst. Asghari Begum Alias Munni Begum vs The Additional Settlement1972 PLD Karachi 615 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-29Read full judgment →
• MRS. Aiyasha Koreshi and Another vs Hishmatullah, Koreshi and Another1972 PLD Karachi 653 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-20Read full judgment →
• MR. Rahim Bux P. Munshi vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry1972 PLC 175 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-26Read full judgment →
• Moula Bux vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 100 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-21Read full judgment →
• Moharram vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 635 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-02Read full judgment →
• Mitho vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 553 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-25Read full judgment →
• Miss Naseem Kausar Arbab vs Government of Pakistan through Commander in Chief of Pakistan Navy, Karachi and 3 Other1972 PLD Karachi 563 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-11Read full judgment →
• Miss Anita Ghulam Ali and 2 Other vs Abdul Rehman and 4 Other1972 PLD Karachi 649 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mir Muhammad And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
• Mevo And 11 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 403 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Zakaria Kasbati & Co., Karachi and $ Other vs Messrs H. A.1972 PLD Karachi 209 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs the Asiatic Industries Ltd., Karachi vs Zahid Ali1972 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-21Read full judgment →
• Messrs Star Vacuum Bottle Manufacturing, Co. Ltd. vs Collector of Central Excise and Lad1972 PLD Karachi 210 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-15
  excise dutymanufacturecomposite goodsvacuum flaskscharging sectiondouble taxation
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the recovery of excise duty on vacuum flasks manufactured by the petitioners by assembling tin, plastic, and glass components, which were themselves excisable goods. The core legal questions were whether the process of assembling readymade duty-paid components constitutes 'manufacture' under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, and whether Section 3-B of the Act legally authorizes the levy of excise duty on a composite finished product containing excisable components. The court held that the assembly of components into a finished product, especially when subjected to processes like oxidisation, constitutes 'manufacture' within the ordinary meaning of the term, and that Section 3-B clearly and unambiguously authorizes the levy of duty on such composite goods at the rate applicable to the component bearing the highest duty. The key principles laid down are that simple physical assembly of finished components amounts to manufacture for excise purposes, that fiscal provisions must be given full effect according to their clear and unambiguous terms without importing unwritten words, and that double taxation, even if occurring, is permissible if expressly mandated by statute.

  Questions settled

  • Does the assembling of readymade duty-paid components into a finished product constitute manufacture under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944?
  • Whether Section 3-B of the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, independently authorizes the levy and collection of excise duty on composite goods?
  • Can a fiscal statute be interpreted to avoid double taxation when the statutory language clearly and unambiguously mandates the levy?
  • Are vacuum flasks chargeable to excise duty under the Central Excises and Salt Act, 1944, by virtue of containing excisable component parts?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs S. J. & G. Fazal Elahi Ltd., Karachi vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 641 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs Muqtada Khan Iqtida Khans vs Mst. Allah Rakhi Begum1972 PLD Karachi 471 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs Meena Trading Co., Karachi vs Abdul Ghani and Another1972 PLD Karachi 19 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs Lodhi & Co., Karachi-. vs Messrs Ansonia Watch Co. and Another1972 PLD Karachi 238 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hotel Columbus Ltd., Karachi vs Karachi Hotel Workers' Union1972 PLC 441 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-25Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haroon Textile Mills Ltd. vs Allah Ditta1972 PLD Karachi 57 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-04Read full judgment →
• Messrs General Tractors & Machinery Company Ltd., Karachi vs The State1972 P Cr.L J 604 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Gabole Brother vs Government of Pakistan1972 PLD Karachi 515 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-08
  arbitration agreementsole arbitratorstay of legal proceedingsbias of arbitratorrescission of contractdomestic arbitrator
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, arose from a suit filed by Messrs Gabole Brothers against the Government of Pakistan for the recovery of damages following the rescission of three supply contracts by the Quarter Master-General. The defendants sought a stay of the suit under the arbitration clause, which designated the Quarter Master-General as the sole arbitrator. The plaintiffs resisted the stay on two grounds: first, that the defendants failed to invoke arbitration prior to the suit; and second, that the Quarter Master-General was disqualified as an arbitrator because he had formed a pre-judged opinion on the dispute by rescinding the contract and alleging breach by the plaintiffs. The High Court held that a defendant's right to seek a stay under Section 34 remains unfettered until the filing of a written statement and that expressing administrative views or rescinding a contract in the line of official duty does not automatically disqualify a domestic, party-appointed arbitrator unless there is clear proof of a closed mind or bias. The application was allowed and the suit stayed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of a defendant to invoke arbitration prior to the institution of a suit bars an application for stay under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940?
  • Does an official act of rescinding a contract and expressing administrative dissatisfaction disqualify a party-appointed sole arbitrator from acting in that capacity?
  • Can a contractor escape a binding arbitration clause designating an employee of the other contracting party as sole arbitrator merely because that official formed a view in the course of administrative duties?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd., Karachis vs Rehmat Khan and Anothers1972 PLC 364 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs Eveready Pictures, Karachi vs The Commissioner of Income Tax1972 PLD Karachi 243 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs Bokhara Palace Ltd. vs Brigadier His Highness Muhammad1972 PLD Karachi 105 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-09Read full judgment →
• Messrs Alpha Insurance Co. Ltd. Karachi and Another vs Messrs M. A.1972 PLD Karachi 265 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-13Read full judgment →
• Manthar vs Dhingano and 2 Other1972 PLD Karachi 628 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-06Read full judgment →
• Manthar And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 1242 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-02Read full judgment →
• Manthar and 4 Other vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 214 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-02Read full judgment →
• Mahfooz Ali vs Thb State1972 PCr.LJ 1261 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-09Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali Ansari vs The Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Sind, Karachi and 2 Others1972 PLC 541 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-25Read full judgment →
• Mahboob Ali Ansari vs The Secretary, Excise and Taxation Department, Government of Sind, Karachi and 2 Other1972 PLD Karachi 598 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-25Read full judgment →
• Khawaja Usman Shah vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 77 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-13Read full judgment →
• Kaysons vs National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1972 PLD Karachi 174 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-01Read full judgment →
• Karachi Municipal Corporation vs Moosa M. Adam and 4 Other1972 PLD Karachi 571 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-11
  estoppel against statutemunicipal contractsummary evictionmandatory statutory provisionsunauthorized occupationmunicipal corporationlease validity
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal concerns a dispute between the Karachi Municipal Corporation and occupants of a municipal plot who claimed tenancy rights. The respondents sought a declaration and injunction against eviction, alleging they were tenants. The trial court dismissed the suit, but a Single Judge of the High Court reversed this, invoking the doctrine of estoppel against the Corporation. The core legal question was whether the doctrine of estoppel could be invoked against a statutory body to validate a contract (lease) that failed to comply with mandatory statutory provisions of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act 1933, and whether the Corporation could summarily evict the occupants. The High Court held that statutory provisions prescribing the manner of executing contracts by municipal bodies are mandatory, not directory. Consequently, no estoppel can be raised against a statute, and the alleged lease, not executed in the prescribed manner, was void. The Court further held that the Corporation was entitled to summarily remove the unauthorized structures under its rules. The key principle laid down is that estoppel cannot be pleaded against a statute, and mandatory formalities for municipal contracts must be strictly observed.

  Questions settled

  • Can the doctrine of estoppel be invoked against a statutory body to validate a contract that fails to comply with mandatory statutory requirements?
  • Are the provisions of the Karachi Municipal Corporation Act 1933 regarding the execution of contracts mandatory or directory?
  • Does a Municipal Corporation have the authority to summarily remove temporary structures from its land without prior notice to the occupant?
  • Can an oral agreement or receipt of rent create a valid lease against a Municipal Corporation when the statute requires a written contract executed in a specific manner?
  Read full judgment →
• Kamil Shah And Another vs Shah Muhammad and another--Opponent1972 P Cr. L J 1121 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-19Read full judgment →
• Kamil Shah And Another vs Shah Muhammad and another---Opponent1972 P Cr. L J 322 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-19Read full judgment →
• Kamal vs The 'State1972 P Cr. L J 26 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-08Read full judgment →
• Kalander Bux And 3 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 820 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-08Read full judgment →
• Jn Re L Mst. Zeb Hamim Khan vs Not1972 PLD Karachi 177 · Sindh High Court · 1967-01-16Read full judgment →
• Jehangir Pherozshaw Dubash and Another vs Hoshang Homi Broacha1972 PLD Karachi 74 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Jamot Ghulam Muhammad And 3 Others vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 1130 · Sindh High Court · 1970-07-22
  quashment of proceedingsabuse of processbreach of contractcriminal liabilitymens reaprivate complaintinherent powers
  Summary & questions settled

  The petitioners sought the quashment of criminal proceedings initiated against them in a private complaint before a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, alleging offenses under sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 regarding an alleged breach of contract for the sale of fish. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings based on a transaction that is essentially civil in nature, and lacking evidence of fraudulent intent or mens rea, constitute an abuse of the process of the court. The Court held that the proceedings were an abuse of process, noting that the complaint failed to disclose any criminal liability and that the complainant appeared to be a fictitious person who could not be served. The key principle laid down is that courts must exercise extreme caution and circumspection in private complaints involving civil transactions to prevent the misuse of criminal law as a tool for harassment. Where a dispute is purely civil and lacks the requisite mens rea, criminal proceedings should be quashed under the inherent powers of the High Court to prevent the perversion of justice.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings be quashed when the underlying dispute is purely civil in nature?
  • Does a breach of contract, without evidence of fraudulent intent, satisfy the requirements for criminal liability under the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can a High Court exercise its inherent powers to quash criminal proceedings?
  • Is a criminal complaint that fails to establish mens rea an abuse of the process of the court?
  Read full judgment →
• Jalal Din vs Chiragh Din and 2 Other Opponents1972 PLD Karachi 622 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-29Read full judgment →
• J Nooruddin Moosajee vs The Commissioner of Income Tax, Karachi1972 PLD Karachi 186 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-03Read full judgment →
• Ishtiaq Ali And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 651 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-24Read full judgment →
• In Re: Kruddson Ltd., Karachi vs Not1972 PLD Karachi 376 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-17
  compulsory winding upjust and equitable groundprivate limited companyquasi-partnershipminority shareholdersdeadlock in managementCompanies Act 1913
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition was filed under Section 162 of the Companies Act 1913 by two brothers who were minority shareholders and directors in a family-run private limited company, seeking its compulsory winding up on just and equitable grounds. The petitioners alleged that they were systematically excluded from management, denied an effective voice in company affairs, and deprived of their proportionate share of profits following the appointment of a new Managing Director. The core legal question was whether a private limited company should be treated as a partnership firm for winding-up purposes, such that strained relations or a minority shareholder's desire to exit automatically warrants a winding-up order under the just and equitable clause. The High Court dismissed the petition, holding that strained relations alone do not justify winding up unless they result in a complete deadlock, exclusion from statutory corporate rights, or a justified lack of confidence in the management's probity. The Court established that while quasi-partnership principles apply to private limited companies, winding up under the just and equitable ground requires proving deadlock, actual exclusion from membership rights, or proven managerial dishonesty.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a private limited company can be treated as a partnership firm for the purposes of a compulsory winding-up petition under the just and equitable clause?
  • Does a minority shareholder's desire to dissolve a private limited company automatically entitle them to a compulsory winding-up order?
  • What specific grounds must be established to justify the compulsory winding up of a family-run private limited company on just and equitable grounds?
  Read full judgment →
• In Re : Karachi Port and Dock Workers Welfare Fund vs Not1972 PLD Karachi 41 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-26Read full judgment →
• Idris Ahmad Khan vs Syed Ali Zahid Raza and Another1972 PLD Karachi 493 · Sindh High Court · 1969-08-20
  letters patent appealland settlementrehabilitation schemesurrendered landjurisdiction of rehabilitation authoritiesrevisional powerslaches and delay
  Summary & questions settled

  This letters patent appeal arises from a judgment dismissing a writ petition filed under Article 98 of the Constitution of 1962, concerning the disputed allotment of agricultural land originally surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 49. The core legal question was whether the revising officer, Mr. Enver Adil, lacked jurisdiction to decide the revision on February 27, 1960, on the ground that the land stood acquired under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, thereby removing it from the purview of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Act, 1956. The Sindh High Court held that the notification under section 4 of the 1958 Act only acquired land that was already allotted on the relevant date, and since the disputed land had been surrendered and was unallotted at that time, it was not so acquired. Furthermore, the court held that the appellant had himself invoked the jurisdiction of the rehabilitation authorities, failed to object to the officer's jurisdiction during departmental proceedings, and was guilty of laches. The appeal was accordingly dismissed with costs.

  Questions settled

  • Whether land surrendered under Martial Law Regulation No. 49 and unallotted at the time of a notification under section 4 of the Displaced Persons (Land Settlement) Act, 1958, is covered by such acquisition notification?
  • Whether a party who invokes the jurisdiction of rehabilitation officers and fails to object to their authority during departmental proceedings can subsequently challenge their jurisdiction in writ proceedings?
  • Does a writ petition challenging an order of a settlement commissioner suffer from fatal laches and negligence if delayed for several years without sufficient explanation?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyder Raza vs Nasrullah Maftoon And Another1972 P Cr. L J 1253 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-24Read full judgment →
• Hirjina Salt & Chemicals (Pak.) Ltd., Karachi vs The Union Council, Gharo and Another1972 PLD Karachi 145 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-06
  market feedharatbasic democracies ordermanufacturing premisessale of goodsconstitutional petitionsalt levy
  Summary & questions settled

  These constitutional petitions challenged the levy of market fees (Dharat) by the Gharo Union Council on premises used for manufacturing salt and crushing bones within its jurisdiction. The petitioners contended that Rule 4 of the West Pakistan Union Council Dharat (Fees for Markets) Rules, 1961 was ultra vires, that no services were rendered to justify a fee rather than a tax, that salt was an exclusive central legislative subject under the Constitution, and that no sales took place on the premises since transactions were finalized at Karachi. The Sindh High Court held that Rule 4 was intra vires and protected as an existing law under constitutional provisions, that the fee was legally justified for local supervision and services, that the Union Council levied the fee on the market premises rather than salt itself, and that bone crushing constitutes manufacturing. Applying the Sale of Goods Act, 1930, the court further concluded that property in unascertained goods passed to buyers through appropriation upon loading at the manufacturing premises, thus constituting a legal sale within the market area. The petitions were accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether Rule 4 of the West Pakistan Union Council Dharat (Fees for Markets) Rules, 1961 is ultra vires the Basic Democracies Order, 1959?
  • Does the levy of market fees on manufacturing premises where goods are produced for sale amount to an unconstitutional tax on salt?
  • Whether the process of crushing raw bones into powder constitutes manufacturing for the purpose of market fee rules?
  • At what point does property in unascertained goods pass under the Sale of Goods Act, 1930 so as to constitute a sale within a declared market area?
  Read full judgment →
• Hayat Shipping Agencies Ltd., Karachi vs (1) Delta Pioneer,1972 PLD Karachi 442 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-20Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali M. Soomro vs Chairman, WAPDA and 3 Other1972 PLD Karachi 261 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-16Read full judgment →
• Haseemuddin vs Tim State1972 PCr. L J 241 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-01Read full judgment →
• Hasan Razaqi And 2 Others vs Mst. Mehrun Nisa Mehr And Another1972 P Cr. L J 1175 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
• Hamzo And 2 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 478 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-27
  murder convictionidentification evidencevoice identificationrecovery evidencemashirnamareasonable doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal challenged the convictions and sentences imposed by the Sessions Judge, Larkana, for the murders of two individuals. The core legal question was whether the prosecution had proven the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, given the reliance on eye-witness testimony and alleged recoveries of incriminating articles. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case. The court found the eye-witness testimony unreliable due to significant contradictions regarding identification, the visibility conditions, and the timing of the report to the independent witness. Furthermore, the court rejected the evidence of recoveries, noting that the mashirnamas were prepared at the police station rather than the spot, rendering them legally suspect. The court also criticized the trial judge for relying on extra-judicial suggestions regarding the accused's character and for misinterpreting the accused's defense. The key principle laid down is that identification based solely on voice, without strong corroborating evidence, is a weak form of proof, and that recoveries prepared at a police station rather than the scene of the crime lack legal credibility.

  Questions settled

  • Is identification based solely on voice sufficient to sustain a conviction in a murder case without strong corroborating evidence?
  • Does the preparation of recovery mashirnamas at a police station instead of the crime scene render the recovery evidence unreliable?
  • Can a trial court rely on extra-judicial suggestions regarding the character of the accused to overcome deficiencies in prosecution evidence?
  Read full judgment →
• Hajl Faiz Muhammad vs Haji Soomar (Rbpresentbd by Heirs) and An03hbr1972 PLD Karachi 459 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-16Read full judgment →
• Haji Naqibuddin vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 846 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-21Read full judgment →
• Haji Muhammad Usman And Another vs Haji Jan Muhammad And Another1972 P Cr. L J 671 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Haj1 And 4 Others vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 465 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-30
  murderdeath sentence confirmationocular testimonyballistic expertmotivepost-mortem examinationcommon object
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and confirmation reference arose from the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge, Sukkur, convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 148 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in death sentences and transportation for life. The core legal question concerned the reliability of ocular testimony, medical evidence regarding the time of death, corroborating motive, and ballistic expert reports in establishing the guilt of the accused for double murder. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the death sentences. The court held that minor discrepancies in estimated post-mortem times and approximate distance estimates do not discredit otherwise credible ocular testimony, which was firmly corroborated by a strong established motive and positive ballistic matches. The key principle laid down is that expert medical opinion regarding the time of death is conjectural and yields to direct, reliable ocular testimony supported by corroborative circumstantial and forensic evidence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether medical opinion regarding the time of death based on a post-mortem examination overrides direct ocular testimony?
  • Does the absence of charring marks on a deceased's body render eyewitness accounts of close-range firing inherently unreliable?
  • Is a ballistic expert report matching crime empty cartridges to a recovered weapon sufficient to corroborate participation in a murder?
  • Whether previous blood feuds and failed compensation agreements constitute a sufficient motive for capital convictions?
  Read full judgment →
• Hafizur Rehman vs Muhammad Ikram And 4 Others1972 P Cr. L J 598 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-11Read full judgment →
• Habibur Rahman vs Deputy Settlement Commissioner, Sukkur and Other1972 PLD Karachi 46 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-23Read full judgment →
• Habibullah vs Seraie Mukhtar Hussain and anoihfrs1972 P Cr. L J 692 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-28Read full judgment →
• Habibullah Paracha vs State Bank of Pakistan1972 P Cr. L J 361 · Sindh High Court · 1971-08-25Read full judgment →
• H. H. Ahmed vs Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of1972 PLD Karachi 366 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-23
  requisition of propertycompensationarbitrationjurisdictionimplied bareminent domaincivil suit
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from a suit filed by a landlord seeking compensation for a residential flat requisitioned by the Karachi Administration in 1959. Although the Rent Controller directed the parties to seek arbitration under Section 4 of the Sind Requisition of Land Act 1947, the Government failed to appoint an arbitrator, prompting the landlord to sue in civil court. The trial court decreed the suit, but the appellate court reduced the compensation based on a repealed statutory provision and an informal offer. The High Court analyzed whether the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by the statutory arbitration machinery. It held that the right to compensation for expropriated property is an inherent constitutional right existing independently of the requisition statute. Where the statutory machinery is rendered illusory or ineffective by the Government's failure to appoint an arbitrator, the conditional ouster of civil jurisdiction is displaced, and the civil court has jurisdiction to determine and award compensation.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the failure of the Government to appoint an arbitrator under a requisition statute entitles the affected property owner to seek compensation directly through a civil court?
  • Does the statutory machinery for determining compensation under the Sind Requisition of Land Act 1947 completely oust the jurisdiction of civil courts if that machinery is rendered ineffective by state inaction?
  • Whether liabilities incurred by the Central Government in relation to the federal territory of Karachi were transferred to the Province of West Pakistan under President's Order No. 9 of 1961?
  Read full judgment →
• Gul Muhammad Alias Gulf.00 vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 374 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-06Read full judgment →
• Gul And 4 Others vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 506 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-21Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar vs Hassan Askari And 4 Others1972 P Cr. L J 551 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-08Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Rasool vs The State1972 PCr. L J 517 · Sindh High Court · 1971-05-04Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Hyder And 4 Others vs Tub State1972 P Cr. L J 789 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-07Read full judgment →
• Fida Muhammad Paracha And 3 Others vs The State and anothers1972 P Cr. L J 951 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-10
  revisional jurisdictionForeign Exchange Regulation Actpersona designataexemption from personal appearanceCode of Criminal Procedurefinality of ordersTribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicants, facing trial before an Additional Sessions Judge acting as a Tribunal under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, sought revision of an order denying their exemption from personal appearance. The core legal question was whether the High Court possesses revisional jurisdiction over the Tribunal’s orders under sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. The Court held that it lacks such revisional jurisdiction. The ratio is that while conferring jurisdiction on an established court typically attracts ordinary procedural incidents, this rule is superseded by the express statutory provision in section 23-A(7) of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, which declares the Tribunal's orders final, save for the specific appeal provided. Consequently, the Court dismissed the revision petition. However, it observed that the trial judge erred in law by failing to recognize his authority to grant exemption under section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, and expressed confidence that the trial judge would reconsider the application appropriately.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have revisional jurisdiction over orders passed by a Tribunal constituted under Section 23-A of the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947?
  • Is a Tribunal constituted under the Foreign Exchange Regulation Act, 1947, considered a 'persona designata' or an established court?
  • Does the power to grant exemption from personal appearance in a criminal trial exist under Section 353 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898?
  Read full judgment →
• Fazal Shafiq Textile Mills Ltd., Karachis vs Rehmat Khan Ahd Another1972 PLD Kar. 397 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-27Read full judgment →
• Farzand Ali-- vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 746 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Wali Muhammad vs The State and 4 otherss1972 P Cr. L J 732 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-16Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bakhsh And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 270 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-12Read full judgment →
• Deputy Commissioner, Karachi vs Abu Bakar and Other1972 PLD Karachi 128 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-26
  land acquisitionfair market valuecompensation assessmentstatutory allowancerepealed legislationcompulsory acquisitionvaluation of land
  Summary & questions settled

  This reference concerns the determination of fair compensation for land acquired by the government in Deh Safooran and Deh Mehran, Karachi, for airport expansion. The Deputy Commissioner had initially fixed compensation rates based on the Land Control (Capital of the Federation) Ordinance, 1948, which restricted valuation. The core legal question was whether the compensation, previously limited by the now-repealed 1948 Ordinance, could be reassessed based on market value evidence, particularly given the land's development potential near the National Highway. The Court held that since the 1948 Ordinance was repealed without a savings clause for such decisions, the compensation must be determined under the general provisions of the Land Acquisition Act, 1894. The Court emphasized that compensation must reflect the fair market value, rejecting the restrictive rates imposed by the repealed Ordinance. Consequently, the Court set the compensation at Rs. 2 per square yard, plus the statutory 15% allowance and 6% interest from the date of possession, establishing that acquisition compensation must be based on relevant market sales evidence rather than arbitrary, repealed statutory caps.

  Questions settled

  • Does the repeal of the Land Control (Capital of the Federation) Ordinance 1948 allow for the reassessment of compensation for land acquired while the Ordinance was in force?
  • Should compensation for land acquisition be determined based on market value evidence despite previous administrative reliance on a now-repealed restrictive Ordinance?
  • Is the classification of land as agricultural or non-agricultural relevant for determining compensation when the land has significant development potential?
  Read full judgment →
• Dad Karim vs The State1972 PCr. L J 1174 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-23Read full judgment →
• Chowdhry Muhammad Din vs The National Commercial Bank Ltd., Karachi1972 PLD Karachi 287 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-14Read full judgment →
• Bilandrai vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Khairpur1972 PLD Karachi 620 · Sindh High Court · 1972-05-11Read full judgment →
• Bhawandas And 2 Others vs State Bank of Pakistan, Karachi1972 P Cr. L J 619 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-01Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ahmad vs Muhammad Hanif and Another1972 PLD Karachi 98 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-20Read full judgment →
• Bagh Ali And 4 Others vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 334 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-10Read full judgment →
• Badruddin vs Kazi Munshi and 2 Other1972 PLD Karachi 101 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-16Read full judgment →
• Aziz Salimuddin Hyder vs Farooq Ahmad Judgment Debtor1972 PLD Karachi 74 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-12Read full judgment →
• Azhar Ali vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 602 · Sindh High Court · 1972-02-15Read full judgment →
• Ayub James and 2 Others vs State1972 P Cr. L J 759 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Australasia Bank L7D., Karachi Decree-Holder vs Bashir Sons and 21972 PLD Karachi 327 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-18Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs TheCSTATE1972 P Cr. L J 228 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-23Read full judgment →
• Attaullah Malik vs Rashid and Another S1972 PLD Karachi 273 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-14
  recovery of rentlimitation periodcause of actionevacuee propertyconfirmation of salemerger of orderssecond appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from a suit for the recovery of arrears of rent filed by the respondents against the appellant tenant concerning an evacuee property house. The core legal question was whether the suit for recovery of rent for a period exceeding three years prior to the institution of the suit was barred by limitation under Article 110 of the Limitation Act, specifically interpreting the meaning of the word 'due' and when the cause of action accrued given that confirmation of the property sale under evacuee laws was subject to pending revisions before the Custodian. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the word 'due' in Article 110 means legally demandable and recoverable, and that limitation does not run until an enforceable cause of action arises. The Court laid down the principle that where the enforceability of a landlord's status and title is sub judice before appellate or revisional authorities under evacuee property legislation, the cause of action remains suspended and the rent becomes due only upon the final determination and merger of orders by the final authority, from which date the limitation period commences.

  Questions settled

  • What is the legal meaning of the word 'due' under Article 110 of the Limitation Act 1908 in relation to a suit for arrears of rent?
  • When does the cause of action for the recovery of rent accrue when the landlord's title and status are subject to pending proceedings under evacuee property laws?
  • Does the filing of a revision petition render a matter sub judice such that the lower authority's order merges into the revisional order for the purpose of computing limitation?
  • Can arrears of rent become barred by limitation during a period when the landlord is legally incompetent to assert their status or file a suit for recovery?
  Read full judgment →
• Anwar And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 589 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-24Read full judgment →
• Amir Bux And 3 Others vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 45 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-18Read full judgment →
• Aman Alias Aman Ali vs Thb State1972 P Cr. L J 369 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-27Read full judgment →
• Allarakha vs Baboo Brother Transport Co., Karachi Opponents1972 PLD Karachi 215 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-25Read full judgment →
• Allah Warayo vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 585 · Sindh High Court · 1971-11-09Read full judgment →
• Allah Rakhio vs Tae State1972 PLD Karachi 319 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-15Read full judgment →
• Ali Sher And Another vs The State1972 P Cr. L J 754 · Sindh High Court · 1972-01-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Hasan and Other vs The State1972 PLD Karachi 558 · Sindh High Court · 1972-03-24Read full judgment →
• Ali Ahmad Mahmood vs The State1972 PCr. L J 1139 · Sindh High Court · 1972-06-12Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Khan vs The Commissioner of Karachi and 2 Other1972 PLD Karachi 132 · Sindh High Court · 1971-09-16Read full judgment →