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. Noor Bibi vs Settlement Commissioner, Karachi and Another1971 PLD Karachi 895 · Sindh High Court · 1971-06-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Janna T Bi vs Ishtiaq Baig and Another1971 P Cr. L J 1322 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-17Read full judgment →
• Mst. Hajra vs Additional Commissioner (Judicial), Karachi1971 PLD Karachi 563 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-21Read full judgment →
• Mst. Gulshan and Anothr vs The State and Another -1971 P Cr. L J 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-15Read full judgment →
• Mst. Farida Parwin vs Qadeeruddin Ahmad Siddiqi1971 PLD Karachi 118 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-26
  deferred dowerdissolution of marriagefamily court decreejurisdiction of civil courtarbitration councilsupervisory jurisdictionconstitutional petitionremand
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a second appeal and a revision application challenging an appellate judgment that had set aside and remanded both a suit for the recovery of deferred dower and a suit for a declaration that a previous family court decree of dissolution of marriage was a nullity. The core legal questions concern the maintainability of a civil suit challenging a family court's dissolution decree, the effect of non-compliance with procedural timelines under family laws, and the scope of the High Court's revisional and supervisory jurisdiction over Family Courts and District Courts. The court held that a civil court has no jurisdiction to entertain a suit challenging a dissolution decree when the statutory procedure for conciliation and notice under the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance and West Pakistan Family Courts Act has been complied with, and that the 90-day period for a decree to become effective runs from its receipt by the Chairman irrespective of directory delays in transmission. Furthermore, while a standard civil revision does not lie against appellate orders under the Family Courts Act, the High Court can exercise its supervisory powers under Article 102 of the Constitution to correct jurisdictional errors. The key principles established relate to the finality of family court decrees, the directory nature of transmission timelines, and the application of constitutional supervision to subordinate courts.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a civil court has jurisdiction to entertain a suit seeking a declaration that a family court's decree for the dissolution of marriage is a nullity?
  • Does the delay in sending a certified copy of a dissolution decree to the Chairman beyond the prescribed seven days render the decree ineffective?
  • Whether a revision application is maintainable before the High Court against an appellate judgment of the District Court under the West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964?
  • Can the High Court exercise judicial control over subordinate courts by invoking the supervisory powers under Article 102 of the Constitution?
  Read full judgment →
• MRS. Razia Abbas Ahmed vs The Government of West Pakistan and 21971 PLD Karachi 234 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-09Read full judgment →
• MRS. Daphne Joseph vs Malik Eric Roshan Khan1971 PLD Karachi 887 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-19
  Divorce Act 1869West Pakistan Family Courts Act 1964Christian marriage and divorcejurisdictionprovincial and central law inconsistencyfamily court rulesdissolution of marriage
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal is directed against an order of the District Judge, Karachi, dismissing a divorce petition filed by a Christian wife under section 10 of the Divorce Act of 1869 on the ground of lack of territorial jurisdiction. The appellant contended that under the proviso to rule 6 of the West Pakistan Family Courts Rules, 1965, the court within the local limits of which the wife ordinarily resides has jurisdiction, arguing that the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, is a procedural statute applicable to all citizens regardless of religion. The core legal question is whether the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964, overrides or applies to Christian marriages governed by the Divorce Act of 1869. The court held that while the Family Courts Act is not exclusively restricted to Muslims, it is a provincial enactment and cannot override or impliedly repeal the Divorce Act of 1869, which is a comprehensive central code exclusively governing Christian matrimonial matters, given that any inconsistency must be resolved in favor of the central law under Article 134 of the Constitution of Pakistan 1962. The appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Does the West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 apply exclusively to Muslims?
  • Can a provincial law override or amend a central enactment like the Divorce Act of 1869?
  • Which court has jurisdiction to entertain a divorce petition filed by a Christian wife under the Divorce Act of 1869?
  Read full judgment →
• MR. Rahim Bux P. Munshi vs Pakistan through the Secretary, Ministry1971 PLD Karachi 833 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Mohib and 5 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1144 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-26Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Idris vs The Collector of Customs, Karachi and Another1971 PLD Karachi 736 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-28
  import licenceconfiscation of goodsmandatory injunctioninterlocutory stageimport trade regulationscustoms authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a civil suit concerning the importation of betelnuts under an import licence issued pursuant to the import schedule published on 30th June 1969, covering medicines, herbs, and crude drugs. The core legal question is whether the court should grant an interlocutory mandatory injunction directing the customs authorities to release confiscated goods to the plaintiff pending the final determination of the suit involving the interpretation of import trade regulations. The court held that a mandatory injunction at the interlocutory stage cannot be issued to undo a final adjudication and confiscation order passed by the Collector of Customs, as such an order would create an irretrievable situation rather than restore the status quo. The key principle laid down is that mandatory injunctions at an interlocutory stage are granted rarely and only to restore the status quo, not to establish a new state of things or undo completed confiscation orders, and an offer to furnish a bank guarantee does not suffice to alter this principle where goods have been lawfully confiscated.

  Questions settled

  • Can a mandatory injunction be issued at the interlocutory stage to undo a confiscation order passed by the Collector of Customs?
  • Does the offer of a bank guarantee justify the release of confiscated goods to an importer pending the final decision of the suit?
  • Whether an import licence covering medicines, herbs, and crude drugs includes betelnuts.
  Read full judgment →
• Miss Noor Jehan vs The State and 3 Others1971 P Cr. L J 1006 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-18Read full judgment →
• Mirza Riazul Hassan vs Hafiz Mirza Hafizul Hasan1971 PLD Karachi 649 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs Surya Brothers vs Messrs Dada Soap Factory Ltd.1971 PLD Karachi 189 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-21
  trade mark registrationhonest concurrent userdeceptive similaritylikelihood of confusionappellate jurisdictiontrade mark infringement
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal under Section 76 of the Trade Marks Act, 1940, challenged the Registrar of Trade Marks' order rejecting the appellants' application for registration of the trade mark 'Kalapan'. The Registrar had denied registration, finding the mark deceptively similar to the respondents' registered mark 'Motia Pan' and rejecting the appellants' claim of honest concurrent user since 1948. The Court held that while the two marks shared visual and phonetic similarities likely to cause confusion among illiterate or semi-literate consumers, the Registrar erred in rejecting the appellants' evidence of long-standing user. The Court found the documentary evidence, including cash memos and block preparation receipts, sufficient to establish honest concurrent user under Section 10(2) of the Trade Marks Act, 1940. Furthermore, the Court noted that the respondents' own mark had been registered despite the existence of a prior similar mark, rendering the Registrar's refusal inconsistent. Consequently, the Court set aside the Registrar's order and directed the registration of the appellants' trade mark.

  Questions settled

  • Does the similarity between two trade marks, likely to cause confusion among illiterate or semi-literate consumers, preclude registration if honest concurrent user is established?
  • Can an appellate court consider the existence of a prior registered trade mark as evidence of inconsistent application of registration standards by the Registrar?
  • Is the rejection of affidavits solely on the ground that they are couched in similar language legally sustainable?
  • Does the failure of a respondent to dispute a claim of user in initial objections create a presumption of admission?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Sabina Ltd. vs China Silk House1971 PLD Karachi 255 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs S. M. Rafi Allawalla vs Kayser (Pakistan) Managing Agency Co.1971 PLD Karachi 756 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Premier Insurance Co. of Pakistan Ltd. vs Messrs Gulf1971 PLD Karachi 99 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Moosa Oomar & Co. Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs Haji E. Dossa &1971 PLD Karachi 899 · Sindh High Court
  Letters Patent AppealArbitration ActSole ArbitratorLegal MisconductArbitrator BiasQuantum of DamagesInterest on Damages
  Summary & questions settled

  This Letters Patent Appeal arose from a dispute concerning a contract for the sale of cotton seeds, where the respondent appointed a sole arbitrator after the appellant failed to do so. The appellant challenged the resulting award, alleging non-compliance with Section 9(b) of the Arbitration Act, legal misconduct regarding damage calculation, and arbitrator bias. The Court first addressed the maintainability of the appeal, holding that a Letters Patent Appeal is an internal review mechanism and not a "second appeal" barred by Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act. Regarding the merits, the Court found that the respondent’s notices constituted substantial compliance with Section 9(b). It further held that an arbitrator’s failure to strictly apply the market-price-difference rule for damages does not constitute legal misconduct, nor does a familial relationship alone establish bias without specific evidence. However, the Court modified the award by striking the interest component, as no express contract or trade usage justified it. The judgment affirms that lay arbitrators are not bound by strict legal standards, and procedural technicalities do not vitiate awards where substantial compliance is evident.

  Questions settled

  • Is a Letters Patent Appeal barred by the restriction on second appeals under Section 39(2) of the Arbitration Act?
  • Does the failure to strictly follow the notice procedure in Section 9(b) of the Arbitration Act vitiate an award if substantial compliance is demonstrated?
  • Does an arbitrator's failure to calculate damages based strictly on the difference between contract and market price amount to legal misconduct?
  • Is an award liable to be set aside solely on the ground that the arbitrator is related to one of the parties?
  • Can an arbitrator award interest on damages in the absence of an express or implied contract or usage of trade?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Jaffer Ebrahim & Co. Ltd. vs The Deputy Controller, Exchange1971 PLD Karachi 10 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs Hoosen Brothers Ltd., Karachi vs Messrs S. Abdullah & Co., Karachi1971 PLD Karachi 729 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Friends Cloth Store and Another vs Mst. Syeda Amtul Aziz1971 PLD Karachi 739 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-02
  statutory tenantsecond appealconcurrent findingsnoticedefault in payment of rentdisplaced personseviction
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arises from concurrent judgments of the lower courts directing eviction of the appellants from the disputed premises under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance. The core legal questions involved whether the appellant firm, M/s. Friends Cloth Stores, was the lawful statutory tenant comprising specific partners, whether valid notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act was served upon the firm, and whether concurrent findings of fact could be disturbed in second appeal due to misreading of evidence. The High Court held that documentary evidence overwhelmingly established the firm consisting of Mohd. Shafi and Abdul Kadir as the statutory tenant, that service of notice upon one partner in his individual capacity did not constitute valid notice to the firm under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act, and that concurrent findings vitiated by misreading of evidence are not binding in second appeal. The court laid down the principle that statutory notice under section 30 must be properly served upon the actual statutory tenant entity, and failure to serve notice renders an eviction application not maintainable.

  Questions settled

  • Can concurrent findings of fact by lower courts be disturbed in second appeal if they are based on a misreading or misinterpretation of documentary evidence?
  • Does service of notice under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act upon one partner in his individual capacity constitute valid service upon the partnership firm?
  • Is an eviction application maintainable under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance without a valid notice served under section 30 of the Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Development Construction Corporation Ltd., Karachi vs West1971 PLD Karachi 292 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-26
  arbitrationrevocation of referenceappointment of arbitratorwaiver and acquiescencenovation of contractjurisdictionEvidence Act
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil application under Sections 5 and 41 of the Arbitration Act 1940 was filed by a contractor seeking to revoke an arbitration reference and challenge the jurisdiction of a sole arbitrator appointed by the Provincial Public Works Department. The dispute arose after a construction contract originally executed with the Central Public Works Department was transferred to the Provincial Public Works Department. The petitioner contended that under Clause 25 of the agreement, only the Chief Engineer of the Central Department possessed the authority to nominate an arbitrator. The High Court dismissed the application, holding that while an arbitration agreement must be in writing under Section 2(a) of the Arbitration Act 1940, subsidiary procedural provisions regarding the mechanism of appointment do not enjoy exclusive sanctity under Sections 91 and 92 of the Evidence Act 1872. The Court laid down that a party who repeatedly requests an authority to appoint an arbitrator, participates fully in the proceedings, and submits to jurisdiction cannot subsequently challenge the appointment. Such conduct constitutes waiver, acquiescence, and a novation of the appointment clause.

  Questions settled

  • Can a party that actively participates in arbitration proceedings without objection later challenge the arbitrator's jurisdiction on grounds of irregular appointment?
  • Do subsidiary procedural clauses regarding the appointment mechanism of an arbitrator require written modification under the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does a party's conduct in requesting an alternative authority to nominate an arbitrator constitute a novation of the arbitration clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs Azam Agencies Ltd. and Another vs The Trans-Oceanic1971 PLD Karachi 56 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs Ata Maqbool Industries Ltd. vs Deputy Superintendent, Central1971 PLD Karachi 652 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs Abdullah Agency, Karachi vs Government of Pakistan and Another1971 PLD Karachi 479 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• M. F. Rahman vs Mst. Maryam A. Hashim1971 PLD Karachi 84 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
• M. A. Aleem Chittari vs Anwar H. Pir Bhai and Another1971 P Cr. L J 842 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-19Read full judgment →
• Lilawati-Judgment-Creditor vs Anwarul Islam--Judgment-Debtor1971 PLD Karachi 25 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-20Read full judgment →
• Khalid Ahmad vs Mst. Nishat Afroz and 2 Other1971 PLD Karachi 22 · Sindh High Court · 1967-10-10Read full judgment →
• Kh. Gulzar Ahmad and 6 Others vs Haji Ata Muhammad and 15 Others1971 PLD Karachi 570 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-18Read full judgment →
• Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd. Karachi vs Messrs1971 PLD Karachi 501 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-01
  arbitration clausestay of suitnovation of contractseverability of arbitration clausearbitration agreement
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an application under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, seeking to stay a civil suit in favor of arbitration. The plaintiffs sued for the return of M.S. billets or their price, arguing that a subsequent promise by the defendants to return the billets created a new contract outside the scope of the original agreement. The defendants contended that the dispute remained governed by the arbitration clause in the original contract. The Court held that the dispute was essentially connected to the original agreement, which already provided for the supply and adjustment of M.S. billets. Furthermore, the Court ruled that even if the original contract were modified or novated, the arbitration clause, being drafted in broad terms, remained severable and survived such changes. The Court distinguished the present case from instances where a subsequent agreement explicitly establishes a different forum for dispute resolution. Consequently, the Court stayed the suit, directing the parties to resolve the dispute through the arbitration mechanism provided in their original agreement.

  Questions settled

  • Does an arbitration clause in a contract survive the alleged novation or modification of that contract?
  • Is a dispute regarding the return of materials supplied under a contract covered by an arbitration clause contained within that same contract?
  • Under what circumstances does a subsequent agreement supersede an existing arbitration clause?
  Read full judgment →
• Karachi Road Transport Corporation Ltd. vs Fazal Brothers Ltd. and Another1971 PLD Karachi 583 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Kaloo vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1105 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-12Read full judgment →
• Jamot Ghulam Muhammad and 3 Others vs The State and Another1971 PLD Karachi 937 · Sindh High Court · 1970-07-22
  quashing of proceedingsabuse of processbreach of contractcriminal breach of trustcheatingfictitious complainantinherent powersmens rea
  Summary & questions settled

  This application under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 sought the quashing of criminal proceedings pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Jacobabad, based on a private complaint under Sections 406 and 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The complainant alleged that the petitioners, who were fishermen, received Rs. 3,000 for supplying fish but failed to deliver the goods or refund the money. Service upon the complainant proved impossible, as official reports indicated he was a fictitious person who had never resided at the given address. The core legal questions were whether a mere breach of contract or default in performance without dishonest intent constitutes a criminal offense, and whether the High Court should exercise its inherent powers to quash proceedings that constitute an abuse of process. The High Court held that the complaint revealed at best a civil cause of action for breach of contract, devoid of any mens rea or criminal liability. Holding that criminal proceedings initiated to harass parties and misuse the judicial process must be guarded against, the court allowed the petition and quashed the pending proceedings.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a mere breach of contract or refusal to refund money without criminal intent constitutes an offense under Section 406 or 420 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Under what circumstances can the High Court exercise its inherent jurisdiction under Section 561-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash criminal proceedings?
  • Whether criminal process can be quashed when the complaint appears to be fictitious and instituted solely to harass the accused?
  Read full judgment →
• Jaffer vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 391 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-25Read full judgment →
• J. M. Zaidi vs Settlement and Rehabilitation Commissioner, Karachi and 3 Others1971 PLD Karachi 806 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Izhar Alam Razvi vs The Chief Secretary to the Government of West1971 PLD Karachi 45 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-17Read full judgment →
• Ismail vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 1042 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-22Read full judgment →
• Isiiarat Hussain Siddiqui and Another vs Nizamuddin Qureshi and Another1971 PLD Karachi 715 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Iqbal Ahmed vs The State-1971 P Cr. L J 127 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-17Read full judgment →
• Imperial Dyeing and Printing Mills, Karachi vs Safdar Ali1971 PLD Karachi 778 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-12
  rent restrictionabatement of proceedingslegal representativesproprietary concernejectment applicationinherent powers of tribunal
  Summary & questions settled

  This second appeal arose from an ejectment application filed by a landlord against a proprietary concern under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959. The proprietor died, but the landlord failed to bring legal representatives on record for two years. The Rent Controller dismissed the application as having abated. The Additional District Judge reversed this, allowing the landlord time to implead the legal representatives. The core legal question was whether rent proceedings abate upon the death of a necessary party and whether the landlord's failure to act justified dismissal. The High Court held that while the specific provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 might not strictly apply to rent proceedings, the fundamental principle of abatement is inherent in judicial procedure. A tribunal cannot adjudicate a dispute involving a deceased party without their legal representatives. Since the landlord failed to act with reasonable promptness despite knowledge of the death, the Rent Controller correctly dismissed the application. The High Court set aside the appellate order and restored the Rent Controller’s dismissal.

  Questions settled

  • Does the principle of abatement apply to proceedings under the West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959?
  • Can a Rent Controller proceed with an ejectment application after the death of a sole proprietor without bringing legal representatives on record?
  • Are the provisions of Order XXII of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 strictly applicable to rent control proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Hyesons Steel Mills Ltd., Karachi vs Trading Corporation of Pakistan1971 PLD Karachi 492 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Hussain and Another vs Muhammad Rafiq and 4 Others1971 PLD Karachi 129 · Sindh High Court · 1970-02-27
  Fatal Accidents Actvicarious liabilitypecuniary losshire-purchase agreementinsurance liabilitynegligencecompensation
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a claim for compensation under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, filed by the parents of a deceased individual following a fatal road accident involving a bus. The core legal questions concerned whether the defendants were liable for negligence, whether the plaintiffs suffered pecuniary loss, and whether the insurance company was liable under the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939. The court held that while the bus driver was negligent, the plaintiffs failed to prove actual pecuniary loss. The court determined that the plaintiffs, as sole heirs, inherited the deceased's estate, which exceeded any potential loss, thereby negating the claim for damages. Furthermore, the court held that the bus owner was not vicariously liable as the vehicle was under a hire agreement, and the insurance company could not be held liable in the absence of proven loss. The key principle laid down is that in assessing damages under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, courts must balance the loss of future pecuniary benefit against any pecuniary advantage derived by the claimants from the death of the deceased.

  Questions settled

  • Does the inheritance of a deceased's estate by his parents constitute a pecuniary benefit that must be deducted from compensation claims under the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855?
  • Is the owner of a motor vehicle vicariously liable for the negligence of a driver when the vehicle has been hired out to another party?
  • Can an insurance company repudiate liability under Section 96 of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, based on an inadmissible copy of an insurance policy?
  • Does the Fatal Accidents Act, 1855, remain a valid source of law in Pakistan despite constitutional changes?
  Read full judgment →
• Hidayatullah and Another vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 817 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-23Read full judgment →
• Hasan Razaqi and 2 Others vs Mst. Mehrun Nisa Mehr and Another1971 PLD Karachi 266 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-08Read full judgment →
• Harchandrai vs The Popular Metal Works, Gujranwala and 2 Others1971 PLD Karachi 925 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-18
  acknowledgment of liabilitylimitation periodjural relationshippartnership debtrecovery of loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal challenges the judgment and decree of the First Class Sub Judge, Mirpurkhas, dated March 19, 1962, which dismissed the appellant's suit for the recovery of a loan and interest on the ground of limitation. The core legal question before the court was whether a certain letter written by a partner of the respondent firm constituted a valid acknowledgment of liability under Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908, so as to extend the period of limitation. The Sindh High Court held that the letter, read in conjunction with surrounding circumstances, account books, and subsequent correspondence, contained a clear admission of a subsisting jural relationship and indebtedness, thereby satisfying the requirements of Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The court laid down the principle that an acknowledgment of liability need not be express but may be inferred by implication from the language of a writing and the surrounding circumstances, and that the Limitation Act, being in derogation of the right to sue, must be construed liberally to maintain the right to sue. The appeal was accordingly allowed and the plaintiff's suit decreed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an indirect admission in writing can constitute a sufficient acknowledgment of liability under section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908?
  • Can surrounding circumstances and subsequent correspondence be looked into to determine if a writing amounts to an acknowledgment of liability?
  • Whether the liability of one partner is binding upon other partners jointly and severally in a partnership debt recovery suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Hangimal vs Abdul Aziz Khan1971 PLD Karachi 147 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-30Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf), Karachi Claimant vs Messrs K. B. Joseph1971 PLD Karachi 279 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-26
  arbitration awardmisconduct of arbitratorerror of law apparent on the face of the awardcorporate personalityseparate legal entityobjections to award
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves objections filed against an arbitration award arising from a dispute between Hamdard Dawakhana (Wakf) and Messrs K. B. Joseph. The core legal questions pertained to whether the arbitrator committed misconduct by deciding matters outside the reference, declining to decide a sub judice matter, not giving reasons, awarding excessive costs, and committing an apparent error of law by holding a director personally liable for a limited company's debts. The Sindh High Court held that an arbitrator is not bound to give reasons or record separate findings on every issue unless required, but committed an error of law apparent on the face of the award by piercing the corporate veil without justification, as a properly incorporated company is a distinct legal entity from its owners. Consequently, the court upheld the award against the first defendant company while setting it aside against the second defendant individual. The key principles established are that an arbitrator need not provide reasons for an award, and an award containing an error of law on a question not expressly referred to arbitration can be set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Is an arbitrator legally bound to give reasons for their decision or record separate findings on every issue framed?
  • Can an arbitrator's award be set aside on the ground of an error of law apparent on the face of the award?
  • Does a separate legal entity status of a private limited company prevent an individual owner from being automatically liable for the company's debts?
  • Under what circumstances does an error of law committed by an arbitrator warrant setting aside the award?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Mirza Mehdi Pooya and Another vs Agha Sayed Abul Hasan Hafizyan1971 P Cr. L J 882 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-19Read full judgment →
• Haji Hashmatullah and 9 Others vs Karachi Municipal Corporation1971 PLD Karachi 514 · Sindh High Court
  writ petitioncontrolling authoritymunicipal administrationquashment of resolutionconditions precedentnatural justiceaudi alteram partemvested right
  Summary & questions settled

  This writ petition under Article 98 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan challenged an order passed by the Commissioner of Karachi as the Controlling Authority under section 111 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, whereby he quashed a Municipal Corporation resolution leasing a municipal plot to the petitioners' market association and instead directed its transfer to the Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee. The core legal questions involved the scope of the Controlling Authority's powers under section 111, the necessity of satisfying statutory conditions precedent before quashing municipal resolutions, and the applicability of the principles of natural justice. The Sindh High Court held that the Controlling Authority's powers are not absolute or despotic, and cannot be exercised in defiance of the statutory conditions precedent requiring a finding that the municipal act was against law or public interest. The Court laid down that an authority created by statute must act strictly within the scope of its conferred powers, that natural justice principles are read into enactments unless expressly excluded, and that the order of the Commissioner was illegal, without lawful authority, and set aside.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the powers of a Controlling Authority under section 111 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, to quash a municipal resolution are absolute and unreviewable?
  • Does the exercise of power under section 111 of the Municipal Administration Ordinance, 1960, require the satisfaction of a condition precedent that the municipal act is against law or public interest?
  • Are persons whose interests are adversely affected by an administrative order entitled to an opportunity of being heard under the principles of natural justice even if the governing statute is silent?
  • Whether a writ petition is maintainable by persons who suffer prejudice due to the non-observance of law by a public functionary, even in the absence of a strict juristic property right?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji and 2 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 365 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-23Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Rehman vs Sultan and Another-Opponents1971 P Cr. L J 1164 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-26
  quashing of proceedingspolice reportchallanmagistrate cognizanceadministrative orderfurther investigationsummoning of accused
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a criminal revision application filed under section 561-A read with sections 435 and 439 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 to quash proceedings pending against the applicant before the Additional City Magistrate, Karachi. The core legal question revolved around the competency of a Magistrate to summon an accused person to stand trial after the police had initially submitted a report recommending release under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898, followed by a subsequent challan and a complainant's application. The Sindh High Court held that an order passed under section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 on the basis of a police report is essentially an administrative order rather than a judicial one, and it does not amount to a formal discharge or acquittal. The court laid down the key principle that a Magistrate is not bound by the police opinion or report, and possesses the legal competence to take cognizance and issue process against an accused person despite earlier police recommendations exonerating them, as the police are also not barred from conducting further investigations or submitting subsequent challans.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a Magistrate is bound by a police report or opinion recommending the release of an accused person under section 169 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898?
  • Is an order passed by a Magistrate under section 173(3) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 a judicial order or an administrative order?
  • Does the submission of a final report by the police bar them from conducting further investigations and submitting a subsequent challan against an exonerated person?
  • Can a Magistrate take cognizance and issue process against an accused person whose name was mentioned in the police report despite an earlier administrative release order?
  Read full judgment →
• Haji Abdul Ghani vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 938 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• Gulab Khan and Another vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 299 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-22
  murdercircumstantial evidencelast seen theoryjudicial confessionconfession on oathself-exculpatory statementpointation of dead bodybenefit of doubtcriminal appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arise from the judgment of the Sessions Judge, Larkana, convicting the appellants, Gulab Khan and Ali Akber, for the murder of Muhammad Hasan under section 302 and section 302 read with section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, along with convictions under section 201 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860, resulting in a death sentence for Gulab Khan and transportation for life for Ali Akber. The core legal questions involve the evaluation of circumstantial evidence including the 'last seen' theory, the admissibility and evidentiary value of a self-exculpatory judicial confession recorded on oath, and the validity of pointing out a burial place already known or previously pointed out. The Sindh High Court held that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond a reasonable doubt, as the 'last seen' evidence lacked temporal proximity, the confession was self-exculpatory and vitiated by being recorded on oath in violation of sections 164 and 364 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 rendering it irrelevant under section 24 of the Evidence Act 1872, and the pointation lacked exclusive knowledge and discovery value. The convictions and sentences were set aside, the appeal was accepted, and the murder reference was rejected.

  Questions settled

  • Does a self-exculpatory statement amount to a confession that can be relied upon for a conviction?
  • Can a judicial confession recorded on oath be considered relevant under section 24 of the Evidence Act 1872?
  • Is the pointing out of a place where a dead body is buried considered a valid discovery when the location is already known to witnesses or the police?
  • Does the 'last seen' circumstance alone suffice to prove a murder charge when the time gap between parting company and death is insufficiently accounted for?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan vs Meezan Corporation and Another1971 PLD Karachi 35 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-26
  lease vs licenseexclusive possessionpermanent constructionevictioncompensationmala fideland dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involved consolidated suits between the Government of Pakistan (Railway) and Meezan Corporation regarding a plot of land in Karachi. The core legal question was whether the agreement between the parties constituted a lease or a license, and consequently, whether the Railway could summarily evict the Corporation. The Court held that the agreement was a lease, not a license, because the Corporation was granted exclusive possession for a permanent installation, despite the document's label. The Court emphasized that the substance of the agreement, rather than its nomenclature, determines its legal character. While the Railway was entitled to recover possession, the Court held that such eviction was conditional upon the Railway compensating the Corporation for its substantial investment in the permanent structure, minus accrued rent. The principle laid down is that exclusive possession and the nature of the rights transferred are the primary tests for distinguishing a lease from a license, regardless of how the parties characterize the document.

  Questions settled

  • Does the label 'license' in an agreement prevent a court from determining it is actually a lease?
  • Is exclusive possession a defining characteristic for distinguishing a lease from a license?
  • Can a government entity evict a lessee from land without compensating for permanent structures installed with the entity's knowledge?
  Read full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan through the Land Acquisition Officer, Hyderabad vs Haji Abdul Latif (Represented by His 7 Heirs)1971 PLD Karachi 692 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Government of West Pakistan and Another vs Ayub Hassan1971 PLD Karachi 848 · Sindh High Court · 1970-08-17Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Sarwar Alias Mohammad Sarwar vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 906 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-05Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustaea and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 775 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-06Read full judgment →
• Garahi Khan vs The Deputy Commissioner and Collector, Karachi and Another1971 PLD Karachi 676 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• G. M. Khan vs The Inspector-General of Police, West Pakistan, Lahore1971 PLD Karachi 613 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Fateh Muhammad and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 347 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-25Read full judgment →
• Fareed Khan and Another vs The State -1971 P Cr. L J 333 · Sindh High Court · 1970-03-17Read full judgment →
• Evacuee Property Trust Board, Hyderabad vs Settlement1971 PLD Karachi 228 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-22Read full judgment →
• East and West Steamship Co., Karachi vs Collector of Customs, Karachi and 2 Others1971 PLD Karachi 14 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-01Read full judgment →
• Dr. Sarwar H. Rehman vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 872 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-12Read full judgment →
• DR. Rauf Ahmed vs Mst. Razia Farhat1971 PLD Karachi 897 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-26Read full judgment →
• Dost Mohammad vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 885 · Sindh High Court · 1970-07-14Read full judgment →
• Dinoo vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1176 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-26Read full judgment →
• Dhani Bux vs Pir Khalid Jan and Another1971 P Cr. L J 38 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-14Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income-Tax vs Messrs Beach Luxury Hotel1971 PLD Karachi 481 · Sindh High Court · 1970-12-05Read full judgment →
• Commissioner of Income Tax-Applicant vs Messrs Beach Luxury Hotel1971 PTD 348 · Sindh High Court · 1971-12-05Read full judgment →
• Collector of Karachi vs Central Bank of India, Karachi and 14 Others1971 PLD Karachi 560 · Sindh High Court · 1970-10-16Read full judgment →
• Chan Muhammad Alias Channa vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 506 · Sindh High Court · 1969-04-30Read full judgment →
• Chakar and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1121 · Sindh High Court · -Read full judgment →
• Ch. Shahab Ud Din and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 79 · Sindh High Court · 1963-02-21Read full judgment →
• Bashir Ali vs The State-Opponent1971 P Cr. L J 997 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-03Read full judgment →
• Badrul Islam vs Qamarul Islam and 4 Others1971 PLD Karachi 682 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-28
  pecuniary jurisdictionvaluation of suitsuit for accountsarbitrary valuationreturn of plaintwaqf propertycivil revision
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil revision petition arises from a suit for rendition of accounts and mandatory injunction regarding a waqf property, filed in the court of a Sub-Judge whose pecuniary jurisdiction was limited to Rs. 25,000 under the Karachi Courts Order, 1956, despite the plaint itself stating the waqf property's value exceeded Rs. 67,000. The trial court dismissed the applicant's application under Order VII, Rule 11 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, holding that plaintiffs could arbitrarily value their suit for accounts under section 7(iv) of the Court Fees Act. The core legal question was whether a plaintiff could arbitrarily value a suit for accounts to confer pecuniary jurisdiction on a court below its actual subject-matter value. The High Court allowed the revision, holding that a plaintiff cannot value relief arbitrarily to bypass statutory pecuniary limits, and that the true subject-matter of the suit exceeded the trial court's jurisdiction. The court laid down the principle that the valuation of a suit for accounts must reflect the real subject-matter and cannot be manipulated to choose a forum without pecuniary competence, directing the plaint to be returned for presentation to the proper court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a plaintiff arbitrarily value a suit for accounts to bring it within the pecuniary jurisdiction of a subordinate court?
  • Does the Karachi Courts Order, 1956 permit litigants to draft prayers so as to confer jurisdiction on a court lacking pecuniary competence?
  • What is the appropriate course of action when a plaint is found to be undervalued beyond the pecuniary jurisdiction of the trial court?
  Read full judgment →
• B. M. Rashid vs MRS. Razia Abbas Ahmed1971 PLD Karachi 468 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-11Read full judgment →
• Azimunnisa Begum vs Claims Commissioner, Karachi and Lahore1971 PLD Karachi 8 · Sindh High Court · 1969-11-06Read full judgment →
• Aurangzeb vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1285 · Sindh High Court · 1971-10-20
  murderdeath sentencedefense of insanityunsoundness of mindconfessionocular testimonyhatchet injuries
  Summary & questions settled

  This criminal appeal and murder reference arose from the conviction of the appellant, Aurangzeb, under section 302 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murders of two boys, and under sections 326 and 324 for causing injuries to several others, including an infant, by means of a hatchet. The Sindh High Court examined the ocular testimony of natural and injured witnesses, supported by circumstantial evidence including the appellant's apprehension at the scene with a blood-stained weapon and clothes, his extra-judicial disclosures, and his judicial confession. The core legal question addressed was whether the appellant had established the defense of legal insanity under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860. The court held that mere eccentricities of behavior, queerness in habits, talkativeness, or religious preoccupation do not constitute legal insanity under section 84 unless it is established that the accused, at the time of the commission of the offense, was by reason of unsoundness of mind incapable of knowing the nature of the act or that it was contrary to law. Finding the defense of insanity to be feigned and noting the absence of any mitigating circumstances in the brutal killings, the court dismissed the appeal, upheld the convictions, and confirmed the death sentence.

  Questions settled

  • Whether mere queerness in habit or eccentricities of behavior constitute legal insanity under section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • What burden of proof rests on an accused person seeking to claim the benefit of section 84 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860?
  • Can the conduct of an accused person immediately before and after the commission of an offense be used to determine his sanity?
  Read full judgment →
• Arsallah and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 853 · Sindh High Court · 1969-05-20Read full judgment →
• Aqa Syed Asghar Hussain Appellant vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 959 · Sindh High Court · 1971-02-11Read full judgment →
• Amir Hussain and 6 Others vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 297 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-16Read full judgment →
• Amin Yousuf Nizami vs Rashid Rayon Mills, Karachi1971 PLD Karachi 505 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-20
  personal injuriesmaster and servantemployer's liabilitynegligencequantum of damagesmedical expensespermanent incapacityloss of earnings
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil suit was brought by a weaving master claiming damages for personal injuries sustained to the index finger of his right hand due to the alleged negligence of the defendants' Managing Director, who suddenly switched on a twisting machine while the plaintiff was checking its gear box. The defendants raised multiple inconsistent pleas, denying the accident and alternatively alleging contributory negligence, but failed to substantiate them during trial. The core legal questions revolved around whether the accident occurred due to the employer's negligence, the assessment of special damages for medical expenses and loss of earnings during total disability, and the determination of general damages for permanent partial incapacity. The court held that the accident and resulting injury were duly proved to be caused by the defendants' negligence. The court laid down principles governing the award of damages in personal injury cases, factoring in medical evidence of permanent incapacity percentage, loss of earnings, and economic considerations. A decree was awarded to the plaintiff after adjusting admitted counter-claims.

  Questions settled

  • Can a defendant put forth totally inconsistent pleas in a written statement to avoid liability for personal injuries?
  • Is an employer liable for personal injuries caused to an employee by the sudden starting of machinery due to the negligence of the Managing Director?
  • How are general damages for permanent partial incapacity and loss of earning power calculated in personal injury suits?
  • Whether an injured employee is entitled to recover compensation for loss of earnings during the period of total disability resulting from an accident?
  Read full judgment →
• Ali Nawaz and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 860 · Sindh High Court · 1970-06-19Read full judgment →
• Ali Bakhsh vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 925 · Sindh High Court · 1971-01-20Read full judgment →
• Akram Moquim Ansari (Represented by Heirs) and 3 Others vs Mst.1971 PLD Karachi 763 · Sindh High Court
  Benami transactionpartition suitburden of proofMuslim law of successionco-operative housing societydomestic bye-lawsbeneficial interest
  Summary & questions settled

  This suit for declaration, partition, and possession was brought by the legal heirs of the late Moquimuddin Ansari against his second wife, claiming that a bungalow in Karachi, held in her name, was a 'Benami' transaction. The core legal question was whether the property was purchased and constructed with the deceased’s own funds, making the wife merely an ostensible owner, or if she was the beneficial owner. The Court held that the property was indeed held 'Benami' by the defendant for her late husband, as the evidence demonstrated the deceased provided all consideration for the plot and construction. The Court rejected the argument that the transaction was fraudulent for evading society bye-laws, noting that such bye-laws are domestic and not statutory. The principle laid down is that while the burden of proving a 'Benami' transaction lies on the person asserting it, this burden is discharged by showing the purchase money was provided by the claimant. Furthermore, evading non-statutory domestic rules of a co-operative society does not render a transaction unlawful or fraudulent.

  Questions settled

  • Does the burden of proving a Benami transaction shift once the claimant shows they provided the purchase money?
  • Can a transaction be considered fraudulent for violating the non-statutory bye-laws of a co-operative housing society?
  • Are documents like vouchers and receipts admissible under Section 32(2) of the Evidence Act 1872 when the maker's attendance cannot be procured?
  • Under what circumstances can a court order the sale of a property in a partition suit under the Partition Act 1893?
  Read full judgment →
• Akhtar Hussain vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1314 · Sindh High Court · 1971-07-13Read full judgment →
• Ahmed Ali--Plaintiff vs Registrar, Co-Operative Societies-Defendant-1971 PLD Karachi 182 · Sindh High Court
  restoration applicationdismissal in defaultinherent powerscivil procedurelimitationrevision applicationex parte dismissal
  Summary & questions settled

  This revision application was referred to a Special Division Bench of the Sindh High Court to resolve a conflict of judicial opinion regarding whether an application under Order IX, Rule 9 or Order IX, Rule 13 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which has been dismissed in default, can be restored, and under what provisions of law. The applicant's suit was dismissed in default, and his subsequent application for restoration under Order IX, Rule 9 was also dismissed in default. His second application to restore the first restoration application was dismissed by the lower court as non-maintainable. The High Court held that, in the absence of an express statutory bar, a second application for restoration is maintainable under the provisions of Order IX read with Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908. The Court observed that procedural laws should not be presumed to prohibit a remedy unless an express prohibition exists, and that Article 181 of the Limitation Act 1908 applies as the residuary limitation period. The revision application was accepted, and the case was remanded.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under Order IX of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, which is dismissed in default, can be restored by a subsequent application?
  • Does Section 141 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 make the provisions of Order IX applicable to proceedings for the restoration of applications dismissed in default?
  • What is the applicable period of limitation for filing a second application to restore a dismissed restoration application under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908?
  • Can a court invoke its inherent jurisdiction under Section 151 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 to restore an application dismissed in default if no other express provision applies?
  Read full judgment →
• Agha Safdar vs The State and ANOTHERs1971 P Cr. L J 51 · Sindh High Court · 1970-04-16Read full judgment →
• Aftab Anwar Jaleel vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 156 · Sindh High Court · 1970-05-11Read full judgment →
• Abdul Wahid vs Yousif1971 PLD Karachi 772 · Sindh High Court · 1971-03-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sayeed and Another vs Abdul Salam Farooqui1971 PLD Karachi 217 · Sindh High Court · 1970-01-09Read full judgment →
• Abdul Sattar and Another vs The State1971 P Cr. L J 1187 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-20Read full judgment →
• Abdul Salam vs Sharif Ahmed and Another1971 PLD Karachi 687 · Sindh High Court · 1971-04-29Read full judgment →
• Abdul Hakim and 2 Others vs The State1971 PLD Karachi 239 · Sindh High Court · 1969-12-02
  common intentiondying declarationocular evidencemurdercriminal appealappreciation of evidenceSection 34 PPC
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants were convicted for the murder of the deceased following a dispute over stolen footwear. The trial court relied on ocular testimony and dying declarations. On appeal, the High Court scrutinized the evidence, rejecting one dying declaration as suspicious while upholding another recorded by a Magistrate. The court affirmed the convictions of the two appellants who actively used knives, finding the ocular evidence credible despite defense allegations of enmity and bad character. However, the court distinguished the case of the third appellant, Alidino, who was unarmed and not involved in the original quarrel. The court held that in the absence of evidence showing pre-concert or knowledge that the others were armed, the third appellant could not be held liable under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 for the murder. Consequently, the court dismissed the appeal of the two primary assailants but allowed the appeal of the third, acquitting him of the charge due to the lack of established common intention.

  Questions settled

  • Can common intention under Section 34 of the Pakistan Penal Code 1860 be attributed to an unarmed participant who was not involved in the original motive of the crime?
  • Does the presence of a witness at the scene of a crime, without sustaining injuries, necessarily render their testimony unreliable?
  • Is a dying declaration recorded by a Magistrate reliable if the deceased was certified to be in a fit mental state by a medical officer?
  Read full judgment →
• Abdul Aziz Chohan vs Divisional Evacuee Trust Committee, Karachi1971 PLD Karachi 662 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Wazir vs The State1970 P Cr. L J 546 · Sindh High Court · 1970-07-30Read full judgment →
• Waloo and 5 Other vs The State1970 PLD Karachi 677 · Sindh High Court · 1969-09-10Read full judgment →
• The State vs Vishandas and ANOTHERs1970 P Cr. L J 744 · Sindh High Court · 1970-09-25Read full judgment →