Latest Judgments

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

• Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. Versus Presiding Officer, IV Sind Labour Court, Karachi and 2 Others1976 PLC 429 · Sindh High Court · 1976-03-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs Mothercat Ltd. Versus Presiding Officer, Sind Labour Court No. 2, Karachi and Ano Ther1976 PLC 334 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• 1976 PLC 321976 PLC 32 · Sindh High Court · 1975-09-15Read full judgment →
• Sajjad Ali Versus Presiding Officer, 5TH Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1976 PLC 319 · Sindh High Court · 1976-02-06Read full judgment →
• National Art Press, Karachi Versus Bundoo Khan and Another1976 PLC 190 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs Rashid Textile Mills; Tu., Karachi Versus Rafiq M. Wali and 2 Others1976 PLC 181 · Sindh High Court · 1975-12-05Read full judgment →
• 1976 PLC 1621976 PLC 162 · Sindh High Court · 1975-11-12Read full judgment →
• A. F. Ferguson & Co. Versus The 5TH Sind Labour Court, Karachi and Another1974 PLC 98 · Sindh High Court · 1973-12-21Read full judgment →
• Mohammad Fazil Versus The Commissioner for Payment of Wages & Compensation, Karachi and Another1974 PLC 89 · Sindh High Court · 1973-11-05Read full judgment →
• 1973 PLC 3241973 PLC 324 · Sindh High Court · 1973-02-08Read full judgment →
• 1970 PLC 971970 PLC 97 · Sindh High Court · 1969-07-31Read full judgment →
• A. Qutubuddin Khan Versus Chec Millwala Dredging Co. (Pvt.) Ltd.2025 CLD 972 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Oilboy (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus Pak Qatar Investment (Pvt.) Ltd.2025 CLD 852 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Stock Brokers Association Versus Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited2025 CLD 446 · Sindh High Court · 2024-10-21Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited Versus Muhammad Farooq2025 CLD 1897 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-22
  criminal revisionbanking courtstay of proceedingsfinancial institutionscivil and criminal liabilitydefaultinterlocutory order
  Summary & questions settled

  This Criminal Revision Application challenged an order by the Banking Court staying criminal proceedings against the respondent pending the final disposal of two related Banking suits pending before the High Court. The core legal question was whether criminal proceedings initiated under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, for alleged default and breach of obligations should be stayed when the underlying civil liability is simultaneously being adjudicated in civil suits. The High Court held that the trial court correctly exercised its discretion to stay the criminal proceedings. The Court reasoned that where criminal liability for default is contingent upon the determination of civil liability, proceeding with the criminal complaint prematurely could cause prejudice to the accused. The Court emphasized that while civil and criminal remedies can generally proceed simultaneously, judicial propriety dictates that when the core issue of debt and default is sub-judice in a civil forum, the criminal proceedings should await that determination to avoid conflicting findings and premature punishment. The revision application was consequently dismissed, affirming the stay order.

  Questions settled

  • Can criminal proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 be stayed pending the outcome of related civil Banking suits?
  • Is a criminal revision application maintainable against an interlocutory order of a Banking Court that stays criminal proceedings?
  • Does the determination of civil liability for default constitute a prerequisite for proceeding with a criminal complaint for default under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001?
  Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Ziaullah Khan Chishti Versus TRG Pakistan Limited2025 CLD 1814 · Sindh High Court · 2025-06-20Read full judgment →
• Descon Engineering Ltd. Versus Cnergyico PK Ltd.2025 CLD 1807 · Sindh High Court · 2024-08-13Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Sadiq Versus Muhammad Hassan2025 CLD 1796 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-10Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Versus Muhammad Saleem2025 CLD 1791 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs Porsche Middle East and Africa Fze Versus Performance Automotive (Pvt.) Ltd. (under Liquidation)2025 CLD 1714 · Sindh High Court · 2025-05-19Read full judgment →
• New Jubilee Insurance Company Ltd. Versus Three Stars Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.2025 CLD 1708 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mena Energy DMCC Versus Hascol Petroleum Limited2025 CLD 1665 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Pak Brunei Investment Company Limited Versus Atlas Cables (Private) Limited2025 CLD 1653 · Sindh High Court · 2025-08-20Read full judgment →
• JS Bank Limited Versus Gulistan Textile Mills Limited2025 CLD 1625 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Sunny Petroleum Service through Proprietor (since deceased) through Legal Representatives Versus National Bank of Pakistan2025 CLD 1539 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-18Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Anis Versus Pak Gulf Leasing Company Ltd.2025 CLD 1504 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-26Read full judgment →
• Cynergyico PK Limited Versus Trafigura Pte Limited2025 CLD 1457 · Sindh High Court · 2023-12-18Read full judgment →
• In the Matter of the Companies Act, 2017 Versus Beach Luxury Holdings (Private) Limited, Spencer and Company (Private) Limited and Physons (Private) Limited2025 CLD 1438 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-24Read full judgment →
• Mahle Engine Component Japan Corporation Versus Azam Autos2025 CLD 1381 · Sindh High Court · 2025-01-17Read full judgment →
• Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd Versus Bankers Equity Limited2025 CLD 1355 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-22Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Shamim Bano Versus Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Limited2025 CLD 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-26Read full judgment →
• Mazharuddin Versus The Manager Sme Leasing Ltd.2025 CLD 1300 · Sindh High Court · 2024-11-06Read full judgment →
• JS Bank Limited Versus Gulshan Spinning Mills Limited2025 CLD 1269 · Sindh High Court · 2025-04-30Read full judgment →
• Mahmooda Tapal Versus Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd.2025 CLD 1183 · Sindh High Court · 2024-05-20Read full judgment →
• Shabbir Ahmed Versus JS Global Capital Limited through CEO2025 CLD 1171 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Ali Raza Mugheri Versus Ghulam Rasool2025 CLD 1158 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan State Oil Company Limited (PSO) Versus Gillani (Pvt.) Limited2025 CLD 1130 · Sindh High Court · 2025-02-06Read full judgment →
• Sadiq & Suharwardy Versus Ismail Industries Limited2025 CLD 1029 · Sindh High Court · 2024-01-09Read full judgment →
• Bita Textile Mills (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus First Women Bank Limited2025 CLD 1021 · Sindh High Court · 2025-03-20Read full judgment →
• Zafar Hasan Khan Versus Habib Bank Limited2024 CLD 770 · Sindh High Court · 2024-03-15Read full judgment →
• Ghulam Mustafa Versus Rashid Ali2024 CLD 435 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-06Read full judgment →
• Askari Bank Limited Versus A. H. International (Pvt.) Ltd.2024 CLD 360 · Sindh High Court · 2023-11-13Read full judgment →
• Adamjee Insurance Company Limited Versus The President, Islamic Republic of Pakistan2024 CLD 1563 · Sindh High Court · 2024-09-05Read full judgment →
• Zahoor Ahmed Versus Al-Zamin Leasing Modaraba Ch. Atif Rafique , Faiz H. Durrani2024 CLD 1344 · Sindh High Court · 2024-04-16Read full judgment →
• The Bank of Punjab Versus Hascol Petroleum Limited2023 CLD 920 · Sindh High Court · 2023-02-06Read full judgment →
• KESC Labour Union Versus Federation of Pakistan through Cabinet Secretary2023 CLD 718 · Sindh High Court · 2021-01-21
  privatizationjudicial reviewpublic interest litigationlocus standiconstitutional petitionessential servicespolicy decisionsubstantial compliance
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging the privatization of the Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (KESC), now K-Electric, alleging that the process was illegal, arbitrary, and lacked transparency. The core legal questions addressed were whether the petitioners possessed the requisite locus standi to challenge the privatization; whether the privatization process violated the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, and the Constitution; whether mandatory approval from the Council of Common Interests (CCI) was obtained; and whether the court should interfere in executive policy decisions. The Court dismissed the petitions, holding that the privatization process demonstrated substantial compliance with the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, and the Privatization (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001. The Court found no evidence of mala fides or illegality and affirmed that the privatization was a policy decision of the executive, which is not subject to judicial interference absent clear illegality. The judgment establishes that judicial review of executive policy is limited to examining legality and procedural compliance, and that substantial compliance with statutory procedures is sufficient to validate privatization processes.

  Questions settled

  • Does the High Court have jurisdiction to review a privatization process under Article 199 of the Constitution despite the existence of a remedy under the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000?
  • Can a court interfere with a government policy decision regarding the privatization of a public utility in the absence of clear illegality or mala fides?
  • Does the doctrine of substantial compliance apply to the procedural requirements of the Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000, and the Privatization (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001?
  • Is the privatization of an essential service provider, such as an electric utility, inherently unconstitutional?
  Read full judgment →
• Dr. Amir Bux Channa Versus Isra Islamic Foundation (Guarantee) Ltd.2023 CLD 691 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-09Read full judgment →
• Nadeem Power Generation (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus2023 CLD 652 · Sindh High Court · 2022-12-12Read full judgment →
• Awwal Modaraba Management Limited Versus2023 CLD 644 · Sindh High Court · 2023-03-02Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Beverage Limited Versus State Bank of Pakistan2023 CLD 125 · Sindh High Court · 2022-10-12Read full judgment →
• Razak Latif Versus ACE Securities (Pvt.) Limited2021 CLD 794 · Sindh High Court · 2020-04-20Read full judgment →
• Mashooq Ali Rajpar Versus Raja Abdul Hameed2021 CLD 783 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-04Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Hanif Gohar Versus Federation of Pakistan2021 CLD 756 · Sindh High Court · 2020-12-07
  constitutional petitionwrit jurisdictionalternative remedytrade organization electiondual membershipstatutory interpretationelection dispute
  Summary & questions settled

  This constitutional petition challenged the election results of the Federation of Pakistan Chambers of Commerce and Industry (FPCCI) for 2020, specifically contesting the eligibility of a candidate who acted as a nominee for two different trade associations and cast two votes. The petitioner sought to set aside various orders passed by the Regulator of Trade Organizations that allowed this dual representation. The core legal questions were whether the High Court should exercise its extraordinary writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution when statutory appellate remedies under the Trade Organizations Act 2013 remain unexhausted, and whether Section 20 of the 2013 Act prohibits an individual from holding membership in multiple trade organizations. The Court held that the petition was not maintainable because the petitioner failed to exhaust the statutory appellate hierarchy provided by the 2013 Act. Furthermore, the Court ruled that Section 20 of the 2013 Act does not explicitly restrict membership to a single trade organization. The key principle laid down is that constitutional jurisdiction is not a substitute for available, efficacious statutory appellate remedies, and courts will not interfere in election disputes where a specialized regulatory framework exists.

  Questions settled

  • Is a constitutional petition maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution when a statutory appellate remedy under the Trade Organizations Act 2013 has not been exhausted?
  • Does Section 20 of the Trade Organizations Act 2013 prohibit a person from being a member of more than one trade organization?
  • Can the High Court interfere in election disputes where the Regulator of Trade Organizations has already exercised its statutory powers?
  Read full judgment →
• Qazi Naseer Uddin Versus Shahab Uddin2021 CLD 737 · Sindh High Court · 2020-08-17Read full judgment →
• Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan Limited Versus Mohammad Ibrahim2021 CLD 692 · Sindh High Court · 2020-11-27Read full judgment →
• Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited Versus Inam2021 CLD 1425 · Sindh High Court · 2021-10-06Read full judgment →
• Muhammad Arshad Latif Versus State2021 CLD 1252 · Sindh High Court · 2020-10-08
  wilful loan defaultNational Accountability Ordinanceaccountability appealfinancial institutionstatutory noticelease finance facility
  Summary & questions settled

  The appellants filed separate criminal accountability appeals against the judgment of the Accountability Court convicting and sentencing them under section 9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 for wilful loan default. The core legal questions involved whether the reference was rightly tried under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 rather than the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, whether mandatory notices under section 31-D were duly served, and whether the prosecution established the ingredients of wilful default. The Sindh High Court dismissed the appeals, holding that the prosecution successfully proved the charge of wilful default beyond reasonable doubt, that the reference was properly instituted under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and that the appellants intentionally avoided statutory notices. The key principle laid down is that failure to repay a financial facility from the very first month coupled with deliberate avoidance of statutory notices constitutes wilful default under section 5(r) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999, and the sale of pledged security by a bank following default does not amount to a breach of agreement shielding the borrower from liability.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a wilful loan default case initiated under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 prior to amendments in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is validly tried by an accountability court?
  • Does a bank's auction of pledged security at an undervalue constitute a wilful breach of agreement exempting a borrower from the charge of wilful default under section 5(r) of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999?
  • Whether service of statutory notices sent to the last known address of a defaulting company satisfies the mandatory requirements under section 31-D of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 when the accused intentionally avoids receipt?
  Read full judgment →
• Trend International Versus Mustafa Rehman2021 CLD 1142 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-25Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Revenue Division2020 CLD 634 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-13Read full judgment →
• Al-Haj Sheikh Abdul Hafeez Versus Suhail Zaman2020 CLD 505 · Sindh High Court · 2019-11-18Read full judgment →
• Sheikh Adeel Imtiaz Versus Faysal Bank Limited2020 CLD 1478 · Sindh High Court · 2019-12-05Read full judgment →
• Ali Asghar Dawood Bhoy Versus Ibrahim2020 CLD 1466 · Sindh High Court · 2020-01-27Read full judgment →
• Paramount Spinning Mills Limited and Others Versus2020 CLD 1443 · Sindh High Court · 2019-10-25Read full judgment →
• Aman Ellahi Versus The Registrar of Trade Marks2018 CLD 823 · Sindh High Court · 2018-01-12Read full judgment →
• Oro Industries through Managing Partner Versus Muhammad Hanif2018 CLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 2017-06-13Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Kuwait Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited Versus Three Star Hosiery Mills (Pvt.) Ltd.2017 CLD 546 · Sindh High Court · 2016-11-25Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan Versus Rahat and Company2017 CLD 1761 · Sindh High Court · 2017-01-18Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited Versus Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2017 CLD 1428 · Sindh High Court · 2017-03-07Read full judgment →
• Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd Versus Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd.2016 CLD 2283 · Sindh High Court · 2016-08-08Read full judgment →
• Premier Insurance Company of Pakistan Versus Karachi Shipyard and Engineering Works Ltd.2016 CLD 1983 · Sindh High Court · 2016-05-02Read full judgment →
• Dollar Industries Pakistan through Authorised Attorney Versus Brothers Industries2016 CLD 1962 · Sindh High Court · 2016-04-12Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority Versus Sindh Environmental Protection Agency2015 CLD 772 · Sindh High Court · 2014-10-17Read full judgment →
• Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited Versus Sultan Ali J. Lilani2015 CLD 759 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-18Read full judgment →
• Crescent Steel and Allied Product Limited Versus Sui Southern Gas Co. Limited2015 CLD 745 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-10Read full judgment →
• Bank Alfalah Limited Versus Callmate Telips Telecom Ltd.2015 CLD 691 · Sindh High Court · 2014-12-22Read full judgment →
• Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan Versus Muhammad Fahim2015 CLD 512 · Sindh High Court · 2014-09-25Read full judgment →
• Gadoon Textile Mills Limited Versus2015 CLD 2010 · Sindh High Court · 2015-06-04Read full judgment →
• National Bank of Pakistan Versus Najma Sugar Mills Limited2015 CLD 1990 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-23Read full judgment →
• Pacific Plastic Cottage Industry Versus Askari Bank Ltd.2015 CLD 1964 · Sindh High Court · 2015-04-15Read full judgment →
• Syed Wajahat Hussain Zaidi Versus State Bank of Pakistan2015 CLD 1897 · Sindh High Court · 2015-05-05Read full judgment →
• Abid Ali Versus Bazar-E-Faisal Builders and Developers2015 CLD 1257 · Sindh High Court · 2015-01-23Read full judgment →
• Mrs. Husna Rizvi Versus Mrs. Kiran Asif Ali Chudhary2014 CLD 1398 · Sindh High Court · 2014-07-11Read full judgment →
• Igi Investment Bank Limited Versus Admore Gas (Pvt.) Ltd.2014 CLD 1354 · Sindh High Court · 2014-02-06Read full judgment →
• Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. Versus M.V. "Aviona"2014 CLD 1327 · Sindh High Court · 2013-11-22Read full judgment →
• Engro Fertilizers Limited Versus Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Industries, Government of Pakistan, Islamabad2014 CLD 132 · Sindh High Court · 2013-10-21Read full judgment →
• Habib Metropolitan Bank Ltd. Versus Hay's (Pvt.) Ltd.2014 CLD 1255 · Sindh High Court · 2014-04-08Read full judgment →
• Boc Pakistan Limited Versus National Gases (Pvt.) Limited2013 CLD 898 · Sindh High Court · 2013-01-18Read full judgment →
• Zulfiquar Hussain Versus Bambino (Pvt.) Limited2013 CLD 34 · Sindh High Court · 2012-05-29Read full judgment →
• Mst. Ishrat Jehan Versus Syed Anis-Ur-Rehman2013 CLD 276 · Sindh High Court · 2012-10-12Read full judgment →
• Syed Muhammad Furqan Versus State2013 CLD 1273 · Sindh High Court · 2012-04-18
  post-arrest bailcorporate fraudbrokerage housefurther inquiryvicarious liabilitysecurities regulationunauthorized pledging of shares
  Summary & questions settled

  The applicant, a Director of a brokerage house, sought post-arrest bail in a criminal case involving the unauthorized pledging of clients' shares by the company, leading to financial losses. The core legal question was whether the applicant, who held a negligible shareholding and claimed to be a mere employee, could be denied bail despite the lack of direct evidence linking him to the alleged fraudulent transactions. The Court held that the applicant was entitled to bail, noting that he was not named in the F.I.R., no incriminating documents bore his signature, and the Investigating Officer admitted that no witnesses implicated him personally. The Court emphasized that the applicant's status as a Director, without evidence of active involvement or specific criminal intent, was insufficient to deny bail in the face of a lack of direct evidence. Consequently, the Court found that the applicant's case required further inquiry into his guilt, satisfying the criteria for bail under the relevant criminal procedure provisions, and admitted him to bail subject to furnishing surety.

  Questions settled

  • Does the mere status of being a Director of a company, without evidence of active participation or signing of incriminating documents, constitute sufficient grounds to deny post-arrest bail?
  • Is a case fit for further inquiry under the Code of Criminal Procedure 1898 when the Investigating Officer admits that no witnesses implicate the accused and no incriminating documents bear the accused's signature?
  • Can an accused be denied bail solely based on the allegations against co-accused persons when there is no specific evidence against the applicant?
  Read full judgment →
• Saudi Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited Versus National Bank of Pakistan2012 CLD 71 · Sindh High Court · 2011-05-31Read full judgment →
• Abid Iqbal Versus Export Processing Zones Authority2012 CLD 267 · Sindh High Court · 2011-05-04Read full judgment →
• Habib Bank Limited Versus Bahjani Scrap Trading Company LLC2011 CLD 733 · Sindh High Court · 2011-02-14Read full judgment →
• Pakistan Refinery Limited Versus Maskatiya Industries (Pvt.) Limited2011 CLD 550 · Sindh High Court · 2010-12-07Read full judgment →
• Kasb Bank Limited Versus Mirza Ghulam Mujtaba2011 CLD 461 · Sindh High Court · 2010-12-15Read full judgment →
• Nelofar Saqib Versus Saiban Builders and Developers2011 CLD 341 · Sindh High Court · 2010-08-19Read full judgment →
• S.A.H. Enterprises Inc. Versus Export Processing Zones Authority2011 CLD 275 · Sindh High Court · 2010-11-10Read full judgment →
• Saeed Abbas Versus Agar International (Pvt.) Ltd.2011 CLD 1757 · Sindh High Court · 2011-08-03Read full judgment →
• A. Khalid Ansari Versus Mir Shakil Ur Rahman2011 CLD 1196 · Sindh High Court · 2011-05-20Read full judgment →
• M. Muhammad Shafi & Co. Versus A. Rehman Enterprises2010 CLD 920 · Sindh High Court · 2010-06-28Read full judgment →