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. 232594 judgments in total.

• Messrs MASCOT INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION vs SIND EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL1987 PLC 785 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs MAHMOOD INDUSTRIES vs WEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER1987 CLC 1196 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-22Read full judgment →
• Messrs MADINA MILK AND GHEE STORE vs SADIQ ALI PATWA1987 SCMR 649(2) · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-12-03
  leave to appealdefault in payment of renttime-barred rentevictionlandlord and tenant
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter comes before the Supreme Court of Pakistan upon a petition for leave to appeal arising from a landlord-tenant dispute. The core legal question raised is whether a tenant can be held guilty as a defaulter in the payment of rent when the claimed rent is admittedly time-barred. The Court held that the submission regarding time-barred rent deserves consideration and granted leave to appeal. Consequently, the Court laid down the principle that the debatable issue of whether non-payment of time-barred rent constitutes default warrants a full hearing on appeal, during which conditional protection from eviction is granted subject to the continued deposit of rent in court.

  Questions settled

  • Can a tenant be held guilty as a defaulter in the payment of rent if the rent in question is time-barred?
  • Whether leave to appeal should be granted when a substantial question regarding time-barred rent arrears arises?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.Y. KHAN AND COMPANY and another vs DIRECTOR-GENERAL, MARINE FISHERIES DEPARTMENT and another1987 MLD 2581 · Sindh High Court · 1887-02-23Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.Y. INDUSTRIES, KARACHI And 4 Others vs THE STATE-1987 P Cr. L J 26 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs M.A. AGENCIES vs Messrs ZAM ZAM Ltd. and another1987 CLC 720 · Sindh High Court · 1986-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs KOHINOOR TRADING (Pvt.) Ltd. vs MANGRANI TRADING CO. and 21987 CLC 1533 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-20
  irrevocable letter of creditinterim injunctioncommercial lawbank guaranteebreach of contractbanking practiceprima facie case
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal challenged an order dismissing an application for an interim injunction to restrain a bank from honoring an irrevocable letter of credit (L/C). The appellants, having purchased goods under an L/C, alleged that the supplied goods were defective and not in accordance with the contract description, seeking to prevent the bank from remitting payment to the foreign beneficiary. The core legal question was whether a court should grant an injunction restraining a bank from honoring an irrevocable L/C based on an underlying dispute regarding the quality of goods between the buyer and seller. The Court held that an irrevocable L/C constitutes an independent, autonomous commercial obligation. Consequently, it dismissed the appeal, ruling that courts should not interfere with a bank's obligation to honor an L/C unless there is clear evidence of fraud or a fundamental challenge to the validity of the L/C itself. The principle established is that mere allegations of breach of contract regarding the quality of goods do not constitute sufficient grounds to disrupt the sanctity and commercial reliability of irrevocable letters of credit.

  Questions settled

  • Can a court grant an injunction to restrain a bank from honoring an irrevocable letter of credit based on an alleged breach of contract regarding the quality of goods?
  • Under what circumstances may a court interfere with a bank's obligation to honor an irrevocable letter of credit?
  • Does an allegation of defective goods constitute a sufficient ground to stop payment under an irrevocable letter of credit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs KHYBER SPINNING CO. LTD. vs Mrs. ZAREEN ANWAR AMIN and 21987 PLD Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs KHYBER SPINNING C0. LTD. vs Mrs. ZAREEN ANWAR AMIN And 2 Other'PLD 1987 Lahore 407 · Lahore High Court · 1987-06-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs KHAWAJA TRADING COMPANY vs DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS1987 CLC 854 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs KASHIF ENGINEERING WORKS vs Messrs ASIF ENGINEERING WORKS1987 CLC 2062 · Lahore High Court · 1987-07-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs KARACHI INDUSTRIAL AND TEXTILE MILLS vs MUHAMMAD SHAFI1987 SCMR 1575 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1986-12-18
  ejectmentdefault in payment of rentsettlement proceedingslandlord and tenantdiscretionwilful defaulter
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arises from a petition seeking leave to appeal against the dismissal of the petitioner's rent appeal regarding tenement No.G-111, Lawrence Road, Karachi. The core legal question concerned whether a tenant who withheld rent during protracted litigation before settlement authorities regarding the landlord's title can be excused from default and whether discretion should be exercised in the tenant's favour. The Supreme Court held that the petitioner was a wilful defaulter who failed to pay rent pursuant to statutory notice, and affirmed the concurrent findings ordering ejectment. The Court laid down the principle that a pending dispute regarding property title before the Settlement Department does not constitute a valid ground to condone a tenant's default in the payment of rent.

  Questions settled

  • Does a pending dispute regarding property title before the Settlement Department constitute a valid ground to condone a tenant's default in the payment of rent?
  • Can discretion be exercised in favour of a tenant to relieve them from the consequences of default once they are held to be a wilful defaulter?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs JOMALINA SDN.BHD. vs Messrs SOLVEX (PAKISTAN) Ltd.1987 MLD 317 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs IRFAN & COMPANY vs THE PROVINCE OF THE PUNJAB1987 SCMR 834 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-03-09
  contractual disputebreach of contractdamagesspecific performancecontract interpretationleave to appeal
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves a petition for special leave to appeal against a judgment of the Lahore High Court concerning a contractual dispute over the purchase of flood-damaged wheat. The petitioner entered into an agreement with the Provincial Government of Punjab to purchase wheat for export, but disputes arose regarding the quantity supplied and alleged breaches of contract by both parties. The trial court had awarded damages to the petitioner based on the price difference of wheat not supplied from a specific centre. The High Court, however, modified this decree, holding that the petitioner was only entitled to a refund of security and excess payments, as the underlying contract did not mandate the supply of specific quantities from particular centres. The core legal question was whether the petitioner was entitled to damages for non-supply of wheat from a specific location. The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decision, finding that the lower appellate court correctly interpreted the contract terms and evidence, concluding that no specific obligation existed to supply wheat from the disputed centre.

  Questions settled

  • Is a party entitled to damages for non-supply of goods when the underlying contract does not specify quantities from particular locations?
  • Can a court award damages based on price differences if the contract lacks a specific obligation to supply from a designated source?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs INTRA CO. LTD. and 3 others vs BANQUE INDOSUEZ1987 MLD 2843 · Sindh High Court · 1987-08-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs IHSAN SONS LTD. vs ABDUL RAZAK HABIB And 2 Others1987 PLC 390 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-20
  workman definitionsupervisory capacityindustrial disputeback benefitsseparate establishmentslabour lawconstitutional petition
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns constitutional petitions challenging an appellate tribunal's order regarding the reinstatement of an accountant. The core legal questions were whether the respondent qualified as a "workman" under the Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 and the West Pakistan Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance, 1968, and whether the petitioner's head office and factory constituted separate establishments. The Court held that the respondent was not a "workman" because his duties were supervisory and administrative, and his salary exceeded the statutory threshold. The Court further ruled that the head office and factory were distinct entities for the purposes of labor legislation. Consequently, the employer's petition was accepted, and the employee's petition for back benefits was dismissed as infructuous. The judgment establishes that the determination of "workman" status rests on the nature of duties performed rather than designation, and that an employee in a supervisory capacity with managerial powers is excluded from the definition of a workman. Additionally, separate business locations may be treated as distinct establishments under the relevant labor statutes.

  Questions settled

  • Does an accountant performing supervisory duties and earning above the statutory threshold qualify as a 'workman' under the Industrial Relations Ordinance 1969?
  • Can a company's head office and factory be considered separate and distinct establishments for the purposes of labor legislation?
  • Is the designation of an employee conclusive in determining their status as a 'workman' under labor laws?
  • Does a supervisor who manages a specific section of an establishment fall within the definition of a person employed in a 'supervisory capacity'?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs HYESONS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION Ltd. vs THE TRUSTEES OF THE KARACHI PORT TRUST1987 MLD 2579 · Sindh High Court · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs HYESONS COMMERCIAL AND INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION LTD. vs THE TRUSTEES OF KARACHI PORT TRUST1987 CLC 591 · Sindh High Court · 1986-06-05
  lease renewalmutual agreementholding overtenant by sufferanceKarachi Port Trustejectmentenhanced rent
  Summary & questions settled

  The plaintiffs filed a suit for permanent injunction to restrain the defendants, the Trustees of Karachi Port Trust, from recovering an enhanced rent and taking eviction steps following the expiry of a 25-year lease-deed. The core legal question was whether the defendants could unilaterally impose an enhanced rent and security deposit for lease renewal, despite a clause requiring renewal terms to be 'mutually agreed upon,' and whether the plaintiffs became statutory tenants or unauthorised occupants upon lease expiry. The Sindh High Court held that since the parties failed to reach a mutual agreement on the renewal terms, the lease did not stand renewed, and the plaintiffs' continued possession without accepting the landlord's conditions did not constitute holding over with consent under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882. The court laid down that a renewal clause requiring mutual agreement necessitates consensus on terms, and a landlord's protest against unauthorized occupation combined with a conditional demand for rent does not imply assent to holding over, entitling the port authority to seek ejectment upon lease expiry.

  Questions settled

  • Whether a lease requiring renewal on terms to be mutually agreed upon can be enforced when the parties fail to reach a consensus on the enhanced rent?
  • Does the filing of a suit for recovery of rent by a landlord after the expiry of a lease amount to an assent for holding over under section 116 of the Transfer of Property Act 1882?
  • What is the legal status of a tenant who remains in possession after the expiry of a lease without the landlord's consent?
  • Can a party be compelled to refer a dispute to the court as a special case under Order XXXVI Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 without mutual agreement?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs HYDERI INDUSTRIES Ltd. vs Messrs HASHWANI SALES AND SERVICES Ltd.1987 MLD 239 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs HYDARI INDUSTRIES LIMITED vs ABDUL HAKEEM1987 PLC 158 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-02-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs HUSSAIN TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs AUTHORITY UNDER THE PAYMENT OF WAGES ACT And Others1987 PLC 636 · Sindh High Court · 1987-01-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION vs Syed SIRAJ AHMED1987 CLC 742 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs HILAL-E-PAKISTAN PUBLISHERS vs SIND LABOUR COURT No,1, KARACHI1987 MLD 730 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-28Read full judgment →
• Messrs HARDWARE MANUFACTURING CORPORATION, KARACHI vs GUL BAHAR1987 PLC 823 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs HAJI TEXTILE FACTORY, 'FAISALABAD and another vs UNITED BANK LTD1987 MLD 163 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs Haji MUHAMMAD YUSUF and sons vs COTTON TRADING1987 CLC 722 · Sindh High Court · 1986-03-31Read full judgment →
• Messrs HAFEEZAN COAL COMPANY and 4 others vs ABDUL QAYYUM1987 PLD Quetta 197 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• Messrs HAFEEZAN COAL COMPANY And 4 Other vs ABDUL QAYYUM1987 PLD Quetta 197 · Balochistan High Court · 1987-05-03Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. vs MUHAMMAD RAFIQ1987 PLC 798 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-02-24Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. vs KHAIR MUHAMMAD1987 PLC 493 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-11-30Read full judgment →
• MESSRS HABIB BANK LTD. vs ISRAR AHMAD1987 PLC 39 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-12Read full judgment →
• Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED vs Syed TAFUZZAL HUSSAIN JAFRI1987 PLC 367 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-10-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs HA BIB BANK Ltd. vs Messrs MAKERS AND CO. and 5 others1987 MLD 725 · Sindh High Court · 1986-07-06Read full judgment →
• Messrs H.NIZAM & SONS vs COMMISSIONER FOR WORKMEN's COMPENSATION1987 PLC 536 · Sindh High Court · 1984-11-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs GOODWILL INTERNATIONAL vs THE COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS and others1987 CLC 2336 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-19Read full judgment →
• Messrs GENERAL TYRES AND RUBBER C0. (PAKISTAN) Ltd vs AHMAD ALI1987 PLC 138 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-04-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs FIRDOUS SPINNING And WEAVING MILLS Ltd. vs MUHAMMAD YOUSAF1987 PLC 246 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-03-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs F.C.L. Ltd. vs m.v. BROOKLYN and others1987 CLC 1808(2) · Sindh High Court · 1976-09-10Read full judgment →
• Messrs EASTERN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED vs Syed MAHMOOD1987 CLC 772 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs DADA SOAP FACTORY LTD. vs WORKERS UNION (C.B.A.)1987 PLC 417 · Labour Court · 1986-02-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs DADA SOAP FACTORY LTD. vs Messrs CRESCENT PAK INDUSTRIES LTD.1987 MLD 1256 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-30Read full judgment →
• Messrs COSMOPOLITAN DEVELOPMENT COMPANY vs Messrs SO DI. ME. -S'.P .1987 MLD 2832 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-29
  arbitration actstay of proceedingsincorporation clauseforeign arbitrationperformance bondsuit for declaration
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves an application filed under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act 1940 by the defendant for the stay of legal proceedings and referral of the dispute to arbitration pursuant to an arbitration clause in an agreement dated 16-5-1985. The plaintiff instituted a suit for declaration and injunction regarding disputes arising from subsequent supply contracts for sugarcane blackstrap molasses. The core legal questions examined were whether the application sufficiently stated the disputes and whether a general incorporation clause in a subsequent agreement effectively incorporated the arbitration clause from the previous agreement. The court held that the defendant failed to specify the disputes, that a general reference to terms of a previous agreement does not automatically incorporate an arbitration clause without explicit language, and that even if an arbitration agreement existed, the balance of convenience and availability of evidence in Pakistan rendered foreign arbitration inappropriate. Consequently, the application for stay of proceedings was dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application for stay of proceedings under Section 34 of the Arbitration Act must specifically state the disputes that have arisen between the parties?
  • Does a general reference clause in a fresh agreement automatically incorporate an arbitration clause contained in a previous agreement?
  • Can a dispute be referred to foreign arbitration when the contract's performance and evidence are situated in Pakistan?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs CONSOLIDATED EXPORTS LTD. vs Messrs DYER TEXTILE AND PRINTING1987 CLC 1348 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-29Read full judgment →
• Messrs COMMODITIES TRADING INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION vs TRADING1987 CLC 2063 · Sindh High Court · 1987-06-13
  arbitration agreementperformance bondbank guaranteemaintainabilityinterim injunctionarbitration proceedings
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter arose from an application filed by the plaintiff under sections 20 and 41 of the Arbitration Act, seeking to file an arbitration agreement, obtain an order of reference, and restrain the defendants from encashing a performance bond bank guarantee, along with an interlocutory application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 of the Code of Civil Procedure. The core legal questions involved whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable when a party has already invoked Chapter II of the Act by appointing its arbitrator, and whether an application for interim relief under section 41 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable when no arbitration proceedings are yet pending before an arbitrator. The Sindh High Court held that a party cannot simultaneously pursue the remedy of appointing an arbitrator under Chapter II and filing an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act, and further held that interim relief under section 41 is not maintainable in the absence of pending arbitration proceedings before an arbitrator. The court established the principle that statutory options for arbitration procedures are mutually exclusive at a given time, and interim powers under section 41 require an active, pending proceeding before an arbitrator or court.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable after a party has already invoked Chapter II of the Act by appointing its arbitrator?
  • Can a party simultaneously adopt the procedure provided under Chapter II of the Arbitration Act and apply to the court for filing the agreement under section 20?
  • Whether an application for interim relief under section 41 of the Arbitration Act is maintainable when no arbitration proceedings are pending before an arbitrator?
  • What constitutes the commencement of arbitration proceedings for the purpose of invoking the powers of the court under section 41 of the Arbitration Act?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs CHAUDHRI TEXTILE MILLS and others vs UNITED BANK LIMITED1987 CLC 1957 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-08
  leave to defendbanking suittriable issuesrecovery of loanssummary decreenegotiable instrumentsbanking documents
  Summary & questions settled

  This Regular First Appeal challenges a decree passed by the Special Judge (Banking) in a suit for recovery of money filed by a bank against loanees. The core legal question was whether the trial court erred in summarily dismissing the appellants' application for leave to defend the suit, despite the appellants raising substantial factual and legal contentions regarding the bank's handling of goods, alleged misappropriation, and discrepancies in import documents. The High Court held that the trial court acted mechanically and inequitably by refusing leave to defend. The Court determined that the appellants' pleas—specifically regarding the bank's unauthorized collection of goods, alleged collusion with clearing agents, and failure to deliver goods—constituted bona fide and substantial triable issues. The key principle laid down is that a court must objectively consider the pleas raised in a petition for leave to defend; if the defendant raises plausible defenses that could displace the rebuttable presumption attached to banking documents, the court should grant leave to defend, potentially subject to terms such as furnishing security, rather than deciding the matter summarily.

  Questions settled

  • When should a court grant leave to defend in a summary suit filed under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979?
  • Does the mere admission of obtaining a loan preclude a defendant from raising a defense regarding the bank's handling of collateral or goods?
  • Is a trial court required to objectively consider the specific pleas raised in a petition for leave to defend before rejecting it?
  • Can a court impose conditions, such as furnishing security, when granting leave to defend a banking suit?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs BUREWALA TEXTILE MILLS Ltd. vs Messrs ABDULLAH INDUSTRIES1987 MLD 19 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs BUCKWELL CO. Ltd vs SPENCER AND CO. (Pak.) Ltd.1987 MLD 681 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs BHERA FOOD GRAIN CORPORATION and 9 others vs MUSLIM1987 CLC 1843 · Lahore High Court · 1987-05-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LTD. vs Messrs KARACHI TRADING AGENCY1987 MLD 3036 · Sindh High Court · 1986-08-27Read full judgment →
• Messrs BANQU E INDOZUES vs Messrs RAHMAN' BROTHERS and 4 others1987 CLC 465 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-05Read full judgment →
• Messrs BANQU E INDOSUE vs Brigadier (Retd.) IFTIKHAR AHMED KHAN and 31987 MLD 692 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-18Read full judgment →
• Messrs BANK OF OMAN LTD.- (B) Islamic Jurisprudence-- --- Interpretation1987 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs BANK OF OMAN LTD. vs Messrs EAST TRADING CO. LTD. and OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 404 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-16Read full judgment →
• Messrs BANK OF OMAN LIMITED vs Messrs EAST ASIA TRADING CO. Ltd. and 41987 CLC 288 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-18
  leave to defendcontinuing guaranteeblank documentsbanking recoverynegotiable instrumentsconditional leavedoctrine of indoor management
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter involves two civil miscellaneous applications filed by defendants No. 3 and No. 5 under Order XXXVII Rule 3 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908, seeking leave to appear and defend a recovery suit instituted by the plaintiff bank under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979. The core legal questions pertained to whether signing printed guarantee documents while blank as to dates and amounts, and allegedly while out of the country, constitutes a valid defense, and whether the doctrine of indoor management or principles regarding inchoate instruments apply. The Sindh High Court held that the defendants failed to disclose a plausible or bona fide defense warranting unconditional leave, as the signing of printed documents with spaces left blank for dates and amounts impliedly authorized the bank to complete them for a continuing guarantee, and the defendants did not dispute the underlying consideration or the receipt of the loan facilities. Consequently, the court granted the defendants conditional leave to defend upon furnishing security for the outstanding balance within one month, laying down principles regarding the objective construction of continuing guarantees and the distinction between signing blank papers and pre-printed documents with blank spaces.

  Questions settled

  • Whether the signing of a printed letter of guarantee with blank spaces for the amount and date constitutes a valid defense in a suit for recovery?
  • Does the filling in of blank spaces in a continuing guarantee by a creditor amount to an unauthorized alteration or does it imply authority given by the guarantor?
  • Whether the provisions of the Negotiable Instruments Act 1881 regarding inchoate instruments apply to a non-negotiable contract of guarantee governed by the Contract Act 1872?
  • Under what circumstances should a court grant conditional versus unconditional leave to appear and defend in summary suits?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs KOHINOOR MARBLE INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD KAMIL1987 PLC 843 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs BALTISTAN BOUTIQUE through its Proprietor vs DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI and 2 others1987 CLC 428 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-02Read full judgment →
• Messrs AZMI EDUCATION SOCIETY vs GOVERNMENT OF SIND and another1987 MLD 3011 · Sindh High Court · 1986-09-01Read full judgment →
• Messrs ATLAS BATTERY LTD.- vs Messrs HABIB BANK LTD.1987 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs ATLAS BATTERY LTD. vs Messrs HABIB BANK LTD.1987 PLD Karachi 599 · Sindh High Court · 1987-04-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs ASSAD BROTHERS vs IBADAT YAR KHAN1987 MLD 915 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs ASIAN FOOD INDUSTRIES Ltd., KARACHI vs MUHAMMAD ASLAM1987 PLC 516 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1987-01-11Read full judgment →
• Messrs ASIA STEEL INDUSTRIES AID LTD vs Messrs IFTIKIIAR & CO. LTD. and others1987 CLC 984 · Sindh High Court · 1985-11-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs ASGHAR ALI & Bros vs UNITED BANK LTD.1987 CLC 504 · Sindh High Court · 1985-12-22
  civil appealrecovery suitclearing agentsinsolvencyproduction of documentssettlement of liabilitybank loan
  Summary & questions settled

  This civil appeal arises from a judgment and decree passed by the II-nd Senior Civil Judge, Hyderabad, which decreed the plaintiff-bank's suit for recovery against the defendant. The core legal question involved whether the defendant-appellant remained liable for payments made to an insolvent first clearing agent, or if a settlement between the parties had absolved the appellant of that specific liability, capping their responsibility at a fixed amount. The Sindh High Court held that the trial court erred in excluding crucial documentary evidence produced by the defendant to prove the settlement and absolvement of liability. The appellate court established that a bank letter clearly demonstrated that the disputed sum stuck with the insolvent clearing agent was the bank's responsibility and the appellant was not concerned with it. Consequently, the High Court modified the trial court's decree, limiting the recovery to the final admitted unpaid instalment. The key principle laid down is that contemporaneous written correspondence between parties acknowledging a settlement and shifting liability for third-party defaults must be considered by courts, and technical objections regarding the late production of documents should not override their established authenticity.

  Questions settled

  • Can a trial court refuse to consider authentic documentary evidence produced by a defendant during cross-examination on technical grounds of delayed production?
  • Whether a bank can recover payments made to an insolvent clearing agent from a customer contrary to an express written settlement absolving the customer of that liability?
  • Does the bar against producing documents without leave of the court under Order VII Rule 18 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 apply equally to defendants?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs ASCONS ENGINEERS and CONTRACTOR vs Messrs PAK STEEL MILLS1987 MLD 3001 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• Messrs ASBESTOS CEMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. vs Messrs M. WASIULLAH & CO.1987 CLC 1292 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs ASAD BROTHERS vs Mr.IBADAT YAR KHAN and another1987 MLD 556 · Sindh High Court · 1987-03-24Read full judgment →
• Messrs ARMAIR CORPORATION, NEW SABZI MANDI No.2, HARCHARNPURA, FAISALABAD and 2 others vs Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd1987 MLD 399 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-07Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALTAMEER CORPORATION vs KARACHI DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others1987 MLD 739 · Sindh High Court · 1986-11-13Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALLIED SYNTHETIC MILLS, KARACHI vs A. RAZZAUE KHAN And 22 Others1987 PLC 34 · Labour Appellate Tribunal · 1986-08-26Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. vs Messrs SUPER ELECTRIC INDUSTRIES1987 SCMR 1068 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-11
  stay of executionappellate jurisdictiontemporary injunctionrecovery suitleave to appealcivil procedure
  Summary & questions settled

  This petition for leave to appeal arises from an order of the Lahore High Court dismissing an application to vacate an order suspending the execution of a money decree passed in a recovery suit. The petitioner Bank challenged the High Court's continuation of the stay of execution pending a Regular First Appeal. The core legal question considered by the Supreme Court was whether a stay order passed by an appellate court during the pendency of an appeal is governed by the time limitations prescribed under Order XXXIX, Rule 4-A of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to suits, or by Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 applicable to appeals. Granting leave to appeal, the Supreme Court held that an interim stay order passed in exercise of appellate jurisdiction under Order XLI, Rule 5 is not restricted in its duration by the provisions of Order XXXIX, Rule 4-A. The key principle laid down is that stay orders granted under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 do not carry the six-month statutory lifespan restriction applicable to temporary injunctions governed by Order XXXIX.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an order staying execution of a decree passed by an appellate court under Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 is subject to the time restriction imposed by Order XXXIX, Rule 4-A?
  • Does Order XLI, Rule 5 of the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 restrict the span of validity of a stay order granted in appellate proceedings?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. vs Messrs JAN MUHAMMAD Bros.1987 MLD 3008 · Sindh High Court · 1986-12-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs AL-ANIS LABORATORIES through its 4 Partners vs Messrs AL-CHEMIST1987 MLD 2823 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• Messrs AHMED BROTHERS vs PHEROJ ALI M.HIRANI and another1987 MLD 2589 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-18Read full judgment →
• MESSRS AGRIAUTOINDUSTRIES LTD. vs THE GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1987 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• MESSRs AGRIAUTO INDUSTRIES LTD, vs THE GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN1987 PLD Quetta 103 · Balochistan High Court · 1986-12-17Read full judgment →
• Messrs AFGHAN CARPETS (Pvt.) Ltd. and 3 others vs TAJAMUL HUSSAIN and 31987 MLD 2081 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-14Read full judgment →
• Messrs AEG TELEFUNKEN PAKISTAN LTD. vs MONOPOLY CONTROL AUTHORITY1987 CLC 1108 · Sindh High Court · 1986-10-08Read full judgment →
• Messrs ADAMJEE INSURANCE CO. LTD., KARACHI vs Messrs P & 0 (PENINSULAR1987 MLD 1279 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• Messrs A.C.E. ENTERPRISES Through KHALID PERVEZ vs ADDITIONAL DISTRICT1987 SCMR 1174 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-18
  ejectmentpersonal needwrit jurisdictionrent controlfindings of factconstitutional jurisdiction
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against a High Court judgment that reversed an appellate order in an ejectment case. The landlord sought the eviction of the tenant on the ground of personal need for his sons. While the Rent Controller ordered ejectment, the Appellate Authority reversed this finding, citing a failure to properly assess the needs of all sons. The High Court, exercising constitutional jurisdiction, set aside the appellate order, holding that the lower court misread evidence and failed to apply the law as enunciated by superior courts. The Supreme Court affirmed the High Court's decision, holding that where Rent Control Authorities fail to act in accordance with the legal principles established by superior courts, such errors are subject to correction through writ jurisdiction. The Court found the High Court correctly exercised its authority in this instance. Ultimately, the petition was dismissed, though the Court granted the tenant an additional four months to vacate the premises, contingent upon a voluntary undertaking to surrender possession and continue paying rent.

  Questions settled

  • Can a High Court interfere with findings of fact by a Rent Control Authority in its constitutional jurisdiction?
  • Does a failure by Rent Control Authorities to follow the enunciation of law by superior courts justify interference in writ jurisdiction?
  Read full judgment →
• Messrs A .B . M. ENGINEERING, KARACHI vs Mst. ZEENAT ZUBAIR SIDDIQUI and 21987 CLC 2318 · Sindh High Court · 1986-01-30Read full judgment →
• MESSERS TRUST CERAMICS INDUSTRIES Versus MUHAMMAD IDRIS MESSERSK.L.R. 1987 Labour and Service Cases 113 · Sindh Service Tribunal · 1986-03-18Read full judgment →
• Messers NATIONAL CONSTRUCTION CO. vs THEWEST PAKISTAN WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY Through Its Chairman1987 PLD Supreme Court 461 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-06-08
  arbitration awardseverability of awardmodification of awardmisconduct of arbitratorarbitration actdispute reference
  Summary & questions settled

  This appeal by leave of the Court arises out of a judgment of the Lahore High Court setting aside an entire arbitration award made in favour of the appellant. The dispute originated from a contract for railway track renovation awarded by the West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority to the appellant. Upon completion, disputes regarding payments led to a suit for rendition of accounts, which was stayed under section 34 of the Arbitration Act and referred to an arbitrator, who awarded a specific sum across multiple items. The trial court made the award a rule of the court, but the High Court set aside the whole award upon finding two items erroneous. The core legal question was whether an award is entirely vitiated and incapable of being upheld when a portion of it is found invalid or based on error. The Supreme Court held that the invalid and separable portions of an award can be modified or struck off under section 15 of the Arbitration Act without setting aside the entire award, provided the valid parts are severable and do not depend on the invalid findings. The Court laid down that separable items in an arbitration award can be severed and the remainder maintained if they do not affect the rest of the adjudication.

  Questions settled

  • Whether an entire arbitration award must be set aside if a part of it is found to be invalid or erroneous?
  • Can the court modify or correct an arbitration award by separating the invalid portion under section 15 of the Arbitration Act 1940?
  • Does the existence of a real difference or dispute constitute an essential condition for the arbitrator's jurisdiction?
  • Whether an accidental error or mistake by an arbitrator amounts to legal misconduct sufficient to vitiate the whole award?
  Read full judgment →
• MESSERS KRUDSONS LIMITED, S.I.T.E., KARACHI Versus COMMISSIONER OF I_71bd5aa8K.L.R. 1987 Tax & Custom Cases 43 · Sindh High CourtRead full judgment →
• MERCHANT NAVY SEAMEN's UNION vs SIND LABOUR TRIBUNAL And 3 Others1987 PLC 444 · Sindh High Court · 1986-04-16Read full judgment →
• Member In the matter of:TAHIR M. SHAIKH ALI vs NOT1987 CLC 1949 · Monopoly Control Authority · 1983-03-07Read full judgment →
• MEIJI MILK PRODUCTS CO. Ltd. vs THE REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN1987 MLD 702 · Sindh High Court · 1987-02-15Read full judgment →
• MEHTAB DIN vs ALLAH DITTA And 6 Others1987 P Cr. L J 2269 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-07Read full judgment →
• MEHTAB DIN and 4 others vs PIRAN DITTA through his Legal Representatives1987 CLC 1061 · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-03Read full judgment →
• MEHRULLAH KHAN vs ABDUL SATTAR and 6 OTHERS1987 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MEHRULLAH KHAN vs ABDUL SATTAR And 6 Other1987 PLD Karachi 685 · Sindh High Court · 1987-05-20Read full judgment →
• MEHRULLAH KHAN KIBZAI And Others vs GOVERNMENT OF BALUCHISTAN And Other1987 SCMR 1715 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-04-20
  probationertermination of serviceunsatisfactory workservice tribunalregularizationad hoc appointmentstigma
  Summary & questions settled

  This matter concerns an appeal against a judgment of the Baluchistan Service Tribunal, which upheld the termination of the appellants' services. The appellants, initially appointed as ad hoc Markaz Managers, were later regularized in the Local Councils Service subject to a two-year probation period. Their services were subsequently dispensed with due to unsatisfactory work performance. The core legal questions were whether the appellants were entitled to reversion to their parent department rather than termination, and whether the termination order, citing unsatisfactory work, required formal departmental proceedings. The Supreme Court held that the appellants were appointed by direct recruitment, not transfer, and thus had no right to reversion. Furthermore, the Court affirmed that under the applicable rules, a probationer's services could be dispensed with for unsatisfactory work without formal departmental proceedings, provided the action occurred within the probationary period. The Court established that citing unsatisfactory work as a reason for termination during probation does not constitute a stigma requiring formal disciplinary inquiry, as the appointing authority retains the discretion to dispense with services under the governing service rules.

  Questions settled

  • Can a probationer's services be terminated for unsatisfactory work without formal departmental proceedings?
  • Does the mention of 'unsatisfactory work' in a termination order for a probationer constitute a stigma requiring a formal inquiry?
  • Is a probationer appointed by direct recruitment entitled to reversion to a previous department upon termination?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHRAJ DIN vs KARAM DIN AND OTHERSPLD 1987 Lahore 166(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-21Read full judgment →
• MEHRAJ DIN vs KARAM DIN AND OtherPLD 1987 Lahore 166(2) · Lahore High Court · 1987-01-27Read full judgment →
• MEHR-UD-DIN and others vs Khawaja ZAMIR ALAM and others1987 MLD 2996 · Lahore High Court · 1987-02-09Read full judgment →
• MEHR SHAH and others vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1872 · Lahore High Court · 1987-03-22Read full judgment →
• MEHR KHAN and another vs THE STATE1987 MLD 1919 · Lahore High Court · 1987-04-27Read full judgment →
• MEHR DIN vs THE HOME SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB1987 SCMR 1407 · Supreme Court of Pakistan · 1987-05-23
  condemned prisoner celldeath sentenceconstitutional petitionspecial leave to appealjail authorities
  Summary & questions settled

  This is a petition for special leave to appeal arising from a judgment of the Lahore High Court dismissing a constitutional petition. The core legal question raised was whether a convict under a sentence of death can be placed by jail authorities in a condemned prisoner cell before their sentence is confirmed and their appeal is disposed of. The Supreme Court of Pakistan declined to answer the abstract question because the records revealed that the sentences of death for the individuals concerned had already been confirmed by the High Court and their appeals had subsequently been dismissed by the Supreme Court, rendering their current confinement in condemned prisoner cells entirely lawful and unexceptionable. Consequently, the Court held that the case was not a fit one to resolve the hypothetical issue raised, and the petition for special leave to appeal was accordingly dismissed.

  Questions settled

  • Can a convict under a sentence of death be placed in a condemned prisoner cell before sentence confirmation?
  • Whether confinement in a condemned prisoner cell is lawful after the dismissal of appeals by the Supreme Court?
  Read full judgment →
• MEHDI HASAN vs PROVINCE OF PUNJAB1987 CLC 240 · Lahore High Court · 1986-05-05Read full judgment →
• MEHBOOB vs Mst.. SARWAR JAN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →
• MEHBOOB vs Mst. SARWAR JAN AND ANOTHER1987 PLD Peshawar 65 · Peshawar High Court · 1987-03-14Read full judgment →