Honourable Chief Justice of Pakistan
Mr.Justice Yahya Afridi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice
Sindh High Court
Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
1 . Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 725/2022 (D.B.) Artistic Milliners (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi V/S The Collector of Customs,(Export) Karachi& another Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Custom Act, 1969
2025 SHC KHI 59Export Oriented Unit; Rule 10(1)(e) and SRO 327(I)/2008 dated 29.03.2008; 10 year retention period is available and exporter cannot be compelled to dispose of goods within 5 years to attract levy of duties and taxes. Nothing can be read into the rule which is not provided therein.Read more
Matter:-CUSTOM MATTER
2 . Const. P. 987/2025 (D.B.) Qurban Ali Maitlo V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
IRSA appointment.Read more
Matter:-QUO WARRANTO
3 . II.A. 74/2018 (S.B.) Brig (Rtd) Raja M. Saleem Khan V/S Mrs. Nabeela Azam Sindh High Court, KarachiThe learned counsel for the Appellant has failed to identity any substantial error in the Impugned Judgement. In light of what has been held above no case for interference in the Impugned Judgment(s) and decree(s) is made out. Accordingly, the instant appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
4 . R.A (Civil Revision) 249/2024 (S.B.) Khuda Bux alias Iqbal V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadDoctrine of Finality Prevails: Unchallenged revenue Orders attain perpetual legality. Jurisdiction bar precludes civil Court review.Read more
Matter:-Against Order
5 . Const. P. 4545/2018 (D.B.) Kaleem Ahmed Siddiqui V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe core argument is that the 1999 Move-over Policy entitles an employee to the next higher scale one year after reaching their maximum pay. Reaching the maximum is presented as an independent criterion, not subordinate to the eight-year service requirement. Thus, employees at their maximum should not be denied move-over solely for not completing eight years, as this is an alternative condition intended to prevent pay stagnation without promotion. In this case, the petitioner, who retired on 24th May 2018, claims SVP move-over eligibility from 01/01/2017. He reached his VP scale's maximum on 01/01/2016 (promoted 01/04/2015), and the ZTBL policy allows a move-over one year after reaching maximum post-promotion. However he was simply denied his moveover based on his recovery performance being as Manager in the year 2016-2017, which prima facie is against th merit based on the anology that the employee is entitiiled to next higher scale one year after reaching maximum pay whereas petitioner reached his VP scalces maximum in the year 2016, however the denial is not based on merit, rather based on recovery, which can not be made an excuse to deny the benefit of move over policy by adding the provision in agenda item No.30 in Clause a and b which is conditional criteria cannot supersede the merit, thus the declining the request of the petitioner is not in consonance with the basic spirit of the policy.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
6 . H.C.A 170/2018 (D.B.) M/s. Bagh-e-Korangi (Pvt) Ltd. V/S Pakistan Development Corporation & others Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-AGAINST ORDER
7 . Const. P. 1609/2025 (D.B.) Muhammad Ali Soomro V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-SOCIETY MATTER
8 . Const. P. 146/2025 (S.B.) Awais ul Haq S/o Muhammad Shuja ul Haq V/S Rabia Akhtar and others Sindh High Court, KarachiIn the light of what has been held above, the instant petitions are devoid of merit. No case for interference has been made out. The listed petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost.Read more
Matter:-FAMILY MATTER
9 . Const. P. 1229/2025 (D.B.) Saif ul Islam & Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
Due process. Termination set-aside.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
10 . Judicial Companies Misc. 16/2011 (S.B.) M/s. New Jubilee Insurance Comp. V/S M/s. Active Apparels Int (Pvt. Ltd. Sindh High Court, KarachiStatutory notice of demand under section 306(1)(a) Companies Ordinance, 1984. Effect of.Read more
Matter:-WIND UP
11 . Const. P. 3640/2022 (D.B.) Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadJurisdiction Precedes Adjudication: The Exclusive Domain of Service Tribunals under Article 212, Including matters pertaining to Pay Protection.Read more
Matter:-Service
12 . Const. P. 4037/2023 (D.B.) Mrs. Viqar Unisa Begum V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-COMMERCIAL USE OF PROPERTY
13 . Const. P. 1457/2025 (D.B.) Iqbal Hussain V/S Tasawar Hussain & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Resjudicata , Resjudicata (Petition dismissed)
Petition hit by constructive res judicata. Costs imposed on the petitioner for filing a second petition on the same subject matter decided two weeks earlier by this bench by substituting the Respondent in the second petition (impleading his blood brother residing at the same address) and impugning afresh trial and revisional Courts Orders in the second petition passed much earlier in time which although not impugned in the first petition were discussed and observed in the first petition dismissed by this bench to be hit by laches, limitation and irrelevant for adjudication of the subject-matter dispute.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST ORDER OF CIVIL REVISION (CR)
14 . Judicial Companies Misc. 35/2024 (S.B.) BEACH LUXURY HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED & OTHERS V/S . Sindh High Court, KarachiScheme of demerger and merger sanctioned.Read more
Matter:-MERGER
15 . Spl.Cr.Bail 84/2025 (S.B.) Haroon Khan S/o Raham Gul & another V/S The State Sindh High Court, KarachiApplicants merely drivers without knowledge of smuggled goods. Bail granted.Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
16 . Const. P. 156/2024 (D.B.) Islam Khalti & Others V/S Manik Khan & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaFraud and MisrepresentationRead more
Matter:-Against Order
17 . Const. P. 966/2022 (D.B.) Aijaz Ali Abro V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaPension Benefits Qualifying length of service.Read more
Matter:-Regular Service
18 . Const. P. 4604/2017 (D.B.) Nazar Muhammad Gad V/S Federation Of Pakistan & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiWith the petitioner's subsequent retirement, the challenged action has become ineffective. Therefore, this petition needs to be disposed of with the understanding that the petitioner's deferment is no longer applicable, and he is entitled to proforma promotion in line with promotions granted to his juniors, as per Rule 13 of The Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation, and Seniority) Rules, 1975. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
19 . Const. P. 3393/2017 (D.B.) Manzoor Ahmed V/S Federation of Pakistan & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiWe understand that Pakistan Steel Mills has incurred substantial financial losses exceeding Rs. 100 billion, with total liabilities surpassing Rs. 110 billion. Given this precarious financial situation, directing PSM to grant the retired officers' claimed financial benefits under the promotion policy 2009 in these petitions is not considered appropriate at this time for the reasons discussed above in terms of the decision passed in the aforesaid proceedings. 8. Based on the reasoning outlined above, the relief requested by the petitioners cannot be granted. Consequently, these petitions are dismissed as not maintainable, along with any pending applications.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
20 . Const. P. 1979/2013 (D.B.) Abdul Razzak Memon V/S National Bank of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiAt first glance, the previously reached settlement between the parties cannot be revisited now. However, the court order dated December 8, 2011, and the terms of their compromise agreement, which has become final, must be strictly followed. Therefore, attempting to appoint the Petitioner to a new category is unwarranted. As the Petitioner, formerly a Labour Inspector (Shops & Establishment) Zone 'C' Hyderabad, was relieved from his duties specifically to join the National Bank of Pakistan under this compromise (endorsed by this Court on December 8, 2011 in Constitutional Petition No. D-106/2010), as such his prior service must be taken into account for pension, pay determination, and other employment benefits in terms of Civil Service Regulation (CSR) Article 371-A(i) as well as in terms of compromise application. on the aforesaid proposition, we are guided by the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Nafees Ahmad V/S Government of Pakistan and others, 2000 SCMR 1864, Ch. Muhammad Azim V/S The Chief Engineer, Irrigation and others, 1991 SCMR 255, Chairman, Central Board of Revenue and others V/S Nawab Khan and others, 2010 SCMR 1399. And the case is reported as (2021 SCMR 1546). Besides, this protection is also provided under Fundamental Rule 22-A.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
21 . Const. P. 749/2024 (D.B.) Ali Murtaza V/S Govt: of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaSalary of Probationer EmployeeRead more
Matter:-RELEASING OF SALARY
22 . Suit 113/2024 (S.B.) M/S PENG V/S THE PURPLE PINK & ANOTHER Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Intellectual Propoerty Organization of Pakistan Act 2012 (Rejection of Plaint or transfer to IP tribunal or Continuing hearing by High Court)
A claim seeking enforcement of contractual rights arising from a Franchise Agreement, which regulates Intellectual Property rights between parties and prays for the ancillary relief of damages/compensation, can only be instituted before the Intellectual Property Tribunal under the IPOP Act, 2012.Read more
Matter:-Commercial Cases/Suits as per Circular dated: 30-10-2013
23 . Const. P. 1571/2025 (D.B.) Zaheer Ahmed Butt V/S Province of Sindh & Ors Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-PROPERTY MATTER
24 . Const. P. 468/2019 (D.B.) Abdul Hussain Soomro V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaDeceased QuotaRead more
Matter:-Deceased Quota
25 . Const. P. 8715/2017 (D.B.) Ehsanullah Khan V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe initial impression is that Order II Rule 2 of the CPC applies in the present case for the reason that the petitioner's complaint of wrongful denial of promotion to BS-20 seems to be a single cause of action. This rule required him to seek all related remedies, including proforma promotion to both BS-20 and BS-21, in his earlier petition (C.P. NO. D-1945 OF 2013). Consequently, he is now barred from claiming a relief not granted previously. Furthermore, even if the petitioner was senior to the BS-21 promotee, that promotion stands if the Selection Board found the junior officer more meritorious. To claim proforma promotion to BS-21, the petitioner must prove not only his eligibility and the injustice of his BS-20 non-promotion but also that he was at least as meritorious as the promoted junior. This is because BS-21 is a selection post where merit, not seniority, is the paramount factor in promotions, ensuring the most capable individuals are elevated.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
26 . Const. P. 270/2023 (S.B.) Farooque Alias Ayaz Ali Jamali V/S Mst: Asma Jamali & Ors Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaA.F.R Recovery of Dowry ArticleRead more
Matter:-Against Order
27 . Const. P. 6609/2017 (D.B.) Naved Ahmed V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiWithout touching the merits of the case and to resolve the encroachment on the public road as agitated by the parties, the Senior Member of the Board of Revenue (BOR), the Chief Executive Officer of the Cantonment Board, Korangi Creek, Karachi, and the head of the Anti-Encroachment Force Karachi are directed to jointly address this matter. They shall conduct a hearing involving all relevant parties to determine if an encroachment exists on the public road. If encroachment is confirmed, an immediate campaign must be launched to remove it from public pathways in Bhitai Colony, Karachi as well as from the relevant area. This entire process must be completed within three months. These petitions are disposed of accordingly with pending application(s).Read more
Matter:-ENCROACHMENT
28 . Const. P. 937/2025 (D.B.) Syed Sahir Hasan V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973 (Resolution to give effect to Article 202-A )
bail in cases of Sindh Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 2024 is to be heard by a Constitutional Bench formed under Article 202A(3) of the Constitution and not a Regular BenchRead more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
29 . Const. P. 508/2023 (D.B.) Muhammad Shoaib Palijo & Ors V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiPetition challenging vires of a law while seeking enforcement of fundamental rights can only be heard by a Constitutional BenchRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
30 . Const. P. 1237/2023 (D.B.) Kashmir Ali & another V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurRegularization of service without any statutory backing is not permissible under the law. Chief Secretary is directed to take action against the delinquent officials.Read more
Matter:-Service Regularization
31 . Const. P. 6920/2016 (D.B.) Owais Ali and Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe respondents have established a committee, including representatives from the Local Government & HTP Department and the Secretary of HDA, to examine the cases of former HDA contract, work-charge, and daily wage employees, in light of a Supreme Court order from November 29, 2023, and the Sindh Regularization Act of 2013. While the petitioners request a resolution of their petition per the Supreme Court's directive, the learned Assistant Advocate General (AAG) submitted that their case does not fall within the scope of that Supreme Court decision and thus cannot be decided on those terms, praying for the dismissal of the petition. Regardless, let this matter first be referred to the Secretary of the Local Government Department to scrutinize the petitioners' case. If their case falls outside the purview of the newly formed committee, the petitioners must be granted a hearing, and a decision should be reached within three months.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
32 . Const. P. 1542/2025 (D.B.) Anam Salman Jamali and Others V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiPetitions challenging the 2 years active practice eligibility requirement for appointment as civil judge / judicial magistrate.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST AMENDMENT
33 . Const. P. 805/2016 (D.B.) Sarfaraz Ahmed V/S N.B.P and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe core issue is whether the Petitioner fulfilled the mandatory five-year service requirement with the respondent bank from his appointment date of March 20, 2010, until his termination letter dated January 19, 2016. Although clause 6.2 of the appointment letter stipulated a five-year service period, which appeared to have been completed by March 2015, this is rendered complex by the regularization of the Petitioner's unauthorized absence from September 8, 2014, to February 12, 2015 (258 days), as unpaid Extraordinary Leave. Furthermore, the Petitioner submitted his resignation on April 27, 2015, to which the respondent bank replied on May 8, 2015, requesting the settlement of liabilities. Given that the five-year term was completed during this period, it seems this clause should not have been invoked. Instead, the Petitioner's resignation could have been accepted. The respondent bank's inaction in this regard, persistently demanding liability clearance under clause 6.2, demonstrates a lack of consideration, ultimately forcing the Petitioner to file the present petition on February 10, 2016. Consequently, this petition is allowed, and the respondent bank is hereby directed to address the Petitioner's resignation and issue a decision within two months from the date of this order and if need to pursue any autstandig liabilities before the court of competent jurisdicition. The contested orders are accordingly overturned.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
34 . R.A (Civil Revision) 34/2024 (S.B.) Mst. Ruqiya Qureshi and Others V/S Akhtiar Ali Sangi and Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaSection 44 Transfer of Property Act. (Joint Possession of Dwelling House)Read more
Matter:-Impugned Judgement
35 . Cr.Bail 586/2024 (S.B.) Jongal Khan @ Babal Korejo and Another V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaCase calling for further inquiry, pre-arrest bail grantedRead more
Matter:-BAIL BEFORE ARREST
36 . Const. P. 1725/2015 (D.B.) Muhammad Younis and Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiIn line with the Supreme Court's directive in Suo Moto Case No. 15 of 2010, this matter is to be addressed by the provincial government. The Chief Secretary is directed to seek the necessary approval from the competent authority to determine whether the petitioners' employment will be regularized according to the law or if they will remain on contract until retirement. This decision must be made within three months after hearing the petitioners' perspective. Consequently, this petition is now disposed of under these specified conditions.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
37 . Cr.Bail 126/2025 (S.B.) Ali Dost Jhangwani V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaCase calling for further inquiry, pre-arrest bail grantedRead more
Matter:-BAIL BEFORE ARREST
38 . Const. P. 1216/2016 (D.B.) Mohammad Azam Jalbani V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe learned Assistant Advocate General (AAG) has informed the court that Mr. Muhammad Azam Jalbani was indeed promoted to Superintending Engineer (BS-19) as per the notification dated April 21, 2017. Based on this submission, the court has observed that the initial matter concerning petitioner's promotion appears to be resolved. The court has further directed the department to review the matter, considering that significant time has passed since 2016. If the issue was not resolved previously, the department is directed to resolve it in accordance with the law within a period of three months. Consequently, the petition stand is disposed of under these terms.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
39 . Const. P. 4281/2016 (D.B.) Dr. Sarfaraz Ahmed and Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiGenerally, a court should not readily interfere with an evaluation conducted by an Expert Committee, as the court typically lacks the specialized knowledge required for such assessments. It is an established legal principle that, within its designated powers and authority, the Departmental Promotion Committee (DPC) must evaluate each promotion proposal individually, in accordance with the law. In instances where a disciplinary case or criminal prosecution against a civil/government servant remains unresolved even two years after the initial DPC meeting deferred its findings regarding that individual, the appointing authority may consider granting an ad-hoc promotion, as per legal provisions.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
40 . Const. P. 6595/2017 (D.B.) Ms. Khizra Saeed V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe regularization of contractual employees through writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution is contingent upon its permissibility under existing law and a universally applicable policy decision, provided the organization in question falls under the High Court's writ jurisdiction. This principle was also upheld by the Supreme Court in the case of Faraz Ahmed vs. Federation of Pakistan (2022 SCMR 1680). The Supreme Court specifically established that contractual employees do not possess an inherent right to regularization. However, their regularization may be considered based on their fitness, suitability, and the relevant laws, rules, and regulations of their respective department. An automatic right to regularization does not exist unless explicitly provided by law, and employees seeking it must demonstrate a statutory basis for their claim; otherwise, relief cannot be granted.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
41 . Const. P. 5627/2016 (D.B.) Muhammad Kamaluddin V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiPreviously, the private respondent (now relevant to the current petitioner's seniority claim) sought promotion as an Assistant Accountant BPS-15. This court, noting the official respondents' commitment to consider the promotion in an upcoming DPC within six months, disposed of that petition. Now, the current petitioner requests the court to retroactively correct his initial BPS to BPS-15 from his appointment date and place him above the private respondent in the seniority list. He also seeks to prevent the promotion of any junior employee to Assistant Accounts Officer BPS-16 until his case is resolved. The respondents submitted that the private respondent's BPS-15 appointment followed a different advertisement with distinct criteria and that the petitioner's promotion to BPS-15 was through a DPC. They also clarified that a later BPS-13 to BPS-14 upgrade was not retroactive. The private respondent asserted his seniority in the BPS-15 cadre, which the official respondents claimed the petitioner had never challenged before. They alleged the petitioner's current action is driven by ulterior motives following the private respondent's earlier petition and cite a previous court order (dated 20.4.2017 in C.P D No. 3006 2016) in their favor. This court concludes that this seniority issue needs to be resolved by the competent authority of the respondents after hearing both parties within three months. This petition stands disposed of in these terms.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
42 . Const. P. 6400/2017 (D.B.) Safia Bano V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiIn conclusion, while the petitioner has acquired educational qualifications that might make her eligible to apply for a teaching position, it is unlikely that there exists a direct promotion rule that allows a Lab Attendant to automatically be promoted to a High School Teacher. Her best course of action would be to look out for and apply to relevant teaching vacancies advertised by the Sindh government, provided she meets the stipulated criteria for those posts. 7. This petition stands dismissed with pending application(s).Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
43 . Const. P. 240/2024 (S.B.) Mst Shamshad begum Through Attorney V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurRent Controller in appropriate cases may invoke the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure.Read more
Matter:-Rent Matter
44 . Const. P. 1131/2019 (S.B.) Sanaullah Thahim S/o Mir Nihal Khan Thahim V/S Saeed Ahmed Brohi and others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979
Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.Read more
Matter:-RENT MATTER
45 . Const. P. 5575/2016 (D.B.) Syed Sajjad Ali Shah V/S Chief Sect: and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe consistent stance of the Supreme Court is that contractual employees possess no inherent right to regularization. Regularization can only be considered based on fitness, suitability, and applicable departmental laws and rules. Cases like Khushal Khan Khattak University v. Jabran Ali Khan (2021 SCMR 977), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Raheel Ali Gohar (2020 SCMR 2068), and others reiterate that regularization requires a legal and statutory basis. Contractual employees serve at the pleasure of their master and cannot seek reinstatement for wrongful termination, only compensation through a competent court. Chairman NADRA v. Muhammad Ali Shah (2017 SCMR 1979) clarifies that contractual employees are governed by their contract terms until regularized and generally cannot invoke the High Court's constitutional jurisdiction. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that temporary, contract, or project employees lack a vested right to regularization unless their initial appointment followed regular recruitment rules against sanctioned vacant posts, which is not the case here. Vice-Chancellor, Bacha Khan University v. Tanveer Ahmad (2022 PLC (C.S.) 85), Pakistan Telecommunication Company Ltd. v. Muhammad Samiullah (2021 SCMR 998), Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa v. Sher Aman (2022 SCMR 406), and Deputy Director Finance and Administration FATA v. Dr. Lal Marjan (2022 SCMR 566) all decisions confirm that regularization is not a vested right but requires a statutory basis, which is absent in this instance. A contractual employee seeking regularization must demonstrate this statutory basis, as relief cannot be granted solely on the principle of "similarly placed persons."Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
46 . II.A. 38/2023 (S.B.) M/s. P.N.S.C. Karachi & anoother V/S Mohammad Reyaz s/o Abdul Kalam & others Sindh High Court, KarachiIn light of above discussion, I am of the view that both the Courts below have erred while passing the Impugned Judgments and the same require interference by this Court. Accordingly, the Impugned Judgement and Decree dated 13.10.2022 and 19.10.2022 respectively in Civil Appeal No. 295/2020 and Impugned Judgement and Decree dated 14.09.2020 and 21.09.2020 respectively in Civil Suit No.376/2014 are hereby set aside. Suit 376/2014 is dismissed. Office to prepare a decree accordingly within 15 days from today.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
47 . Const. P. 987/2025 (D.B.) Qurban Ali Maitlo V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
IRSA appointment.Read more
Matter:-QUO WARRANTO
48 . Spl.Cr.Bail 87/2025 (S.B.) ASIF MEER S/O JANNAT MEER KHAN V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, KarachiYet to be proved that seized petrol was of Irani origin. Bail granted.Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
49 . Const. P. 4242/2017 (D.B.) Niaz Muhammad V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiGiven the AAG's statement regarding the petitioners' current pay scales (BPS-17 for #1-6, BPS-16 upgraded to BPS-17 for #7-13 & #15-18, and BPS-11 upgraded to BPS-17 for #14) and the cancellation of prior upgrade orders under the 2020 Rules, this court finds itself unable to order the petitioners' post upgradation under Article 199 of the Constitution of 1973. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
50 . Const. P. 1039/2014 (D.B.) Afghan Ali @ Oghan Ali V/S Chief Executive Officer SEPCO Sukkur and others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaReinstatement in ServiceRead more
Matter:-Reinstate
51 . Const. P. 1524/2016 (D.B.) Raees Mohammad V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiAt the outset, we address the jurisdiction of this Court to entertain this petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The maintainability of a writ petition against the Respondent-Bank is supported by the Supreme Court's judgments in Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited, etc vs. Said Rehman & others (2013 SCMR 642) and Muhammad Rafiullah & others vs. Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited & another (2018 SCMR 598). Based on these precedents, we conclude that this Petition falls within the Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court and can be heard and decided on its merits.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
52 . Const. P. 4769/2014 (D.B.) Muhammad Kausar Noor V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiDrawing an analogy from the present situation and, more importantly, guided by the principles established by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the cases of Dr. Naveeda Tufail and 72 others v. Government of Punjab and others (2003 SCMR 291) and Shahzad Shahmir and others v Government of Sindh & others (2021 SCMR 824). The Dr. Naveeda Tufail case shows that the Federal Government regularized ad hoc employees through the Public Service Commission. While the Petitioners, as provincial contract employees, cannot automatically claim this, Article 25 of the Constitution calls for equal treatment. In Naveeda Tufail, the Supreme Court recognized a legitimate expectation of regularization for Punjab's ad hoc lecturers due to continuous ad hoc appointments. The Supreme Court directed the Punjab government to regularize them via the Punjab Public Service Commission, following the Federal model with some concessions, ensuring separate consideration from direct recruits and non-retention of unsuitable candidates. This case highlights the need for fairness and the Public Service Commission's role in regularization.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
53 . Const. P. 143/2025 (D.B.) Izhar Ali Dhamraho V/S CEO SEPCO Sukkur & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaPagri system in allotment of Government Accommodation.Read more
Matter:-Vacation Of Quarters
54 . Const. P. 17/2025 (D.B.) Sadaf Gul & Others V/S Sain Bux & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaRight of Fair TrialRead more
Matter:-Against Order
55 . Const. P. 6753/2014 (D.B.) Habib Ahmed Siddiqui V/S Province Of Sindh and ors Sindh High Court, KarachiAt this point, the petitioner's counsel stated that the sole remaining matter for resolution concerns the petitioner's promotion from BS-8 to BS-15 during his service period before his retirement as he was eligible and fit for promotion, however that was delayed leading him to retire, as such he is entitled for proforma promotion. This specific aspect of the case requires review by the respondents' competent authority within three months. This review should be conducted after hearing the petitioner's perspective, in accordance with the principles established by the Supreme Court in the cases of Capital Development Authority v Shabbir Hussain & others (2022 SCMR 627) and The Chairman Central Board of Revenue vs Muhammad Mlook (1999 SCMR 1540). This petition stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
56 . Const. P. 2950/2014 (D.B.) Suhail Ahmed and Ors V/S Province of Sind and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe policy governing up-gradation takes into account structural improvements, increased responsibilities, and pay scale inconsistencies, generally disallowing individual-based up-gradations. However, the Respondents also acknowledged that the Marine Fisheries Department (MFD) had already submitted up-gradation proposals for Research Assistants to BPS-14 to the relevant central bodies, with previous proposals facing delays, and that this matter is currently under their review. If this is the position of the case, these cases need to be referred back to the competent authority within the Respondents' administration. This authority needs to examine the issue of either upgrading the Petitioners' posts or considering them for promotion according to the prevailing recruitment rules, provided they meet the eligibility and fitness criteria for the position as requested, and after providing them an opportunity to be heard if they are still employed in the respondent department. This approach aligns with the Supreme Court's decisions in similar cases as discussed supra. Consequently, these petitions are being disposed of under these specified terms. Let a copy of this order be transmitted to the respondents for compliance.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
57 . Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 160/2024 (D.B.) M/s. New Era Fabric, Karachi V/S Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-I, CTO, Kar.& Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Sale Tax Act 1990
2025 SHC KHI 58imposition of penalty under section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990; element of mensrea still a requirement unlike section 34 of the Act.Read more
Matter:-SALES TAX.
58 . Const. P. 621/2023 (D.B.) Nisar Ahmed Nagrejo V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurPetition is hit by laches. Legitimate expectations does not create a legal right..Read more
Matter:-Issue Appointment Order
59 . Spl. Cr. A. 2/2018 (S.B.) THE DIRECTOR, DIRECTORATE OF TRANSIT TRADE KARACHI V/S M/S SYED SHAMS AHMED BURNEY Sindh High Court, KarachiRole of accused in pilferage not proved. Acquittal appeal dismissed.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
60 . Const. P. 3666/2016 (D.B.) Ahmed Nawaz and Ors V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiPrisons Department has been pursuing the extension of these benefits to their teachers since the early 1990s, engaging in correspondence with the Home and Finance Departments. The matter remains "under process" with the government, with requests for information and financial implications being exchanged. The AAG requests the court to pass orders as deemed appropriate given the ongoing process, more particularly the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baluch case 2015 SCMR 456.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
61 . Const. P. 1327/2023 (D.B.) Mst. Iffat Khattak and Another V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiIt may be noted that although the Colleges in question are permanent and are required to have permanent status, the staff which is working therein is required to have permanent status. However, the respondents have created the relationship between the petitioners and Hadeed Welfare Trust as master and servant to avoid the regularization of their service, as the issue has already been set at naught by the judgment rendered by this Court in Hafeez Junejo???s case has been implemented in its letter and spirit. Additionally, the Hon???ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has already taken care of the issue of regularization of service of teaching staff in the aforesaid cases; as such, no further deliberation is required on our part.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE / REGULARIZATION
62 . Const. P. 3459/2015 (D.B.) Dr. Asma Sarwar Khan and Ors V/S Govt. of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiIt appears that much water has flown under the bridge since 2015 when the captioned petitions were filed to claim implementation of the order dated 15.04.2012 passed by this Court in C.P. No.D-215 of 2012. Without touching the merits of the cases, these petitions can be resolved by directing the respondent department to look into the issue involved in the petition if the petitioners??? cause still subsists. In the meanwhile, the respondents are mandated to advertise all job vacancies that have not been previously advertised. This would ensure that all eligible individuals have the opportunity to compete for these positions if vacant based purely on merit through a competitive process.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
63 . Const. P. 609/2015 (D.B.) Dr. Tasnim Ahsan V/S Govt Of Sindh and ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThis petition is being disposed of with the understanding that the Sindh government's retirement notification dated December 29, 2014, has already been implemented, and the petitioner has received some pension benefits. These benefits will be subject to the final outcome of the review petition regarding the core issue, which is currently pending before the Supreme Court between the Federal and Sindh governments. Therefore, this court will not delve into the merits of that underlying controversy at this stage, as the matter is sub judice. However, the respondent Sindh government is directed to abide by the Supreme Court's decision on their review application. The consequences of the Supreme Court's ruling (whether the review succeeds or fails) will then follow. This petition is disposed of in these terms.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
64 . Const. P. 4984/2015 (D.B.) Piar ALi Jokhio V/S Province of Sindh and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiPrima facie, this issue of late submission of Domicile and PRC, which prompted the respondents not to consider their candidature, needs to be looked into by the Secretary of Education after hearing both the petitioners within three months if the petitioners meet the requisite criteria as set out in the Teachers Recruitment Policy 2012; besides no other candidates having lower marks superseded the petitioners. A copy of this order shall be sent to Secretary Education for compliance. These petitions stand disposed of in the aforesaid terms.Read more
Matter:-APPOINTMENT
65 . Const. P. 2792/2015 (D.B.) Muhammad Asif V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe foundation of the petitioner's case rests upon the precedent established in the matter of the Taimur Ali Khan case (C.P No. 2873 of 2012). In that instance, KPT proposed a Grade-II Traffic Supervisor position with seniority commencing from January 1, 2014, while declining to pay retroactive salary. Despite Taimur Ali Khan's initial request for arrears, this Court ultimately mandated his immediate assumption of the offered role. The present petitioner seeks analogous relief based on the findings of the division bench of this Court, as such deviation at this stage is almost impossible as the matter is sub judice before the Supreme Court. Consequently, this petition can be resolved in the same manner, contingent upon the Chairman of KPT's impartial determination, following a hearing with the petitioner within a three-month time frame, that the petitioner's circumstances are comparable to those of the Taimur Ali Khan case as discussed supra.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
66 . Const. P. 1749/2015 (D.B.) Abdul Wahid and others V/S Fed: of Pakistan and others Sindh High Court, KarachiFrom 2010-2016, before formal FMU rules, petitioners submitted that Clause 31 of 2009 rules mandated applying State Bank of Pakistan (SBP) policies to their perks and privileges. They highlight that FMU adopted SBP's Monetized Salary Scales, approved by the PM, to attract market specialists with competitive packages. Petitioners contended that the same rationale necessitates implementing SBP's employee benefits at FMU, as SBP policies on appraisal, increments, TA/DA, and leave are already in effect for them. Despite lump-sum salaries upon appointment, governed by FMU rules (approved earlier than stated), petitioners were placed on SBP-aligned FMU scales. They pointed out that SBP officers at FMU received full SBP benefits per Rule 9(xiii). Thus, petitioners asserted that FMU Rule 31 entitled them to SBP's allowances, benefits, perks, and perquisites. Having served for several years without any issue, their non-confirmation contradicts FMU rules. They submitted that benefits like Employee Loans are limited to confirmed staff, causing frustration and resignations, including trained Analysts. Therefore, the petitioners requested that the application of SBP-related benefits under FMU Rule 31 from their appointment date and confirmation of their service as per FMU rules after completing probation.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
67 . Const. P. 2257/2015 (D.B.) Muhammad Abbas Halepota V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiIt is well-settled law that the right to claim a pension is a right connected with the tenure of service, which under the applicable pension rules has to be served by an employee to make him eligible for a pension. So, to claim a pension, the minimum qualifying service is the threshold that has to be crossed first, which would then entitle an employee to claim the pension.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
68 . Const. P. 326/2022 (S.B.) M/s. SINDHLAB (PRIVATE) LIMITED V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiIn view of the forgoing reasons the instant petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. However, the Petitioner shall be at liberty to file an appeal under the above-mentioned Section at the appropriate forum and the time spent by the Petitioner in the instant petition shall be excluded for the purposes of computing limitation.Read more
Matter:-WORKMAN
69 . Const. P. 2616/2014 (D.B.) Gulsher Siyal V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiCSR Article 420 states that a break in an officer's service typically forfeits their previous service, except in these situations: (a) Approved leave. (b) Unauthorized absence directly following approved leave, as long as their position isn't permanently filled. If it is, the prior service is lost. (c) Suspension is immediately followed by reinstatement (in the same or a different role), or if the officer dies, retires, or is retired while suspended. (d) Abolition of their position or job loss due to staff reduction. (e) Transfer by a competent authority to non-pensionable service within government control (voluntary resignation from pensionable service forfeits this). Transferring to a grant-in-aid school also leads to forfeiture. (f) Transfer to the President's household staff. (g) Time spent traveling between appointments when transferred by a competent authority or, for non-gazetted officers, with their previous head of office's consent. (h) Any other reason provided the break wasn't due to the government servant's fault or intentional action (like unauthorized absence, resignation, or removal). Besides CSR Regulation 423 provides automatic relaxation of six months in case of short service, if he or she, is entitled for pensionary benefits as such the question of latches are of no significance at this stage as the petitioner is requesting for continuation of his past service in different government departments.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
70 . R.A (Civil Revision) 76/2023 (S.B.) Azizullah Soomro & another V/S Muzafar Hussain Soomro & others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaRecording of additional evidence during the Appellate proceeding.Read more
Matter:-Against Order
71 . Const. P. 986/2014 (D.B.) Mohammad Khursheed V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe petitioners are reportedly retired, and one has passed away during the case's proceedings, although no updated title reflecting this has been submitted. The core issue is the restoration of their basic pay to its pre-April 2012 level, particularly considering the cessation of Pakistan Steel's operations in 2015 and the retirement benefits already received by the petitioners. As such, no further cause of action appears to exist. The petition seems to have become ineffective ("infructuous") due to the closure of the Steel Mills after 2015. Therefore, remanding the case to Pakistan Steel or its affiliated company to re-fix the petitioners' pay after their retirement would be unproductive. Consequently, this petition is dismissed.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
72 . Spl.Cr.Bail 89/2025 (S.B.) Saleem Raza S/o Amir Ali V/S The State Sindh High Court, KarachiOffence alleged not hit by prohibitory clause. Bail granted.Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
73 . Const. P. 4092/2014 (D.B.) Imran Khan Siyal V/S Prov. of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiGenerally, a contract employee who resigns forfeits the right to demand regularization. Resignation is a voluntary termination of the contract, which outlines employment terms. Regularization, a separate process for permanent positions, is not automatically triggered by resignation and requires specific policies or employer decisions. Contract employees don't have an inherent right to regularization based solely on service length or satisfaction. While legal remedies might exist for the unfair use of resignation to avoid regularization, they don't guarantee it.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
74 . Const. P. 1333/2025 (D.B.) Muhammad Anjum V/S Govt of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi5. The Supreme Court in the recent judgment in the case of Sakhib Zar vs. M/s K-Electric Limited & others ( 2024 SCMR 1722) has held that even 10 days??? absence without leave is quantified as misconduct and on proving the guilt of the employee after fulfilling the requisite formalities envisaged under the law, and that could not be modified. No premium or advantage could be given on this count for any compassionate or sympathetic view. The management has a legitimate and unbridled right and authority to make a decision and mete out the punishment as provided under the law, including the dismissal/termination of service of a delinquent. 6. The Supreme Court further held that the distinction between the act of misconduct and the quantum of punishment provided under the law for such misconduct. Likewise, different acts of misconduct are defined in the different laws with different quantum or genres of punishments to be 5 imposed according to the fine sense of judgment of the competent authority/management/employer, in which the Courts have no role to play in the decision making of management which is the sole arbiter.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
75 . Const. P. 3095/2010 (D.B.) Syed Shoukat Ali & Ors. V/S Province of Sindh & Ors. Sindh High Court, KarachiWithout addressing the substantive arguments of these cases and merits, these petitions are now considered concluded and are hereby disposed of in the terms that much water has flown under the bridge since 2008 and we are now in 2025 besides petitioners have not asked for the issuance of writ of quo warranto against the individual who were purportedly appointed in violation of the rules as no record has been produced to infer adverse against them at this stage in a case of writ of mandamus. However, if the cause of action for these petitions still exists, the petitioners retain the right to initiate appropriate legal action, including proceedings under a writ of quo warranto, if they believe the appointments of the private respondents are contrary to law and if such legal recourse is permissible. These petitions are disposed of along with the pending application(s) in the above terms.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
76 . Const. P. 4754/2014 (D.B.) Nabi Hussain and Ors V/S M.D KW & SB and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiUpgradation with retrospective effect" refers to a situation where an employee's pay scale is increased to a higher level, without a change in their duties or position, and this increase is applied to a period before the official date of the upgradation. It is further clarified that upgradation cannot be construed to be promotion, as is generally misunderstood. Up-gradation is carried out without necessarily creating a post in the relevant scale of pay it is carried out under a policy and specified scheme. It is only for the incumbents of isolated posts, which have no avenues or channels of promotion at all. Up-gradation under the scheme is personal to incumbents of the isolated posts to address stagnation and frustration of incumbents on a particular post for a sufficient length of service on the particular post without any progression or avenue in the service.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
77 . Const. P. 1015/2014 (D.B.) LT CDR (R) Dr. Muhammad Nawaz V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiThe primary submissions of the petitioner is that the staff plot is a contractual entitlement. However, this raises the question of whether a Constitutional Petition is the appropriate legal avenue for an employee of a statutory corporation with non-statutory service rules to enforce the terms of those rules. Established service law dictates that if a statutory body's employee service conditions aren't governed by statute-based rules but by internal rules or instructions, their violation is generally not enforceable through constitutional jurisdiction and falls under the principle of master and servant. Here, the petitioner seeks enforcement of the DHA Service Rules 2008, which this Court cannot typically enforce via a Constitutional Petition. This position is supported by the Supreme Court of Pakistan's ruling in Pakistan Defense Officers Housing Authority vs. Mrs. Itrat Sajjad Khan and others (2017 SCMR 2010).Read more
Matter:-ALLOTMENT OF PLOT
78 . Const. P. 511/2024 (D.B.) Muhammad Haneef Soomro V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurMere securing passing marks in examination does not create vested right for appointment.Read more
Matter:-Recruitment
79 . M.A. 23/2024 (S.B.) Muhammad Sadiq Thr. Attorney Mohammad Tahir V/S Muhammad Hassan and Another Sindh High Court, KarachiThe ???awareness??? of the Appellant and the alleged ???concealment??? cannot conceivably be grounds for rejection of the plaint. In light of what has been held above, the Impugned Order is hereby set-aside, consequently the matter is remanded back of the learned Tribunal for deciding the same on merits after recording of evidence. The learned Tribunal is further directed not to be influenced with the findings in the Impugned Order. Accordingly, instant Misc. Appeal is allowed in the above terms with no order as to cost.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
80 . Const. P. 434/2023 (S.B.) Sarfarazuddin S/o Rafiullah V/S M/s. Paras Commercial Company and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979
Limitation condoned. The Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.Read more
Matter:-RENT MATTER
81 . Spl.Cr.Bail 79/2025 (S.B.) Muhammad Faheem S/o Muhammad Noor V/S The State Sindh High Court, KarachiSales Tax fraud. No probe in supply chain. Bail granted.Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
82 . Const. P. 5/2024 (S.B.) Mst. Nasira Khalique Thr. Ms. Seema Khalique V/S The Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, Karachi 2025 SHC KHI 46I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with their assistance. I intentionally not making any detail comments as the issues of the matter between the parties pending adjudication before the concerned court with regard to the interim relief application in terms of Section 7(1) of the Illegal Dispossession Act 2005 to hand over possession of the subjected premises to the petitioner; that Illegal Dispossession Case needs to be decided by the competent court after hearing the parties if pending as the petitioner has already sought a similar prayer in the Illegal Dispossession case and so far as the restoration of possession of concerned the trial court has to see this aspect for interim custody of the subject premises if the petitioner was found forcibly evicted from the premises in question if she possessed the valid rent agreement and decision be made within two weeks from the date of receipt of this order.Read more
Matter:-HARASSMENT
83 . Const. P. 235/2025 (S.B.) Atif S/o Latif V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender. Unfortunately, these objectives have remained unfulfilled. Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as from other courts but they have failed to have any corrective effect on it. The police has the power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The plenty of this power casts an obligation on the police and it must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated. However it is made clear that police is free to take action against any person who is indulged in criminal activities subject to law. 8. The DIGP concerned is directed to prioritize this matter and, after hearing both parties within two weeks, address the alleged police misconduct. If the officials are found culpable, departmental proceedings for their punishment must be initiated, and they shall be assigned non-field duties in the interim period.Read more
Matter:-HARASSMENT
84 . Const. P. 1479/2024 (S.B.) Mst. Shir Bano and another V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiPrimarily, this is a free and democratic country, and once a person becomes a major he or she can marry whosoever he/she likes; if the parents of the boy or girl do not approve of such inter-caste or interreligious marriage the maximum they can do if they can cut off social relations with the son or the daughter, but they cannot give threats or commit or instigate for acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. I therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities will see, if any boy or girl who is major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or man who is a major, the couple is neither harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence and anyone who gives such threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to task by instituting criminal proceedings by the police against such persons and further stern action is taken against such person(s) as provided by law. However, the above observation is without prejudice to the legal rights of the parties, arising out of the over marriage of the couple, if any, pending before the competent court of law.Read more
Matter:-HARASSMENT
85 . Const. P. 245/2025 (S.B.) Qurban Ali S/o Qasim V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender. Unfortunately, these objectives have remained unfulfilled. Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as from other courts but they have failed to have any corrective effect on it. The police has the power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The plenty of this power casts an obligation on the police and it must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated.Read more
Matter:-HARASSMENT
86 . Const. P. 209/2025 (S.B.) Saifullah Jamali (Disable) V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiAfter arguing the matter at some length, both parties have agreed to the disposal of the instant petition on the premise that the DIGP Malir will hear the petitioner as well as private respondents and will take care of all the aspects of the case and ensure that no harassment shall be caused to both the parties. The proposal seems to be reasonable and acceded to. In the meantime police shall remain neutral in the private dispute between the parties, however, if any of the individuals is indulged in criminal activity the police shall take prompt action against them under law. 5. The instant petition is disposed of in the above terms.Read more
Matter:-DIRECTION
87 . Const. P. 950/2022 (S.B.) Javed Iqbal S/o Ahsan Ghani V/S Inspector General Sindh (IG) and Another Sindh High Court, KarachiKeeping in view the statement made in the proceedings, I cannot determine in the constitutional jurisdiction whether the petitioner is innocent or he has been falsely implicated in the cases or not, However, the IGP Sindh shall ensure adherence of the orders dated 03.11.2022, 10.03.2025 and 24.03.2025, before taking further action. 11. I am also of the view that the statement of Learned AAG and APG is tenable to the effect that an Enquiry Committee, headed by DIGP Investigation Karachi, was formed on March 12, 2025, to investigate the claim of the petitioner through CMA No. 2299 of 2025. The findings are pending finalization and will be submitted without delay. They also stated that directives for strict compliance have been issued to all Karachi units, with non-compliance facing departmental action. Furthermore, they submitted that an existing enquiry is underway. Therefore, they are directed to complete the proceedings and submit the enquiry report to this court through MIT-II of this Court. 12. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Read more
Matter:-DIRECTION
88 . Const. P. 191/2024 (S.B.) Arshad Ali Gorar V/S Mst Uzma & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at LarkanaCustody of a minor on re-marriage of mother.Read more
Matter:-Impugned Judgement
89 . Const. P. 223/2025 (S.B.) Pujab Beverages Company Pvt. Ltd V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiConsidering the aforementioned details, the objective of filing this petition has been achieved. Consequently, this petition is hereby disposed of in the terms stated above. However no harassment shall be caused to either party and the case shall be decided by the competent court of law if pending.Read more
Matter:-DIRECTION
90 . Const. P. 255/2025 (S.B.) Zubaida W/O Muhammad Irfan V/S Inspector General of Police (IGP) Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender. Unfortunately, these objectives have remained unfulfilled. Aberrations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as from other courts but they have failed to have any corrective effect on it. The police has the power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a court. The plenty of this power casts an obligation on the police and it must bear in mind, as held by this Court that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated. However it is made clear that police is free to take action against any person who is indulged in criminal activities subject to law. However no harassment shall be caused to the petitioner, if she acts within the bonds of law. Police shall also ensure respect of the family shed in accordance with law and if they have reasonable ground to prevent the congnizable offence they can act, so far as raiding the house is concerned the police shall secure concrete evidence and obtain necessary permission from the concerned high police official/Magistrate as a issue of security of the house is concerned, which is not public place under the Act 1977. 9. Considering the aforementioned details, the objective of filing this petition has been achieved. Consequently, this petition is hereby disposed of in the terms stated above.Read more
Matter:-DIRECTION
91 . Const. P. 219/2025 (S.B.) Mst. Kazo and another V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiSSP and SHO concerned are also required to protect the petitioners and also secure the PR Bond of the private respondent in the sum of Rs. 500,000/- (Rupees Five hundred thousand only) each and the same shall be kept in the police station to the effect that no harm shall be caused to the petitioners. 5. In view of the above, this Constitutional Petition is disposed ofRead more
Matter:-HARASSMENT
92 . Const. P. 188/2025 (S.B.) Shaikh Osama Rafi S/o Shaikh Muhammad Rafi V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiWthout prejudice the rights of the parties this matter is referred to the concerned DIGP to resolve the dispute between the parties after hearing them within two weeks. If the DIGP finds evidence of a cognizable offense by either party, he shall direct the relevant SHO to record statements and proceed according to the law. This petition stands disposed of in the above terms.Read more
Matter:-HARASSMENT
93 . Const. P. 198/2024 (S.B.) Muhammad Khalid Sheikh S/o Muhammad Yousuf Sheikh V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiAdmittedly, this is the case of harassment at hands of police in connivance with private respondents. The main objectives of police is to apprehend offenders, investigate crimes, and prosecute them before the cours also to prevent to commission of crime, and above all ensure law and order to protect citizen???s life and property.Read more
Matter:-PROTECTION
94 . Const. P. 1257/2025 (D.B.) Saleem Raza V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Custom Act, 1969
Section 155F of the Customs Act; User ID of a person cannot be blocked or suspended without notice and hearingRead more
Matter:-CUSTOM MATTER
95 . H.C.A 117/2020 (D.B.) Muhammad Ayaz & another V/S Mst. Rasheedan Bibi & others Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-DAMAGES
96 . Const. P. 940/2024 (D.B.) Mumtaz Ali ansari V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurPetitioner approached the Court by supressing material facts not entitle for the relief sought. Petition dismissed with cost.Read more
Matter:-RELEASING OF SALARY
97 . Spl.Cr.Bail 59/2025 (S.B.) DANISH QURESHI S/O NIZAMUDDIN QURESHI V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, KarachiSales Tax fraud. Yet to be proved that Applicant was running dummy units himself. Bail granted.Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
98 . E.P 21/2024 (S.B.) Ali Ahmed Palh V/S Election Commission of Pakistan & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiPetition rejected for want of affidavit of service.Read more
Matter:-ELECTION MATTER
99 . Const. P. 6238/2015 (D.B.) Abdul Majeed V/S Federation of Pakistan & ors Sindh High Court, KarachiIn line with the opinion of the Advocate General Sindh, as detailed in the preceding paragraph, the petitioner's resignation from the Board, submitted as a consequence of his absorption, is considered invalid. In a landmark judgment as discussed supra, the Supreme Court of Pakistan declared all absorptions in different cadres as illegal, ordering employees to revert to their parent departments, while ensuring their seniority is retained. 12. This petition is hereby disposed of with the direction that the respondent, BISE Sukkur, must fully implement the Supreme Court's judgments (2013 SCMR 1752 and 2015 SCMR 456) by ordering the petitioner's return to his parent department while protecting his seniority, if he has not superannuated yet. The aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within three months.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
100 . Const. P. 4785/2013 (D.B.) Anwaruddin Solangi and Ors V/S Fed.of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiSince Pakistan Steel Mill is no more in operation since 2015 as such the case of the petitioner cannot be referred to the respondent for continuation of their services from the date of joining in Pakistan Steel. 8. For the reasons stated above, this court finds the petition to be without legal or factual foundation and therefore dismisses it. This court concurs with the respondents' position as contend in the comments, and their request is thus acceded to. All pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
101 . Const. P. 4002/2011 (D.B.) Ibrahim Noor V/S Pakistan International Airlines Corporation & Ors. Sindh High Court, KarachiEven, if a petitioner was acquitted in a criminal case following a conviction, in NAB Reference No. 20/2011, this does not automatically lead to exoneration from departmental charges based on the same factual grounds. While a writ under Article 199 is available in specific limited situations, it is generally not the appropriate remedy to contest a dismissal from service based on these charges, particularly when the employee was afforded a full opportunity to cross-examine witnesses and present his/her defense but did not convince the department of his/her innocence. 10. Based on the findings of the inquiry committee, this petition is not considered maintainable and is therefore liable to be dismissed, which is dismissed accordingly with pending application(s) if any.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
102 . M.A. 182/2024 (S.B.) CSM Pakistan (Guarantee) Limited V/S Kresta Corp Sindh High Court, KarachiFor the foregoing reasons the instant appeal is allowed. The Impugned Order dated 31.08.2024 is set aside with no order as to cost. The learned Tribunal shall decide the case without being influenced by the findings in the Impugned Order, after recording of evidence of both parties.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
103 . Const. P. 812/2018 (D.B.) Mohammad Sibtain & anothers V/S Fed: of Pakistan & others Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadNo writ petition is maintainable against an employer under Article 199 of the Constitution where employment rules are non-statutory, and the employer-employee relationship is governed by the principle of master and servant.Read more
Matter:-DIRECTION
104 . Const. P. 114/2025 (S.B.) Mst. Zoya and another V/S The Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, KarachiAdditionally, the main objectives of the police is to apprehend offenders, investigate crimes, and prosecute them before the Courts, also to prevent the commission of crime, and above all, ensure law and order to protect citizens' lives and property. The law enjoins the police to be scrupulously fair to the offender and the Magistracy is to ensure a fair investigation and fair trial for an offender. Unfortunately, these objectives have remained unfulfilled. Deviations of police officers and police excesses in dealing with the law and order situation have been the subject of adverse comments from this Court as well as from other Courts, but they have failed to have any corrective effect on it. The police have the power to arrest a person even without obtaining a warrant of arrest from a Court for cognizable offenses. The presence of this power casts an obligation on the police, and they must bear in mind, as held by this Court from time to time in its various pronouncemnts, that if a person is arrested for a crime, his constitutional and fundamental rights must not be violated. Primarily, the Police Officers are required to protect and not abduct.Read more
Matter:-PROTECTION
105 . R.A (Civil Revision) 193/2011 (S.B.) Rasool Bux V/S Province of Sindh another Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurColonization and disposal of Government Lands Sindh Act, 1912Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
106 . Const. P. 107/2023 (S.B.) Mst Rubeena Chohan V/S Abdul Haq & others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurGranted interim maintenance to the wife.Read more
Matter:-Family Matter
107 . Const. P. 858/2025 (D.B.) Abdul Rauf Jetelserwala V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiJudgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on all other courts, including High Courts, to the extent that they decide a question of law or enunciate a principle of law. All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are obligated to act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring the enforcement of its judgments. As the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has been reached, the decision of the Supreme Court needs to be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) of the Constitution.Read more
Matter:-IMPLEMENTATION
108 . Const. P. 1063/2025 (D.B.) Mudasar Jilani V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiGiven the presented facts and circumstances, the Court concludes that the Petitioner has not established sufficient grounds for intervention. Consequently, the petition and any related applications are dismissed. The Petitioner has to pursue his remedy through an appeal before the competent authority. If such an appeal has not yet been decided, it should be addressed. Following that decision, the Petitioner may then seek further recourse before the Service Tribunal.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
109 . Const. P. 7544/2021 (D.B.) Aziz Ahmed and Others V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe principle of equal pay for equal work is legally enforceable. Article 25 of the Constitution permits reasonable employee classification, provided it aligns with intended objectives. In this instance, the petitioner seeks enforcement of Sindh Government policies dated July 9, 2020, February 20, 2021, and June 2, 2020. Under Article 199, the court possesses the authority to review government policies for reasonableness if applicable in respondent university and to safeguard aggrieved parties' rights. Consequently, this petition is admissible based on established court precedents, and the respondents' objections are overruled.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
110 . Const. P. 829/2003 (D.B.) M/s Pakcotco (Pvt)Ltd. V/S The Chairman C.B.R and ors. Sindh High Court, KarachiFixation of fair rent. Petition accepted.Read more
111 . Cr.Acctt.A 18/2022 (D.B.) MUHAMMAD SALIK NUKRICH V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: NAB
Appeals allowed.Read more
Matter:-IMPRISONMENT ABOVE 7 YEARS
112 . Const. P. 1294/2025 (D.B.) Khalid Abdul Maroof V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Constitution of Pakistan
Pre-emptive motive. Constitutional Petitions dismissed.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
113 . Spl.Cr.Bail 74/2025 (S.B.) HARIS KHOKHAR S/O ABDULLAH KHOKHAR V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, KarachiAct of Applicant does not appear to be mis-declaration under section 32 (1) and (2) of the Customs Act, 1969. Bail granted.Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
114 . Const. P. 905/2023 (D.B.) Fida Hussain V/S Province of Sindh & and Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:-Deceased Quota
115 . Const. P. 1231/2024 (D.B.) Nizar Ali Fazwani V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiComing to the case in hand, it appears that the Ayyan Ali case supra establishes that mere criminal involvement does not justify ECL placement, which confirms that citizens have a fundamental right to liberty under Article 9, which, combined with Articles 4 and 15, includes the right to travel, unless restricted by a law enacted in the public interest. Numerous judgments have affirmed that the mere registration of a crime does not constitute a "public interest" justification for restricting a person's liberty. Therefore, the Respondent's actions in placing the Petitioner's name on the ECL based on the criminal case are inconsistent with established legal principles. Consequently, this petition must be allowedRead more
Matter:-E.C.L.
116 . II.A. 245/2024 (S.B.) Abdul Khaliq Saleem S/o Hafiz Fateh Muhammad Khan V/S Imran Hyder Sindh High Court, KarachiThe instant Second Appeal merits no consideration and is dismissed with no order as to cost. Impugned Judgment and decree dated 23.05.2024 is upheld.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
117 . M.A. 216/2024 (S.B.) Professor Dr. Syeda Azra Qamar V/S Kifayat Academy and others Sindh High Court, Karachi12. For the aforesaid reasons, the appeals are allowed, Impugned orders are set aside with no order as to cost. The learned Tribunal shall decide the case on merits, without being influenced by the findings in the Impugned order, after recording of evidence of the respective parties.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER OF THE INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY
118 . Const. P. 133/2025 (S.B.) Shaikh Faisal Habib V/S Yasir Ahmed Awan & another Sindh High Court, KarachiIn the light of what has been discussed above, the instant petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Read more
Matter:-RENT MATTER
119 . Const. P. 4/2025 (D.B.) Rizwan Ahmed V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe respondent, appearing in court, informed that the Accountant General Sindh's office had issued letter No. AGS/Edu-V/Verification/2023-24/246, dated April 16, 2024, to the Secretary SE&LD, seeking the following clarifications: Firstly, the joining database was submitted to their office after a delay exceeding thirteen years, for which the department must provide an explanation. Secondly, according to the relevant Drawing and Disbursing Officer (DDO), the petitioner returned to duty following an eight-year absence, necessitating clarification under Sindh Civil Service Rule 33. To date, no response has been received. 4. Based on the circumstances, the respondents are required to review the issue and make a decision within a reasonable period, allowing the petitioner a hearing. 5. In view of the foregoing, without touching the merits of the case, this petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms.Read more
Matter:-RELEASING OF SALARY
120 . Const. P. 670/2025 (D.B.) Abdul Qayum Memon & Another V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiJudgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on all other courts, including High Courts, to the extent that they decide a question of law or enunciate a principle of law. All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are obligated to act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring the enforcement of its judgments. As the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has been reached, therefore the decision of the Supreme Court needs to be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) of the Constitution. 10. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
121 . Const. P. 1344/2024 (D.B.) Altaf Hussain Awan V/S Govt of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiComing to the main case, the concept of Proforma Promotion is to remedy the loss sustained by an employee / civil servant on account of denial of promotion upon his/her legitimate turn due to any reason but not a fault of his own. 15. To appreciate the controversy from a proper perspective, we think it appropriate to have a glance at Rule 7-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1974Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
122 . Const. P. 669/2025 (D.B.) Rashid Aziz V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiJudgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on all other courts, including High Courts, to the extent that they decide a question of law or enunciate a principle of law. All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are obligated to act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring the enforcement of its judgments. As the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has been reached, therefore the decision of the Supreme Court needs to be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) of the Constitution. 10. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
123 . Const. P. 672/2025 (D.B.) Aamir Siraj V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiJudgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on all other courts, including High Courts, to the extent that they decide a question of law or enunciate a principle of law. All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are obligated to act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring the enforcement of its judgments. As the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has been reached, therefore the decision of the Supreme Court needs to be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) of the Constitution. 10. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
124 . Const. P. 4765/2016 (D.B.) Mst. Badar ul Nisa Bibi V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiPetitioner seeks employment in a Government department based on a deceased quota/son quota. The Supreme Court has already declared the same to be unlawful vide judgment dated 26.09.2024 in the case of General Post Office Islamabad vs. Muhammad Jalal (Civil Petition No.3390 of 2021). 5. In view of the foregoing, without touching the merits of the case, this petition is dismissed.Read more
Matter:-APPOINTMENT
125 . Const. P. 1156/2025 (D.B.) Muhammad Kaleem V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiSo far as Upgradation??? is concerned, it is distinct from promotion. In Regional Commissioner Income Tax and another v. Syed Munawar Ali and others (2016 SCMR 859), the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that ???upgradation??? is not defined in the Civil Servants Act or the Rules framed thereunder. It applies to the posts and not the person occupying them. In Federal Public Service Commission v. Anwar-ul-Haq and others (2017 SCMR 890), the apex Court held that upgradation is carried out without necessarily creating posts in the relevant pay scales. It is done under a policy and a specific scheme. It is exclusively used for incumbents of isolated positions with no other advancement options, and its purpose is to overcome the issue of their stagnation and frustration. The Supreme Court's explanation from Fida Muhammad v. Government of Khyber Pakhtunkhwa and others (2021 SCMR 1895), clearly distinguished between up-gradation and promotion. Promotion involves a move to a higher position with increased responsibilities and rank. Upgradation, on the other hand, provides financial relief by placing an employee in a higher pay scale, without changing their job duties or position. It's a mechanism designed to address the stagnation of employees who have remained in the same pay scale for a long time, particularly when they lack opportunities for promotion. Upgradation is a policy tool used to alleviate the hardship of long-term stagnation.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
126 . Const. P. 671/2025 (D.B.) Ashfaq Ahmed V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiJudgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan are binding on all other courts, including High Courts, to the extent that they decide a question of law or enunciate a principle of law. All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are obligated to act in aid of the Supreme Court, ensuring the enforcement of its judgments. As the Supreme Court is the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has been reached, therefore the decision of the Supreme Court needs to be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) of the Constitution. 10. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
127 . Cr.Org.Misc. 2/2008 (S.B.) Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan V/S Adnan Faisal & another Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
128 . Const. P. 4581/2022 (D.B.) Muhammad Hassan V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiRegularization of Project EmployeesRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
129 . Const. P. 5618/2021 (D.B.) Khalid Akram & Others V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiService MatterRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
130 . Const. P. 128/2025 (S.B.) Mir Mohammad Sangi Thr. Legal Heir V/S Anwar Ellhi and others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Read more
Matter:-RENT MATTER
131 . Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 217/2024 (D.B.) M/s. Ramada Industries (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi V/S The Commissioner I. R. Zone-VI, CTO, Kar. &another Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Sales Tax
input tax claim cannot be denied if subsequently the supplier has been suspended or blacklisted Section 21(3) and Section 8(1)(ca) interpretedRead more
Matter:-SALES TAX.
132 . Const. P. 1315/2014 (D.B.) Syed Asif Raza and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiRegularization of Employees of Private concerned.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
133 . Const. P. 519/2023 (D.B.) Muhammad Adnan V/S PTCL and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiGroup Insurance EntitlementRead more
Matter:-PENSIONARY BENEFITS
134 . Const. P. 3141/2024 (D.B.) M/s Pak Sun Green (Pvt) Ltd & Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiFIA InquiryRead more
Matter:-AGAINST NOTICE
135 . Const. P. 2505/2016 (D.B.) Altaf Hussain V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurPetition is barred and hit by laches so also involving disputed question of fact, which cannot be resolved under the Constitutional jurisdiction.Read more
Matter:-Recruitment
136 . Const. P. 476/2021 (S.B.) M/s. Crescent Star Insurance Limited V/S Eduljee Dinshaw (Private) Limited Sindh High Court, KarachiIt is a settled proposition that if the landlord is able to establish a single ground , he will be entitled to fixation of fair rent.Read more
Matter:-RENT MATTER
137 . Const. P. 371/2025 (D.B.) Mansoor Ali Khoso V/S Federation of Pakistan & others Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkurrefund of court fee amountRead more
Matter:-Release Amount
138 . II.A. 45/2021 (S.B.) Muhammad Ajmal S/o Allah Ditta V/S Gulab Khan and others Sindh High Court, KarachiIn the light of what has been held above, I see no illegally in the orders passed by the Courts below and hence no interference of this Court is required in the instant matter. Accordingly instant IInd Appeal is hereby dismissed with no order as to cost.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
139 . Const. P. 1637/2024 (D.B.) Ghulam Ghous Miani V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiRelieving OrderRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
140 . Const. P. 199/2025 (D.B.) Mumtaz V/S DIG Mirpurkhas & others Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas
141 . Const. P. 1815/2024 (D.B.) Vishan Das V/S Province of Sindh & others Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas
142 . Execution First Appeal 47/2019 (S.B.) A. QUTUBUDDIN KHAN V/S CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (PVT.) LTD Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Companies Act, 2017 (Section 425 (5) Director's personal liability)
Under what situation can the company's directors/shareholders/officers be held personally liable? Separate Legal Entity - Piercing the Corporate Veil - Company Easy Exit SchemeRead more
Matter:-IMPLEMENTATION OF DECREE
143 . Const. P. 199/2021 (D.B.) Muhammad Faheem Khan and Others V/S Province of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiThis Court cannot exercise its writ jurisdiction conferred by article 199 in view of the bar contained in article 212 of the Constitution.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
144 . Const. P. 1695/2024 (D.B.) Muzamil & Others V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurAge relaxation cannot be done under The Sindh Public Service Commission (Recruitment Management) Regulations, 2023Read more
Matter:-Recruitment
145 . Const. P. 2138/2024 (D.B.) Muhammad Yousuf V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-ILLEGAL CONSTRUCTION
146 . Const. P. 2135/2024 (D.B.) Mumtaz Ali & others V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-Issue Appointment Order
147 . Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 7/2024 (D.B.) M/s. Regus Executive Center Karachi.(Pvt) Ltd. V/S Assistant Commissioner (Unit-04) Karachi & another Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011
Sales tax on renting of property and Business support services; DefinedRead more
Matter:-SALES TAX.
148 . Const. P. 269/2025 (D.B.) Qasim Shah V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:-DIRECTION
149 . Adm. Suit 20/2013 (S.B.) MUHAMMAD YAQOOB S/O MUHAMMAD TAHIR V/S M/S. A.P MOLLER MAERK A.S. Sindh High Court, KarachiIn light of the above it is held that the Plaintiff has not been able to establish his claim under tort. For the foregoing reasons the instant suit is dismissed with no order as to cost. Office to prepare decree in the above terms.Read more
Matter:-RECOVERY OF AMOUNT
150 . Const. P. 4649/2023 (D.B.) Muneer Ahmed Tunio V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiDetermination of seniorityRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
151 . Const. P. 320/2024 (S.B.) M/s. Gizri Corporation (Pvt.) Limited V/S Pakistan Industrial Development Corp. Pvt Ltd & An Sindh High Court, KarachiIt is the discretion of the landlord/owner to choose the property he wishes to use and in that respect the tenant cannot dictate how and in what manner the owner should utilize his propertyRead more
Matter:-RENT MATTER
152 . Spl. Cr. A. 5/2022 (S.B.) THE DIR. GEN I& IR KHI & ANOTHER V/S THE STATE & ORS Sindh High Court, KarachiMoney laundering and predicate offences.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST ORDER
153 . Const. P. 195/2025 (D.B.) Mumtaz Ali V/S Province of Sindh & others Sindh High Court, Circuit Court, Mirpur Khas
154 . Const. P. 508/2025 (D.B.) Muhammad Siddiq Majid and Others V/S Chairman NAB and Another Sindh High Court, KarachiConstitutional vs. Regular bench; distribution of jurisdiction.Read more
Matter:-QUASHMENT OF REFERENCE
155 . Judicial Companies Misc. 45/2022 (S.B.) Reliance Cotton Spinning Mills ltd & 8 Others V/S SECP - On Court Notice Sindh High Court, KarachiSanction of Arrangement under section 279 Companies Act, 2017.Read more
Matter:-DIRECTION
156 . Const. P. 3251/2024 (D.B.) Mst Sarwat Ghazi V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiPension Rights of Divorced DaughterRead more
Matter:-PENSIONARY BENEFITS
157 . Const. P. 6898/2019 (D.B.) Bhagwandas V/S M/s MCB Ltd & Ors Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: NIRC, CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
Involving cognitive capabilities. Non-Workman.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
158 . Const. P. 5412/2022 (D.B.) Nisar Hussain Shaikh V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiProforma PromotionRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
159 . Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 386/2024 (D.B.) Shaikh Pipe Mills (Pvt) Ltd., Karachi V/S The Custom Appellate Tribunal, Karachi & another Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Custom Act, 1969
Order of Customs Tribunal without any reasons; practice of affirming orders of lower fora deprecated set-aside; remandedRead more
Matter:-CUSTOM MATTER
160 . I.T.R.A 73/2025 (D.B.) Nazim Ahmed V/S The Commissioner I.R. (Appeals-VII) CTO, Kar.& anr Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Time barred Reference; no ground for condonation is made out; Reference dismissed as time barred.Read more
Matter:-INCOME TAX
161 . Const. P. 609/2025 (D.B.) Western Freight Shipping Pvt Ltd V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Custom Act, 1969
Transportation of Afghan Transit Cargo; decision under Rule 1124 of the Tracking & Monitoring Rules, 2023; held justified and correct in lawRead more
Matter:-CUSTOM MATTER
162 . Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 616/2016 (D.B.) Director of Customs Valuation V/S M/s. Zia & Co. Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Custom Act, 1969
No proper Questions of Law proposed or phrased; nor proper documents annexed; held; Reference Application liable for dismissalRead more
Matter:-CUSTOM MATTER
163 . I. A 61/2023 (S.B.) Khuram Rawal V/S Muhammad Sohail Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadDismissedRead more
Matter:-Against Order
164 . R.A (Civil Revision) 3/2007 (S.B.) Mst:Fatima Parveen and another V/S Muhammad Younis and other Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadThe provisions of Articles 17 and 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order (QSO), 1984, concerning the competence and number of witnesses and the procedure for proving attested documents, are procedural in nature and possess retrospective effect. These provisions apply to cases where evidence was recorded after the QSO's enforcement, even if the transaction occurred prior to its promulgation.Read more
Matter:-Against Judgment
165 . Cr.J.A 97/2023 (S.B.) Muhammad Ali Bhatti & Another V/S The State Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-LIFE IMPRISONMENT
166 . R.A (Civil Revision) 191/2023 (S.B.) Umaid Ali & Another. V/S P.O.Sindh & Others. Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2025 SHC HYD 17Jurisdiction of civil Courts is barred in specified cases, excluding questions of title. Civil Courts retain jurisdiction over title disputes in partition matters. Agreement to sell does not confer title; it requires legal transfer of title. Agreement to sell must be produced and properly exhibited in evidence. Declining relief based on an unproduced and un-exhibited sale agreement is legally unsustainable.Read more
Matter:-Against Judgment
167 . Cr.Bail 142/2025 (S.B.) WARIS S/O ARSALANA V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
168 . Suit 739/2024 (S.B.) SALMAN SAEED SIDDIQUI V/S SHEEBA AHMED KAPADIA Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XVIII Rule 18)
Under what circumstances and categories of information can the Nazir inspect in 2025 in the case of a partnership that ended in 2021?Read more
Matter:-Commercial Cases/Suits as per Circular dated: 30-10-2013
169 . Const. P. 546/2025 (D.B.) Sohail Hameed V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Constitution of Pakistan
Challenge to a Bill before it is passed by the Assembly; Held No. Petition premature; dismissed.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST AMENDMENT ACT
170 . Const. P. 6739/2021 (D.B.) Qadeer Hussain and Others V/S Province of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiDoctrine of Unclean HandsRead more
Matter:-SERVICE
171 . Criminal Appeal 111/2024 (S.B.) Ghulam Nabi Kathohar & others V/S The State Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-R.I FOR 10 YEARS & ABOVE
172 . Cr.Bail 2243/2024 (S.B.) GHAZI S/O MUHAMMAD KHAN V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
173 . Cr.Misc. 787/2024 (S.B.) Muhammad Anwar V/S S.P Complaint Cell Hyderabad & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2025 SHC HYD 12Justice of the Peace u/s 22-A is not obliged to afford an opportunity of hearing to the accused party; nor obliged to necessarily or mechanically issue directions for registration of FIR; but is required to consider all relevant factors, with care and caution; to avoid machinery of criminal law from being misused; frivolous complaints must be discouraged; relationship, enmity, transactions, litigation and other remedies, are some of the relevant factors.Read more
Matter:-561-A Cr.P.C
174 . II.A. 317/2024 (S.B.) Dr. Munir Ahmed Sharer Thr. Attorney Azhar Muneer V/S Muhammad Asad Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act 1940 - Award)
What will be the fate of an Arbitral Award where the award creditor has not paid the Court Fee?Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
175 . Cr.Bail 35/2025 (S.B.) Ghulam Hussain V/S The State Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2025 SHC HYD 13In cases of recovery of narcotics in large quantities, special caution is required; narcotics is a serious crime against the society; it brings bad reputation to the country globally; liberal exercise of discretion while considering bail in such cases has been discouraged; except where the Court is satisfied that the charge against the accused appears to be groundless; section 25 of CNS Act specifically excludes applicability of section 103, Cr.P.C.Read more
Matter:-Bail After Arrest
176 . Const. P. 713/2024 (D.B.) NBP V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiWindfall TaxRead more
Matter:-INCOME TAX
177 . Cr.Bail 90/2025 (S.B.) MUHAMMAD MAROOF S/O MUHAMMAD ALI V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
178 . Const. P. 5958/2023 (D.B.) Shakar ud Din V/S M/s Twin Badar and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiEstoppelRead more
Matter:-AGAINST ORDER OF CIVIL REVISION (CR)
179 . Suit 1523/2019 (S.B.) Nasreen Basit Rahman V/S Shakeel ahmed & others. Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-Suit for Specific Performance
180 . Cr.Rev 35/2025 (D.B.) THE STATE THROUGH PG SINDH V/S ADMINISTRATIVE JUDGE ATC KHI & ANOTHER Sindh High Court, Karachi 2025 SHC KHI 8Armaghan CaseRead more
Matter:-AGAINST ORDER
181 . Cr.Bail 2622/2024 (S.B.) ARYAN AFRIDI S/O YAQOOB KHAN V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CNS Act, 1997 (Post Arrest Bail U/S 6/9 C)
In what cases does the saying "A case to err in granting bail is better than a case to err in declining bail" not hold true?Read more
Matter:-BAIL AFTER ARREST
182 . Criminal Miscelleneous 632/2024 (S.B.) RASHID AHEMD SIDDIQUI V/S THE STATE & ORS Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
183 . R.A (Civil Revision) 40/2021 (S.B.) Muhammad Amin thr: L.Rs V/S Abdul Rahim & others Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadThe cases discusses the rejection of plaint under Resjudicata, (Section 11 CPC) emphasizing the impact of a pending application under Section 12(2) CPC on decree finality. It advocates using Section 10 to stay subsequent suits until the pending application is resolved, ensuring judicial consistency. It also addresses the limitation period under Article 91 and 120 of the Limitation Act, focusing on when plaintiff to seek cancellation. The importance of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based solely on plaint averments in highlighted, excluding extrinsic material at this stage.Read more
Matter:-Against Judgment
184 . Const. P. 5661/2024 (D.B.) Sindh Club V/S Syed Muhammad Taqi Naqvi and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
Estoppel.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
185 . Cr.J.A 74/2023 (S.B.) Nadeem Waseer V/S The State Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-R.I FOR 14 YEARS & ABOVE
186 . Suit 963/2018 (S.B.) M/s. Ruknuddin (Pvt.) Ltd V/S Province of Sindh & others Sindh High Court, KarachiSuit not maintainable against acquisition proceedings under Land Acquisition Act, 1894.Read more
Matter:-DECLARATION
187 . Const. P. 3463/2017 (D.B.) Karam Ali V/S Province Of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadRefusal to issue appointment orders due to criminal cases against petitioners. Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants act, 1973: appointment criteria and moral turpitude. Impact of acquittal on eligibility for civil service appointment. Malicious implication and false accusations not ground for disqualification. Acquittal nullifies prior guilt and fortifies petitioners' eligibility for appointment. No juridical impediment to appointment following acquittal. Equivalence of acquittals under compromise and criminal procedure code, and the role of "badal-i-sulh" in restorative justice. Distinction between probationary release and acquittal. Probationary release as a legally recognized conviction.Read more
Matter:-APPOINTMENT
188 . M.A. 11/2024 (S.B.) Unitied Bank Limted V/S Dr. Farooque Adil Abbasi & Others Sindh High Court, Circuit at HyderabadJurisdiction of consumer protection court in ATM card service disputes and appropriate compensation for delays.Read more
Matter:-Against Order
189 . Cr.Bail 198/2025 (S.B.) RAJA GABOL S/O ABDUL RASHEED GABOL V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-BAIL BEFORE ARREST/PRE ARREST BAIL
190 . Suit 290/2018 (S.B.) Lucky Tex Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd V/S Cresox (Pvt.) Limited Sindh High Court, KarachiWhether a suit for specific performance enforcing the right of redemption can be maintained under Section 9 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908 viz a viz the bar contained in Section 23 of the Financial Institution (Recovery of finances) Ordinance, 2001Read more
Matter:-Suit for Specific Performance
191 . Const. P. 466/2025 (D.B.) Humayu Sultan V/S Pakistan & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Custom Act, 1969
2025 SHC KHI 5Suspension of licence of customs agent; Held: Not justified without notice and assigning of reasons; Rule 102(4) of the 2001 Rules interpretedRead more
Matter:-CUSTOM MATTER
192 . R.A (Civil Revision) 46/2014 (S.B.) ZAFAR IQBAL V/S MST. QAISER JEHAN & OTHERS Sindh High Court, KarachiInverse bona fide purchaser.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
193 . E.P 59/2024 (S.B.) SIRBULAND KHAN V/S THE RETURNING OFFICER PS-112 AND OTHERS Sindh High Court, KarachiScope of service under section 143(3) of the Election 2017. Tribunal has jurisdiction to examine order of recount passed by ECP.Read more
Matter:-ELECTION MATTER
194 . H.C.A 289/2024 (D.B.) Perwaiz Ahmed Shaikh and Others V/S Muhammad Tahir and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Intellectual Propoerty Organization of Pakistan Act 2012 (Sec.18 and TMO, 2021, S.80(4) - High Court Jurisdiction)
In a J. Misc. filed in High Court under Section 84(3) and 14(4) read with Section 116 of the Trademark Ordinance, 2001, which was instituted prior to the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023, enacted on 16.08.2023, which forum should hear the lis: the High Court or under Section 18 of IPOP, 2012, the IP Tribunal, alone?Read more
Matter:-AGAINST ORDER
195 . Const. P. 410/2025 (D.B.) Anwer Zaib V/S M/s Rasheed Fabrics Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973, Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984
The Article 162 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
196 . Cr.J.A 87/2023 (D.B.) NIAZ ALI @ ALI PATHAN S/O GHULAM NABI V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-IMPRISONMENT ABOVE 7 YEARS
197 . Suit 197/2019 (S.B.) Ghulam Yaseen & others. V/S Hussainullah & others. Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-RECOVERY
198 . Const. P. 288/2024 (D.B.) Engro Fertilizers Limited through Asad Shakil Khan V/S Full Bench of NIRC & others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurTouching on the second issue of non-service of grievance notice. Under Section 33 of the Industrial Relations Ac1,2012 (lRA 2012), ifa grievance notice is not served, the grievance petition can be dismissed. This is because service of the grievance notice is a mandatory requirement and a precondition for filing a grievance petition. The law requires that a grievance notice be served on the employer before filing a grievance petition. This allows the employer to respond to the grievance and attempt to resolve it amicably. If the employer fails to respond or resolve the grievance, the employee can then file a grievance petition with the National Industrial Relations Commission CNIRC) if the organization is transprovincial. If the employee fails to serve a grievance notice, the NIRC may dismiss the grievance petition. This is because the employer has not had an opportunity to respond to the grievance and attempt to resolve it. In some cases, the NIRC may allow the employee to amend the grievance petilion to include the grievance notice. However, this is usually only done if the employee can show that they had a good reason for not serving the grievance notice. In the present case, the parties were allowed to lead evidence and the petitioner company responded to the allegations as such they were well aware of the allegations and led the evidence as such this point is ofno use to be looked into in constitutional jurisdiction at this stage.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
199 . Suit 1100/2023 (S.B.) M/S AA QUALITY BUILDERS V/S CHINA HEBEI RESEARCH INSTITUTE (CHGL) & OTHERS Sindh High Court, KarachiAmendment of Pleadings under Order VI Rule 17 to amend plaint to make it maintainable.Read more
Matter:-Suit for Specific Performance
200 . H.C.A 336/2024 (D.B.) Federation of Pakistan & Another V/S Premium Textile Mills Ltd & Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: OGRA Ordinance 2002 (Sec.8 - Notification - Mustafa Impex)
2025 SHC KHI 4What are the exceptional situations when the principles of Mustafa Impex disapply - Discussed in the context of OGRA Ordinance, 2002Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
201 . Criminal Appeal 717/2024 (D.B.) DANISH S/O ZAHEERUDDIN V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-IMPRISONMENT ABOVE 7 YEARS
202 . Judicial Companies Misc. 18/2024 (S.B.) OPAL LABORATORIES & Another V/S Nil Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Companies Act, 2017
Merger approved.Read more
Matter:-MERGER
203 . Const. P. 3670/2023 (D.B.) Rehan Pervez V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiIt is well settled now that unexcused absence from duty is misconduct. This court cannot offer relief simply because the absence was brief or otherwise. Interpreting absence from duty as potentially extending to a certain period, improperly rewrites the law on the subject issue, effectively changing the threshold for misconduct. This is an incorrect interpretation. 13. The Supreme Court has held that as soon as the act of misconduct is established and the employee is found guilty after due process of law, it is the prerogative of the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, out of the various penalties provided in law. The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not proportionate with the seriousness of the act of misconduct is not adequate but the order must show that the competent authority has applied its mind and exercised the discretion in a structured and lawful manner.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
204 . Const. P. 3670/2023 (D.B.) Rehan Pervez V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiFirst and foremost, we would address the issue of maintainability of the instant Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution based on the doctrine of laches as this petition was filed in 2016, whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to the petitioner in 1992. The petitioner asserts that he pursued his legal remedy just after involvement in the FIR lodged by FIA and in the intervening period the respondent dismissed him from service where after he preferred petition No. 2137 of 1992 before this court which was misplaced by the office of this court and an inquiry was conducted by the office, however, the fate of the inquiry could not be brought on record. In the meanwhile he was acquitted of the charges by the trial court vide judgment dated 15.08.2014 as he was accused of criminal breach of trust w.e.f. 31.03.1990 to 29.05.1990 and on similar charges, he was dismissed from the service finally the respondents were bothered to decide the departmental appeal in the year 2016, and then he approached this court immediately, therefore the question of laches did not arise.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
205 . Spl.Anti.Ter.A. 82/2024 (D.B.) KHALIL KHAN S/O HABIBULLAH & ANOTHER V/S THE STATE Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-IMPRISONMENT UPTO 7 YEARS
206 . Cr.Acq.A. 606/2019 (D.B.) OBAID MUHAMMAD KHAN NIAZI S/O ABDUL SATTAR V/S MUHAMMAD IQBAL & ORS Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
207 . Suit 230/2019 (S.B.) Raees Didar Hussain Rind V/S Hashmat Ali & others. Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Matter:-SUIT FOR DECLERATION
208 . R.A (Civil Revision) 147/2022 (S.B.) Muhammad Shafi Nagori (died thr LRs) Thr Waqar V/S Muhammad Ayoub and others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Proprietary rights.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
209 . Const. P. 2717/2018 (D.B.) Rizwana Akhtar and Ors V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe 2011 letter granted certain benefits. It is the Competent Authority's responsibility to determine if these benefits apply to the petitioners, based on the FST decision. This Court cannot intervene, as per the Supreme Court's ruling in Hameed Akhtar Niazi (1996 SCMR 1185). This ruling has conditions, and since the petitioners failed a qualifying exam, they cannot claim equity or this Court's jurisdiction based on the Niazi case analogy. 9. In view of the above facts and circumstances of the case, petitioners have not demonstrated a case for this court's intervention under Article 199 of the Constitution.Read more
Matter:-SERVICE
210 . F.R.A 48/2023 (S.B.) Rehman Dino S/o Khawend Dino V/S Mst. Fehmida Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-CANTONMENT
211 . II.A. 40/2019 (S.B.) Wapda and another V/S Kadir Bakhsh and another Sindh High Court, Karachi
Matter:-AGAINST THE JUDGEMENT
212 . Criminal Appeal 815/2024 (D.B.) THE STATE / ANF V/S MUHAMMAD JAVEED Sindh High Court, KarachiThe prosecution wanted to summon PW HC Muhammad Naeem Moharrar of Malkhana In-charge to re-examine him about handing over the sample parcel to the parcel witness. The trial court denied the request, on the premise that he was already examined on oath and his cross-examination had been conducted and now the prosecution wants to fill the lacuna. The reasoning of the learned trial court is justiciable for the simple reason that PW 4 Muhammad Naeem had already been examined by the trial court on 14.11.2024, in which he deposed clearly and produced certain documents and he was cross-examined by the defense.Read more
Matter:-AGAINST THE ORDER
213 . R.A (Civil Revision) 101/1995 (S.B.) Budho Khan thr:LRs V/S Mst: Hawa and other. Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Matter:-Against Judgment
214 . Const. P. 84/2023 (D.B.) Parvez Ali Khaskheli V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-EDUCATION
215 . Const. P. 84/2023 (D.B.) Parvez Ali Khaskheli V/S P.O Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Matter:-EDUCATION
216 . M.A. 69/2022 (S.B.) M/s. Meerut Cooperative Housing Society Ltd V/S Shahid Akhtar Qureshi and others Sindh High Court, KarachiSindhiRead more
Matter:-COOP. HOUSING SOCIETIES
217 . M.A. 69/2022 (S.B.) M/s. Meerut Cooperative Housing Society Ltd V/S Shahid Akhtar Qureshi and others Sindh High Court, KarachiThe Court interpreted the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, and its 2020 amendment, observing that the Act primarily supports broad economic activities in agriculture, not for housing schemes of affluent and influent persons. The Court directed the Chief Secretary of Sindh to ensure the Act's effective implementation in line with its original purpose and called for educational programs Bachelor degree(s) in the subject of cooperative societies.Read more
Matter:-COOP. HOUSING SOCIETIES
218 . M.A. 69/2022 (S.B.) M/s. Meerut Cooperative Housing Society Ltd V/S Shahid Akhtar Qureshi and others Sindh High Court, KarachiUrduRead more
Matter:-COOP. HOUSING SOCIETIES
219 . Const. P. 1447/2020 (D.B.) Yaseen Ali Ghunio V/S Govt of Pak & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurCP(D) 1447/2020 connected with CP(D) 228/2021 - Judgment in SindhiRead more
Matter:-Railway Bridge
220 . Const. P. 1447/2020 (D.B.) Yaseen Ali Ghunio V/S Govt of Pak & Others Sindh High Court, Bench at SukkurCP(D) 1447/2020 Connected with CP(D) 228/2021 - Judgment in UrduRead more
Matter:-Railway Bridge
221 . Const. P. 6712/2020 (D.B.) M/s Telenor Microfinance Bank Ltd V/S Province of Sindh and Others Sindh High Court, KarachiTopic: Sindh Employees Social Security Act, 2016
Social Security for workersRead more
Matter:-SESSI