Note: The figures in the following table only show the number of important Judgements/Orders uploaded on this site. It does not reflect total disposal of the Hon'ble Judges.
Apex Court: Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan:
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.No. | Citation | Case No. | Case Year | Parties | Bench Type | Order/Judgment | Order_Date | A.F.R | Head Notes/ Tag Line | Bench | Apex Court | Apex Status |
| 1 | Const. P. 1333/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Rukhsana Zaffar & Ors (Petitioner) VS Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 2 | Const. P. 7225/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Yousuf Master (Petitioner) VS A.D.J IV (Central) & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-NOV-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.L.A.4396/2022 UMAR TEXTILES thr. its Authorized Representative Mr. Muhammad Iqbal v. The Province of Sindh thr. Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Sindh, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 3 | Const. P. 6662/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Najam Associates (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 4 | Const. P. 5769/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Ashraf Khan (Petitioner) VS Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 5 | Const. P. 4315/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 6 | Const. P. 6802/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Entree Food Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 7 | Const. P. 6818/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | c32 Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 8 | Const. P. 4985/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Ahsanullah Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 9 | Const. P. 5167/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Amin Chapal (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 10 | Const. P. 7697/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Mrs. Aliya Jafery (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 11 | Const. P. 4111/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Amir Mahmood (Petitioner) VS Izharuddin and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-NOV-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 12 | I. A 7/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2021 | Roshan Ali Mahar (Appellant) VS Ghulam Ali Dahar & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 01-APR-24 | Yes | Filing of an FIR, false or otherwise, neither constitutes ???publication??? nor in itself meets any of the ingredients of defamation. The Appellant has, at best, framed a suit for alleged malicious prosecution in his plaint, but such an action cannot be maintained under the special law, i.e., the Defamation Ordinance, 2002. Appeal dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 13 | Suit 368/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | ZEDCO (Plaintiff) VS TERUMO BCT ASIA PTE LTD & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 07-JUL-23 | Yes | No interim relief can be granted, which is not prayed for in the main suit. The prayer clause in the main suit seeks orders to restrain Defendants from transferring the Plaintiff???s licence to another person. But the impugned decision of Defendant No.2 does not relate to the transfer of the import license. The impugned decision is for the cancellation of the import license of Plaintiff and not transfer. Thus, the interim relief sought by Plaintiff in CMA No.9885/2023 is not pleaded in the main suit. Further, Court proceedings will take their own time, whereas the medical devices of Defendant No.1 in circulation have a limited shelf life. A court should be mindful that when granting discretionary relief, its decision may not create a potential risk to the public. Therefore, this Court should avoid creating a new situation from a public health perspective too and is not inclined to withdraw the impugned decision on this score too. CMA No.9885/2023 is dismissed with directions to the Appellate Board of the Authority that if the Plaintiff prefers an appeal to the impugned decision before the Board, then the Board will give the Plaintiff an opportunity to be heard, including a personal hearing before passing any final order in the appeal. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 14 | Const. P. 7261/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Azhar Iqbal Faruqui (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 15 | H.C.A 93/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Jameel Ahmed & Others (Appellant) VS Hayat Muhammad Sher Pao & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-NOV-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.1297-K/2023 Hayat Muhammad Sher Pao & others v. Jameel Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 16 | Const. P. 3764/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Asadullah Khatri (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 17 | Const. P. 6808/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Noor Associates (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 18 | Suit 466/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | CYNERGYICO PK LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS TRAFIGURA PTE LIMITED (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 18-DEC-23 | Yes | Plaintiff (Award-Debtor) filed suit against Defendant (Award-Creditor) for declaration and mandatory injunction. pleading grounds of public policy under Article V(2) of the New York Convention read with Sections 6 and 7 of the REA, 2011. The pro-enforcement bias of the NY Convention discussed in the CNAN Group SpA case reported in PLD 2014 Sindh 349 in respect of Article V(1) is equally applicable to the Foreign Arbitral Award under challenge in this lis by Plaintiff. There has to be an action initiated by the Award-Creditor, first, in whose favor the Award has been made before the Award-Debtor raises a challenge in the domestic court. The suit is dismissed as not maintainable under Article V (2) of the New York Convention. Office is directed to draw up a decree in terms of the Judgment. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 19 | Const. P. 6854/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | M/s Samba Bank Ltd (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 20 | Const. P. 4317/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonement Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 21 | Const. P. 8061/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Azeem Ahmed Siddiqui (Petitioner) VS Syed A. Mohiuddin and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-OCT-23 | Yes | Respondent/Plaintiff's First Application was dismissed under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 CPC by the trial court, Without pleading any change of circumstances, Respondent/Plaintiff's Second Application seeking exact same relief under Section 151 CPC allowed by same trial court. the trial court should not have hesitated to dismiss the subsequent (second) application in its Second Order based on the principles of res judicata and of equity enunciated by Order II Rule 2 CPC, that if any of the grounds that existed and could have been taken and not taken cannot form part of subsequent application. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 22 | Const. P. 6814/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | NKR Engineering (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.L.A.669-K/2023 The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) v. M/s. Blessed Textiles Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned (Next Date: 15-Apr- 24 | ||
| 23 | Spl.H.C.A 288/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | PSRM Steel Pvt Ltd. (Appellant) VS ASkari Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 29-DEC-23 | Yes | The appellant could hardly be considered to have a case for interference as on the counts as being highest bidder; no vested right could be assumed at such stage;; even the acceptance of an offer is not a vested right which has to pass through the rigorous of Order-XXI Rule-89/90 CPC etc. The appellant, merely on the strength of a highest bidder, cannot insist for acceptance of its offer and/or confirmation when the material available before the court, as shown above, was sufficient to justify the order of reauction of the properties both moveable and immoveable which have been ordered to be highlighted in the sale proclamation to fetch the maximum amount. In terms of sale proclamation, the discretion vest with the Court either to accept or refuse bid(s) subject to valid reasons. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 24 | Const. P. 5521/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Mst. Bilqis Khalid and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 25 | Const. P. 6655/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Adamjee Automotive Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 26 | Const. P. 6807/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Shan Industries (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 27 | Const. P. 8375/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | M/s Fine Cotton (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 28 | Const. P. 6658/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Serajsons Printers Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 29 | R.A (Civil Revision) 10/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2024 | Arslan Habib Buriro (Applicant) VS Rustam Ali Tunio (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-FEB-24 | Yes | After the recording of evidence, the trial court was operating in the second stage of the summary suit and had to dig deeper into the evidence to decide the suit. The evidence brought on record required greater scrutiny, and the threshold of the burden of proof was on a higher pedestal based on the general principles of the law of evidence. Yet the trial court decided against the applicant/defendant on the assumption that the production of the cheque was sufficient and/or no further proof was required as the cheque was a negotiable instrument. This may be one of the considerations in deciding an application for leave to defend, but it was not proper for the trial court to overlook the circumstantial evidence produced by the applicant-defendant-Arslan Buriro and available in the suit file surrounding the alleged loan and the cheque issuance. Revision against the Execution allowed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 30 | Spl. Cr. A. 31/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2020 | Bacha Khan Khilji (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-JUN-23 | Yes | The Complainant and Investigation Officer were the same person, the threshold of the constitution of conscious possession of the accused under the Control of Narcotics Substance Act, safe custody and safe transmission established where the sample remains sealed and contradictions in witness statements and the memos prepared to be understood in the background of surrounding facts. Appeal dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | Crl.P.134-K/2023 Bacha Khan v. The State Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 31 | Const. P. 2521/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Sarah Sohail Ali (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 32 | I. A 1/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2015 | Hafiz Khair Mohammad Choliani (Appellant) VS Z.T.B Ltd & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-FEB-24 | Yes | Appellant-Customer, after having availed finance from Respondent-Bank, had no legs to stand, pleading that the Bank did not ask him for his CNIC and disbursed the loan on NIC. Documents available on record confimed Appellant-Customer's ID and obligation to the Respondent-Bank. Appeal dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 33 | Const. P. 6806/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Synergy Corp (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 34 | R.A (Civil Revision) 5/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2022 | Sher Khan Jakhrani (Applicant) VS Deputy Assistant Manager NADRA, Kashmore & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 15-FEB-24 | Yes | If the date mentioned on the Primary School Certificate was to be believed by the Applicant/Plaintiff when he applied for CNIC and furnished his information on Form A submitted to NADRA, he would be underage at the time of issuance of his CNIC (less than 18 years). Further, the Applicant/Plaintiff filed the same claim twice, first in 2015 and then again in 2020. Each application to NADRA does not constitute a fresh cause of action. Revision dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 35 | Const. P. 4323/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 36 | Adm. Suit 17/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2003 | M/S. Jawad Hussain & Sons (Plaintiff) VS M.V. Tolmi & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 07-AUG-23 | Yes | An Admiralty claim was filed in Pakistan Rupees for Invoices raised in United States Dollars duly acknowledged by the master of the vessel. Neither evidence was brought on record to corroborate the rate of exchange applied, nor did the defendant raise any objections. The rate of exchange applied for the conversion of USD Invoices in PKR accepted. Court auction order passed by the Court of the Republic of Togo duly certified evidence of change in title of ownership. Court auction order evidenced that at the time of the cause of action accrued in Pakistan against the vessel, the vessel was not owned by the new owner. Plaintiff's claim is neither maritime lien nor sustainable under Sections 4(3) and 4(4) of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of the High Court Ordinance, 1980 nor is fraud alleged by Plaintiff proven. During the hearing, Defendant No.2, the Agent of Vessel, furnished an Affidavit of No Objection accepting the claim amount in personam. In the circumstances, the suit was decreed against the Defendants. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 37 | Const. P. 5293/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Riffat Saeed Akhtar (Petitioner) VS Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 38 | 2024 CLD 264 | Spl.H.C.A 137/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | National Tiles and Ceramics Ltd & Another (Appellant) VS Sindh Bank Limited & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Judgment-Debtor did not take any action under Order 21 Rules 89 or 90 CPC during the hearing of the appeal against the impugned Order passed by the learned Single Judge on Order 21 Rule 86 CPC, Division Bench passed. ad-interim Order beyond the scope of Order 21 Rule 89. Such an interim Order was a provisional measure subject to hearing the Auction-Purchaser; it was not final, did not meet the procedural requirements of CPC, and was barred by limitation. No grounds were agitated by the Judgment-Dector under Order 21 Rule 90 CPC. The period of 30 days under the Limitation Act of 1908 commenced from the date of sale (i.e. when the Court approved the sale pursuant to Order 21 Rule 86 CPC. Valuable rights had accrued to the Auction-Purchaser which could not be taken lightly. Appeal dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | ||
| 39 | Const. P. 5459/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | IBA (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 40 | Const. P. 4321/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 41 | H.C.A 134/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Federation of Pakistan & others (Appellant) VS M/s. Al-Hassan Tech Engg. SVC (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 18-OCT-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.1343-K/2023 Federation of Pakistan & others v. M/s. Al-Hassan Tech Eng. SVC. (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 42 | Const. P. 3135/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Millennium Mall Management Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 43 | I. A 4/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2023 | anaging Director, SSGCL & others (Appellant) VS The Learned Presiding Officer,K@Kandhkot & another (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 15-JAN-24 | Yes | There is no provision under the Sindh Consumer Protection Act which enables class action complaints or complaints on behalf of unrepresented parties to be entertained by a Consumer Court. Appeal allowed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 44 | I. A 60/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Abdul Basit Khan (Appellant) VS Bank Islami Ltd & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 04-DEC-23 | Yes | *the appellant is none but a stranger to these proceedings and the observation of the executing Court does not call for any interference as it is a dispute between financial institution and the customer and appellant is thus not in any way a proper and necessary party and that too after the disposal of suit, when it was decreed and execution proceeded. ** In terms of Order XXI Rule 60 CPC release of a property from attachment can be allowed only in case the objector/claimant had a title or right over it, whereas in the instant case on one hand appellant has no valid title in his favour and on the other there is a registered document whereby the judgment debtor is the sole owner of the subject property | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 45 | Suit.B 40/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | THE ROYAL BANK OF SCOTLAND (Plaintiff) VS ENGINEERING CONSTRUCTION INT. (PVT) LTD. & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 21-DEC-23 | Yes | Discretion of Banking Court to appoint Commission for Accounts / Amicus Curiae. Parties have no role in selection. Amicus Curiae must meet statutory requirements under FIO, 2001 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 46 | Const. P. 4310/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 47 | Const. P. 4326/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 48 | I. A 1/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | M/s. Favourite Garments Industries & Others (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & Another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-23 | Yes | It is only an extension of similar finances granted earlier, hence the claim of the respondent in respect of the suit includes the entire amount recoverable extended in the said account and that cannot be limited to the extent of Rs.5.00 million and Rs.6.00 million respectively. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 49 | Const. P. 6653/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Scilife Pharma Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 50 | Const. P. 6820/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Unique Building Materials (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 51 | H.C.A 129/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Nooruddin & others (Appellant) VS M/s. S.I.T.E. Ltd. & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 11-JAN-24 | Yes | So Section 21 CPC has its own comprehensive jurisprudence which could overview the original court`s proceedings. The ibid section is primarily for appellate/revisional court where an appeal is preferred apparently by the appellant defending the suit but one must not be misled by such language. The language is couched in such a way that for appellant, who defended the suit, some restrictions were imposed, before enabling the appellate court to take cognizance. It has, however, provided a legal frame for the trial court considering the nature of jurisdiction being objected. **Lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction becomes a mere irregularity at a later stage, if not taken at the earliest which does not make a decree nullity and in fact if taken belatedly and successfully may lead to a failure of justice. ***The two jurisdictions of the appellate court have been established to have acted lawfully i.e. (i). In the first instance where on account of procedural illegality or irregularity, identified above for [a] & [b] kinds of jurisdiction not by way of inherent lack of jurisdiction, a litigant plaintiff is ousted and (ii). In a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction, the court continue to proceed with the matter which may have resulted in the failure of justice. For both these limbs, the appellate jurisdiction is available | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 52 | Const. P. 6654/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Jalil Packaging (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.233/2024 Cantonment Board Korangi Creek through Executive Officer, Karachi v. Jalil Packaging through its Managing Partner, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 53 | Suit 273/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | ISMAIL INDUSTRIES LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 31-OCT-23 | Yes | Plaintiff is seeking the release of a consignment of imported raw peanuts after court-tested Lab Reports observed levels of aflatoxin exceeded the permissible limit of 20 ppb enforced by the Department of Plant Protection. Pleadings sought relief based on errors in gathering samples for testing of aflatoxin levels sent to different Labs across Pakistan. Plaint did not impugn the testing standards of PPD, challenged sampling only (applying plant standards to food items), USDA procedure for aflatoxin thought adopted by DPP, not properly applied and pest (fungi) causing aflatoxin not codified. Plaintiff could not plead a different case. Challenge not set up in Plaint, argued orally, cannot help Plaintiff's cause when seeking discretionary relief. Single Judge Order not binding, distinguishable on facts, prima facie case not made out as Court-ordered Report confirming higher than allowable levels of aflatoxin in consignment not appealed or challenged. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 54 | R.A (Civil Revision) 6/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2022 | Mir Khan Jakhrani (Applicant) VS Federation Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 15-FEB-24 | Yes | In view of the observations of the Division Bench in the unreported case of Nooruddin-SITE (supra) following the judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan, the Counsel for SK Jakhrani???s arguments to dislodge the applicability of the principles of res judicata on the ground that the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil court which passed the judgment in the first suit is different from the pecuniary jurisdiction of the civil court in the subsequent suit, is reduced to a cipher | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 55 | Const. P. 8387/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | M/s Global Educational Constulting Society (Petitioner) VS Cantonmnet Board Korangi Creek and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 56 | Const. P. 6815/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Pinnacle Biotech Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.L.A.657-K/2023 The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) v. M/s. Faisal Spinning Mills Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned (Next Date: 15-Apr- 24 | ||
| 57 | Const. P. 4027/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Mrs. Farzana Javed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 58 | Const. P. 4306/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.232/2024 Karachi Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Karachi v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, through its Attorney, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 59 | Const. P. 6444/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Mrs. Najma Asif Sajan and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 60 | Const. P. 2278/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Syed Muhammad Asif (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Ayub and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-NOV-23 | Yes | The syntax concerning the slash (/) sign repeatedly used in the General Power of Attorney has, context and deeper meaning, is a tool of interpretation and provides a signpost to the person relying on it to plead his rights. Therefore, there is merit in spending some time with the slash (/) sign to decide this Petition. The Orders of the trial court and the District Court, both forums have not given importance to the slash ( / ) sign appearing in the General Power of Attorney.???. The use of slash (/) meant that the word ???case??? and ???property??? should be read interchangeably. As discussed hereinabove as ???case and/or property???. This meant that all the powers set out in the General Power of Attorney related to both the Suit and the Subject Property. A restrictive meaning could not be read into the General Power of Attorney. A power of attorney, which is related to the accretion of the right to the properties and assets of the principal, has to be interpreted liberally and not in a restrictive and stringent manner. Petition allowed. Application under Section 12(2) remanded to the trial court. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 61 | Const. P. 3170/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Karim Abdul Hameed and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 62 | Const. P. 3171/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Karim Abdul Hameed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 63 | Const. P. 3532/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Saeedullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Clifton Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 64 | Const. P. 8341/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Shahida Salam (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 65 | Const. P. 5861/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Fouzia Owais Khan & Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 66 | Const. P. 4028/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Aslam Assi (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 67 | Const. P. 6813/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | M/S Maskatiya Industries (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 68 | Const. P. 8166/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Abeer Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 69 | Const. P. 5929/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Syed MIthal Shah (Petitioner) VS Zareen Rubab and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 70 | Const. P. 4318/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 71 | Const. P. 6803/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Akkar Internatoinal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 72 | Suit 563/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2007 | MCB Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS EMAD UL HASAN (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 01-FEB-24 | Yes | Plaintiff-Bank elected to proceed against Customer for recovery of loan in the ordinary civil jurisdiction. The trial court never framed any issue of jurisdiction, and parties had concluded evidence. Appellate Court framed issue of jurisdiction to be decided by the trial court. Defendant urged that returning the Plaint to the Banking Court after 16 years would be tantamount to failure of justice. Principles discussed in unreported Judgement dated 11.01.2024 in High Court Appeal No.129 of 2017, Nooruddin & others Versus M/s Sindh Industrial Trading Estate & others applied. The factor of delay may be one of the considerations when examining the question of territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction but not subject-matter jurisdiction. Delay in identifying subject-matter jurisdiction may not be considered as a failure of justice as set out in Section 21 of CPC. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 73 | Suit 645/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2003 | VOLGA INTERNATIONAL LTD. (Plaintiff) VS SHAHEEN AIR CAROG (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-23 | Yes | Plaintiff filed suit for recovery five years from the date when the amount became due. Acknowledgement of liability by Defendant addressed to an unrelated third party, accepting part-liability on the part of Defendant covered by Section 19 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Extended the period of limitation. Defendant accepted part-claim. Suit partly decreed to the extent of acknowledgement of liability coupled with 1% simple markup. Court's discretion to award lower markup as banks in Pakistan currently offering much lower markup on US$ deposits compared to what banks are currently offering on PKR deposits. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 74 | Const. P. 71/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | National Bank of Pakistan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | ||||
| 75 | Suit 348/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Syed Shafaat Ali & another. (Plaintiff) VS Syed Farhat Ali & Others. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-AUG-23 | Yes | Plaintiff filed suit for recovery of damages for Malicious Civil Proceedings and Malicious Prosecution against Defendants. Whereas the Supreme Court of Pakistan had recognised malicious civil proceedings by the 1990s, the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom has only recently held that a claim in malicious prosecution could also be brought in relation to civil proceedings in Willers v. Joyce, [2016] UK SC44 (reported in 2016 SCMR 1841). Plaintiff was unable to establish through evidence the five (5) elements that form the basis for accepting or rejecting a suit for recovery of damages for malicious prosecution/malicious civil proceedings as laid down in the case of Niaz and Others v. Abdul Sattar and Others, PLD 2006 SC 432. In the circumstances, proving the six (6) principles for granting and/or refusing damages with regards to malicious prosecution/malicious civil proceedings as laid down in Muhammad Akram v. Mst Farman Bi, 1990 SC 28 is irrelevant. Suit dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 76 | I. A 7/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2023 | S.S.G.C. L (Appellant) VS Irshad Ali Bhutto and antoher (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 01-FEB-24 | Yes | The suit filed by SSGC was hopelessly time-barred. Gas Utility Court is not obliged to decide the question of maintainability after its decision on the leave to defend application. Gas Company's allegation that the Defendant-Customer was involved in the theft of gas, no ground to condone limitation.. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 77 | H.C.A 39/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Mohammad Qasim & another (Appellant) VS M/s. Gulshan-e-Faisal & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-FEB-24 | Yes | Notarized Oral Gift Deed could not be proved. Representative of Society filed a vague Written Statement and did not step into the witness box. The subsequent chain of registered sale deeds, including the Appellant-Defendant proving the registration of the sale deed, could not rescue them once the entire superstructure of sale deeds collapsed. Appeal dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 78 | Const. P. 5811/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Rehan Mansoor (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 79 | Const. P. 4307/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 80 | Const. P. 5391/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Abdul Razzaq (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 81 | Const. P. 6396/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Khawaja Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 82 | Const. P. 39/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2013 | Zohaib Hussain Kamaro (Petitioner) VS The Govt. of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-FEB-24 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 83 | Const. P. 6506/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Dilshad Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 84 | Suit.B 45/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | THE BANK OF PUNJAB (Plaintiff) VS M/S HASCOL PETROLEUM LIMITED (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 21-AUG-23 | Yes | Condonation Application to allow Defendant Customer to file leave to defend application in Banking Suit allowed. Summons were defective, as Plaintiff Bank did not include the registered address of the Defendant Company in the title of the Plaint. Plaintiff relied on Musharaka Agreement which mentioned the previously registered address. Subsequently, Defendant Company notified the change of registered address to PSX, SECP and updated its website page. Defendant Customer did not notify Plaintiff Bank. Order 29 CPC mandatory. Registered Post Acknowledgment and Delivery Report of summons were not available. Bailiff, on his own volition, reached the registered address of Defendant Company. Publication of Summons alleged by Defendant was not in its knowledge. In the circumstances and based on case law, Defendant Condonation Application allowed and Leave to Defend taken on record with the same to be decided in accordance with law, including Plaintiff's right to file replication, if so desired. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 85 | Cr.Bail 161/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: Cr.Bail 191/2023 | 2023 | Sher Ali Bullo (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 23-JUN-23 | Yes | Post-arrest (custody) bail application of police officials arising from the escape of a lifer jail convict from Sukkur Central Jail | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 86 | Const. P. 5673/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Syed Muhammad Afsar Shah and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 87 | Const. P. 3246/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Shahnila Altaf & Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 88 | Const. P. 7408/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Ali (Petitioner) VS IInd A.D.J & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 09-JAN-24 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 89 | Const. P. 1228/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Meomoona Yousuf (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 90 | Const. P. 3532/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Gul Naz (Petitioner) VS Faisal Canotnment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 91 | Cr.Bail 134/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2023 | Mumtaz Hussain Malik (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 23-JUN-23 | Yes | The criminal bail application of police officials concerning the escape of a lifer jail convict from Sukkur Central Jail | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 92 | Const. P. 6661/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Mediplas Innovations Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 93 | H.C.A 162/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Dr. Masuma Hasan (Appellant) VS Imtiaz Ali Khan (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-NOV-23 | Yes | Factors regarding whether a dispute or objection of an objector, other than the legal heir of the deceased, as to ownership of property could be adjudicated within the framework of a suit for administration. Muhammad Zahid v. Mst. Ghazala Zakir and Others, PLD 2011 Karachi 83 followed along with updating and cross-referencing the several Judgments/Orders of the Division and Single Bench of this Court from 2015 onwards applying the principles laid down in the Ghazala Zakir case. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 94 | H.C.A 278/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Welfare Association Ali (Appellant) VS Shakeel Ahmed and Another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 20-NOV-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 95 | H.C.A 372/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | M/s National Refinery Limited (Appellant) VS Syed Mansoor Ali and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-NOV-23 | Yes | Sub-section-2 of Section-3 provides an appeal to a Bench of two or more Judges of High Court from an order made by a single Judge of that Court under clause-1 of Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, not being an order made under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause. To our understanding, it excludes an appeal in relation to a subject summarized in Article199(1)(b)(i), whereas, rest of the "subjects" of Article-199(1) have been subjected to appeal. Subject of dismissal of a claim made under Section-15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is already subjected to appeal under Section-17, but this is not the ???subject??? which could be impugned in any of the lower fora and hence neither appeal nor petition is a remedy. For the purpose of appeal under Law Reforms Ordinance or this appeal in particular wherefrom the impugned order has arisen, out of proceeding under Article-199 from a single Bench, we may sum-up by referring to Appellate side of Sindh Chief Court Rules. Rule-8 confers jurisdiction ordinarily exercised by two Judges of this Court, except otherwise provided by law in particular. Similarly Rule-9 discussed matter to be decided by single Judge of appellate side, not necessarily under Article-199 as there may be some miscellaneous lis etc. Such work (subject) assigned under Rule9 ibid is not the one impugned by the appellant before learned single Judge, hence jurisdiction was not vested and incorrectly exercised. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.4312/2023 National Refinery Limited, Karachi v. Syed Mansoor Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 96 | I. A 64/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Abdul Hameed and Others (Appellant) VS Bank Islami Pakistan Limited & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-OCT-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 97 | I. A 4/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2016 | Dr. Bhagwandas and another (Appellant) VS Mashooq Ali Jatoi and Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 25-MAR-24 | Yes | Defamation suits are regulated by special law. The non-compliance of the statutory requirement under Section 8 meant that the defamation claim could not be maintained. The first Appeal was dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 98 | I. A 5/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2020 | Munawar Ali Soomro. (Appellant) VS N.B.P.and an Other. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-MAR-24 | Yes | The Banking Court, in the facts and circumstances of the case, did not commit any irregularity. Discretion of Banking Court while examining the Application for Leave to Defend under Section 10 of FIO, 2001 and at the time of the announcement of Judgment, to set-off and adjust the liability of the Respondent-Bank to adjust / setoff the Order passed by the Division Bench under Writ Jurisdiction directing the Respondent-Bank to pay the Appellant-Customer his salary and dues. Appellate Court has power under FIO, 2001 to adjust/set-off liabilities payable between parties, inter se. Appeal partly allowed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 99 | H.C.A 36/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Muhammad Wasim Awan (Appellant) VS Muhammad Riaz Awan (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 11-DEC-23 | Yes | Cumulative effect of entire evidence would weigh in favour of respondent and against the appellant. The appellant has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof even for all original, issues, in his favour on all the counts | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | C.P.8-K/2024 Muhammad Wasim Awan v. Muhammad Riaz Awan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 100 | Const. P. 5166/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Amin Chapal (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | ||||
| 101 | Const. P. 6821/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Securpring (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 102 | H.C.A 326/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Mrs. Tanvir Qazi (Appellant) VS Moin us Samad Khan & Another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-DEC-23 | Yes | The burden of proving fraud is always on the party alleging it, which in the instant case is appellant, which should be based on clear, strong and convincing and/or independent evidence, particularly when long period has expired and valuable rights have accrued to the other side, which in the instant case is respondent No.1 who since 2008 is pursuing his case for recovery. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.43-K/2024 Mrs, Tanvir Kazi v. Moin Us Samad Khan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 103 | Const. P. 131/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Saleem Butt (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 104 | Const. P. 3763/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Inayatullah Abbas (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 105 | Const. P. 4308/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 106 | Const. P. 249/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Mrs. Shehla Balal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 107 | Const. P. 4316/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 108 | I. A 3/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2023 | Late Ghulam Muhammad & Others (Appellant) VS Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 29-FEB-24 | Yes | The Bank did not implead all the legal heirs in the banking suit. Only those legal heirs of the deceased Customer known to the bank were impleaded. The suit was decreed against the Bank. It was held that the decree is enforceable against the mortgaged property of the deceased Customer. The Bank has priority over the legal heirs shares in the said mortgaged property. The fact that the Bank discovered in appellate proceedings that it had not impleaded all the legal heirs is of no consequence. The Judgment-Debtors/Legal Heirs of the deceased customer's challenge to the Banking Court???s decree was dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 109 | I. A 76/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Abdul Karim Momnani & Another (Appellant) VS M/S. Habib Bank Limited (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 15-DEC-23 | Yes | Appellant-Customer challenged the Banking Court judgment and decree not in appeal but by filing an Application under Section 12(2) CPC alleging that the branch manager had misappropriated funds from the Appellant-Customer's running finance account. Appellant-Customer grounds for alleged fraud and misrepresentation focussed on entries in the Statement of Accounts. No case was made out under Section 12(2) CPC. Appeal dismissed, | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 110 | Suit 1040/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | NASIR ALI (Plaintiff) VS SYED QAMAR HUSSAIN (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 26-AUG-23 | Yes | Plaintiff Buyer, within the time prescribed in the contract, made part payment of the Sale Price, whereafter Defendant Seller handed over the first floor of the bungalow on the suit property to Plaintiff. Plaintiff Buyer did not pay the outstanding balance sale price when he found out the suit property was mortgaged. Blamed Defendant Buyer for not executing the sale deed, expressed willingness and readiness to pay and filed suit for specific performance under the Specific Relief Act as well as claimed part performance under Section 53-A of the Transfer of Property Act. Interpretation of where time is of the essence, proving readiness and willingness, criterion for curating discretionary relief where the cause of action accrued in 2005 and the case decided in 2023. Suit dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 111 | Suit 319/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | MAXCO (PVT.) LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 23-AUG-23 | Yes | Justice demands that rights in the physical world and the digital/virtual world should be the same and at par with each other. Yet currently, SECP appears to be maintaining two different sets of standards for qualifications/remarks. It is clear that the Registrar of Companies, SECP is not empowered to publish qualifications/remarks on its dashboard and/or its digital platform for banks relating to the Plaintiff Company that ???Currently Company is under DISPUTE CASES??? as the same is contrary to law and SECP???s regulations framed under the Companies Act, 2017. Consequently, SECP is directed to immediately remove the said remarks from its dashboard/digital portal accessed by banks or other entities and replace such qualifications/remarks with any of the qualifications/remarks that may be assigned to the Plaintiff Company under Regulation 20 of the Companies (Registration Offices) Regulations, 2018. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 112 | Const. P. 6659/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Prince Art Packages Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 113 | Const. P. 6660/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Mehrab Mercantile Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 114 | Const. P. 3538/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | M/s Trump Management (Petitioner) VS Faisal Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 115 | Const. P. 6816/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Eternal Group of Industries (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 116 | Const. P. 4314/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 117 | Const. P. 4324/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and ORs (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 118 | Const. P. 132/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | M/s Millennium Mall Management Co (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-JAN-24 | Yes | the power to levy, charge, impose and recover any or all tax(es) separately on immovable property is concerned it is an alien object under cantonment laws in the present frame of the Constitution. The tax on the annual rental value of immovable property is a tax and not a fee or any other genre of levy. The Cantonment Boards have no power to levy tax on immovable property including tax on annual rental value of immovable property. The Presidential Order 13 of 1979 has no effect on the subject after the revival of the Constitution and the 18th Amendment, and the subject law to the extent of provision of section 3 as applied, is no longer protected. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.102/2024 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defense, Govt of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. M/s Millennium Mall Management Company through its Managing Partner, Karachi and others,C.P.230/2024 Faisal Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Karachi v. M/s Millennium Mall Management Company, through its authorized managing partner and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending ,Pending | |
| 119 | Adm. Suit 16/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2003 | Amsa Marine Aid (Plaintiff) VS M.V. Tolmi & Another (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 07-AUG-23 | Yes | Admiralty suit filed for necessaries sustainable in rem against the same vessel but to operate against any other vessel action must meet statutory requirements of Section 4 of the Admiralty Jurisdiction of High Courts Ordinance, 1980 unless Plaintiff succeeds in establishing fraud. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 120 | I. A 82/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Muhammad Ifrahim & Another (Appellant) VS M/S. JS Bank Limited and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 29-DEC-23 | Yes | The value and/or forced sale value is provided in the sale proclamation only as equity and to have an idea about the possible price. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 121 | Const. P. 3179/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Haji Moosa Khan (Petitioner) VS Mst. Nazia and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 03-NOV-23 | Yes | Suggestions alone that they have given false evidence could not be materialized in favour of the petitioners as primary burden was discharged by plaintiffs/respondents. It is a cumulative effect of all evidence available on record that is to be seen and applied. In addition to it, this Court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot assume the jurisdiction which is otherwise not vested, that is reappraisal of evidence, which has been done by the revisional court and that is the last fact finding court. This Court could only intervene had the jurisdiction been exercised which was not vested and/or vested but not exercised. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | C.P.1273-K/2023 Haji Moosa Khan (Late) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. nazia Bibi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned (Notice) | |
| 122 | Const. P. 2797/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Mir AKbar Askani (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 123 | 2024 CLD 338 | I. A 92/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Abdul Khalid (Appellant) VS M/s. Habib Bank Limted & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-DEC-23 | Yes | All the legal heirs of Judgment-Debtor were not taken on record by the Banking Court. Further none of those (LRs) who were taken on record were issued notice leading to the sale proclamation. Auction proceedings set aside with directions to add all the legal heirs in the execution proceedings and issue a fresh proclamation after issuing fresh notice to all the legal heirs. The Auction Purchaser is at liberty to either match the proposed bid, enhance it, or claim re-payment of his deposited amount along with profit accrued thereon. Appeal disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | C.P.L.A.19-K/2024 Aziz Alam Siddiqui v. Abdul Khalid and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending |
| 124 | 2024 SBLR Sindh 178 | H.C.A 34/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Dr. Nafees Zubair through her attorney (Appellant) VS Saeeda Bano & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-NOV-23 | Yes | *-Performance is equity based, court is obliged to perform equity as performance is not vested right. **An oral (unregistered) gift alone, or any private communication between donor and donee, would not be an obstacle in seeking performance against the title holder being a last registered instrument. ***Deed of Redemption is no doubt claimed to be a registered instrument however this Redemption Deed is just a privileged document between the mortgagor and the mortgagee but the Redemption Deed itself does not confer title. ****the performance cannot be declined on the execution of oral gift and that due diligence was not made. Performance could only be sought against title holder. If these "oral gifts" are allowed to come in the way of performance, then no suit for performance could succeed. *****It would not be an equity if appellant is allowed the performance realizing the no efforts were made to deposit the balance amount at the time when injunction was sought and/or when suit was filed, since doctrine of lis pendence is also an obstacle for seller. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||
| 125 | Const. P. 4311/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 126 | Const. P. 3426/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | M/s National Medical Centre (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 127 | Const. P. 3847/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mrs. Gulzar Parveen (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 128 | Suit 767/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | HASCOL LUBRICANTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS SECURITIES EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAK (SECP) & ORS (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-JUL-23 | Yes | Once costs are paid to SECP for obtaining certified copies of statutory forms, SECP cannot deny such requests made by the company. Under Regulation 20 of the Companies (Registration Offices) Regulations, 2018, SECP may insert certain qualifications/remark on such statutory forms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 129 | Const. P. 6805/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Active Apparel (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 130 | Const. P. 6809/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | M/s Khan Brothers (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 131 | Const. P. 6819/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Hoora Pharma (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 132 | H.C.A 447/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | M/s. Abdullah Engineering Works (Appellant) VS K-Electric Limited & Another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-DEC-23 | Yes | The Plaintiff filed suit in relation to Tender A and subsequently withdrew the suit; earnest money deposited with Nazir was in connection with Tender A. Earnest money deposited by the bidder in Tender B could not be setoff with Tender A. Plaintiff could not plead return of earnest money under Tender B in Appeal when suit filed was in relation to Tender A. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 133 | R.A (Civil Revision) 51/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2018 | Mst. Almas Khatoon and an Other (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 14-MAR-24 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | ||||
| 134 | Const. P. 119/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2022 | Khalid Ahmed Tanwri (Petitioner) VS District & Sessions Judge Shikarpur & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-FEB-24 | Yes | Three Brothers. Chachaa-Uncle-Petitioner allegedly co-owner of Suit Property impleaded only one brother's nephew in Suit but not the eldest brother. Nephew impleaded in Suit submitted in Written Statement interests of the eldest brother in the Suit Property. Eldest brother's children necessary party, impleaded by the trial court, and order upheld by Appellate Court. Petition challenging the two Orders of the lower Courts dismissed as Petition not maintainable in Writ Jurisdiction. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 135 | Const. P. 4312/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 136 | Const. P. 4320/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 137 | Const. P. 3341/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Saeed uz Zaman Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 138 | Const. P. 6397/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Khawaja Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 139 | Spl.Anti.Ter.J.A. 46/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2022 | Shafiq-ur-Rehman Malkani & another (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-JUN-23 | Yes | Re-appraisal of evidence in light of the delay in lodging the Crime Report, uncertainties in recording Statements, last seen together witnesses, retracted confessions, recoveries made and weak investigation leading to acquittal. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 140 | Suit 1276/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2001 | VIRGIN ENTERPRIES LTD. (Plaintiff) VS VIRGIN EXPRESS INT. PVT. LTD. & ORS. (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 29-AUG-23 | Yes | Following the establishment of the Intellectual Property Tribunal of Sindh at Karachi, even if the Companies Act, 2017, provides a framework to change/rectify a company's name, where, in the opinion of the Registrar, the name of the Company is identical to or resembles or is similar to the name of a company, the High Court cannot transfer the suit partly relating to Trade Marks and Passing off while retaining the suit regarding injunctive relief under the Companies Act, 2017. The entire suit has to be transferred to the Intellectual Property Tribunal and left to the Plaintiff to take appropriate steps to seek such relief in accordance with law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 141 | Const. P. 192/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | K.M.C (Petitioner) VS IXth ADJ (East) and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-NOV-23 | Yes | KMC is a part of the third tier of Government. Several Judgments of the Supreme Court of Pakistan have already made affirmative observations in support of the proposition in the case of local government and municipal authorities. In such cases, as per CPC and Sindh Civil Court Rules, KMC, as a 'third-tier of Government", may appoint counsels by way of filing a Memo of Appearance instead of Vakalatnama subject to conditions specified under the Sindh Local Government Act, 2013. KMC???s Counsel???s submission, based on a judgment of the Indian Court that the government, at its discretion, may appoint as many government pleaders as it likes, is contrary to Pakistan law based on Judgment of Supreme Court of Pakistan in Rasheed Ahmad v. Federal of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Information, Broadcasting and National Heritage, Government of Pakistan Islamabad, and Other, PLD 2017 SC 121. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 142 | H.C.A 145/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Cantonment Board Clifton (Appellant) VS Nadim Ahmed Ansari (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-23 | Yes | Section 273 of the Cantonments Act requiring a notice to be given to CBC before filing a suit against CBC is not unfettered and unqualified. A suit for either declaration or injunctions, etc., are well-regulated under the said provision so long as the civil action is in pursuance of the Act. NAA Consulting Engineers had filed a suit against CBC for compensation for services rendered to CBC which was not in pursuance to the Act. Those civil actions beyond the Act's parameters could not be eclipsed by the bar on suits under Section 273. In the circumstances, Section 273 was not applicable. The In-house Counsel of CBC stepped into the witness box. kept responding to questions put to him in the cross-examination, claiming a lack of awareness of NAA's documents exhibited, including his own documents. In the circumstances, he accepted NAA Consulting Engineers claim against CBC. Appeal allowed and Judgment and Decree confirmed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | C.P.6-K/2024 Cantonment Board Clifton through CEO v. Nadeem Ahmad Ansari Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 143 | Const. P. 8194/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Imran Razi Ahmed Hashmi (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Arshad Awan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-DEC-23 | Yes | Petitioner-Intervener relying on an unregistered sale deed objecting to auction proceedings has no legs to stand. Petition dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 144 | Const. P. 6804/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Alpino Food (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 145 | Const. P. 4159/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mairaj Begum (Petitioner) VS Director M.E.O and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 146 | Const. P. 3359/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Saad Rehman (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 147 | Const. P. 946/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Muhammad Aslam Bajwa (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 148 | Const. P. 4184/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | M/s Al-Baraka Apparel (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 149 | Const. P. 6657/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Universal Packaging Co. Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 150 | Const. P. 6812/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Golden Sindh Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 151 | R.A (Civil Revision) 108/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2019 | Syed Muzafar Ahmed Ashraf through his L.Rs.& ors. (Applicant) VS Anwar Ali Janwri and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 12-FEB-24 | Yes | The onus was on the Plaintiff to prove his claim to succeed in his suit. A prayer clause has no place in the Written Statement, and the trial court should have ignored it. Instead, the trial court copied and pasted the prayer clause from Defendant/Respondent No.1???s Written Statement as an issue on which parties were at variance when this was clearly not the case. Issue No.5, framed by the trial court, was wholly alien and did not arise from the pleadings. As such, it was rightly ignored by the trial court in its judgment. The trial court correctly decided the suit on the sole issue of maintainability, and for the reasons discussed hereinabove, there was no need to examine the other issues framed by the trial court. Revision dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 152 | Suit 997/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2007 | HASHAM ALIIBHAI (Plaintiff) VS NEW JUBILLEE INSURANCE CO. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 13-OCT-23 | Yes | As a rule, Articles of Association normally exclude any interest claim on unpaid dividends. The Defendant Company had withheld payment of unpaid dividends to Plaintiff even though Articles 6, 5 and 14 of the Articles of Association of 1953, 1986 and 2007 provided an exception to the rule. The relationship between Plaintiff and Defendant Company from 1970 to 2005 was not governed by the Articles of Association but was crystallised by the Order of the Court. Defendant Company liable to compensate Plaintiff in the sum of Rs.154,110,753 (net of taxes) being the equalizer profit on the dividend income retained and utilized by the Defendant Company based on principles of equity and in the alternative, unjust enrichment, read in the light of Articles 6, 5 and 14 of the series of Defendant Company's Articles of Association. Bar of Order 2 Rule 2 CPC not applicable to the two rounds of litigation of 1978 and 1993 culminating in Judgment of 07.08.2003 (2007 CLC 1448) amended by a Compromise Application allowing Plaintiff to claim interest on dividends recorded by Division Bench Order dated 20.12.2005 involving, Counsel for Defendant/Respondent Company who fully participated in the final order even though the Defendant/Respondent Company had not signed the Compromise Application. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 153 | Const. P. 5062/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Arshad Ali (Petitioner) VS Furqan uddin Usmani and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 20-OCT-23 | Yes | Petitioner did not file a List of Witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC at the appropriate stage of the trial. Application to introduce material witnesses to Sale Agreement as Defendant Witnesses dismissed (by trial court???s Order dated 11.01.2022). Subsequently, an Application to summon Government Officers as Court witnesses was also dismissed (by trial court???s order dated 28.05.2022). In Civil Revision and, again in Petition, the Court cannot consider the trial court???s Order dated 11.01.2022 in a Petition/Revision, which challenges the trial court???s order dated 28.05.2022 and vice versa as pleaded in a separate Petition. Court ability to mould relief in writ jurisdiction constrained under Article 199 of the Constitution. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 154 | Const. P. 4313/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 155 | Suit 248/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2008 | GULZAR AHMED & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ZAMAN & ORS. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 15-MAR-24 | Yes | The plaintiffs paid the full price of the Suit Land under the Sale Agreement and then paid off the Defendant Seller's 75% of the outstanding loan amount to Zarai Tarkiati Bank Ltd. The Bank acknowledged the funds deposited by the Plaintiffs and Defendant. Defendant Seller still denied the Agreement of Sale on the ground that he never signed the said Agreement and Plaintiffs were his tenant. Defendant produced no evidence in support of his defence. Suit for Specific Performance granted. Suit decreed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 156 | Const. P. 1251/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Sadiq Rajani (Petitioner) VS C.B.C and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 157 | Const. P. 7657/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Inam Willayat Ali (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 158 | Spl.Cr.J.A 7/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2020 | Lal Bux Brohi (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 22-JUN-23 | Yes | Establishing the chain of safe custody under the Control of Narcotics Substances Act, 1997 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 159 | H.C.A 397/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Amir Khan through Attorney M. Feroze (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 02-JAN-24 | Yes | Appeal filed against an ad-interim Order, parties will have a right of appeal when the applications are finally decided. At the moment, Pink Residency obtained an injunction when no final decree could be passed which issue is yet to be finally decided. Parties (Appellant, Intervener/Pink Residency/Official Government) chain of title in Suit Property yet to be decided? Intervener/Pink Residency is yet to explain how it obtained possession after Nazir presumably handed it over to the Appellant. Several issues are yet to be decided, Appeal dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 160 | Const. P. 5647/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Ambreen Mansoor (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 161 | Const. P. 3987/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | M/s BBQ Delight (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 162 | Const. P. 7832/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Hashim and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 163 | R.A (Civil Revision) 78/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2023 | Dur Muhammad Malik (Applicant) VS Zafarullah Malik & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 26-JAN-24 | Yes | Respondent/Zafarullah, born in the year 2000, claimed paternity from Applicant/Dur Muhammad, except that his father, Dur Muhammad, took the position that he divorced Zafarullah's mother, Zulekhan, in 1998. Zafarullah's mother, his phuppi and step-father, all gave oral testimony that Zafarullah's mother was divorced in 2002. Dur Muhammad produced no evidence under DMMA in support dissolution of marriage that he divorced his first wife (Zafarullah's mother) in 1998. DNA testing would not come to his aid in the facts and circumstances of the case. Presumption of Article 128 of Qanun e Shahadat Order 1984, presumption of marriage and his evidence did not support Dur Muhammad's cause. Revision Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 164 | Const. P. 4322/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 165 | Const. P. 1661/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Sheikh Muhammad Manzoor (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 166 | I. A 88/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | House Building Finance Company Ltd. (Appellant) VS Major Muhammad Abdul Aziz & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-NOV-23 | Yes | The learned Judge has correctly granted HBFC cost of funds from 2010 onwards in the Judgment, which, according to Respondent No.1-Customer???s admission, was the date of default, yet there is no explanation why the learned Judge proceeded to apply a varying rate of cost of funds as already discussed. Therefore, HBFC???s claim that the learned Judge of the Banking Court has not granted the cost of funds from the date of default is incorrect. In fact, the Banking Court granted costs of funds but did not grant HBFC the cost of funds as certified by the State Bank of Pakistan from time to time from 2010 till the date of Judgment in May 2016. The case is remanded to the Banking Court to determine the cost of funds amount payable to HBFC in terms of section 3(2) of the FIO, 2001. There shall be no change in the already decreed principal outstanding amount of Rs.1,771,340 and the costs of the suit of Rs.31,425, which will remain the same. The Respondent No.1-Customer has already paid HBFC through the Banking Court a total sum of Rs.3,057,486, which comprised of the old decretal (i) principal outstanding amount, (ii) the disputed cost of funds amount, and (iii) the costs of the suit. The Banking Court shall adjust the payment already made by Respondent No.1-Customer to HBFC of Rs.3,057,486 against the fresh cost of funds to be determined by it and pass an amended Decree, accordingly. All the other terms and conditions of the Decree dated 05.05.2016 shall remain intact. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 167 | Const. P. 4309/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 168 | Const. P. 4319/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 169 | Const. P. 6810/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | NKR Clothing Tower Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 170 | H.C.A 74/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Standard Chartered Bank (Pak) Ltd. (Appellant) VS Mst. Fatima Ehsan Al Ghori & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-DEC-23 | Yes | The appellant perhaps on their own obtained expert opinion on the basis of the photocopies which could not be considered at all on several counts. Firstly, it was done at their own and whatever material provided to the alleged expert is not known either to the respondent or to the Court. Secondly, undisputedly the report was based on the photocopy of a material document which is seriously disputed and was never produced throughout the proceedings and any forensic report of an expert based on photocopy, that too obtained unilaterally, cannot be relied upon and would be gross miscarriage of justice, if that is considered. Who acknowledged those bearer certificates is also a mystery and where and how such certificates were encashed (although were bearer) is also an untraced history and the appellant negligently avoided to lead evidence. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 171 | Const. P. 4325/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 172 | Const. P. 3210/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Shan (Petitioner) VS Roshan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 173 | Suit 200/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | M/s Sadiq & Suharwardy (Plaintiff) VS Ismail Industries Limited (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 10-JAN-24 | Yes | These ten trademark suits currently pending in the High Court are disposed of in three different manner following the Judgment of the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Muhammad Multazam Raza v. Muhammad Ayub Khan, 2022 SCMR 979 in paragraph 12 and the enactment of the Trade Marks (Amendment) Act, 2023, on 11.08.2023. The three actions on the part of the High Court depend on the category of trademark dispute: Category A - Suits for infringement currently pending in the High Court and filed prior to 29.12.2015 may be transferred to the IP Tribunal forthwith (Category ???A???). Category B - trademarks suits filed after 29.12.2015, currently pending in the High Court, the Plaint in such suits must be returned (Category ???B???) as High Court lacks jurisdiction to hear the same. Finally, in cases involving a Suit connected with a J. Misc. Application involving either Section 73(4) [an application for revocation], Section 80(4) [an application for declaration of invalidity], Section 96(2) [an application for rectification], etc, the High Court may retain jurisdiction and proceed with deciding both Suit and J. Misc. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 174 | Const. P. 1494/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Abdul Majeed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 175 | Const. P. 6656/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Galaxy Pharma Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 176 | I. A 1/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2024 | Ali Raza Mugheri (Appellant) VS Ghulam Rasool Abro and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-MAR-24 | Yes | Banking Court assessed whether the Customer had any cause of action based on facts alleged and documents filed by the Financial Institution with its application for leave to defend. The Banking Court did not decide the leave to defend application and dismissed the suit based on finding no cause of action. The Banking Court had to assess the issue of cause of action based on the Plaint filed by the Customer. The customer's Appeal was allowed. The Banking Court to decide the leave to defend application first which may well include the issue of cause of action. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 177 | Const. P. 5061/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2023 | Arshad Ali (Petitioner) VS Furqan uddin Usmani and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 20-OCT-23 | Yes | Scope of Writ Jurisdiction in hearing revisions arising from interlocutory orders passed during trial about civil procedure matters. Petition challenging trial court's order relating to Petitioner/Defendant application to examine witnesses under Order 16 Rule 1 CPC., Exercise of writ jurisdiction against revisional order has to be exercised in rare and exceptional circumstances only when it could be said that the order passed by the revisional Court has been passed without lawful authority, beyond jurisdiction and vested rights were curtailed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 178 | Const. P. 2970/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Sana Hussain Merchant and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 179 | H.C.A 128/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Rifat Saeed & another (Appellant) VS Zahid Saeed & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 01-FEB-24 | Yes | Plaintiffs prayed for a restraining order, which is a form of equitable and discretionary relief that is to be invoked in the aid of justice and not to aid injustice and favor one party over another. If we do not grant relief, then the subject matter of the suit, which is essentially a family dispute, may well become complicated and potentially frustrate the decree, if any. While a case for stay is made out, which is allowed however the trial court correctly dismissed the Receiver's appointment because receivership is the harshest remedy in civil law | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 180 | Const. P. 342/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 181 | Const. P. 6811/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Palpex Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 182 | Const. P. 715/1996 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 1996 | MST ANILA ABRAR (Petitioner) VS GOVT. OF SINDH AND OTHERS (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 05-MAR-24 | Yes | i-Section 10(2) of the Citizen Act gives a preferential treatment to the spouse of Pakistani man vis-??-vis a Pakistani woman and thus infringes constitutional guarantees ii-The object is foreign spouses and not just foreign wives and thus making of 10(2) and reading it now may vary with constitutional demands. The intent of the said provision is not to encourage or facilitate women to marry Pakistani men. The concept which now emerged through international jurisprudence is to enable Pakistanis married to foreigners to be able to live together and acquire nationality for their spouses and live a family life in Pakistan and the Act of 1951 should now be read and tamed accordingly. Restricting the benefit of Section 10(2) to Pakistani men only is a clear discrimination to Pakistani women. 45. The doctrine of reading in is used by Courts to extend the scope to avoid and limit the discriminatory language having head-on conflict with a constitutional provision. The doctrine of ???reading in??? involves adding words to a statutory provision to bring it in conformity with constitutional provisions. iii- The application of "reading in" is required to cater section 10(2) of the Citizenship Act to save it from offending Article 25 of the Constitution that is wherever reference is made to ???woman??? and ???she??? therein; the words "or man" and "or he" be read. This adjustment shall not have any effect on the operability of the statute. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 183 | R.A (Civil Revision) 49/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2023 | Abdul Latif Siyal & others (Applicant) VS Imtiaz Buriro & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-MAR-24 | Yes | The courts below acted with material irregularity when they rejected the Applicant-Plaintiff's Plaint seeking a declaration of Suit Land in its entirety after acknowledging prima facie Plaintiff had title in part of the Suit Land. Revision allowed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | |||
| 184 | 2024 CLD 525 | H.C.A 171/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | New Dadu Sugar Mills Pvt Ltd. (Appellant) VS Sindh Sugar Corporation Limited & Another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 15-NOV-23 | Yes | Article 10A serves as a safeguard for individuals condemned without a fair hearing, ensuring that actions taken against such individuals adhere to the principles of due process of law. In the instant case, Article 10A of the Constitution guaranteed the right to a free trial, and as auction purchasers, this right was unmistakably infringed upon when the Court failed to provide them with notice. A thorough examination of the appeal file reveals a glaring absence of notice to the auction purchaser, a procedural step that the Court should have diligently observed. The Appellants filed their appeals without delay as soon as they received notice from the Official Assignee as Provisional Manager about passing the Order dated 07.09.2021. A breach of Article 10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan is evident. The Appellants were not present before the learned Single Judge to assist the Court in the proceedings. Appeal allowed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | ||
| 185 | Const. P. 6663/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Universal Brushware Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 186 | Const. P. 840/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Fouzia Owais Kalia and another (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 187 | H.C.A 242/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Dadabhoy Foundation & another (Appellant) VS K. B. C. A. & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-DEC-23 | Yes | The order passed in JM has not given a license to carry on construction in violation of status quo order. In fact it restrained the parties from raising construction. Even the permission claimed from Sindh Building Control Authority is of no avail in presence of status quo order and the matter being subjudice. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | |||
| 188 | H.C.A 180/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mst. Bhalan & others (Appellant) VS Muhammad Asif Sakaria & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 22-NOV-23 | Yes | The ???embezzlement??? alleged by the Appellants/Plaintiffs in 2003 would have been in relation to the registered conveyance deeds of 1992, and still, Mohammad did not take any positive action to safeguard his rights up to the time of his death (he passed away on 13.01.2005). The second point is that the next conveyance of the Suit Properties took place through sale deeds duly registered in the years 2005 and 2007. The sale was registered after the death of Muhammad. This time, it was the onus of the legal heirs of Muhammad to remain vigilant, especially when apparently they had knowledge of the ???embezzlement??? in the year 2003. There is nothing on record to show that Muhammad and the legal heirs of Muhammad were not indolent. Nothing on record demonstrates their vigilance. The admission made by the legal heirs of Muhammad in clear terms in the Plaint disentitles the Appellants/Plaintiffs from raising any challenge to the Impugned Order of the trial court. The Appellants/Plaintiffs were well aware of the presumption of truth associated with a sale/conveyance deed that is duly registered under the Registration Act, 1908. The Appellants/Plaintiffs neither produced nor relied upon any document which prima facie could be deemed or interpreted to rebut such a presumption. This aspect of the matter did not and does not help the cause of the Appellants/Plaintiffs. In the circumstances, Appeal is dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author) | C.P.17-K/2024 Mst. Bhalan and others v. Muhammad Asif Sakaria and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 189 | Const. P. 6817/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2022 | Mulla Ebrahimji Kairmbhoy (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||
| 190 | Const. P. 4327/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-DEC-23 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana | ||||