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. 1710/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Ltd., (Petitioner) VS Pakistan, through the Secretary, Revenue Division & Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad& 2 others, (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 2 | Suit 3463/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Dr Raheela Magsi (Petitioner) VS Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 18-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 3 | Judicial Companies Misc. 47/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Muhammad Younus & another (Applicant) VS Venu Gurdas Advani & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 16-SEP-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 4 | Suit 570/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | Mirza Imtiaz Baig (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Pakistan Hockey Federation & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 28-AUG-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 5 | Suit 1171/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | ZULFIQAR SHAKOOR (Plaintiff) VS M/S. QUETTA TOWN CO-OPY (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 31-OCT-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 6 | Const. P. 822/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property Board (Petitioner) VS The Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Minorities (Minorities Affairs Division) & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-MAY-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 7 | Adm. Suit 160/2002 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2002 | Syed Mohsin Ali (Petitioner) VS Evacuee Trust Property Board and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-AUG-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam | ||||
| 8 | Suit.B 19/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | The Bank of Punjab (Plaintiff) VS Dewan Salman Fibre Limited (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 25-AUG-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 9 | Const. P. 214/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Muhammad Ishaque (Petitioner) VS Sazzuddin & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 12-APR-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.364-K/2019 Muhammad Ishaque v. Sazzuddin and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed | ||
| 10 | Const. P. 3937/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Dr.Ali Muhammad Ansari & Other (Petitioner) VS Sindhi Muslim Co-Operative Housing & Society & Oth (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-MAY-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.P.236-K/2014 Sindhi Muslim Cooperative Housing Society v. Dr. Ali Muhammad Ansari and others,C.A.73/2021 Sindhi Muslim Cooperative Housing Society v. Dr. Ali Muhammad Ansari and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed | ||
| 11 | Const. P. 4747/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Rukhsana Yahya (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-OCT-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 12 | Const. P. 376/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mumtaz Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 13 | Const. P. 1406/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Nehal Chang (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 14 | Const. P. 1897/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Munawar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 15 | Const. P. 2084/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Khair Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 16 | Const. P. 1247/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Allah Bux (Petitioner) VS M.D (CEO) H.B.F.C Ltd & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.38-K/2020 Allah Bux v. Managing Director (CEO) House Building Finance Company Ltd and others,C.A.2-K/2021 Allah Bux v. Managing Director (CEO) House Building Finance Company Ltd and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed | ||
| 17 | Const. P. 3629/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Mst.Mumtaz (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 18 | Const. P. 2715/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Muhammad Yameen (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.740-K/2019 Muhammad Yameen v. Chairman Sindh Irrigation & Drainage Authority (SDA) and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 19 | Const. P. 2041/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Arsalan and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 20 | Const. P. 2342/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Naseeban (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 21 | Const. P. 300/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Hyder Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 22 | Const. P. 2550/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mohsin Ali & Other (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 23 | Const. P. 1639/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Shafique Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.M.A.2348/2020 Tando Allayyar Press Club through Muhammad Sajid Khan v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Local Govt. Sindh and others,C.P.3787/2020 Tando Allayyar Press Club through Muhammad Sajid Khan v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Local Govt. Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Allowed.CP be numbered and also notice be issued,Disposed Disposed of | ||
| 24 | Const. P. 2065/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mashooq Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 25 | Const. P. 676/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2009 | Abdul Salam and others (Petitioner) VS Jan Ali and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 26 | II.A. 44/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | Mrs. Musarrat Islam (Appellant) VS Mrs. Farzana Anwar & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.A.110-K/2022 Mst. Farzana Anwar v. Mst. Musarrat Islam & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 27 | Const. P. 655/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Hidayatullah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 28 | Const. P. 523/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Azizullah (Petitioner) VS Fed: of Pakistan & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-NOV-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 29 | Const. P. 3216/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mir Hassan and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 30 | 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 261 | Const. P. 144/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Leemon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 31 | Const. P. 5784/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Abdul Salam Khatri (Petitioner) VS D.G MC & C and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-JAN-20 | Yes | Non prosecution--Since the issue of transfer and posting from one Cantonment Board to another Cantonment Board has already been settled by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Iqbal and others supra, this petition is not maintainable. The issue of transfer and posting from one Cantonment Board to another Cantonment Board has already been settled by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Tariq Iqbal and others. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 32 | Const. P. 671/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Aftab Ahmed (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 33 | Const. P. 231/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Associate Professor Saeeda Parveen & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 34 | Const. P. 1708/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Bashir Ahmed (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 35 | Const. P. 556/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Syed Sadiq Hussain & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 36 | Const. P. 3020/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Manoj (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 37 | Const. P. 6066/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Shahzad Ali (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 38 | Const. P. 6387/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Mst. Beenish Mobin & Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 04-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1432-K/2020 Amjad Hussain v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 39 | Const. P. 5585/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mst. Fakhar un Nisa (Petitioner) VS Chief Sect: and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 40 | Const. P. 4932/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Zakia Naz (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-DEC-20 | Yes | petitioner has impugned the Notice dated 04.09.2020 issued by the respondents for vacating the official accommodation i.e. Flat No. B-18, situated in Government Official Residence (GOR-II) Sindhi Muslim Co-operative Housing Society ---Since the issue involved in this petition is akin as decided by this Court in C.P. No. D-4129 of 2020 and other connected petitions vide common Judgment dated 12.10.2020, therefore, the instant petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution is dismissed accordingly, leaving the petitioner to avail and exhaust her remedy, if any, as provided under the law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1442-K/2020 Zakia Naz v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed | |
| 41 | Const. P. 6241/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Anjum Badar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-MAR-20 | Yes | Advocate General Sindh is also put on notice to satisfy the Court on the next date regarding vires of Section 3 of the Act of 2013, which, prima facie, appears to be in clear conflict with the above mentioned authority of the Hon???ble Supreme Court to the extent of regularization of service in BS-16 and above. Let notice under Rule 1 of Order XXVII-A CPC be issued to learned Advocate General Sindh. To come up on 18.03.2020 at 12:00 noon. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.735-K/2021,C.A.28-K/2021,C.A.27-K/2021,C.M.A.589-K/2021 SCP | Disposed Leave Granted [ C.As be fixed after three months ],Pending ,Pending ,Disposed Allowed [ C.P. be numbered & leave granted & C.A. be fixed after three months ] | |
| 42 | Const. P. 607/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Abdul Hameed Asghar Thr. Mehmood Asghar (Petitioner) VS Learned Vth ADJ, Khi East and another (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 27-OCT-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 43 | Const. P. 5682/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Zaheer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-FEB-20 | Yes | Appointment as Police Constable in Police Department, on the basis of son quota---In the light of above discussion, it is crystal clear that Police Department cannot circumvent the law to make recruitment to the post of police constable on the basis of son quota by issuing Standing Orders or by invoking Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The appointment of police constable can only be made through competitive process on merit as provided under the recruitment rules and not otherwise.--Dismissed. Appointment as Police Constable in Police Department, on the basis of son quota---In the light of above discussion, it is crystal clear that Police Department cannot circumvent the law to make recruitment to the post of police constable on the basis of son quota by issuing Standing Orders or by invoking Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974. The appointment of police constable can only be made through competitive process on merit as provided under the recruitment rules and not otherwise.--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 44 | Const. P. 4508/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Dr. Dilshad Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-DEC-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.269-K/2021 Dr.Dilshad Ahmed v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 45 | Const. P. 3652/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Ali Murad Sipio (Petitioner) VS E.O.B.I and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 46 | Const. P. 2293/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Noureen Naz and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-FEB-20 | Yes | Primarily, the petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their services in Planning and Development Department, Government of Sindh-- It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were project employees. Their letters of appointment clearly state that their posts were 'temporary project posts' which would be 'likely to continue till the completion of project and keeping in view the completion of project activities and finalization of scope of work relating to job assignment of the petitioners, the competent authority decided to closure of the project under policy decision, it is beyond the jurisdictional domain of this Court to delve into highly technical and purely policy issues which were better left to be dealt with by experts having relevant knowledge, training and expertise in their respective fields and the competent authorities authorized and empowered by law to do so--The petitioners, in our view, have failed to make out their case for regularization of their service as their case is neither covered under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, nor falls within the ambit of Policy of Government of Sindh, therefore, the instant petitions are hereby dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. Primarily, the petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their services in Planning and Development Department, Government of Sindh-- It is an undisputed fact that the petitioners were project employees. Their letters of appointment clearly state that their posts were 'temporary project posts' which would be 'likely to continue till the completion of project and keeping in view the completion of project activities and finalization of scope of work relating to job assignment of the petitioners, the competent authority decided to closure of the project under policy decision, it is beyond the jurisdictional domain of this Court to delve into highly technical and purely policy issues which were better left to be dealt with by experts having relevant knowledge, training and expertise in their respective fields and the competent authorities authorized and empowered by law to do so--The petitioners, in our view, have failed to make out their case for regularization of their service as their case is neither covered under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, nor falls within the ambit of Policy of Government of Sindh, therefore, the instant petitions are hereby dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.230-K/2020 Noureen Naz v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 47 | Const. P. 7576/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Badaruddin (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-FEB-20 | Yes | the petitioner stood retired from service of respondent-Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited on 18.02.2008 as a Lineman (BPS-8) under Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and was drawing monthly pension up-till July, 2015, but the respondent No.2 illegally and unlawfully stopped and withheld his pension---In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs with direction to the competent authority of respondents to look into the matter of the petitioner and provide similar treatment to him as given by this Court to his colleagues Shakeel Ahmed, Anis Hyder and Muhammad Shoukat Qadri in C.P No.D-5734/2018, C.P No.D-6225/2018, and C.P No.D-6766/2019 respectively. the petitioner stood retired from service of respondent-Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited on 18.02.2008 as a Lineman (BPS-8) under Voluntary Separation Scheme (VSS) and was drawing monthly pension up-till July, 2015, but the respondent No.2 illegally and unlawfully stopped and withheld his pension---In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs with direction to the competent authority of respondents to look into the matter of the petitioner and provide similar treatment to him as given by this Court to his colleagues Shakeel Ahmed, Anis Hyder and Muhammad Shoukat Qadri in C.P No.D-5734/2018, C.P No.D-6225/2018, and C.P No.D-6766/2019 respectively. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 48 | Cr.Bail 1153/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | MUHAMMAD ASLAM S/O SARDAR MUHAMMAD (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 28-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the interim bail granted to the applicant / accused vide order dated 18.06.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. However, if the concession of bail is misused by the applicant in any manner whatsoever, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take action against him in accordance with law, including cancellation of bail. This bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 49 | Const. P. 2356/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Agha Siraj Khan Durrani (Petitioner) VS The State (NAB) (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Petitioners, accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means while acting as a Minister of Local Government ,Other petitioners, accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc., are identified as Benamidar/ostensible owners of the properties actually owned and possessed by him. It is commonly known in our society, recognized almost as a convention, that parents purchase property in the name of their children, not for any base reason but only to ensure their safety, security and welfare in future. It is not disputed that accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani is a politician and has held different positions. Therefore, when he buys a property in the name of his wife or children, or makes payments at their behest for this purpose, there would normally be no reason for them to get alarmed or suspect that he has done corruption and is providing money from the wealth earned by him as such. Normal presumption, his children or for that matter any prudent mind would get, would be of his acting bona fide and providing the amounts from his legitimate sources of income. Gulzar Ahmed???s is said to have aided and abated accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani in acquiring illegal assets; and utilizing accounts of PW Sadaf Chohan and Syed Mobin Saeed by parking money therein for such Page 15 of 19purpose. Bail of Agha Siraj Khan Durrani (C.P.No.D-2356/2019) is dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.5747/2021 Agha Siraj Khan Durrani v. The State through Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 50 | Const. P. 268/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Saeed Khan (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 01-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 51 | Const. P. 189/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Fazal Karim & Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-FEB-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 52 | Suit 1769/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | MRS.MAHEEN KATCHI (Plaintiff) VS MRS. TAHIRA KADER (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 10-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 53 | Const. P. 2951/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Fareed Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Prov. of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 09-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 54 | R.A (Civil Revision) 231/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2006 | G.N Corporation & Ors (Applicant) VS Mst Jannat Khatoon (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-AUG-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 55 | II.A. 7/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Raja Zafar Mehmood & others (Appellant) VS Meer Gul & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 22-FEB-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.A.51-K/2021 Mr. Meer Gul v. Mr. Raja Zafar Mehmood & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 56 | Cr.Misc. 465/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2012 | Mst. Sadori (Applicant) VS SSP Ghotki & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-SEP-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 57 | R.A (Civil Revision) 39/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2007 | Nasim Hayat (Applicant) VS Mrs.Naseem Akhtar and another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 22-MAY-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 58 | I. A 2/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2010 | Khadim Hussain & others (Appellant) VS Gul Hassan Tiwano & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 59 | Const. P. 31/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Raza Mohammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 60 | H.C.A 111/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2005 | Muhammad Sabir Awan (Appellant) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Author (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 29-OCT-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 61 | R.A (Civil Revision) 58/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2008 | Gul Zaman (Applicant) VS Mst Rukhsana & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 20-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 62 | Const. P. 3029/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2011 | Muhammad Hassan (Petitioner) VS SHO P.S. Gambhat District Khairpur & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 18-SEP-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 63 | Election Appeal 8/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2016 | Faraz Khan Dahraj & another (Appellant) VS Chief Election Commissioner Sindh Karachi & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 30-MAR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 64 | Const. P. 255/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | M/s Al Raheem & Co (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan | ||||
| 65 | Cr.Bail 1161/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | MUHAMMAD WALEED S/O ABDUL WAHEED (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-NOV-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 08.07.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 66 | Cr.Bail 1882/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | SHAHJAHAN LASHARI S/O MUHAMMAD ESSA (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 22-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the subject case within three (03) months strictly in accordance with law. Let this order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 67 | S.M.A 357/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Syed Zohaib ul Yaqin S/o Muhammad Ajaz ul Yaqin (Petitioner) VS .. (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 08-APR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 68 | M.A. 27/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Abdul Kader Thr. Anwar Shah (Appellant) VS The Court of Xth ADJ, Khi (South) and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-JUN-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 69 | R.A (Civil Revision) 60/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Haji Umar Lakhany & others. (Applicant) VS Mst. Khatoobai Haji Noor Muhammad & others. (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 06-OCT-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 70 | Const. P. 558/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Syed Najaf Ali Shah (since decsd) thr. Syed Azhar (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Iqbal and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 22-FEB-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 71 | Adm.A 5/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | F.T. SELNES, a fishing trawler / vessel (Appellant) VS Mega International Commercial Bank Company Limited, Taiwan, Republic of China (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 31-JUL-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 72 | Const. P. 1711/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Ltd., (Petitioner) VS Pakistan, through the Secretary, Revenue Division & Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad& 2 others, (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 73 | Const. P. 674/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Muhammad Nasir Kaleem (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Khizar Khan & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 22-NOV-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 74 | Const. P. 369/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana; attached cases: C.P. No. 404, 482, 763 & 774 of 2012 | 2010 | Mst; Shaista Gaad (Petitioner) VS The Secretary Education and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-SEP-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 75 | Civil Revision 174/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 76 | Suit.B 125/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS Century 21 Textile & Sportswear (Pvt.) Limited and others (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 15-JAN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 77 | Const. P. 3319/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Muhammad Ayub (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-APR-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.1685/2012 N.A.D.R.A. thr. its Chairman, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ayub & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | ||
| 78 | Const. P. 267/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | All Pakistan Security Agencies (Petitioner) VS Fedration of pakistan (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 79 | I. A 121/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Asif Kudia (Appellant) VS M/s. KASB Bank Limited & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 10-JUN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 80 | Adm. Suit 684/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2003 | Engro Fertilizers Limited. (Plaintiff) VS The Federation of Pakistan. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 21-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 81 | H.C.A 235/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Chief Engineer, Building and Road Department, Government of Balochistan Quetta (Appellant) VS M/s Umar Khan through Mr. Mumar Khan Managing Partner I-E-4/1-A Nazimabad Karachi (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-JUN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.1552/2014 Chief Engineer, Bulding & Road Department, Govt. of Balochistan, Quetta v. M/s Umar Khan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 82 | Suit 127/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2007 | Muhammad Akbar (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Tariq & others (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 15-APR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 83 | Const. P. 464/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2005 | Amir Ali (Petitioner) VS City District Government Karachi & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-OCT-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 84 | J.M 1/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | United Banik Limited (Applicant) VS Gulistan Textile Mills Limited (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 20-DEC-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 85 | Suit.B 40/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | M/S Meezan Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS A. H. International (Private) Limited & others (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 16-AUG-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 86 | Const. P. 3607/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | abc (Petitioner) VS xyz (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 87 | II.A. 84/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Pervaiz Iqbal (Appellant) VS Faisal Akram (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 30-AUG-17 | Yes | Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 30.08.2017 whereby this appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, the impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and Suit No.563/2010 for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the appellant was dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.P.61-K/2018 Faisal Akram v. Pervaiz Iqbal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 88 | I. A 100/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Farhat Fareed Sheikh (Appellant) VS NIB Bank Limited and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-MAR-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.A.26-K/2020 Muslim Commercial Bank (MCB) Limited v. Mst: Farhat Fareed Shaikh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned | ||
| 89 | Const. P. 2625/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Faizan Shabbir S/o Shabbir Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Shaikh Abdul Wahab thorugh Afsarullah Khan & ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-MAY-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 90 | H.C.A 440/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | M/s. Zamzama Builders & Developers (Appellant) VS Cantonment Board Fasial & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-DEC-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain | ||||
| 91 | Const. P. 6183/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Mazhar Ali Magsi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-FEB-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 92 | H.C.A 226/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2005 | State Bank of Pakistan (Appellant) VS Mohammad Naeem and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 11-DEC-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.146-K/2019 State Bank of Pakistan v. Muhammad Naeem & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | ||
| 93 | Const. P. 2149/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: Const. P D 4729/2015 | 2015 | Abdul Hameed and another (Petitioner) VS Provicne of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 30-MAY-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 94 | Const. P. 1593/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Khalid Hussain (Petitioner) VS IInd ADJ Karachi Central & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-JUL-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.532-K/2019 Khalid Hussain v. Syed Nazir Hussain Rizvi (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 95 | Const. P. 2580/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Ms. Samina (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 96 | Const. P. 1339/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Kashif Ali (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 97 | 2022 PLC (CS) Note 1 | Const. P. 3123/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Rubina Bano and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 98 | Const. P. 131/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | Dr Shaista Shah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 99 | Const. P. 3596/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Sayeda Kiran Batool (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 100 | Const. P. 87/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Fayyaz Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 101 | Const. P. 738/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Amjad Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 102 | Const. P. 758/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mst. Nighat Sultana (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 103 | Const. P. 3199/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Anees Raja (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 104 | Const. P. 3504/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Manzoor Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 105 | Const. P. 848/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Shahid Hussain (Petitioner) VS Chief Secretary and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 106 | Const. P. 3146/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Lala Aijaz (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 107 | Const. P. 2965/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Bashir Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 108 | Const. P. 377/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Ali Raza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 109 | Const. P. 43/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Samuel Parvaiz (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 110 | Const. P. 136/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Amjad Ali (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 111 | Const. P. 2510/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst.Razia Bibi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 112 | Const. P. 1140/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Muhammad Awais (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 113 | Const. P. 2467/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Boota Masih (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 114 | Const. P. 1268/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Allah Warrayo (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 115 | Const. P. 721/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Umer Din Mehar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-DEC-19 | Yes | Irrigation matter | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 116 | Const. P. 1347/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Muhammad Rafique (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 117 | Const. P. 32/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Azizullah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 118 | Const. P. 2114/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Ghulam Rasool (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 119 | F.R.A 12/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Airport Hotel (Appellant) VS Mrs. Ishrat Rasheed & Another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 120 | Const. P. 19/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Sikandar Ali Malah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-OCT-20 | Yes | In view of the foregoing discussion, the competent authority of respondents is directed to issue a retirement order of the petitioner in BPS-17/18 under the law and to pay his full pensionary benefits, from the date of attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 31.12.2011 as admissible to him under the law within one month from the date of receipt of this order. The competent authority of the respondent is also directed to recalculate the pensionary benefits of the petitioners and increases accrued thereon the withheld pensionary benefits with effect from 31.12.2011 to date. Petition and pending applications are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 121 | Const. P. 2978/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Khalid Hussain and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 122 | H.C.A 253/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | K-Electric Ltd. (Appellant) VS Syed Anwar Ali & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-DEC-20 | Yes | KESC--Whether suit is maintainable by the retired employee of the KESC in the present form? 2. Whether through the KESC Officers Policy 2010, certain benefits to the Plaintiff under the previous policy, can be withdrawn by the Defendant ???? | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.507/2021 K-Electric Ltd, Karachi v. Syed Anwar Ali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned | |
| 123 | Const. P. 6431/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Irshad Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-APR-20 | Yes | Issue notice to all the respondents as well as to learned Advocate General Sindh for compliance. To come up on 22.04.2020 at 11:00 a.m. when respondents 4 and 5 shall be in attendance. Respondents 4 and 5 are directed to submit before this Court on the next date hearing a list of all such employees of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh who were absorbed / appointed at any post and are still holding such post, and also the notification of repatriation of respondent No.7 to his parent department. Issue notice to all the respondents as well as to learned Advocate General Sindh for compliance. To come up on 22.04.2020 at 11:00 a.m. when respondents 4 and 5 shall be in attendance. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 124 | Const. P. 2546/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Aftab Ahmed Mahar (Petitioner) VS The Speaker Provincial Assembly and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-MAY-20 | Yes | Petitioner has questioned his repatriation from the Secretariat of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh to his parent department i.e. Education Department, Government of Sindh --In view of the above, petitioner is liable to return the entire amount received by him during the entire said period towards differential in the pay scale of BPS-9 to BPS-19 and respondents are duty-bound to recover such amount from him and deposit the same in the Government exchequer. The Secretary Education & Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, respondent No.2 / Secretary Provincial Assembly of Sindh and Accountant General Sindh, are jointly and severally directed to calculate the differential amount recoverable from the petitioner and to submit a statement in this behalf through MIT-II of this Court, without fail within eight (08) weeks from today. Petitioner has questioned his repatriation from the Secretariat of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh to his parent department i.e. Education Department, Government of Sindh --In view of the above, petitioner is liable to return the entire amount received by him during the entire said period towards differential in the pay scale of BPS-9 to BPS-19 and respondents are duty-bound to recover such amount from him and deposit the same in the Government exchequer. The Secretary Education & Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, respondent No.2 / Secretary Provincial Assembly of Sindh and Accountant General Sindh, are jointly and severally directed to calculate the differential amount recoverable from the petitioner and to submit a statement in this behalf through MIT-II of this Court, without fail within eight (08) weeks from today. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1879/2020 Aftab Ahmed Mahar v. Speaker Provincial Assembly of Sindh, Karachi & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 125 | Const. P. 7189/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Sharif Kalhoro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 21-FEB-20 | Yes | Petitioner has impugned his frequent transfer and posting order dated 04.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.2-Agriculture Supply and Prices Department, Government of Sindh--It is a well settled law that the transfer and posting falls within the ambit of expression ???terms and conditions of service??? and the petitioner cannot claim a vested right on a particular post at a particular place. Therefore, the forum chosen by the petitioner by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law. On the aforesaid proposition, the recent decision dated 16.1.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2019 is clear in its terms--Dismissed. Petitioner has impugned his frequent transfer and posting order dated 04.11.2019 issued by the respondent No.2-Agriculture Supply and Prices Department, Government of Sindh--It is a well settled law that the transfer and posting falls within the ambit of expression ???terms and conditions of service??? and the petitioner cannot claim a vested right on a particular post at a particular place. Therefore, the forum chosen by the petitioner by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law. On the aforesaid proposition, the recent decision dated 16.1.2020 of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in Criminal Appeal No.622 of 2019 is clear in its terms--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 126 | Const. P. 6632/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Fareed Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-OCT-20 | Yes | regularization in MDA--In our view, every post is required to be filled through the method prescribed by law not otherwise. In the present case, the petitioners are admittedly Adhoc and contractual employees of the respondent-authority and thus have no vested right for regular appointment. So far as contract employment is concerned, In our view, a contract employee, whose period of contract employment expires by efflux of time, carries no vested right to remain in employment and this Court cannot force the respondent-authority to regularize or extend the contract period of the petitioners in writ jurisdiction. Prima-facie we do not see any illegality in advertising the subject posts to be filled through a competitive process, which is the requirement of law--It is well-settled that if a policy manifestly inconsistent with the Constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the populace is not immune from judicial review. regularization in MDA--In our view, every post is required to be filled through the method prescribed by law not otherwise. In the present case, the petitioners are admittedly Adhoc and contractual employees of the respondent-authority and thus have no vested right for regular appointment. So far as contract employment is concerned, In our view, a contract employee, whose period of contract employment expires by efflux of time, carries no vested right to remain in employment and this Court cannot force the respondent-authority to regularize or extend the contract period of the petitioners in writ jurisdiction. Prima-facie we do not see any illegality in advertising the subject posts to be filled through a competitive process, which is the requirement of law--It is well-settled that if a policy manifestly inconsistent with the Constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the populace is not immune from judicial review. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.3640/2020 Abdul Haque Shaikh and others v. Province of Sindh thr. its Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Sindh Sectt. Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed | |
| 127 | Const. P. 4542/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Abdul Rasheed (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 21-OCT-20 | Yes | In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the statement dated 20.10.2020 filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, and submission of learned AAG, this Court is left with no option but to direct the Respondents to place Petitioners??? promotion case before the Provincial Selection Board-II in its next Meeting within one month positively from the receipt of a copy of this order. The Provincial Selection Board-II shall consider the Petitioner's case fairly and justly under law, rules and regulations and the result thereof be conveyed to the MIT-II of this Court. Disposed of. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 128 | Const. P. 7122/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Zamir Hussain Ujjan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 04-MAR-20 | Yes | Without touching the merits of the cases and by consent the competent authority of the respondent-department is directed to place the cases of petitioners for consideration of their regularization under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, before the relevant Committee constituted by the Government of Sindh. Without touching the merits of the cases and by consent the competent authority of the respondent-department is directed to place the cases of petitioners for consideration of their regularization under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, before the relevant Committee constituted by the Government of Sindh. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 129 | Const. P. 3479/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Irfanullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 02-MAR-20 | Yes | the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Meter Reader, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits--In view of the above discussion, this petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority of respondents to include nine (09) years??? service of daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular and recalculate his service / retiring dues and other allied benefits and the same be paid to him in accordance with law. Respondents are further directed to process and complete the entire service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of receiving this judgment. No order as to costs. the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Meter Reader, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits--In view of the above discussion, this petition is disposed of by directing the competent authority of respondents to include nine (09) years??? service of daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular and recalculate his service / retiring dues and other allied benefits and the same be paid to him in accordance with law. Respondents are further directed to process and complete the entire service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of receiving this judgment. No order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1662/2020 Civil Aviation Authority thr. its Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Muhammad Irfan Ullah and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 130 | 2022 PLC (CS) 307 | Const. P. 6948/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Anis Haroon and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-JAN-21 | Yes | i) Whether the post of Permanent Representative of Pakistan to the United Nations is to be filled amongst the career foreign service officers or eminent personalities from business, media, law, and other areas on a contract basis ; ii) Whether the Prime Minister of Pakistan is the competent authority under Rule 15(1)(g)(h) of the Rules of Business, 1973 or the Federal Cabinet under Article 90 of the Constitution of Pakistan to make such appointment ; and, iii) Whether appointments on a contract basis are prohibited under or contrary to Section 14 of the Civil Servants Act, 1973, and the Policy unless the conditions specified therein are satisfied? | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||
| 131 | Const. P. 5644/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Mst. Zain un Nisa (Petitioner) VS PTCL and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-NOV-20 | Yes | retired employees / family members of deceased employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (???PTCL???) and claiming a certain amount of contribution on account of Employees Old-Age Benefits--The petitioners are claiming the pensionary benefits under the EOB Act, 1976. We have to see whether petitioners were paid full-service benefits under the VSS scheme introduced by respondent-company in 2008 or are entitled to the issuance of EOBI Cards?--Adverting to the point raised by the petitioners that the respondent-PTCL deposited the requisite contribution with EOBI as such they are entitled to the benefits. We do not agree with the aforesaid proposition for the reason that the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of PTCL as discussed supra directed the respondent-PTCL to pay such contribution under the provision of Employees??? Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and as per the statement of the respondent-PTCL such demand of respondent No.2 was fully satisfied from the relevant period, whereas petitioners during their tenure of service never contributed such EOBI amount to respondent No.2 for payment before their voluntarily retirement. However, we may observe that if the petitioners would not have opted for VSS Scheme, the position of the case would have been different for the simple reason that after their option of VSS, they are estopped to claim such benefits---Dismissed. VSS is a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor is there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act. In the entire scheme of Pension Act and rules, there is nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract in the bargain with their post-retirement or pensionary benefits which they could have availed, for any prompt gain. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 132 | Const. P. 444/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | Mehbob Ali (Petitioner) VS D.C. Sanghar & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Prima-facie the subject land is reserved for Musafir khana which is for the people of area, legal title may vest in the Government, but such title, and the exercise of powers based thereon, is to be exercised in public interest, in accordance with the Constitution and the laws framed thereunder. Similarly, in the case reported as Ardeshir Cowasjee and 10 others v. Karachi Building Control Authority (KMC), Karachi and 4 others (1999 SCMR 2883) in somewhat similar facts in respect of a plot which was carved out within a park area, the Hon???ble Supreme Court has held that an amenity plot cannot be used for any commercial purpose. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 133 | Const. P. 8261/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Attaullah Arbab (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-OCT-20 | Yes | Repatriation from the post of Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad to his parent department i.e. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vide Notification dated 12.2.2016 issued by Chief Secretary--whether the petitioner was qualified to be inducted from Sui Southern Gas Company in Sindh Government on deputation for three years' And, whether the Chief Minister, Sindh was competent to nominate the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner in Ex-PCS cadre under the Rule 5(4) (b) of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964? and, whether his repatriation to his parent department is in accord with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?--It is well-settled law that a deputationist does not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period. He can be repatriated to his parent department at any time. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Shafiur Rehman Afridi v. CDA, 2010 SCMR 378, has settled the issue on the aforesaid proposition. Therefore, no further deliberation is required by us--In our view, since the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters is still in the field, we are bound to follow it under the Constitution. Besides the respondents have issued the impugned notification in pursuance of the orders passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings, therefore, no indulgence of this Court is required in the present matter--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 134 | Const. P. 1471/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Nadeem (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & OtherS (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 135 | Cr.Bail 1401/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | USMAN S/O AHRAR (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 13-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant Usman son of Ahrar is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 136 | Const. P. 1640/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Shahana Durrani (Petitioner) VS NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Petitioners, accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc., are identified as Benamidar/ostensible owners of the properties actually owned and possessed by him. We come to the case of family members of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani (his wife, a son and three daughters). It is noted, they have been identified as Benamidar owners of certain properties like plots, flats ,bungalows, vehicles .s. Allegation to provide finance to purchase the properties is against him, and not against his family members. there is no evidence or even allegation that his family members were either privy to his alleged acts of depravity, aiding and abetting him. Petition of Shahana Durrani (C.P.No.D-1640/2020),, is allowed and bail is confirmed on the same granted ad interim pre arrest bail on. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.6346/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Shahana Durrani Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 137 | Const. P. 1776/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Tufail Ahmed Shah (Petitioner) VS NAB (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc. Tufail Ahmed Shah in acquiring a property againstRs.46,000,000.00 in phase VI DHA Karachi by getting pay orders issued in his name. He denied his role in the investigation. But bank record goes against him and implicates him in the alleged offence .h huge amount despite being a low-paid employee, nor could he refute his nexus with accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani in such circumstances. No case for pre arrest bail, Hence , dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.1680-K/2021 Taufail Ahmed Shah v. National Accountabilty Bureau Sindh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous | |
| 138 | Const. P. 17/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Muhammad Sadique (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Tahir & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 08-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 139 | Const. P. 274/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Mst. Yasmeen & another (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 29-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 140 | I. A 73/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Mustafa Ahmed & another (Appellant) VS M/s Allied Bank and another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 09-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 141 | Const. P. 53/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Mst Gulshad Khatton (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 142 | I. A 7/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2014 | Chaudhry Abdul Jabbar (Appellant) VS Presiding Officer, Banking Court-II, Sukkur & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 143 | Election Appeal 28/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2016 | Abdullah Bahleem (Appellant) VS Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 16-FEB-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 144 | Const. P. 1307/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-JUL-21 | Yes | We have examined the layout plan, drawings and Google map of the project available on record, wherein the actual path of the project and the bigger curve proposed by the University have been distinctly shown. It is clear from the above that if the impugned alignment is altered by including the bigger curve proposed by the University, the overall length of the project will be increased by several kilometers, and a portion of the said proposed bigger curve will pass through the oil and gas fields of OGDC. In such an event, the cost of the project and the time required for its completion will be increased substantially, and the said oil and gas fields will be exposed to the public / commuters and heavy construction machinery which may result into a disaster. Therefore, in addition to the legal position discussed above, prima facie, the proposal made by the University does not appear to be practical and safe for the commuters, public at large and the people working at the said oil and gas fields. In view of the object, purpose and urgent need of the project, it shall be in the public interest that the same is completed expeditiously. As a result of the above discussion, C.P. No.1307/2020 and all the applications pending therein are dismissed ; and C.P. No.05/2021 is disposed of by directing the Government and the acquiring agency to complete the project and the land acquisition proceedings in respect thereof expeditiously and strictly in terms of the Act. There will be no order as to costs in any of the subject petitions. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan | |||
| 145 | R.A (Civil Revision) 180/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Muhammad Soomar (Applicant) VS Javed Ali & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 26-FEB-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 146 | Const. P. 100/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Muhammad Moosa (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 147 | 2012 CLC 1293, 2012 SBLR Sindh 611 | H.C.A 22/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Arshad Naseemuddin Ahmed (Appellant) VS Javed Baloch & Ors. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 02-MAY-12 | Yes | It is neither obligatory nor lawful to have always decide the application under section 47 and Order XXI rule 95, 100, 103 CPC by recording the evidence. It actually depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Single Judge has done nothing wrong while dismissing the application summarily since there was no material or facts which were required to be investigated. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) | ||
| 148 | Const. P. 689/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Syed Wajid Ali Rizvi S/o Syed Mubarak Ali Rizvi (Petitioner) VS Xth Rent Controller, Karachi East and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 26-NOV-21 | Yes | In view of the above discussion, the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below do not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, the petition and listed applications are dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 149 | I. A 39/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Syed Ameer Ali & Ors. (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & Another. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 30-MAR-22 | Yes | The appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside with direction to the learned Banking Court to decide the Suit expeditiously. Needless to say the Suit shall proceed ex-parte against appellants 2 and 3 as they did not file any application for leave to defend. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 150 | Const. P. 2465/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Abdul Majeed Sohail (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Mahboob-uz-Zaman Khan & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 25-FEB-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 151 | I. A 14/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Mst. Pathani (Appellant) VS Habib Bank Ltd and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 20-APR-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 152 | I. A 97/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | M/s.United Bank Ltd (Appellant) VS M.Mubeen Khan (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 30-APR-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 153 | Suit 949/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | HAJI NAIMATULLAH (Plaintiff) VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ANOTHER (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-DEC-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 154 | Suit 1699/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | ABBAS ALI (Plaintiff) VS ASIF ABBAS & ORS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 01-AUG-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 155 | Suit 1673/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | Mrs. Shamshad Begum and another (Plaintiff) VS Syed Iftikhar Hussain Jaffary and others (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 19-DEC-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 156 | I. A 48/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | M/s. Sadia Industries & 3 others (Appellant) VS Soneri Bank Limited (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 157 | Suit.B 52/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | National Bank of Pakistan (Plaintiff) VS M/S ARK Garments Industry (Pvt.) Ltd. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 15-JAN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 158 | Suit 727/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2008 | BAYER AG and Bayer Health Care AG (Plaintiff) VS Bayhealth Care (Private) Limited & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 27-MAY-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 159 | Civil Revision 53/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Order | 11-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 160 | Suit 812/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2001 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-DEC-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 161 | Const. P. 288/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Syed Sajid Abbas Rizivi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Naureen and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 25-APR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 162 | Cr.Misc. 43/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2014 | Nizamuddin alias Nizam Brohi (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-MAR-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto | ||||
| 163 | Suit 1544/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Kamran Ali Khan and another (Plaintiff) VS Vaneeza Umeran and others (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 19-SEP-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 164 | Const. P. 2288/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Ms. Azra Muqeem (Petitioner) VS KMC & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-DEC-20 | Yes | Under Article 199 of Constitution ??????????????? In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons alluded above, we are not satisfied with the explanation offered by the alleged contemnors that substantial compliance of the Judgment dated 23.01.2018 passed by this Court affirmed by the Hon???ble Supreme Court vide order dated 09.07.2018 passed in Civil Petition No.322-K / 2018 has not been complied with in its letter and spirit. Therefore, at this juncture, prima facie, Petitioner No.2 has made out a case for initiating contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors. Therefore, the office is directed to issue show cause notice under section 17 (1) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance 2003 read with Article 204 of the Constitution, as to why contempt proceedings should not be initiated against them for willful defiance of the Judgment. The listed application bearing (CMA No. 7200 of 2019), is adjourned to be taken up in the second week of January 2021. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.322-K/2018 Khursheed Mukaram v. Ms. Azra Muqeem and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Dismissed | |
| 165 | Const. P. 1642/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Muhammad Ashraf and another (Petitioner) VS Faisal Cantonment Board and another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-FEB-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 166 | Const. P. 1007/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2018 | Muhammad Mehboob (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 167 | Const. P. 6286/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Abdul Majeed & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-DEC-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 168 | Const. P. 527/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Agha Shoaib Abbas and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 15-DEC-20 | Yes | Contempt--Primarily substantial compliance of the judgment passed by this Court has been made. Prima-facie, the question of not considering some of the petitioners in the regularization process cannot be decided in contempt proceedings, which is a separate cause of action and it is for the aggrieved petitioners to avail their remedy as provided under the law against the purported action on the part of respondents, if any, for the reasons that the respondent-department was directed to take a fresh decision for regularization of their service, without any discrimination, in accordance with law subject to the budgetary sanction, qualifications, and eligibility of the petitioners, which compliance report has now been submitted. Prima-facie the reasons assigned in the aforesaid report cannot be dilated upon for and against in contempt proceedings. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1421-K/2018 Agha Shoaib Abbas and others v. The Province of Sindh and others,C.P.140-K/2021 Agha Shohaib Abbas & others v. The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed,Pending | |
| 169 | Const. P. 1116/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Muhammad Yaseen (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-DEC-20 | Yes | Prima-facie, the question of downgrading the petitioner in the regularization process cannot be decided in contempt proceedings, which is a separate cause of action and it is for the petitioner to avail his remedy as provided under the law against the purported action on the part of respondent-company, if any. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.882-K/2018 M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and another v. Muhammad Yaseen and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 170 | Const. P. 3102/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Haseeb Malik & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 171 | Const. P. 1151/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ali Gul (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 172 | 2021 MLD 304 | Const. P. 2385/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Qamar Zaman (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 173 | Const. P. 2833/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ali Raza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 174 | Const. P. 348/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Asif Hussain (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 175 | Const. P. 721/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Umer Din Mehar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-DEC-19 | Yes | Irrigation matter | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 176 | F.R.A 14/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Airport Hotel (Appellant) VS S. Imtiazuddin & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 177 | Const. P. 908/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Zahid Khan S/o Muhammad Matloob Khan (Petitioner) VS Mst. Razia Khatoon and another (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 05-SEP-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 178 | Const. P. 1080/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Nabi Bux (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 179 | Const. P. 1709/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Atta Hussain (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 180 | Const. P. 3196/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Raza Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 181 | Const. P. 3306/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Muhammad Amir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 182 | Const. P. 417/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Zameer Hussain (Petitioner) VS Registrar & Campus Administrator & Security Advisor (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 183 | Const. P. 339/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ashfaque Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 184 | Const. P. 2087/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Shazia (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 185 | Const. P. 400/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | Barkat Ali (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 186 | Const. P. 1763/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Noor Hassan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 187 | Const. P. 1857/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Sikandar Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 188 | Const. P. 899/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Hameedullah and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 189 | Const. P. 2588/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Dr Shaista Shah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 190 | Const. P. 2744/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Ghayas (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 191 | I. A 16/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Syed Muhammad Nadeem Shah Bukhari (Appellant) VS Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 14-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 192 | F.R.A 13/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Airport Hotel (Appellant) VS Mrs. Farhat Irshad Nakhuda & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 193 | Const. P. 2576/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Javed Iqbal (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-JAN-21 | Yes | In view of the above discussion, the petitions are not maintainable either on facts or in law. However, before parting with this case, it may be observed that every person has a right to approach a Court of law for redressal of his grievance, whether such grievance is against a private party or a public functionary. Article 199 of the Constitution restricts such right only to an aggrieved person, as contemplated in the said Article, who is aggrieved by any action or order of a public functionary or department or the Provincial or Federal Government. A person coming to Court must be fully aware of his right i.e. whether he is entitled to such right or not. We are constrained to observe that despite the legal position established in view of the plethora of pronouncements by the Hon???ble Supreme Court as discussed above, the present petitioner filed this petition seeking a relief to which he was not entitled under the law. In other words, the petitioner wanted this Court to grant a declaration contrary to the law settled by the Hon???ble Supreme Court. Not only this, he obtained an ad-interim injunction order in these proceedings against the respondent-CAA. Such conduct on his part is not acceptable as he has consumed and wasted valuable time of this Court which could have been utilized to decide genuine and urgent matters. Therefore, the petitions are liable to be dismissed with costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.449-K/2021 Javed Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 194 | Const. P. 1652/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Abdul Qudos Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-MAR-20 | Yes | quo warranto--Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondents 9 to 11 to vacate the office presently they are holding, inter-alia, on the ground that they are not qualified to hold the office and their appointments are hit by Article 199 (1) (b) (ii) of the Constitution, 1973--The above discussions lead us to an irresistible conclusion that the instant petition being incompetent is dismissed in limine along with pending application(s) with no orders as to cost. quo warranto--Through this petition, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of writ of quo warranto against respondents 9 to 11 to vacate the office presently they are holding, inter-alia, on the ground that they are not qualified to hold the office and their appointments are hit by Article 199 (1) (b) (ii) of the Constitution, 1973--The above discussions lead us to an irresistible conclusion that the instant petition being incompetent is dismissed in limine along with pending application(s) with no orders as to cost. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 195 | Const. P. 7450/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Imran Ahmed Khanzada & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 04-DEC-20 | Yes | I. Whether respondent No.4 can hold the charge for the post of Director I.T. in BPS-18 under the law? II. Whether respondent No.4???s case falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013? | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.594-K/2021 Mst.Tabassum Abbasi v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 196 | Const. P. 8251/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Jamal Nasir (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-JAN-20 | Yes | STEVTA--promotion from Assistant Professor (BPS-18) to the post of Associate Professor (BPS-19) in STEVTA under Rule 7-A of the Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974--a civil/government servant is entitled for proforma promotion, once during his service his promotion is approved by the Competent Authority and in the meanwhile if he superannuates, he is entitled for all benefits as admissible under the law--we deem it appropriate to send the matter of the petitioner for the promotion from Assistant Professor (BPS-18) to the post of Associate Professor (BPS-19) in STEVTA to the Competent Authority of Sindh Government for consideration in accordance with law. STEVTA | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 197 | Const. P. 8984/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Farzana Shafiq (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-MAR-20 | Yes | Having failed to seek family pension on the basis of the family assistance package, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking directions to the management of PTVC to grant her family pension--In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the competent authority of respondents is directed to include temporary employment of petitioner??? late husband as his substantive service as regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits. The competent authority of respondents are further directed to complete the entire exercise and recalculate and settle the pensionary / service dues of the petitioner??? late husband within sixty (60) days from the date of this order. Having failed to seek family pension on the basis of the family assistance package, the petitioner has invoked the constitutional jurisdiction of this Court seeking directions to the management of PTVC to grant her family pension--In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the competent authority of respondents is directed to include temporary employment of petitioner??? late husband as his substantive service as regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits. The competent authority of respondents are further directed to complete the entire exercise and recalculate and settle the pensionary / service dues of the petitioner??? late husband within sixty (60) days from the date of this order. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.1756/2020 Managing Director, Pakistan Television Corp. Ltd(PTVC), Islamabad and another v. Farzana Shafique and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed | |
| 198 | Const. P. 1194/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mushtaq Ahmed Sangrasi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-APR-20 | Yes | The petitioners have impugned the recruitment / examination process initiated by the Universities and Boards Department, Government of Sindh, for the posts of Secretary / Controller of Examination Sindh Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, inter-alia, on the ground that the examination process was compromised in order to accommodate the beneficiaries / private respondents, who were having influence and/or were selected for extraneous consideration--We in the aforesaid circumstances hold that recommendation of the Search Committee for appointment of unsuccessful candidates for the aforesaid posts and their subsequent appointments was without lawful authority. We direct the competent authority to hold a fresh interview for the subject posts of only successful candidates declared by IBA, and if the posts are leftover, the same shall be filled only through fresh advertisement on merits. All these petitions are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. The petitioners have impugned the recruitment / examination process initiated by the Universities and Boards Department, Government of Sindh, for the posts of Secretary / Controller of Examination Sindh Boards of Intermediate and Secondary Education, inter-alia, on the ground that the examination process was compromised in order to accommodate the beneficiaries / private respondents, who were having influence and/or were selected for extraneous consideration--We in the aforesaid circumstances hold that recommendation of the Search Committee for appointment of unsuccessful candidates for the aforesaid posts and their subsequent appointments was without lawful authority. We direct the competent authority to hold a fresh interview for the subject posts of only successful candidates declared by IBA, and if the posts are leftover, the same shall be filled only through fresh advertisement on merits. All these petitions are allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.442-K/2020 The Province of Sindh through its Chief Secretary & another v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sangrasi & others,C.P.1840/2020 Aijaz Ali Sahto thr. University & Board Department of the Province fo Sindh and others v. Mushtaq Ahmed Sangrasi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed | |
| 199 | Const. P. 558/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Younus (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 21-DEC-20 | Yes | Basically, the petitioner was appointed as a Clerk in BPS-05 on 02.12.1980 and his grade was enhanced and placed in BPS-06 vide office order dated 27.10.1985. Prima-facie, his juniors have been promoted in various grades whereas the petitioner has been ignored without disclosing his ineligibility or otherwise. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 200 | Const. P. 5850/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Zeeshan Usman (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-APR-20 | Yes | The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were appointed in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) as Executive in Information Technology and Medical Services Department in Grade-I respectively, on contract basis vide office letter dated 14.11.2012. They continued to serve them till 31.12.2017, but their services were not regularized---In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petitions are disposed of in the terms whereby the competent authority of respondent-company is directed to consider the case of the petitioners without any discrimination for regularization of their service in accordance with law, and dicta laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court vide unreported order dated 12.03.2018 passed in Civil Petitions No.67-K and 68-K of 2018, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment--Disposed of. The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were appointed in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) as Executive in Information Technology and Medical Services Department in Grade-I respectively, on contract basis vide office letter dated 14.11.2012. They continued to serve them till 31.12.2017, but their services were not regularized---In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petitions are disposed of in the terms whereby the competent authority of respondent-company is directed to consider the case of the petitioners without any discrimination for regularization of their service in accordance with law, and dicta laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court vide unreported order dated 12.03.2018 passed in Civil Petitions No.67-K and 68-K of 2018, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment--Disposed of. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1754/2020 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited thr. its attorney S.M. Hassan Meerza v. Zeeshan Usmani and others,C.A.936/2020 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited thr. its attorney S.M. Hassan Meerza v. Zeeshan Usmani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 3 months.status quo be maintained.,Disposed Allowed | |
| 201 | Const. P. 3913/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Abdul Ghaffar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-DEC-20 | Yes | i) Whether the petitioner possesses the required qualifications for the post of police Constable (BS-05) in Sindh Police as per recruitment Rules-2016 ? And ii) Whether police Constable (BS-05) in Sindh Police can be recruited on a contract basis and subsequently be regularized in service under the law? | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1725-K/2021 PC.77 Jan Muahmmad & others v. Province of Sindh thorugh Secretary, Home Department Govt, of Sindh & others,C.P.5160/2021 Abdul Ghafar and others v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed ,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time | |
| 202 | 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 309 | Const. P. 7077/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Amanullah and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 203 | 2022 SBLR Sindh 949 | Const. P. 2647/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Dr. Muhammad Ayaz Mustafa (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 15-DEC-20 | Yes | relieving him from the post of Director Anti-Quackery Sindh Health Care Commission (`SHCC`)--In view of the above discussion, the petition is not maintainable either on facts or in law. However, before parting with this case, it may be observed that every person has a right to approach a Court of law for redressal of his grievance, whether such grievance is against a private party or a public functionary. Article 199 of the Constitution restricts such right only to an aggrieved person, as contemplated in the said Article, who is aggrieved by any action or order of a public functionary or department or the Provincial or Federal Government. A person coming to Court must be fully aware of his right i.e. whether he is entitled to such right or not. We are constrained to observe that despite the legal position established in view of the plethora of pronouncements by the Hon???ble Supreme Court as discussed above, the present petitioner filed this petition seeking a relief to which he was not entitled under the law. In other words, the petitioner wanted this Court to grant a declaration contrary to the law settled by the Hon???ble Supreme Court. Not only this, he obtained an ad-interim injunction order in these proceedings against the respondent- SHCC. Such conduct on his part is not acceptable as he has consumed and wasted valuable time of this Court which could have been utilized to decide genuine and urgent matters. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.104-K/2021 Dr.Muhammad Ayaz Mustafa v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending |
| 204 | Const. P. 2860/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Ramzan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-20 | Yes | chowkidar in the office of District & Sessions Judge, Karachi East based on son quota--Therefore, similar relief cannot be claimed by filing subsequent legal proceedings as it would fall within mischief of constructive res-judicata. Reliance is placed on the case of State Bank of Pakistan through Governor and others vs. Imtiaz Ali Khan and others (2012 SCMR 280). 5. In our view, once the stance of the petitioner on the aforesaid analogy has been set at rest by the Administrative Committee, no further action is required on our part in exercising the power under Article 199 of the Constitution as writ does not lie against such decision of the Administrative Committee. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 205 | Const. P. 6200/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Syed Mehdi Hassan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-DEC-20 | Yes | Prima-facie his matter on the subject issue is still subjudice before the learned FST, which is presently not available at Karachi to adjudicate the matter of petitioner. This being the position of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct learned FST to decide the application under Rule 23-A of the Service Tribunals (Procedure) Rules 1974 of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with the law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 206 | H.C.A 108/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Pvt.,Ltd., (Appellant) VS Jan Muhammad & Ors. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 02-MAR-20 | Yes | Land Acquisition Act, 1894 Appeal allowed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author) | |||
| 207 | Const. P. 591/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Okash Khalid Memon & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 18-FEB-20 | Yes | Prime grievance of the petitioners is that Recruitment Rules, framed for the post of Secretary (BPS-17), District Regional Transport Authorities (???DRTA???) and notified on 13.7.2011, provide no room for posting of outsiders, but the respondents in deviation of aforesaid rules are posting the officers of other cadre against the post of Secretary (BPS-17), DRTA---Much emphasis has been laid that the post of Secretary, DRTA, can be filled by the officers of other cadres. We have also noticed that the six (06) posts of Secretary (BPS-17), RTA, and one post of Secretary (BPS-17), PTA, do fall within the ambit of cadre schedule in respect of posts to be filled by officers of PAS, Ex-PCS and PSS. As such, the aforesaid post can only be filled as per Recruitment Rules and subject to eligibility and entitlement, and not otherwise for the simple reason that Provincial Transport Department is a separate cadre and Recruitment Rules are already in the field. The said rules are framed in consultation with the Services, General Administration and Coordination Department, Government of Sindh in pursuance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1974. In view of the above, we do not agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. Prime grievance of the petitioners is that Recruitment Rules, framed for the post of Secretary (BPS-17), District Regional Transport Authorities (???DRTA???) and notified on 13.7.2011, provide no room for posting of outsiders, but the respondents in deviation of aforesaid rules are posting the officers of other cadre against the post of Secretary (BPS-17), DRTA---Much emphasis has been laid that the post of Secretary, DRTA, can be filled by the officers of other cadres. We have also noticed that the six (06) posts of Secretary (BPS-17), RTA, and one post of Secretary (BPS-17), PTA, do fall within the ambit of cadre schedule in respect of posts to be filled by officers of PAS, Ex-PCS and PSS. As such, the aforesaid post can only be filled as per Recruitment Rules and subject to eligibility and entitlement, and not otherwise for the simple reason that Provincial Transport Department is a separate cadre and Recruitment Rules are already in the field. The said rules are framed in consultation with the Services, General Administration and Coordination Department, Government of Sindh in pursuance with sub-rule (2) of Rule 3 of the Rules, 1974. In view of the above, we do not agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioners, therefore, the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.433-K/2020 Okash Khalid Memon v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time | |
| 208 | Const. P. 6236/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Raza Muhammad & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 15-DEC-20 | Yes | The petitioners, in our view, have failed to make out their case for regularization of their service as their case is neither covered under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, nor falls within the ambit of Policy of Government of Sindh, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed in limine along with the pending application(s) with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 209 | Const. P. 2884/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Sikandar Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-MAR-20 | Yes | Petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service in Culture, Tourism and Antiquities Department, Government of Sindh--Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed to the aforesaid posts on contract basis in the projects after the cut-off date i.e. 25th March, 2013 as provided in the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013--It is well-settled law that the regularization of the service is always subject to availability of budgetary post and fulfillment of recruitment criteria, which factor is lacking in the present cases--Dismissed. Petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service in Culture, Tourism and Antiquities Department, Government of Sindh--Admittedly, the petitioners were appointed to the aforesaid posts on contract basis in the projects after the cut-off date i.e. 25th March, 2013 as provided in the Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013--It is well-settled law that the regularization of the service is always subject to availability of budgetary post and fulfillment of recruitment criteria, which factor is lacking in the present cases--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.381-K/2020 Sikandar Ali & others v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 210 | Const. P. 6563/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Mazahar Hussain (Petitioner) VS Senior Director Culture & Sports and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-JAN-20 | Yes | Contempt--This petition was disposed of vide order dated 11.12.2018 with direction to the respondent No.4 to process the case of petitioner in accordance with law and if he qualifies to be appointed / promoted subject to availability of the post, his case may be recommended to Metropolitan Commissioner Karachi for promotion strictly in accordance with the relevant rules and regulations--Therefore, at this juncture, no case for initiating contempt proceedings against the alleged contemnors is made out. Resultantly, CMA No. 7446/2019 is dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 211 | Const. P. 4932/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Abdul Haleem Memon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 21-OCT-20 | Yes | In the attending facts and circumstances of the case, and in view of the statement dated 20.10.2020 filed on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, and submission of learned AAG, this Court is left with no option but to direct the Respondents to place Petitioners' promotion case before the Provincial Selection Board-II in its next Meeting within one month positively from the receipt of a copy of this order. The Provincial Selection Board-II shall consider the Petitioner's case fairly and justly under law, rules and regulations and the result thereof be conveyed to the MIT-II of this Court. Disposed of. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 212 | Const. P. 5481/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Sher Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 213 | Const. P. 340/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | M.Saleem Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-FEB-20 | Yes | We are of the view that the post cannot be upgraded / re-designated merely by passing the Resolution by defunct CDGK, the law has to take its own course and to be followed for the aforesaid purpose for which the petitioner has failed to justify his entitlement for proforma promotion with retrospective effect---It is well-settled that proforma promotion cannot be awarded to a retired government servant with retrospective effect as per dicta laid down by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Pakistan and others vs. Hameed Akhtar Niazi and others , PLD 2003 SC 110--Dismissed. proforma promotion | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 214 | Const. P. 3494/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Ghulam Sarwar and Others (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 215 | Const. P. 1851/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Shamshad Khatoon (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc .This accused has been found to have a commercial plaza built on a plot No.8-C DHA phase II. Karachi, ostensibly entered in the name of his wife Shamshad Khatoon who is also an accused. She is not only shown as the declared owner of that property but has been found related to sale and purchase of at least one more expensive property in DHA Karachi involving an amountofRs.26,500,000.00.Then she herself is a government employee, a teacher, and it is incumbent upon her to declare in her tax returns not only her properties but also the source used to buy them .Bail dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.5840/2021 Shamshad Khatoon v. The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 216 | Const. P. 2235/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Aslam Pervaiz Langah (Petitioner) VS The Chairman NAB and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc., Petitioner Aslam Pervaiz Langah (C.P.No.D-2235/2019)is stated to a broker/estate agent. He is stated to have facilitated Agha Siraj Khan Durani in sale/purchase of certain assets, .But there is nothing palpably incriminating in this, this is what a realtor does to earn his livelihood. Prima facie his role is of doing business with accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani or with the ones acting on his behalf. There is no material to show that he was in collusion with him .Unless the evidence to establish his complicity with accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani for creating layers to conceal his property or income is produced in the trial, his case would fall within the scope of further enquiry and he would be entitled to relief of pre arrest bail. bail is confirmed | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.6308/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Aslam Pervaiz Langah Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 217 | Const. P. 8474/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Sayed Muhammad Shah (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen. Syed Muhammad Shah is identified to have purchased at least three properties in DHA Karachi through pay orders using his name on behalf of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani. Two were the plots purchased in the name of Munwar Ali and Ghulam Murtaza, who are co-accused and have been drivers of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani. No case for pre arrest bail, Hence , dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 218 | Const. P. 528/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Mst. Nusrat & another (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 29-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 219 | Const. P. 52/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Muhammad Ibrahim & anothers (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 220 | Const. P. 3597/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Abdul Rauf Khan (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-MAR-20 | Yes | Petitioners questioned their transfer and posting orders issued by the respondent-Cantonment Board by invoking Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court asserting that the post against which the petitioners were appointed was/is a non-transferable under Sub-Rule (I) of Rule 5 of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 221 | Suit 206/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | MST.GULSHAN NASEEM (Plaintiff) VS IZHARUDDIN (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 01-NOV-11 | Yes | Foregoing are the reasons for the short Order announced by me on 01.11.2012 whereby this Suit was decreed with costs against the defendant as prayed by the plaintiff. All pending applications, including CMA Nos.1465/2010, are disposed of in view of this judgment. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 222 | Const. P. 2804/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2016 | Muhammad Nawaz Bugti (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-JAN-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 223 | Cr.J.A 177/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | Umar Wahid (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 25-OCT-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 224 | Cr.Bail 498/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2012 | Qasim Pitafi (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 04-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 225 | I. A 72/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Mustafa & another (Appellant) VS M/s Allied Bank & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 09-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 226 | Civil Revision 80/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2017 | Abdul Qadir Memon (Applicant) VS Shahid Umar Rajput (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 18-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 227 | R.A (Civil Revision) 185/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2010 | District Coordination Officer Sukkur & others (Applicant) VS Khan Muhammad & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 228 | First Appeal Against Order 6/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2015 | Yameen Ali (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 229 | I. A 15/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Habib Bank Limited (Appellant) VS Ajiaz Ali Khaskheli & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-FEB-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 230 | R.A (Civil Revision) 53/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Muhammad Siddique (Applicant) VS Abdul Rehman (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 11-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 231 | J.M 50/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2005 | MUHAMMAD YOUNUS (Applicant) VS VENUE GURDAS ADVANI & ORS. (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 16-SEP-14 | Yes | After minutely examining the applications in hand and the material on record as well as the law cited at the bar with the able assistance of the learned counsel for the parties and giving due consideration to the arguments advanced by them, the conclusion of the above discussion is that the applicants have no locus standi to file the instant applications ; the impugned orders could not be challenged under Section 12(2) CPC ; the fraud alleged by the applicants was not in connection with the proceedings before the Court nor was any fraud played upon the Court when the impugned orders were passed ; the applicants have failed to fulfill the mandatory requirement of Section 12(2) CPC by not specifically disclosing and pleading the relevant and material details of the alleged fraud ; and, J. Misc. No.47/2012 is hopelessly barred by time. Consequently, J. Misc. No.50/2005 and J. Misc. No.47/2012 are dismissed along with the listed applications with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 232 | Const. P. 374/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Samina Ambreen & Others (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan | ||||
| 233 | Election Appeal 10/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2016 | Muhammad Zaman (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan, through Chief Election Commissioner of Pakistan & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 16-FEB-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 234 | Cr.Bail 1655/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | NIZAM @ NIZAMI S/O MUHAMMAD HASSAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-NOV-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the subject case within three (03) months strictly in accordance with law. Let this order be communicated to the learned trial Court for compliance. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 235 | Const. P. 1536/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | shafi Muhammad and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-NOV-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 236 | Cr.Bail 1198/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | ABRAR AHMED SIDDIQUI S/O MUKHTAR AHMED (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 22-APR-22 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Abrar Ahmed Siddiqi has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 23.06.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. It is clarified that the observations made herein are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the case of either party nor shall they influence the learned trial Court in any manner in deciding the case strictly on merits in accordance with law. This bail application is allowed in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 237 | Const. P. 912/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2015 | Zahid Ali and another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-NOV-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 238 | Const. P. 1721/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Ghulam Qadir Otho (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-NOV-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.327/2022 Ghulam Qadir Otho v. Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 239 | Const. P. 622/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: C. Ps. Nos. D-623, 626, 628, 633 and 678 of 2022 | 2022 | Saeed Ahmed Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Chief Election Commission Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 22-JUN-22 | Yes | Declaration of assets in Local Government Elections | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput | |||
| 240 | H.C.A 74/2006 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | Union Bank Limited (Appellant) VS Mohammad Naeem and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 11-DEC-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.411-K/2019 Union Bank Limited v. Muhammad Naeem & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | ||
| 241 | Suit 1107/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | M/S. CRESENT STEEL & ALLIED PRODUCTS LTD (Plaintiff) VS SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINE LTD & ANOTHER (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 10-DEC-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 242 | Civil Revision 184/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Syed Murshad Ali (Applicant) VS Syed Amjad Ali and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 31-MAR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.174-K/2014 Syed Amjad Ali and another v. Syed Murshad Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | ||
| 243 | Suit 1373/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Amir Karim (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Asif & others (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 26-JUN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 244 | Suit 560/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2000 | Nasreen Yousuf (Plaintiff) VS Aijaz Safdar Kiyani and others (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 24-DEC-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 245 | 2017 PLD 88 | H.C.A 147/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | M/S Tee Jays Exclusive (Pvt.) Limited & another (Appellant) VS Muhammad Naveed (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.A.138-K/2016 M/s Tee Jays Exclusive (Pvt) Ltd and another v. Muhammad Naveed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned | |
| 246 | Const. P. 903/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2017 | Muhammad Nasir Siddiqui & others (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Qasim Ansari & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 20-JUL-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.945-K/2018 Muhammad Qasim Ansari v. Muhammad Nasir Siddiqui and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 247 | I. A 99/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Ayub Raza (Appellant) VS M/S. Bank Al-Falah Limited & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 248 | Const. P. 6378/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Mst. Fatima Begum (Petitioner) VS Bashir Ahmed and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-DEC-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 249 | 2018 MLD 82 | Suit 906/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Pakistan Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) (Plaintiff) VS M/S CCI - AG, AN IMI Company and others (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 18-JUL-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 250 | I. A 28/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | MCR (Pvt) Ltd. & another (Appellant) VS Soneri Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-FEB-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.A.5-K/2019 Soneri Bank Limited v. MCR (Pvt) Ltd and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | ||
| 251 | Const. P. 964/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ali Raza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 252 | Const. P. 429/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Naushad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 253 | Const. P. 280/2004 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2004 | Pervaiz (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 254 | Const. P. 920/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Shaikh Nabi Bux (Petitioner) VS Mukhtiarkar Revenue Nagarparkar and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 255 | Const. P. 635/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Bibi Sakeena and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 256 | Const. P. 1524/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 257 | Const. P. 1937/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Arbab Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 258 | Const. P. 1260/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Attique Ahmed & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 259 | F.R.A 9/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Airport Hotel (Appellant) VS Khawaja Ahsan Mehmood & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 260 | Const. P. 2378/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Nazia (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 261 | Const. P. 3360/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Ghulam Mustafa (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 262 | Const. P. 1605/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Habib ullah Khan Kalhoro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 263 | Const. P. 472/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Zohaib (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 264 | 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 266 | Const. P. 2054/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Natho (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 265 | Const. P. 3193/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Muneer Ahmed Shoro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 266 | Const. P. 50/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Junaid Muzahir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 267 | Const. P. 2261/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Wagho (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 268 | Const. P. 139/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Abdul Sattar and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 269 | Const. P. 358/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Noorunisa @ Fatima and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 270 | Const. P. 1659/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2015 | Miss Sanam & others (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.99-K/2020 Director (Legal) WAPDA v. Miss Sanam and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time | ||
| 271 | Const. P. 221/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Altaf Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 272 | Const. P. 1578/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Uris (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 273 | Const. P. 10/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Zafar Ali Khushk (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 274 | Const. P. 2574/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Ghulam Nabi & Others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 275 | Const. P. 2011/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Anwar and another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 276 | Const. P. 7506/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Abdul Razzaque & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 04-MAR-20 | Yes | Petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service in Directorate of Human Rights, Government of Sindh. They have alleged that their cases were put up before the Selection Committee on 20.03.2018 wherein minutes in this regard were prepared and the Committee, without assigning valid and cogent reasons and in a scanty and vague manner, did not consider their cases for regularization which action is impugned through the captioned petitions before this Court--Without touching the merits of the cases and by consent the competent authority of the respondent-department is directed to place the cases of petitioners for consideration of their regularization under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, before the relevant Committee constituted by the Government of Sindh. Petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service in Directorate of Human Rights, Government of Sindh. They have alleged that their cases were put up before the Selection Committee on 20.03.2018 wherein minutes in this regard were prepared and the Committee, without assigning valid and cogent reasons and in a scanty and vague manner, did not consider their cases for regularization which action is impugned through the captioned petitions before this Court--Without touching the merits of the cases and by consent the competent authority of the respondent-department is directed to place the cases of petitioners for consideration of their regularization under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, before the relevant Committee constituted by the Government of Sindh. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 277 | Const. P. 876/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Shakir Ali (Petitioner) VS NAB and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 04-DEC-20 | Yes | Both these petitions are allowed, however, with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioners from service are hereby set aside and their cases are remanded back to the competent authority of NAB for holding regular inquiry against them after providing opportunity of hearing / representation to them strictly in accordance with law, which exercise shall be completed within three (03) months from the date hereof. Needless to say the question of granting back benefits to the petitioners shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry to be held in pursuance of this judgment. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.736/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau thr. P.G. NAB, Islamabad v. Shakir Ali Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | |
| 278 | Const. P. 7221/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Talal Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-FEB-20 | Yes | Police Department--Son quota--The aforesaid legal position of the case explicitly shows that there is concept of only deceased quota subject to all just exceptions and not that of son quota. Since petitioner has applied against son quota in the police department, he is not entitled to such relief under the aforesaid provision--Dismissed in limine. Police Department--Son quota--The aforesaid legal position of the case explicitly shows that there is concept of only deceased quota subject to all just exceptions and not that of son quota. Since petitioner has applied against son quota in the police department, he is not entitled to such relief under the aforesaid provision--Dismissed in limine. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 279 | Const. P. 2692/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Shahnawaz and Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 25-NOV-20 | Yes | Seniority matter--SRP--Police Constables--Adverting to the point raised by learned counsel for the petitioners that they were appointed in SRP Karachi and posted in RRF Karachi since 2009, thus their seniority is liable to be maintained in Karachi range, suffice it to say that prima-facie, the RRF was / is not part of the Karachi range, but is a combination of different regions/units of the Sindh police, merely their appointment in SRP Karachi and posting in RRF Karachi does not support their case to the effect that they belonged to Karachi Range Police, for the reason that they never remained posted in the Karachi range police, therefore, their seniority cannot be ordered to be mixed with Karachi range police. The record further reflects that their recommendations for initial appointments by their regional head were made based on their respective place of domicile. Petitioners have failed to point out that their appointment was / is based on Karachi domicile, therefore they are precluded to claim vested right for seniority and promotion at Karachi Range on the aforesaid analogy--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1438-K/2020 Shah Nawaz & others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh & others,C.A.57-K/2021 Shah Nawaz & others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted,Pending | |
| 280 | I. A 31/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Government of Sindh & others (Appellant) VS M/S United Bank Limited (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Appeal was allowed with costs and the impugned judgment and decree were set aside. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 281 | F.R.A 2/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Ahmed Khan (Appellant) VS Javed Ali (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 23-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 282 | Const. P. 4905/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | M/ Sakina Export International Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fayyaz Muhammad and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-OCT-20 | Yes | The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not their employees but the employees of third party contractors. This plea is not tenable in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181), in which the workers employed by the third-party contractor were held to be the workers of the company--Reverting to the third point that there is no specific provision for the award of compensation in the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance, we do not agree with the aforesaid assertion for the simple reason that the learned SLAT has dealt with this issue at pargraphs11 and 12 of the impugned common judgment dated 16.01.2020 and assigned valid reasons to award a reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the private respondents as full and final payment for severance of their employment relationship with the petitioner-company--Dismissed in limine. The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not their employees but the employees of third party contractors. This plea is not tenable in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181), in which the workers employed by the third-party contractor were held to be the workers of the company--Reverting to the third point that there is no specific provision for the award of compensation in the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance, we do not agree with the aforesaid assertion for the simple reason that the learned SLAT has dealt with this issue at pargraphs11 and 12 of the impugned common judgment dated 16.01.2020 and assigned valid reasons to award a reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the private respondents as full and final payment for severance of their employment relationship with the petitioner-company--Dismissed in limine. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 283 | Const. P. 5723/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Abdul Qayoom (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-NOV-20 | Yes | water tankers / business--it is the basic duty of the Karachi Water & Sewerage Board to supply water to the citizens of Karachi. When Karachi Water & Sewerage Board was / is unable to meet the water needs of the city of Karachi, a water tanker mafia had sprung up in Karachi. During the argument, we have been informed that there is certain direction of the Hon'ble Supreme Court for the closing of illegal hydrants from Karachi city. Prima-facie, the Management of KW&SB has failed to remove illegal hydrants operating in the city despite Honorable Supreme Court directions. Moreover, the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan had directed the Management of KW&SB to focus upon their core operations to provide portable water via a regular distribution network. Even, if hydrants are needed, there should be a rational and scientific study to evaluate the need for hydrant services in water-scarce areas. The hydrant services preferably should supply water to improvised population. On the aforesaid proposition, this Court has already settled the issue in the case of Muhammad Rafique Sia vs Province of Sindh and others, 2016 CLC 170. Besides that, the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in HRC No.28963/2014 directed the respondents to take action against illegal and unauthorized hydrants--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 284 | Const. P. 2184/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Humayoon (Petitioner) VS PO Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 285 | Const. P. 5203/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Muhammad Khalid (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 286 | Const. P. 3026/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Muhammad Waris (Petitioner) VS E.O.B.I (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-NOV-20 | Yes | VSS is a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor is there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act. In the entire scheme of Pension Act and rules, there is nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract in the bargain with their post-retirement or pensionary benefits which they could have availed, for any prompt gain. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 287 | Const. P. 1400/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Lt. Commander (R) Engr: Abdul Aziz Narejo (Petitioner) VS K.P.T and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-NOV-20 | Yes | It is well-settled law that the period of adhoc appointment cannot be counted towards service, the seniority in grade is to be taken effect from the date of regular appointment to a post and it cannot be conferred retrospectively. Since the service of the petitioner was confirmed admittedly with effect from 22.11.2019 as such promotion cannot be claimed by him without the requisite length of service except from the date of regular appointment. This reduces to the dictum that an ad-hoc appointee would only be entitled to seniority from the date of his regularization and not from the date of initial appointment. The petitioner accordingly is neither entitled for retrospective seniority nor promotion. This view is cemented by the judgment delivered in the case of Province of Sindh and others vs. Ghulam Farid and others, 2014 SCMR 1189, and Secretary to Government of Punjab and others vs. Muhammad Khalid Usmani and others, 2016 SCMR 2125. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 288 | Const. P. 2889/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Ahmed Kehar (Petitioner) VS Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 15-OCT-20 | Yes | We, based on contentions of the parties with the material produced before us, have concluded that we cannot determine the veracity of these documents, their claims, and counter-claims as these are disputed questions of facts between the parties, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising the Constitutional Jurisdiction and leave it for the Competent Authority to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, claims, and counter-claims, therefore, on the aforesaid plea the present petition filed by the petitioner cannot be maintained--This Court, on the issue of fake appointments in the department of the Government, is guided by the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others V/S Aamir Junaid and others 2015 SCMR 74. We, based on contentions of the parties with the material produced before us, have concluded that we cannot determine the veracity of these documents, their claims, and counter-claims as these are disputed questions of facts between the parties, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising the Constitutional Jurisdiction and leave it for the Competent Authority to determine the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, claims, and counter-claims, therefore, on the aforesaid plea the present petition filed by the petitioner cannot be maintained--This Court, on the issue of fake appointments in the department of the Government, is guided by the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others V/S Aamir Junaid and others 2015 SCMR 74. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 289 | Const. P. 2666/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Saeed Habib (Petitioner) VS National Bank of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-DEC-20 | Yes | NBP--We are constrained to observe that despite the legal position established in view of plethora of pronouncements by the Hon???ble Supreme Court as discussed above, the present petitioner filed this petition seeking a relief to which he was not entitled under the law. In other words, the petitioner wanted this Court to grant a declaration contrary to the law settled by the Hon???ble Supreme Court. Not only this, he obtained an ad-interim injunction order in these proceedings against the respondent-bank. Such conduct on his part is not acceptable as he has consumed and wasted valuable time of this Court which could have been utilized to decide genuine and urgent matters. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.305/2021 Saeed Habib v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 290 | Const. P. 5853/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | National Engineering Servies Pakistan Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-NOV-20 | Yes | reinstatement in service--we may observe that the learned Single Bench of NIRC vide order dated 08.10.2020 allowed the Grievance Application of respondent No.2 and passed ex-parte order, which issue is still subjudice before the learned Full Bench of NIRC, which is presently not available at Karachi to adjudicate the matter of petitioners. This being the position of the case, we deem it appropriate to direct respondent No.5 to decide the case of the petitioners within sixty (60) days from the date of receipt of this order in accordance with the law. Meanwhile, operation of the impugned order dated 08.10.2020 shall remain suspended. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 291 | Const. P. 5391/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Haji M. Ayaz Memon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-DEC-20 | Yes | In view of the statement of learned AAG, let notice be issued to the Chief Secretary, Sindh, to submit complete details of such cases of the Civil / Government Servants who are facing disciplinary proceedings or criminal cases, and enjoying the posting even those who entered into plea bargaining and Voluntary Return (VR) under the NAB law. To be listed on 21.12.2020 at 11:00 a.m. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 292 | Const. P. 483/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Mst. Bakhmina (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-DEC-20 | Yes | In view of the above, this petition is allowed with the direction to the competent authority of the respondent-police department to take the decision afresh as to whether Constable Amjad Ali embraced Shahadat on 26.12.2012 or his case does not fall under the criteria for Shaheed as per The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act-2014.The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by a speaking order within two (2) months from the date of receipt of this order after hearing the petitioner. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 293 | 2022 PLC (CS) 481 | Const. P. 4941/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Jameel Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Post and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-20 | Yes | PTCL-Voluntarily Separation Scheme (VSS)--we are of the considered view that the instant petition falls within the doctrine of laches as the petitioner filed the instant petition in October 2020 whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to him in June 2008, i.e. approximately 12 years before filing of the instant petition--Dismissed in limine. we are of the considered view that the instant petition falls within the doctrine of laches as the petitioner filed the instant petition in November 2011 whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to her in June 2008 when her late husband availed the benefits of VSS, i.e. approximately 04 years before the filing of the instant petition. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||
| 294 | Const. P. 2298/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Syed Shah Mumtaz Alam (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-JAN-20 | Yes | EOBI--pension of the petitioner was stopped by the respondent/institution without disclosing any reasonable cause--We are of the firm view that the petitioner did not qualify the minimum years of service as laid down under Section 22(b) of the Act, whereby the qualifying service for being entitled to pensionary benefits is 15 years, whereas, it is an admitted fact that the petitioner was an employee of the private company and had served it only for a period of 13 years. Petitioner does not meet the requisite criteria stipulated in the said Section to claim old age pension--Adverting to the next contention that the Labor Policy-2010 was fully applicable in the case of parties, in our view, Circular No.3 of 2010 (Policy) cannot override the Act, 1976, therefore, no benefit can be obtained arising out of it--In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant Petition, being devoid of any legal standing, is hereby dismissed along with pending application with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.206-K/2020 Syed Shah Mumtaz Alam v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Islamabad Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 295 | Const. P. 5571/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Majeedullah Khan (Petitioner) VS KW & SB and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-DEC-20 | Yes | correctio in date of birth | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 296 | Civil Revision 12/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Sain Bux & others (Applicant) VS Nadir Ali & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 24-APR-20 | Yes | The Civil Revision Application is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. Impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court is hereby set aside and resultantly the order of learned trial Court is restored. However, respondents 1 to 11 will be at liberty to seek damages, if they are so advised and if permissible under the law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.A.25-K/2020 Nadir Ali & others v. Mst.Bilquees Begum Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 297 | Const. P. 400/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Mir Qadir Bux and Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 298 | Const. P. 630/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Dr. Mushtaq Ahmed Nizamani (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-NOV-20 | Yes | We have noticed that the respondents have complied with the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court passed in Crl. Orig. P No.15-k of 2016 in C.A. 30-K of 2014 and Crl. M.A 37-K of 2017 in Crl. Orig. P No.15-k of 2016 and petitioner has been given a proforma promotion in BPS-20 with effect from 12.3.2017 one day before his retirement from service on 13.3.2017; thus no further indulgence of this court is required in the matter. It is well-settled that proforma promotion cannot be awarded to a retired government servant with retrospective effect as per dicta laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Government of Pakistan and others vs. Hameed Akhtar Niazi and others, PLD 2003 SC 110--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 299 | Const. P. 6256/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Rizwan Farooq (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-MAR-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.259-K/2020 Fazal-e-Rabbi v. Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Housing & Works & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 300 | Const. P. 2308/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Zubair Javed (Petitioner) VS Speaker Sindh Assembly & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-APR-20 | Yes | Issue notice to the respondents as well as to learned Advocate General Sindh with direction to file comments before the next date of hearing. Till the next date of hearing, operation of impugned Notification dated 21.04.2020 (page 37) shall remain suspended. To be listed on 14.05.2020 at 11:00 a.m. along with C.P No.D-6431/2019. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 301 | Const. P. 2318/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Ahsan Ali Chohan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-NOV-20 | Yes | Contempt proceedings--The explanation offered by the respondents, prima-facie, is tenable under the law as the petitioner was considered for the promotion in DPC in compliance of the order passed by this Court on 12.05.2020. It is noted that the representative of SGA&CD opined for deferment of the promotion of the petitioner and consideration of his case after finalization of the proceedings against him, in our view, this is the correct approach. Prima-facie such decision of the DPC to clear him for promotion during the pendency of criminal proceedings is erroneous. However, his deferment shall be subject to the outcome of the criminal proceedings presently pending against him. This view is fortified by the decision rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mst. Ifat Nazir vs. Government of Punjab and others, 2009 SCMR 703. It is well-settled law that in case of promotion vested / fundamental rights cannot be claimed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 302 | Const. P. 2271/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Ms. Shama Hassan and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-FEB-20 | Yes | The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed by Pakistan Steel Mills and presently performing their duties as teaching and non-teaching staff in the Education Department of Pakistan Steel in terms of letters of contracts issued by Hadeed Welfare Trust for the last many years and are seeking regularization of their contractual services on the strength of order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition Nos.121-K and 122-K of 2017---Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of in terms of orders dated 21.03.2017 and 03.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid matters, with no order as costs. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioners were initially appointed by Pakistan Steel Mills and presently performing their duties as teaching and non-teaching staff in the Education Department of Pakistan Steel in terms of letters of contracts issued by Hadeed Welfare Trust for the last many years and are seeking regularization of their contractual services on the strength of order dated 21.03.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in Civil Petition Nos.121-K and 122-K of 2017---Accordingly, these petitions are disposed of in terms of orders dated 21.03.2017 and 03.06.2019 passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the aforesaid matters, with no order as costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1793/2020 M/s. Pakistan Steel Mills Corporation Ltd thr. its CEO/Chairman and another v. Ms. Shama Hassan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | |
| 303 | Const. P. 53/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Ibrahim (Petitioner) VS Post Master General Khi and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-JAN-20 | Yes | Record reflects that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2019, therefore, no further recovery can be initiated from his pensionery benefits. The respondents are directed to adjust the deducted amount in the pensionery benefits of the petitioner accordingly. Record reflects that petitioner has attained the age of superannuation in the year 2019, therefore, no further recovery can be initiated from his pensionery benefits. The respondents are directed to adjust the deducted amount in the pensionery benefits of the petitioner accordingly. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1222/2020 Director General, Pakistan Post, Islamabad & others v. Muhammad Ibrahim Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 304 | Const. P. 6623/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Shakeel Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc., Shakeel Ahmed Soomro is town officer of Garhi Yasin, district Shikarpur, home town of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani. He was found engaged in buying and selling two very expensive properties in DHA Karachi. The money found to have exchanged his hands in this respect runs in myriad millions. Further he is found to have established a liaison for this purpose i.e. sale and purchase with petitioner Gulzar Ahmed whose counsel in his arguments did not deny this fact. But explained that Gulzar Ahmed was a broker and had dealt with him professionally only; had received money from him and then passed on to the party concerned as per business mores. Which is prima facie a glaring indictment of the role ascribed to the petitioner in the reference. When it is considered together with evidence of holding of assets by him, ostensibly beyond his means, in his name in Karachi furnishes sufficient material to believe his involvement in the alleged offence .Therefore, pre arrest bail is dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 305 | Const. P. 1639/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Sara Durrani (Petitioner) VS NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Petitioners, accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means while acting as a Minister of Local Government ,Other petitioners, accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc., are identified as Benamidar/ostensible owners of the properties actually owned and possessed by him. We come to the case of family members of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani (his wife, a son and three daughters). It is noted, they have been identified as Benamidar owners of certain properties like plots, flats ,bungalows, vehicles .s. Allegation to provide finance to purchase the properties is against him, and not against his family members. there is no evidence or even allegation that his family members were either privy to his alleged acts of depravity, aiding and abetting him. Petition of, Sara Durrani (C.P.No.D-1639/2020), is allowed and bail is confirmed on the same granted ad interim pre arrest bail on. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.6305/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Sarar Durrani Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 306 | Cr.Bail 713/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | JAHANZAIB QAZI S/O JAWED AKHTAR QAZI (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 15-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the interim bail granted to the applicant / accused vide order dated 26.04.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. However, if the concession of bail is misused by the applicant in any manner whatsoever or he violates his undertaking to attend the case before the trial Court on every date of hearing, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take action against him in accordance with law, including cancellation of bail. This bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 307 | II.A. 162/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Muhammad Anwar S/o Muhammad Saeed (Appellant) VS Mst. Fouzia Qasim and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-OCT-21 | Yes | I am afraid this contention cannot be accepted in view of Imtiaz Ali V/S Atta Muhammad and another, PLD 2008 S.C. 462, wherein it was held by the Hon???ble Supreme Court that the appeal, having been filed after one day of the period of limitation, had created valuable right in favour of the respondents, and no sufficient cause was found for filing the appeal beyond the period of limitation. The delay of only one day was not condoned by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the cited case. In the above circumstances, the impugned order does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity. Accordingly, the appeal and listed application are dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 308 | Cr.Bail 1464/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | BILAL S/O SHAH JAHAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 01-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the subject case within three (03) months strictly in accordance with law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 309 | Cr.Bail 1327/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | FAHAD NAWAZ S/O GUL NAWAZ (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 23-SEP-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 310 | Const. P. 586/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Munawar Ali (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen. Two were the plots purchased in the name of Munwar Ali and Ghulam Murtaz ,who are co-accused and have been drivers of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani. Third property, a commercial plaza in DHA, he purchased, is in the name of Agha Shahbaz Ali s/o Agha Siraj Khan Durani No case for pre arrest bail, Hence , dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 311 | Const. P. 837/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Qurat-ul-Ain Laghari & Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 312 | R.A (Civil Revision) 133/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Shaikh Muhammad Sajid & Another (Applicant) VS Roohullah & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 24-AUG-16 | Yes | Civil Revision Application was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000.00 ; the applicants were directed to deposit the said amount with the Nazir of this Court within thirty (30) days ; and, the Nazir was directed to utilize the same towards the benevolent fund of the employees of this Court. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 313 | Const. P. 2566/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2012 | Muhammad Fazul (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 09-OCT-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 314 | Civil Revision 165/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2011 | Naseer Muhammad (Applicant) VS Muhammad Hakim (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 09-OCT-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 315 | F.R.A 31/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mumtaz Ali S/o Lal Muhammad (Appellant) VS Fayyaz Ahmed and another (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 25-AUG-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 316 | Const. P. 112/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Aslam Shaikh (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 317 | Cr.Bail 727/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | SYED MUHAMMAD ZEESHAN ZAKIR & ANOTHER (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 25-AUG-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 318 | I. A 5/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2015 | Abdul Samad Mahar & others (Appellant) VS The Habib Bank Limited & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 319 | Const. P. 374/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Miskeen Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Senior Member Board Of Revenue Hyderabad & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-FEB-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 320 | Suit -819/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | SYED GHULAM SARWAR SHAH (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 21-JUN-21 | Yes | As a result of the above discussion, it is hereby held that the instant Suit is barred by limitation, and also under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs. Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 08.04.2021 whereby this Suit and the listed applications were dismissed with costs of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only). The amount of costs shall be deposited by the plaintiff with the Nazir of this Court within thirty (30) days, which amount shall be transferred / deposited forthwith by the Nazir in the bank account of Edhi Foundation. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 321 | J.M 10/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | M/S.ARK GARMENTS INDUSTRIES & OTHERS (Applicant) VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 24-DEC-12 | Yes | As a result of the above discussion, this application under Section 12(2) CPC is allowed, and the ex-parte decree passed on 06.04.2007 in Suit No. B???52 of 2006 against the applicants is hereby set aside. The applicants shall file the application for leave to defend in the Suit within thirty (30) days hereof, which shall be decided in accordance with law. It is hereby clarified that the observations made and the findings contained in this Order shall not prejudice the merits of the case of either of the parties. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 322 | Suit 1068/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2003 | ASLAM PERVAIZ. (Plaintiff) VS MST. NASEEM FATIMA (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 09-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 323 | Suit 1399/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Nasir Mirza. (Plaintiff) VS Syed Muzaffar Ejaz & Others. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 08-APR-21 | Yes | Suit was dismissed with costs of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) to be paid by the plaintiff to defendant No.1 within thirty (30) days. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 324 | Const. P. 1528/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2020 | Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani (Petitioner) VS National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 15-AUG-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.P.3022/2022 Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani v. National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman NAB, HQ, Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | ||
| 325 | Judicial Companies Misc. 5/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Kolson Industries Private Limited & others (Applicant) VS . (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 30-MAY-16 | Yes | The object of the Scheme of Arrangement, as stated therein, appears to be lawful, and the proposed amalgamation of petitioners No.1 with petitioner No.2 does not appear to be against the public interest / policy, or in violation of any law. In view of the above and also as the members of the petitioners have unanimously approved the said proposed amalgamation, the Scheme of Arrangement is hereby sanctioned and the petition is granted as prayed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 326 | II.A. 44/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Choudhry Muhammad Zaka Ashraf (Appellant) VS Mst Sumera & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 07-FEB-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 327 | R.A (Civil Revision) 61/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | K SHUAIB AHMED (Applicant) VS IQBAL AHMED & ANOTHERS (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 21-MAY-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 328 | Const. P. 438/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Saddam Hussain (Petitioner) VS V.C University Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan | ||||
| 329 | Const. P. 2013/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Haji Umer S/o Haji Siddiq (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Farooq Motan & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-DEC-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 330 | F.R.A 38/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Naseer Uddin Jatoi S/o Late Zia Uddin Jatoi (Appellant) VS Miss. Reham Asad & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 17-MAR-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 331 | Cr.Bail 1198/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | IRFAN AHMED (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 03-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 332 | Suit.B 6/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2008 | Transmission Engineering Industries Limited (Plaintiff) VS Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 03-DEC-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 333 | Suit 1469/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | MST.AFSHAN (Plaintiff) VS SYED KAMRAN ALI SHAH & ORS. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-NOV-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 334 | Cr.J.A 105/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2004 | Muhammad Amin (Appellant) VS The State (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 31-MAY-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 335 | Civil Revision 172/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2009 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Order | 18-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 336 | Judicial Companies Misc. 21/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | King?s Food (Pvt.) Ltd. and Hilal Confectionery (Pvt.) Ltd.a (Applicant) VS Nonw (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-MAR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 337 | II.A. 9/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2008 | Malik Muhammad Yaseen (Appellant) VS Syed Raza Hyder and ors (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 17-APR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.A.432/2014 Syed Raza Haider v. Malik Muhammad Yaseen Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution | ||
| 338 | H.C.A 131/2000 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2000 | Civil Aviation Authority & others (Appellant) VS Providence Aviation Services (Pvt.) Ltd. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-AUG-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 339 | Const. P. 902/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2017 | Mst Zahida Parveen & an Ors (Petitioner) VS Iftikhar Hussain & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 20-JUL-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.923-K/2018 Iftikhar Hussain v. Mst: Zahida Parveen and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 340 | Const. P. 230/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Syed Qasim Hassan (Petitioner) VS Syed Muhammad Hassan & ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 30-JAN-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro | C.P.341-K/2015 Syed Qasim Hassan v. Syed Mehdi Hassan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 341 | Const. P. 90/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2007 | Nizar Noor Ali & Ors (Petitioner) VS Ameer Ali & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 08-JUL-19 | Yes | Order of eviction passed by the learned Rent Controller is restored. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 342 | Const. P. 1781/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Moazam (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 343 | Const. P. 102/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mst. Zulekhan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 344 | Const. P. 1142/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Naveed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 345 | Const. P. 664/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Allah Bachayo (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 346 | Const. P. 590/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2015 | Shoukat (Petitioner) VS Director School ducation Mirpurkhas & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 347 | Const. P. 2320/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Shah Muhammad and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 348 | Const. P. 637/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Manzoor Alam and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 349 | Const. P. 2295/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Yasir Arfat and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 350 | Const. P. 3218/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Zaheer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.739-K/2019 Zaheer Ahmed v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 351 | Const. P. 1952/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Samani (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 352 | Const. P. 2933/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Dolat Khan (Petitioner) VS D.C. Tando Allahyar and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 353 | Const. P. 2761/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Sadiq Ali Khan (Petitioner) VS University of Karachi & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-JAN-20 | Yes | University of Karachi--candidature for the post of professor was not considered--if the remedy of appeal is available to a party under the statute, availing such statutory remedy, and without calling in question the appellate order, only seeking setting aside the original order in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not proper under the law. if the remedy of appeal is available to a party under the statute, availing such statutory remedy, and without calling in question the appellate order, only seeking setting aside the original order in the Constitutional jurisdiction of this court under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 is not proper under the law | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 354 | Const. P. 412/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Bahadur Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 355 | Const. P. 3065/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Muhammad Rehan Qureshi (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 356 | Const. P. 3319/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Suresh Kumar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 357 | Const. P. 78/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Sharoon (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 358 | Const. P. 93/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Ghulam Rabani (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 359 | Const. P. 1826/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Haji Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 360 | Const. P. 3275/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Asif Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 361 | Const. P. 2926/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Waheed Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 362 | Const. P. 3089/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Jahangir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 363 | Const. P. 1224/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Jan Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 364 | Const. P. 495/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mashooque Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 365 | Const. P. 3400/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Abdul Subhan (Petitioner) VS National Bank of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-JAN-20 | Yes | NBP--demotion of the petitioner from the post of Vice President/Ex-Manager to next lower grade--Adverting to the claim of the petitioner with regard to his promotion in the next rank under NBP Staff Service Rules, 1973. It is well settled proposition of law that it is the Service Rules Committee of the respondent-bank which has to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion of the petitioner for which they have to take decision in accordance with law--In view of the foregoing facts concluded in para 07 supra, the action taken by the respondent Bank is/was too harsh, therefore we set aside the impugned orders dated 26.11.2014 regarding demotion of the petitioner and order dated 03.03.2017 regarding demotion in pay. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.197-K/2020 National Bank of Pakistan NBP and others v. Abdul Subhan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 366 | Const. P. 4976/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Naseer Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-NOV-20 | Yes | Petitioner has called in question the rejection of his candidature for the post of District Public Prosecutor (BS-19) in Law Department, Government of Sindh vide letter dated 18.10.2019 issued by Sindh Public Service Commission Hyderabad (SPSC) on the analogy that he did not possess ten (10) years' experience as an Advocate of High Court ---In our view, the submission of respondents will be counterproductive and would prevent good Advocates from accepting appointments in civil service if this analogy persists. The second limb of the argument of the respondents is that once an Advocate is appointed as a Law Officer in any department of the Government of Sindh, he cannot be appointed to the post of District Public Prosecutor has to be ruled out for the understanding that it does not appeal to logic--We, therefore, hold that ten (10) years' service experience includes a period of serving as a law officer, which counts active practice at the bar which petitioner possesses and therefore is qualified to appear for the subject test for the position of District Public Prosecutor--In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority of SPSC is directed to allow the petitioner to appear in the subject interview and after conducting his interview announce the result accordingly within two (02) weeks from today. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 367 | Const. P. 7563/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Irshad Ahmed Siyal and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-FEB-20 | Yes | Petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service in Health Department, Government of Sindh--It is well settled now that regularization of the services of the petitioners on the premise that regularization is always subject to availability of post and fulfillment of recruitment criteria, apparently the petitioners have not initially been appointed in an open and transparent manner through the prescribed competitive process as the vacancies were not advertised in the newspaper. Besides it is well-settled law that a contract employee is debarred from approaching this Court in constitutional jurisdiction, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazi Munir Ahmed versus Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital and others, 2019 SCMR 648---Before parting with this order, we may observe that the Provincial Cabinet is well within its powers to frame policy, however, subject to law. It is well-settled that if a policy manifestly inconsistent with the Constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the populace is not immune from judicial review. Prima-facie the decision of the Cabinet dated 29.3.2018 does not cover the case of the petitioners under Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, as their appointment is after promulgation of the said Act i.e. 25.3.2013--Dismissed. Petitioners have approached this Court for regularization of their service in Health Department, Government of Sindh--It is well settled now that regularization of the services of the petitioners on the premise that regularization is always subject to availability of post and fulfillment of recruitment criteria, apparently the petitioners have not initially been appointed in an open and transparent manner through the prescribed competitive process as the vacancies were not advertised in the newspaper. Besides it is well-settled law that a contract employee is debarred from approaching this Court in constitutional jurisdiction, in the light of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Qazi Munir Ahmed versus Rawalpindi Medical College and Allied Hospital and others, 2019 SCMR 648---Before parting with this order, we may observe that the Provincial Cabinet is well within its powers to frame policy, however, subject to law. It is well-settled that if a policy manifestly inconsistent with the Constitutional commands, retrogressive in nature, and discriminatory inter se the populace is not immune from judicial review. Prima-facie the decision of the Cabinet dated 29.3.2018 does not cover the case of the petitioners under Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, as their appointment is after promulgation of the said Act i.e. 25.3.2013--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 368 | Const. P. 7252/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Naveed Ahmed Abro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1436-K/2020 Naveed Ahmed Abro v. Province of Sindh through its Chief Secretary Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 369 | Const. P. 6766/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Shoukat Qadri (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-JAN-20 | Yes | pensionery benefits--Prim facie, the petitioner has qualifying length of service to his credit as per VSS calculation work sheet available at page-11 of the memo of petition. It is well settled law that no pension granted or continued to the pensioner is liable to seizure by the department under Pension Act, 1871, and the rules framed thereunder--In view of the above, this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs with direction to the competent authority of respondents to look into the matter of the petitioner and provide similar treatment to him as given by this Court to his colleagues Shakeel Ahmed and Anis Hyder in C.P No.D-5734/2018 and C.P No.D-6225/2018, respectively. pensionery benefits | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 370 | Const. P. 4201/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Shamsuddin Dal (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-DEC-20 | Yes | The pivotal question involved in the present proceedings is whether a Civil / Government Servant who is found guilty of misconduct under The Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and a minor penalty was imposed upon him could be considered for promotion? ---In our view, the promotion to a post depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for the promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. An employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed at par with the other employees, and his case has to be treated differently. While considering an employee for promotion his entire service record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial cannot be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal or unjustified. In our view, the evaluation made by an Expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by this Court which does not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. It is a settled proposition that the DPC, within its power to make its assessment, has to assess every proposal for promotion, on case to case basis. In cases where disciplinary case / criminal prosecution against the Civil / Government servant is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first DPC which kept its findings in respect of the Government servant the appointing authority may consider the desirability of giving him an ad-hoc promotion--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.405-K/2021 Shamsuddin Dal v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 371 | II.A. 24/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Bibi Amirunnisa (Appellant) VS Syed Ghulam Hyder Shah (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 11-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 372 | Const. P. 8536/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Riffat John (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-FEB-20 | Yes | Petitioner has approached this Court for regularization of her service as Staff Nurse (BPS-16) in Health Department, Government of Sindh--In our view, the Sindh Government may have the right to appoint bona fide residents of Province of Sindh, denial of such right to residents of other provinces is protected as discussed in the preceding paragraph. It is also established principle in service jurisprudence that the domicile declared by a Government servant and accepted by Government at the time of entry into Government service is treated as final throughout his service career and no subsequent change in his domicile is recognized for service purposes. However, if a person lives in a particular province or district and decides to shift to another province to be a permanent residence there, then it will not affect the status of his/her domicile; however, his/her former PRC will be cancelled. But in the present case we have seen that petitioner deliberately obtained domicile of District East, Karachi, after an objection was raised by the respondents with regard to her domicile of Punjab. This being the position of the case, this petition merits no consideration, which is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. Petitioner has approached this Court for regularization of her service as Staff Nurse (BPS-16) in Health Department, Government of Sindh--In our view, the Sindh Government may have the right to appoint bona fide residents of Province of Sindh, denial of such right to residents of other provinces is protected as discussed in the preceding paragraph. It is also established principle in service jurisprudence that the domicile declared by a Government servant and accepted by Government at the time of entry into Government service is treated as final throughout his service career and no subsequent change in his domicile is recognized for service purposes. However, if a person lives in a particular province or district and decides to shift to another province to be a permanent residence there, then it will not affect the status of his/her domicile; however, his/her former PRC will be cancelled. But in the present case we have seen that petitioner deliberately obtained domicile of District East, Karachi, after an objection was raised by the respondents with regard to her domicile of Punjab. This being the position of the case, this petition merits no consideration, which is accordingly dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 373 | Const. P. 869/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Nadir Ali (Petitioner) VS M.D STEVTA and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-OCT-20 | Yes | Prima-facie the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case of the petitioners, as the aforesaid Act of 2013 is relevant for those employees, who held the posts in Government of Sindh Departments which includes the post in a Project of such Department in connection with the affairs of the Province also excluding the employees appointed on contingent / daily wages basis and under the aforesaid Act 2013 the contingent service of the petitioners cannot be converted into regular service. Prima-facie the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 does not apply to the facts and circumstances of the present case of the petitioners, as the aforesaid Act of 2013 is relevant for those employees, who held the posts in Government of Sindh Departments which includes the post in a Project of such Department in connection with the affairs of the Province also excluding the employees appointed on contingent / daily wages basis and under the aforesaid Act 2013 the contingent service of the petitioners cannot be converted into regular service. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 374 | II.A. 32/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Bundoo Khan & another (Appellant) VS Muhammad Younus (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 09-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 375 | Const. P. 1055/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Molvi Muhammad Hassan Pathan (Petitioner) VS Home Secretary & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 376 | Const. P. 3405/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Nazim Inayat (Petitioner) VS National Command & Authority (NCA) and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 377 | Const. P. 7520/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Irfan Ali (Petitioner) VS Sect: Local Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-MAR-20 | Yes | The instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking declaration to the effect that two additional assignments / charges of the post of Secretary, Union Council, Naseer Khan Chang and Union Council, Nango Shah, given to the private respondent No.3 in addition to his own duty as Secretary, Union Council, Saeed Khan Lund, Tando Muhammad Khan, vide impugned orders issued by the Director, local Government, Hyderabad, is illegal on the premise that the private respondent No.3 does not qualify to hold two offices in addition to his own duties--Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid statement of the Director, Local Government Board, Government of Sindh, and seeks disposal of this petition accordingly. Be that as it may, official respondents 1 and 2 are warned to be careful in future and are directed to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be communicated to Chief Secretary Sindh for information. --Disposed of. The instant constitutional petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, has been filed by the petitioner, seeking declaration to the effect that two additional assignments / charges of the post of Secretary, Union Council, Naseer Khan Chang and Union Council, Nango Shah, given to the private respondent No.3 in addition to his own duty as Secretary, Union Council, Saeed Khan Lund, Tando Muhammad Khan, vide impugned orders issued by the Director, local Government, Hyderabad, is illegal on the premise that the private respondent No.3 does not qualify to hold two offices in addition to his own duties--Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the aforesaid statement of the Director, Local Government Board, Government of Sindh, and seeks disposal of this petition accordingly. Be that as it may, official respondents 1 and 2 are warned to be careful in future and are directed to conduct themselves strictly in accordance with law. Let a copy of this order be communicated to Chief Secretary Sindh for information. --Disposed of. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 378 | Const. P. 244/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Syed Zahid Hassan Rizvi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-MAR-20 | Yes | DMC--the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents for up-gradation of his post i.e Compounder in BPS-16--The grounds agitated by the petitioner in the instant petition that his up-gradation is permissible as per notification dated 13.05.2006, are not tenable for the reasons alluded in the preceding paragraph--we are not convinced with the assertion of petitioner that he is entitled for up-gradation in BS-16--Dismissed. DMC--the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents for up-gradation of his post i.e Compounder in BPS-16--The grounds agitated by the petitioner in the instant petition that his up-gradation is permissible as per notification dated 13.05.2006, are not tenable for the reasons alluded in the preceding paragraph--we are not convinced with the assertion of petitioner that he is entitled for up-gradation in BS-16--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 379 | Const. P. 6863/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Taj Muhammad Ansari (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 11-MAR-20 | Yes | the petitioner claims pensionary benefits from the Law department on account of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years--petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Assistant Government Pleader on contract basis--In the light of Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rule 8 of Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as he was / is not qualified to retain the aforesaid post in public office due to his conviction in the criminal cases. the petitioner claims pensionary benefits from the Law department on account of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years--petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Assistant Government Pleader on contract basis--In the light of Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rule 8 of Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as he was / is not qualified to retain the aforesaid post in public office due to his conviction in the criminal cases. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 380 | Cr.Bail 1375/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | MUHAMMAD KASHIF S/O MUHAMMAD RAFIQ (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Muhammad Kashif son of Muhammad Rafiq is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. This bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 381 | Const. P. 585/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Gulbahar Lohar Baloch (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc. Gulbahar Lohar Baloch servant cum gunman of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani, has been found to have purchased a plot of 1000 sq. yards in DHA Karachi in the year 2013, have built a house thereon and sold it finally. He earned Rs.212,500,000.00 from this transaction. While working with accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani he was able to clinch such a deal in itself is a pointer to his role in the offence, that is, he has been facilitating him in accumulating property from illegal means. In presence of such prima facie evidence, sufficient enough to believe his involvement in the case, he is not entitled to grant of pre arrest bail. Hence, dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 382 | Const. P. 1424/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Dr Abdul Qadir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 383 | Cr.Bail 1160/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | KHURRAM SHAHZAD S/O MUHAMMAD YOUSUF BHATTI (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Khurram Shahzad son of Muhammad Yousuf Bhatti is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 384 | Const. P. 1559/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Muhammad Irfan (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc. Muhammad Irfan is found an ostensible owner of a bungalow in phase-V DHA Karachi estimated to be Page 10 of 19worth Rs.240 million. That he purchased in the year 2011 and since then accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani has been living there with his family, and he not for a single day has resided therein. No plausible explanation for such status quo has been forwarded by him in his petition. He has only pleaded that being owner of a bungalow is not an offence. But has utterly disregarded, in the wake of allegations against him, to tell the resource utilized by him to purchase such property and in what capacity he has let accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani live in his bungalow. there is prima facie sufficient evidence against him plus there is no material to show his implication by NAB in this case on account of any disingenuous motive. No case for pre arrest bail, Hence , dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 385 | H.C.A 93/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Rashid Naeem (Appellant) VS Abdul Azizi Hasim Chhutani & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-JUL-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 386 | R.A (Civil Revision) 12/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Sain Bux and others (Applicant) VS Nadir Ali and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 24-APR-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 387 | II.A. 80/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Ramzan Ali Lakhani (Appellant) VS Amir Ali Jamal Nanji and another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 02-MAY-19 | Yes | I am of the considered view that the concurrent findings of both the learned Courts below are well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence and law. Learned counsel for the appellant has not been able to point out any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgments which do not require any interference by this Court. Accordingly, both these appeals and the applications pending therein are liable to be dismissed. Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 02.05.2019 whereby both these appeals were dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 388 | I. A 5/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2013 | Javed-ur-Rehman and others (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-NOV-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 389 | S.M.A 195/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Ashar Siddiqi S/o (Late) Nusrat Rashid Siddiqi (Petitioner) VS .. (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 30-MAY-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 390 | Cr.Rev 59/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Dr. Syed Ali Akbar Shah (Applicant) VS [email protected] Syed Ghulam Muhammad Shah and Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 20-JAN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 391 | Const. P. 1883/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | M/s Sultan Mehmood & Co. (Petitioner) VS Cantonment Board Clifton & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAR-17 | Yes | It is now well-settled that use of an amenity / public property by the public for enjoyment of life is covered by the word ???life??? employed in Article 9 of the Constitution ; such right to enter into and use the amenity / public property without any obstacle is a fundamental right as enshrined in Article 26 read with Article 9 of the Constitution ; liberty and right of a person to have access to amenity / public property or to utilize and enjoy the same cannot be taken away by converting such amenity into a commercial one for the purpose of extending benefit to a third person ; any violation in respect of rights relating to the access, use or enjoyment of amenity / public property or change in the use thereof, whether temporary or permanent, by any individual, government, functionary or agency is illegal ; amenity / public property cannot be used for any other purpose than for which it was carved out, earmarked or reserved. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 392 | R.A (Civil Revision) 145/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Hamid Saleem (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 393 | Const. P. 1962/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Younis (Petitioner) VS Mansoor Ali & Other (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 16-JUN-22 | Yes | After thoroughly examining the record and all the aspects of the case as discussed above, I am of the firm view that the concurrent findings of the learned Courts below are balanced, well-reasoned and in accord with the evidence on record. Therefore, the impugned concurrent findings of fact do not require any interference by this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with costs throughout. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 394 | Const. P. 1708/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Ltd., (Petitioner) VS Pakistan, through the Secretary, Revenue Division & Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad& 2 others, (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 395 | Suit 849/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | ABDUL REHMAN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS ABDULLAH SAULEH AL-BASSAM (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 18-DEC-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 396 | Civil Revision 39/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2007 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 22-MAY-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 397 | Const. P. 533/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | D.B. | Order | 16-APR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam | ||||
| 398 | Suit 830/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | S. Abdul Mannan Muttaqi (Plaintiff) VS Defense House Authority & others (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 28-APR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 399 | Suit.B 97/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | M/S. Habib Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS Mahmood Alam Sherani & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 10-APR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 400 | Suit 135/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Independent Media Corporation Private Limited (Plaintiff) VS Mr. Ali Azmat & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 15-AUG-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 401 | I. A 17/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2012 | M/S ZTBL & Others (Appellant) VS Mst. Nawazi & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-OCT-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan | C.P.708-K/2017 Zarai Taraqiati Bank Ltd. and others v. Mst: Nawazi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 402 | Const. P. 1774/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | M/S Housing Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. (Petitioner) VS KDA and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-NOV-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 403 | Const. P. 1388/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Syed Umar Baqi and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and ORs (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-DEC-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.416-K/2017,C.P.3670/2019,C.P.2085/2020,C.P.2109/2020 SCP | Disposed Dismissed,Pending Dismissed,Pending ,Pending | ||
| 404 | Suit.B 159/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Deutsche Bank AG (Plaintiff) VS Fateh Textile Mills Limited (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 26-JUL-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 405 | II.A. 25/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Mst. Shahida Parveen & Another (Appellant) VS Sardar Atif Ali Sanjrani & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 06-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 406 | Const. P. 2071/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Sarfraz Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 407 | Const. P. 2681/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mazhar Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 408 | Const. P. 836/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Inayat (Petitioner) VS PO sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 409 | Const. P. 2628/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Abdul Wahid (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 410 | 2020 SBLR Sindh 365 | Const. P. 1589/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: CP No. D- 1589 of 2013,CP No. D- 1803 of 2015,CP No D- 2423 of 2015,CP No. D- 2834 of 2015,CP No. D- 847 of 2016, CP No. D- 958 of 2016, CP No. D- 1071 of 2016, CP No. D- 1173 of 2016, CP No. D- 1826 of 2016, CP No. D- 2179 of 2016, CP No. D- 2539 of 2016, CP No. D- 2656 of 2016, CP No. D- 2776 of 2016, CP No. D- 2941 of 2016, CP No. D- 3078 of 2016, CP No. D- 3148 of 2016, CP No. D- 3212 of 2016, CP No. D- 3391 of 2016, CP No. D- 3445 of 2016, CP No. D- 02 of 2017, CP No. D- 43 of 2017, CP No. D- 201 of 2017, CP No. D- 291 of 2017, CP No. D- 301 of 2017, CP No. D- 314 of 2017, CP No. D- 322 of 2017, CP No. D- 379 of 2017, CP No. D- 478 of 2017, CP No. D- 547 of 2017, CP No. D- 639 of 2017, CP No. D- 733 of 2017, CP No. D- 729 of 2017, CP No. D- 917 of 2017, CP No. D- 1000 of 2017, CP No. D- 1054 of 2017, CP No. D- 1067 of 2017, CP No. D- 1084 of 2017, CP No. D- 1085 of 2017, CP No. D- 1086 of 2017, CP No. D- 1168 of 2017, CP No. D- 1174 of 2017, CP No. D- 1237 of 2017, CP No. D- 1359 of 2017, CP No. D- 1446 of 2017, CP No. D- 1086 of 2017, CP No. D- 1168 of 2017, CP No. D- 1174 of 2017, CP No. D- 1237 of 2017, CP No. D- 1359 of 2017, CP No. D- 1446 of 2017, CP No. D- 1344 of 2017, CP No. D- 1533 of 2017, CP No. D- 1576 of 2017, CP No. D- 1727 of 2017, CP No. D- 2071 of 2017, CP No. D- 2137 of 2017, CP No. D- 2403 of 2017, CP No. D- 2452 of 2017, CP No. D- 2608 of 2017, CP No. D- 2634 of 2017, CP No. D- 2835 of 2017, CP No. D- 2879 of 2017, CP No. D- 3018 of 2017, CP No. D- 3130 of 2017, CP No. D- 3273 of 2017, CP No. D- 3341 of 2017, CP No. D- 3345 of 2017, CP No. D- 3369 of 2017, CP No. D- 3696 of 2017, CP No. D- 3742 of 2017, CP No. D- 3808 of 2017, CP No. D- 129 of 2018, CP No. D- 163 of 2018, CP No. D- 332 of 2018, CP No. D- 413 of 2018, CP No. D- 505 of 2018, CP No. D- 736 of 2018, CP No. D- 1066 of 2018, CP No. D- 1526 of 2018, CP No. D- 2094 of 2018, CP No. D- 2194 of 2018, CP No. D- 2195 of 2018, CP No. D- 2334 of 2018, CP No. D- 2366 of 2018, CP No. D- 2451 of 2018, CP No. D- 2469 of 2018, CP No. D- 2683 of 2018, CP No. D- 3069 of 2018, CP No. D- 3215 of 2018, CP No. D- 3218 of 2018, CP No. D- 3221 of 2018, CP No. D- 3302 of 2018, CP No. D- 84 of 2019, CP No. D- 108 of 2019, CP No. D- 369 of 2019, CP No. D- 436 of 2019, CP No. D- 544 of 2019, CP No. D- 696 of 2019, CP No. D- 1137 of 2019, CP No. D- 1609 of 2019, CP No. D- 1683 of 2019, CP No. D- 1827 of 2019, CP No. D- 1836 of 2019, CP No. D- 1904 of 2019, CP No. D- 1929 of 2019 | 2013 | Kaleemullah (Petitioner) VS C.E.O HESCO and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 05-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 411 | Const. P. 1910/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Faisal (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 412 | Const. P. 2549/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Dayal Chand (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 413 | Const. P. 2946/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Fahad Shah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 414 | Const. P. 1882/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Qasim (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 415 | F.R.A 15/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Airport Hotel (Appellant) VS Khursheed Pervaiz & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 416 | Const. P. 1885/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Abdul Majeed (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 417 | Const. P. 3739/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Akram (Petitioner) VS NAB & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 418 | Const. P. 494/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ali Mardan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 419 | Const. P. 502/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Mst .Rani Khaskheli (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-JAN-20 | Yes | whether Constable Mushtaque Khaskheli embraced Shahadat on 04.3.2015 or his case does not fall under the criteria for Shaheed as per The Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act-2014. Shahadat | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 420 | Const. P. 3300/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Jamshed Qayoom (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 421 | Const. P. 2063/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Achar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 422 | Const. P. 1343/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Nek Muhammad (Petitioner) VS WAPDA and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.60-K/2020 Nek Muhammad v. The Water & Power Development Authority (WAPDA) and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous | ||
| 423 | Const. P. 2939/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Nasir Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 424 | Const. P. 985/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Hammad Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 425 | F.R.A 10/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Airport Hotel (Appellant) VS Mrs. Shahida Irfan & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-AUG-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 426 | Const. P. 1997/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Imdad Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 427 | Const. P. 3495/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Shahnawaz (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 428 | Const. P. 224/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Gul Bahar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 429 | Const. P. 3274/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Asif Ali Shah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 430 | Const. P. 990/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ghulam Mohiuddin (Petitioner) VS C.E.O. (NTDC) WAPDA and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 431 | Const. P. 1761/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Anwar Memon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 432 | Const. P. 1256/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Abdul Razzaq and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 433 | Const. P. 635/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Akram & anothers (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 21-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 434 | Const. P. 2695/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Tarruf Ali (Petitioner) VS I.G of Police Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-JAN-20 | Yes | Police Department--Petitioner has been reverted / demoted from the rank of Police Inspector to his substantive rank of Police Head Constable on account of earning out of turn promotion during his tenure of service---In view of the foregoing discussion, this petition is allowed whereby the competent authority of respondents is directed to issue retirement order of the petitioner to the rank of Police Inspector and is entitled to be paid his full pensionary benefits as admissible to Police Inspector under the law within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this judgment. Pending application stands disposed of accordingly. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.193-K/2020 Province of Sindh thr. I.G.Police and others v. Taaruf Ali Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 435 | Const. P. 6499/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Dr. Mashhood-uz-Zafar Farooq (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 436 | Const. P. 3478/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Bashir Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 02-MAR-20 | Yes | the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Storekeeper, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits---In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the respondents are directed to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits. Respondents are further directed to complete the entire exercise and settle the service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment. the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Storekeeper, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits---In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the respondents are directed to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits. Respondents are further directed to complete the entire exercise and settle the service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1661/2020 Civil Aviation Authority thr. its Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Bashir Ahmed and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 437 | Const. P. 7214/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Abdul Hussain and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-DEC-20 | Yes | regularization of their contingent service as computer Operator, Naib Qasid and Chowkidar in the Sindh Coal Authority (SCA) Government of Sindh---The petitioners, in our view, have failed to make out their case for regularization of their service as their case is neither covered under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, nor fall within the ambit of Policy of the Government of Sindh, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed along with the pending application(s) with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 438 | 2022 SBLR Sindh 1070 | Const. P. 1480/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Dr. Maryam Shafiq (Petitioner) VS Chancellor Fed. Urdu University & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-MAR-20 | Yes | the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court while calling in question the termination letter dated 26.02.2019 issued by the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as ???University???), relieving her from the services of University with retrospective effect i.e. 20.10.2018, which according to the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.---We are not satisfied with the assertion of the respondent-university on the aforesaid analogy, for the reason that Fundamental Rule 54, is clear in its terms, dealing with the reinstatement of the employee consequent to setting aside of his dismissal/removal from service, the entitlement of the employee, to have the period of his absence from his service treated as "on duty" is a statutory consequence of his being reinstated on the merits--This being the legal position of the case, the instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs by holding that the impugned termination order dated 26.02.2019 issued by respondent-university is without legal consequence. Thus, the service of the petitioner is reinstated with effect from termination of her service i.e. 14.02.2019. The respondents are directed to grant her service benefits for the intervening period in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. the petitioner has sought indulgence of this Court while calling in question the termination letter dated 26.02.2019 issued by the Federal Urdu University of Arts, Science and Technology (hereinafter referred to as ???University???), relieving her from the services of University with retrospective effect i.e. 20.10.2018, which according to the petitioner is without lawful authority and of no legal effect.---We are not satisfied with the assertion of the respondent-university on the aforesaid analogy, for the reason that Fundamental Rule 54, is clear in its terms, dealing with the reinstatement of the employee consequent to setting aside of his dismissal/removal from service, the entitlement of the employee, to have the period of his absence from his service treated as "on duty" is a statutory consequence of his being reinstated on the merits--This being the legal position of the case, the instant petition is allowed with no order as to costs by holding that the impugned termination order dated 26.02.2019 issued by respondent-university is without legal consequence. Thus, the service of the petitioner is reinstated with effect from termination of her service i.e. 14.02.2019. The respondents are directed to grant her service benefits for the intervening period in accordance with law, within a period of two (02) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||
| 439 | Const. P. 6868/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Arsalan and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-APR-20 | Yes | the petitioners have prayed that the respondents may be directed to recall / cancel the result for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (BPS-09), for Karachi range and reschedule test / interview for the aforesaid posts---Petitioners have emphasized that in the final result the respondents-commission declared them failed without disclosing the reason--In our view, the written test does not gauge the personality of the candidate or his communication skills or his leadership or decision making abilities which are left to be examined at the time of interview. For this proposition, our view is supported by the decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, 2014 S C M R 157--Dismissed. the petitioners have prayed that the respondents may be directed to recall / cancel the result for the post of Assistant Sub Inspector (BPS-09), for Karachi range and reschedule test / interview for the aforesaid posts---Petitioners have emphasized that in the final result the respondents-commission declared them failed without disclosing the reason--In our view, the written test does not gauge the personality of the candidate or his communication skills or his leadership or decision making abilities which are left to be examined at the time of interview. For this proposition, our view is supported by the decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri vs. Federation of Pakistan and others, 2014 S C M R 157--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.369-K/2020 Muhammad Saleem v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 440 | Const. P. 5907/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (Petitioner) VS NIRC and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-DEC-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.228/2021 Overseas Pakistanis Foundation thr. its authorized Office, Karachi v. National Industrial Relations Commission(Full Bench) , Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 441 | Const. P. 4105/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Muhammad Jam (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-JAN-20 | Yes | this petition is allowed in the terms whereby the competent authority of CAA is directed to consider the case of petitioner for his proforma promotion in PG-10, Works and Development Directorate, CAA for the purpose of pensionery benefits within a period of one month from the date of receipt of this order strictly in accordance with law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 442 | I. A 17/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Mst. Shaneela Raza & another (Appellant) VS Allied Bank Limited & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-APR-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 443 | Const. P. 2341/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Muhammad Anwer (Petitioner) VS The federation of Pakistan & Ors. (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 18-FEB-20 | Yes | Basically, the matter pertains to minor penalties which were imposed on the petitioners under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, (now repealed), they challenged their reduction into lower grade in the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) but their appeals were abated and thereafter they filed these petitions before this Court---In the light of judgment passed by the Hon???ble Supreme Court as discussed supra which was implemented by the respondents in letter and spirit, we are not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to the financial benefits with effect from the date of their demotion in year 2003, rather from year 2012---In the light of findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide orders dated 24.3.2010 and 20.5.2010 in the aforesaid proceedings, these petitions are allowed with no order as to costs by directing the competent authority of respondents to re-calculate the pensionery benefits of the petitioners and other benefits as admissible under the law with effect from their demotion and reduction in increment. Such amount must be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within a period of one (01) month which shall be paid to the petitioners on proper verification and confirmation. Basically, the matter pertains to minor penalties which were imposed on the petitioners under the Removal from Service (Special Powers) Ordinance, 2000, (now repealed), they challenged their reduction into lower grade in the Federal Service Tribunal (FST) but their appeals were abated and thereafter they filed these petitions before this Court---In the light of judgment passed by the Hon???ble Supreme Court as discussed supra which was implemented by the respondents in letter and spirit, we are not convinced with the argument of learned counsel for the respondents that the petitioners are not entitled to the financial benefits with effect from the date of their demotion in year 2003, rather from year 2012---In the light of findings of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan vide orders dated 24.3.2010 and 20.5.2010 in the aforesaid proceedings, these petitions are allowed with no order as to costs by directing the competent authority of respondents to re-calculate the pensionery benefits of the petitioners and other benefits as admissible under the law with effect from their demotion and reduction in increment. Such amount must be deposited with the Nazir of this Court within a period of one (01) month which shall be paid to the petitioners on proper verification and confirmation. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 444 | Const. P. 5844/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Naeemullah Samoo (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 25-FEB-20 | Yes | Deceased quota latest Deceased quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 445 | Const. P. 5931/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Imtiaz Ahmed Shah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 15-JAN-20 | Yes | Actualization of promotion in BPS-19 and posting--The transfer and posting of a civil/government servant is prerogative of the Government, which cannot be interfered with under the constitutional jurisdiction, under the service law, petitioner is under obligation to serve anywhere in the province, he has no vested right to remain at particular post for indefinite period, therefore the petitioner cannot ask for posting at particular place. Disposed of. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 446 | Civil Revision 140/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2015 | Asghar Ali (Applicant) VS Muhammad Ismail (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.P.425-K/2020 Asghar Ali v. Muhammad Ismail & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Adjourned | ||
| 447 | R.A (Civil Revision) 18/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Mehboob (Applicant) VS Nadir Hassan (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 14-MAR-20 | Yes | Relevant facts of the case are that the above Suit was filed by the respondent claiming to be the sole and exclusive owner of property bearing C.S. No.4407, Ward ???G???, out of R.S. No.27 and others in Deh Ghangra, situated at Phulelipar, Paretabad, Hyderabad Sindh (???suit property???)--The main concern raised on behalf of the applicant was that as the property in his possession is separate and distinct from the one claimed by the respondent, the impugned decree cannot be executed in respect of his property. In this context, it may be noted that there are already concurrent findings against the applicant and this Court has also affirmed the same. Be that as it may, needless to say that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the decree shall be executed only in respect of the property described therein after carefully identifying and ascertaining the same. Relevant facts of the case are that the above Suit was filed by the respondent claiming to be the sole and exclusive owner of property bearing C.S. No.4407, Ward ???G???, out of R.S. No.27 and others in Deh Ghangra, situated at Phulelipar, Paretabad, Hyderabad Sindh (???suit property???)--The main concern raised on behalf of the applicant was that as the property in his possession is separate and distinct from the one claimed by the respondent, the impugned decree cannot be executed in respect of his property. In this context, it may be noted that there are already concurrent findings against the applicant and this Court has also affirmed the same. Be that as it may, needless to say that the executing Court cannot go behind the decree and the decree shall be executed only in respect of the property described therein after carefully identifying and ascertaining the same. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 448 | Const. P. 2318/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Ahsan Ali Chohan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-APR-20 | Yes | Issue notice to the respondents as well as to learned Advocate General Sindh with direction to file comments before the next date of hearing. As an interim measure, respondents are directed to consider the case of the present petitioner for promotion strictly on merits and in accordance with law. In case, his case is deferred and/or rejected, the competent authority shall pass a speaking order after providing opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. To be listed on 07.05.2020 at 11:00 a.m. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 449 | Const. P. 1318/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Wasim Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-DEC-20 | Yes | the petitioner is seeking regularization of his service under section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013 in Malir Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as ???MDA???)--Since the issue involved in this petition is akin as decided by this Court in C.P. No. D-6632 of 2019 and another connected petition vide common order dated 16.10.2020, therefore, this petition is not maintainable under Article 199 of the Constitution is disposed of in terms of the common order dated 16.10.2020, leaving the petitioner to avail and exhaust his remedy if any, as provided under the law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 450 | Const. P. 3315/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mst. Zarina Anwar (Petitioner) VS The Secretary M/o Education & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 10-DEC-20 | Yes | We in the circumstances are constrained to direct Secretary Education, Government of Sindh and Secretary Education Department Government of Punjab, jointly and severally, to pay all her perks and privileges to which she was entitled to by issuance of notification of her retirement, inclusive of her entire pensionary benefits within two (02) months and report compliance through MIT-II of this Court. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 451 | Const. P. 5909/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Sajid Jalil (Petitioner) VS N.B.P and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-OCT-20 | Yes | It is a well-settled proposition of law that the Competent Authority is entitled to make rules in the interest of exigency of service and to remove anomalies in Service Rules. It is the Service Rules Committee which has to determine the eligibility criteria of promotion and it is essentially an administrative matter falling within the exclusive domain and policy decision making of the Respondent-Bank and the interference with such matters by the Courts is not warranted as no vested right of a Bank employee is involved in the matter of promotion, or the rules determining their eligibility or fitness, and in Bank Cases, the High Court has no jurisdiction through Writ to strike it down, except in the cases in which policy framed is against the public interest. This proposition of law has already been settled by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in a plethora of judgments. Moreover, petitioner has not been able to point out any case where other employee(s), having rating equivalent to or lower than him, was / were promoted by the respondent-bank. Thus, prima facie it appears that the policy of the respondent is uniform and without any discrimination at least to the extent of the instant case. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.269/2021 Sajid Jalil v. National Bank of Pakistan through President, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 452 | Const. P. 6328/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Rashid and Ors (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-MAR-20 | Yes | Case of the petitioners is that they were appointed purely on temporary contract basis in the ADP schemes / projects viz. Youth Health Awareness Program (YHAP), Establishment of Mobile Skill Development Unit for Underprivileged Youth (EMSDUUY) and Benazir Bhutto Shaheeed Youth Development Porgramme (BBSYDP), in the years 2009, 2012 and 2013 till completion of the projects. After completion of the projects, their services stood discontinued as per terms of their appointment orders--The petitioners, in our view, have failed to make out their case for regularization of their service as their case is neither covered under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, nor falls within the ambit of Policy of Government of Sindh, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. Case of the petitioners is that they were appointed purely on temporary contract basis in the ADP schemes / projects viz. Youth Health Awareness Program (YHAP), Establishment of Mobile Skill Development Unit for Underprivileged Youth (EMSDUUY) and Benazir Bhutto Shaheeed Youth Development Porgramme (BBSYDP), in the years 2009, 2012 and 2013 till completion of the projects. After completion of the projects, their services stood discontinued as per terms of their appointment orders--The petitioners, in our view, have failed to make out their case for regularization of their service as their case is neither covered under Section 3 of Sindh (Regularization of Ad-hoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013, nor falls within the ambit of Policy of Government of Sindh, therefore, the instant petition is hereby dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 453 | Const. P. 1637/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mrs. Naheed Durrani (Petitioner) VS NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Petitioners, accused in reference were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court . NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court and remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250 . The case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, for committing corruption and corrupt practices illegal means while Other petitioners, accused in the reference, said to be his family members ,associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, are identified as Benamidar/ ostensible owners of the properties actually owned and possessed by him. foreign currency and estimation of value of properties held by his Benamidars and his family members, Copies of pay orders got issued from banks, by his servants or the officials working with him, is yet another prima facie piece of evidence against him in this respect. when he buys a property in the name of his wife or children, or makes payments at their behest for this purpose, there would normally be no reason for them to get alarmed or suspect that he has done corruption and is providing money from the wealth earned by him .petitions of Mrs. Naheed Durrani (C.P.No.D-1637/2020),allowed and their bail is confirmed on the same terms and conditions they were granted ad interim pre arrest bail on. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.6304/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Mrs. Naheed Durrani Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 454 | Const. P. 2236/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Zulfiqar Ali Dahar (Petitioner) VS The Chairman NAB (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc. Some of the properties being physically enjoyed by accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani are found still standing in their name in the record. One of them is accused Zulifiqar AliDehar who has remained his private secretary when he was the Minister, Local Government Department. He got a pay order ofRs.49,728,343.00, used for buying a property by accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani, issued from a bank. He did not join investigation, despite being called upon, to put up his defense in this regard. Hence, bail dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.5839/2021 Zulfiqar Ali Dahar v. The Chairman, National Accountability Bureau, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 455 | Cr.Bail 1350/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | GUL HASSAN S/O MUHAMMAD HASSAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 20-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Gul Hassan son of Muhammad Hassan has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 14.07.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. This bail application is allowed in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 456 | II.A. 57/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Salahuddin Siddiqui (Appellant) VS Learned VIIth A.D.J., & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 02-JUN-17 | Yes | As a result of the above discussion, the impugned judgments and decrees are set aside, and the matter is remanded to the learned trial Court with direction to allow the appellant / plaintiff to produce additional evidence in accordance with law, and thereafter to decide the Suit afresh latest by 31.08.2017 strictly in accordance with law. The appeal and listed applications stand disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 457 | Suit 1647/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | RIFFAT SAEED & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS ZAHID SAEED & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 17-JAN-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 458 | Spl.H.C.A 279/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | M/s.Moghul & Sons (Appellant) VS NIB Bank Ltd., & Ors. (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-APR-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 459 | II.A. 85/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Naz Bibi (since died) through her LRs (Appellant) VS Wahid Bux (since died) through his LRs and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 02-AUG-21 | Yes | The impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court are maintained to the extent of entitlement of respondent No.1 in respect of the amount of the National Savings Certificates left by the deceased along with profit thereon, however, according to his share as per Shariah ; and, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside to the extent of grant of 50% share to respondent No.1 in the severance grant, gratuity and benevolent fund of the deceased, which shall be paid expeditiously to the legal heirs of the appellant / widow as per the service rules and regulations of the respondent No.2-bank. Needless to say the above payments shall be in addition to the donation by the respondent No.2-bank and the death compensation of the deceased granted to the appellant / widow by the learned appellate Court which, having not been challenged by respondent No.1, has attained finality. This appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.P.1520-K/2021 Wahid Bux & others v. Mst.Naz Bibi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 460 | R.A (Civil Revision) 67/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2006 | Khuda Bux Buriro (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 30-OCT-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 461 | II.A. 29/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Ahmed Raza Thaheem & others (Appellant) VS Ghulam Mohiuddin & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 30-APR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 462 | Const. P. 1470/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Ghulam Shabbir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 463 | I. A 14/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Habib Bank Limited (Appellant) VS Aijaz Ali Khaskheli & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-FEB-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 464 | Suit.B 17/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | SAUDI PAK INDUSTRIAL & AGRICULTURAL INV & Co (Plaintiff) VS INDUS STEEL PIPES LTD & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 22-DEC-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 465 | Suit 1110/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | JEHANGIR ANWAR (Plaintiff) VS KHALID HUSSAIN (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 10-JAN-13 | Yes | The above are the reasons for the short order announced by me on 10.01.2013, whereby prayers ???A???, ???B???, ???C??? and ???E??? made by the defendant in his counter claim, were allowed, and this Suit was decreed with costs in his favour in terms of the said prayers | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 466 | Suit 1346/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Muhammad Yameen (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Shakeel & others. (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 25-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 467 | Suit 1784/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | SHARAFAT ALI (Plaintiff) VS MST. SHAHJAHAN BEGUM & ANOTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 01-JUN-21 | Yes | The Suit was liable to be dismissed in any event in view of the above-cited law laid down by the Hon???ble Supreme Court due to the plaintiff???s admitted failure in depositing the balance sale consideration in Court despite this Court???s order. Thus, the order dated 21.05.2018 of the dismissal of the Suit on both the grounds was fully justified, and the same is not liable to be recalled. Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 01.06.2021 whereby the listed application was dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 468 | Cr.Bail 1965/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | MUHAMMAD UMER S/O SAINDAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 03-NOV-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Muhammad Umar son of Saindan is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application is allowed in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 469 | Cr.Bail 1344/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | AZIZ UR REHMAN @ BABUL S/O ALI AHMED (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 25-FEB-22 | Yes | Consequently, the pre-arrest bail granted to the applicant on 14.07.2021 is hereby recalled and this bail application is dismissed with direction to the trial Court to conclude the trial expeditiously within two (02) months strictly in accordance with law. Let this order be communicated to the trial Court for compliance. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 470 | Const. P. 1709/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Muhammad Farogh Naseem (Petitioner) VS Pakistan, through the Secretary, Revenue Division & Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad& 2 others, (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 471 | Suit 104/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | A.J CORPORATION (Plaintiff) VS FAUJI FERTILIZERS BIN QASIM (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 01-NOV-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 472 | Const. P. 3463/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Dr Raheela Magsi (Plaintiff) VS Prov of Sindh & Ors (Defendant) | D.B. | Judgement | 18-MAY-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 473 | Suit 822/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 19-DEC-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 474 | Suit 734/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 31-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 475 | Cr.Bail 357/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Khuda Bukhsh and 4 others (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 18-SEP-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 476 | Suit.B 117/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | I.G.I. Investment Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/S Admore Gas (Pvt) Ltd & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 30-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 477 | Suit.B 117/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | I.G.I. Investment Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/S Admore Gas (Pvt) Ltd & another (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-FEB-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 478 | Const. P. 2703/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Nadar Shah & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 31-MAY-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 479 | Const. P. 3383/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mst. Qaima and another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 25-JUN-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author) | ||||
| 480 | Const. P. 4224/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | Shahid Ali and ors (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 19-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 481 | Const. P. 441/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Sohail (Petitioner) VS Kamran Siddiqui (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 12-JUL-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 482 | Const. P. 654/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Sultanul Uloom (Petitioner) VS Anis-ur-Rehman & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 26-JUL-19 | Yes | Point of reconstruction coupled with personal need. The petition is allowed, the impugned judgment of the learned appellate Court is set aside and the eviction order passed by the learned Rent Controller is restored. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 483 | Const. P. 1591/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Muhammad Hanif (Petitioner) VS IInd ADJ Karachi Central & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-JUL-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.530-K/2019 Muhammad Hanif v. Syed Nazir Hussain Rizvi (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 484 | Const. P. 310/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Abdul Hai (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 485 | Const. P. 2671/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Rizwan Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 486 | Const. P. 761/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Ihsan Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 487 | Const. P. 1860/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Hayat (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 488 | Const. P. 131/1993 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 1993 | Muhammad Khan and others (Petitioner) VS Commissioner Hyderabad and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 489 | Const. P. 511/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Farooque (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 490 | Const. P. 1840/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Zahida Usman (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 491 | Const. P. 1195/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Asmatullah (Petitioner) VS Govt. Of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 492 | Const. P. 3618/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Yousif (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 493 | Const. P. 3791/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Asif Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 494 | I. A 49/2000 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2000 | Mashooq Ali Bhutto (Appellant) VS ADBP Hyd & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 495 | Const. P. 1185/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Imtiaz Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 04-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 496 | Const. P. 3800/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Ayoob and another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 497 | Const. P. 1406/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Ilamzadi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 498 | Const. P. 2680/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Sachal Khan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 499 | Const. P. 2832/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Nadir Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 500 | Const. P. 83/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mumtaz Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 501 | Const. P. 2143/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Inamullah Halepoto (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 502 | Const. P. 3143/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Shafi Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 503 | Const. P. 2221/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Rasool Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 504 | Const. P. 408/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Mohammad Mithal Lohach (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 28-FEB-20 | Yes | No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to assist this Court. This petition was filed in the month of January 2016, praying for initiation of an inquiry against the then Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sindh--In the above circumstances, this petition, being not maintainable and having become infructuous, is dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. No one is present on behalf of the petitioner to assist this Court. This petition was filed in the month of January 2016, praying for initiation of an inquiry against the then Secretary, Education Department, Government of Sindh--In the above circumstances, this petition, being not maintainable and having become infructuous, is dismissed along with pending application(s) with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 505 | Const. P. 8063/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Hafiz Muhammad Tabish (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-DEC-20 | Yes | we are of the considered view that merely obtaining acquittal from a criminal case is no ground to take benefit to bypass the disciplinary proceedings. Since the show cause was issued against the petitioner and he replied and it is for the respondent-KPT to decide in accordance with law for which this Court is not required to show indulgence in the matter under Article 199 of the Constitution to set-aside the disciplinary proceedings initiated against him--we do not see any infringement of the right of the Petitioner which could be called in question by way of Writ Petition. It is a well-settled principle of law that a public Servant has no vested right to call in question the disciplinary proceedings in Writ Petition. During the course of arguments, we have been informed that petitioner???s service has been dispensed with under the disciplinary proceedings. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 506 | Const. P. 7731/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Javed Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 24-DEC-20 | Yes | promotion in PSO | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 507 | Const. P. 5851/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Mst. Saima Ather (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-APR-20 | Yes | The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were appointed in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) as Executive in Information Technology and Medical Services Department in Grade-I respectively, on contract basis vide office letter dated 14.11.2012. They continued to serve them till 31.12.2017, but their services were not regularized---In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petitions are disposed of in the terms whereby the competent authority of respondent-company is directed to consider the case of the petitioners without any discrimination for regularization of their service in accordance with law, and dicta laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court vide unreported order dated 12.03.2018 passed in Civil Petitions No.67-K and 68-K of 2018, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment--Disposed of. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.A.937/2020 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited thr. its attorney S.M. Hassan Meerza v. Mst. Saima Athar and others,C.P.1755/2020 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited thr. its attorney S.M. Hassan Meerza v. Mst. Saima Athar and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 3 months.status quo be maintained. | |
| 508 | Const. P. 3840/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Ghulam Hussain (Petitioner) VS PTET and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-20 | Yes | The grievance of the petitioner, who is a retired employee of respondent No.2 / PTCL, is that pension has not been / is not being paid to him in accordance with law as substantial amounts have been / are being deducted therefrom illegally by the respondents on account of rent---It is well-settled that no amount on account of rent can be deducted from pension. On behalf of respondent No.2, their above named officer undertakes that the amount of Rs.476,373.00 illegally deducted from the petitioner's pension on account of rent shall be refunded to him within thirty (30) days from today. Learned counsel for the petitioner is satisfied with the above undertaking and seeks disposal of the present petition in terms thereof. Regarding the amount illegally deducted by respondent No.2 from the pension of other retired employees on account of rent, further undertaking has been given by the above named officer on behalf of respondent No.2 that the entire said amount shall be refunded to all the said retired employees within three (03) months from today, and for this purpose they shall publish a public notice in leading English and Urdu newspapers having large circulation throughout Pakistan, inviting all the said retired employees to collect their refund. Respondent No.2 is directed to submit a compliance report to this Court in terms of this order through MIT-II latest by 31.01.2021---By consent, the petition is allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs and listed application stands disposed of accordingly. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 509 | Const. P. 3454/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Attaullah Bhutto (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-DEC-20 | Yes | We are not impressed with the analogy as put forward by him for the reasons that departmental action against the petitioner having been initiated during his service independently of a criminal case registered against him. Merely obtaining an acquittal order in a criminal case would not nullify the departmental proceedings at this stage after his retirement. Since PSB-I did not consider his case for promotion and in the meanwhile, he stood retired from service, no benefit of Rule 7-A of The Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974, could be given to him after he retired from service in the year 2017--Dismissed | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.307-K/2021 Attaullah Bhutto v. Province of Sindh & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 510 | Const. P. 877/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Sarvech Shaikh (Petitioner) VS NAB and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 04-DEC-20 | Yes | Both these petitions are allowed, however, with no order as to costs. Resultantly, the impugned orders of removal of the petitioners from service are hereby set aside and their cases are remanded back to the competent authority of NAB for holding regular inquiry against them after providing opportunity of hearing / representation to them strictly in accordance with law, which exercise shall be completed within three (03) months from the date hereof. Needless to say the question of granting back benefits to the petitioners shall depend upon the outcome of the inquiry to be held in pursuance of this judgment. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.737/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau thr. P.G. NAB, Islamabad v. Sarvech Shaikh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn | |
| 511 | Const. P. 6241/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Anjum Badar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 08-APR-21 | Yes | petitioners have prayed that their temporary contractual appointments / services be regularized in BPS-17 under Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Whether temporary employees appointed on contract in BS 16 and above can be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis, without going through the competitive process of selection through the Sindh Public Service Commission, merely in view of Section 3 of the Act of 2013 ?--Whether the mandatory requirement of competitive process of selection only through the Sindh Public Service Commission for appointments in BS 16 and above, which is the command of the Constitution and specific direction to the Government of Sindh by the Hon???ble Supreme Court, can be waived, relaxed, done away with, exempted and or bypassed in view of Section 3 of the Act of 2013 ?--Whether the petitioners have any vested right for regular appointment, or to claim regularization, or to approach this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to seek redressal of their grievance relating to regularization ; and, is there any corresponding legal duty cast on the Government of Sindh to appoint them on regular basis ? If no, then can a writ of mandamus to this effect be issued against the Government of Sindh ? --Whether Section 3 of the Act of 2013, to the extent of regularization / appointment in BS 16, 17 and 18 without the mandatory competitive process of selection through the Sindh Public Service Commission, is ultra vires the Constitution and against the law laid down and the direction given by the Hon???ble Supreme Court to the Government of Sindh in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others V/S Province of Sindh and others, 2015 SCMR 456. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.735-K/2021,C.A.28-K/2021,C.A.27-K/2021,C.M.A.589-K/2021 SCP | Disposed Leave Granted [ C.As be fixed after three months ],Pending ,Pending ,Disposed Allowed [ C.P. be numbered & leave granted & C.A. be fixed after three months ] | |
| 512 | Const. P. 4646/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Z.A Quraishi and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 04-MAR-20 | Yes | Prima facie, the calculation made by the respondent No.2 is not correct for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan directed to determine the pension from the date of restoration of their commuted pension at the rate at which they were drawing 50% remaining pension which means that the petitioner at the time of his retirement commuted his 50% pension and that portion of pension is to be increased after a period of 15 years (commuted period). As per record, the increases made on commuted pension have already been drawn by him, As per record, the increases made on commuted pension have already been drawn by him, therefore, his claim that at the time of restoration of his commuted portion he was drawing Rs.28211.03 and increases to be made in that amount is misconceived. The calculation prepared by respondent as well as Accountant General Sindh is in accord with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, we are satisfied with the same. Prima facie, the calculation made by the respondent No.2 is not correct for the reason that the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan directed to determine the pension from the date of restoration of their commuted pension at the rate at which they were drawing 50% remaining pension which means that the petitioner at the time of his retirement commuted his 50% pension and that portion of pension is to be increased after a period of 15 years (commuted period). As per record, the increases made on commuted pension have already been drawn by him, As per record, the increases made on commuted pension have already been drawn by him, therefore, his claim that at the time of restoration of his commuted portion he was drawing Rs.28211.03 and increases to be made in that amount is misconceived. The calculation prepared by respondent as well as Accountant General Sindh is in accord with the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan, therefore, we are satisfied with the same. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 513 | Const. P. 4802/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mansoor Ahmed Rajput and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-NOV-20 | Yes | Promotion to the post of Director Information BS-19, which has been deferred vide notification dated 29.9.2020 on account of pendency of NAB reference / proceedings--whether a Civil Servant can be promoted against whom prima facie involvement in the serious charges of misconduct was available in the shape of NAB reference / proceedings ? --we are of the view that the case of the petitioners for promotion was rightly deferred by the competent authority / Board, and such decision does not call for any interference by this Court. However, their deferment shall be subject to the final outcome of the NAB reference / proceedings presently pending against them. disposed of | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.786-K/2020 Mansoor Ahmed Rajput & another v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed | |
| 514 | Const. P. 4890/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Garibdas (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-NOV-20 | Yes | It is directed that the Government of Sindh shall ensure that in future before convening the meeting of PSB and/or DPC for considering the cases for promotion of civil / Government servants, the department concerned shall provide the complete set of ACRs / PERs of the concerned officer to PSB / DPC well in advance so that the cases for promotion should be decided without any delay. It may be observed that if promotion of any civil / Government servant is deferred or delayed after passing of this order for want of ACR / PER, the Secretary of the department concerned, competent authority and all officials responsible for deferring or delaying the promotion shall be held personally responsible for defiance of the above direction of this Court. With the above observations and direction, the petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs. Let notice be issued for compliance to the Chief Secretary Sindh and the Secretaries of all the departments of the Government of Sindh. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 515 | Const. P. 7120/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Zamir Ahmed Abbasi (Petitioner) VS Lt Cdr (R) Kashif Ahmed Abbasi and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-FEB-20 | Yes | The Additional Secretary is directed to ensure that vacant possession of the subject flat is taken over from respondent No.1 and/or from any person(s) in possession on his behalf, and is handed over to the present petitioner without fail within seven (07) days from today. Services, General Administration and Coordination Department, Government of Sindh, is directed to pay a sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) to the petitioner on or before the next date of hearing as compensation. The Additional Secretary, Services, General Administration and Coordination Department, is directed to submit a complete list before this Court on the next date of hearing of all such quarters, flats, bungalows and Government accommodation that are in unauthorized occupation or possession of such persons who are not entitled to enjoy possession thereof. Adjourned to 26.02.2020 at 11:00 am when above named Additional Secretary shall be in attendance. Let notice be issued to Chief Secretary Sindh to ensure compliance of this order in letter and spirit. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 516 | Const. P. 1040/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Muhammad Danish (Petitioner) VS Deputy General Hyderabad Development Authority & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 517 | Const. P. 2735/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Mst. Ravi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 23-OCT-20 | Yes | In view of the above, the competent authority of respondents is directed to consider the case of the petitioner-widow for her family pension if her deceased husband had a requisite length of service to claim pensionary benefits on account of family pension. The aforesaid exercise shall be completed by a speaking order within one month from the date of receipt of this order after hearing the petitioner. By consent, this petition is disposed of in the above terms with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 518 | Const. P. 3055/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Maqsood Ahmed and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 12-JAN-21 | Yes | Since respondent No 3 has crossed the age of 60 years and left his position from KPT, no further action is required. However, it is made clear that he is not entitled to a second pension from KPT due to his illegal deputation and subsequent absorption in KPT in the intervening period without the approval of the competent authority as discussed in the preceding paragraphs---Before parting with this order, it may be observed that even on moral ground, the illegalities committed by the management of KPT and respondent No.3, being a retired naval forces personnel and a patriot, was expected to act honestly in the best interest of the country. However, he chose not only to get himself illegally absorbed in KPT, but also claimed and received pension from their different services causing heavy loss to the national exchequer. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1325/2021 CDR (R) Khalid Munir v. Maqsood Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 519 | Const. P. 5334/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Zubair Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS The Sect: Local Govt. Board and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 08-DEC-20 | Yes | It is well-settled that in absence of codal formalities i.e. advertisement, the constitution of Selection Committee, test and interview, before filling up the subject post, this Court cannot come to rescue and entertain the grievance of the petitioner as made by him in the prayer clauses under the constitutional jurisdiction. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 520 | Const. P. 9013/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Raja Naved Khaskheli (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-FEB-20 | Yes | fake appointment--Petitioner claims to have been appointed on 22.11.2011 as Police Constable in Sindh Police department and has been performing his duties at different police stations and due to involvement of his uncle in departmental proceedings, he has been deprived of his salary which has not been paid to him since September, 2018---Reverting to the claim of the petitioner that he was legally appointed and the Hon???ble Supreme Court has not given any observation against him, therefore the Respondents cannot stop his salary as he is still working on his post, suffice to say that the petitioner is Civil Servant therefore, the forum chosen by him by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. Since the expression terms and conditions includes salary and the Sindh Services Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide such issue and the validity of the impugned action, this petition is not maintainable. Petitioner claims to have been appointed on 22.11.2011 as Police Constable in Sindh Police department and has been performing his duties at different police stations and due to involvement of his uncle in departmental proceedings, he has been deprived of his salary which has not been paid to him since September, 2018---Reverting to the claim of the petitioner that he was legally appointed and the Hon???ble Supreme Court has not given any observation against him, therefore the Respondents cannot stop his salary as he is still working on his post, suffice to say that the petitioner is Civil Servant therefore, the forum chosen by him by invoking the Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of the Constitution is not proper under the law in view of the bar contained in Article 212 of the Constitution. Since the expression terms and conditions includes salary and the Sindh Services Tribunal has jurisdiction to decide such issue and the validity of the impugned action, this petition is not maintainable. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 521 | Const. P. 2797/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Mohammad Rashid (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1332-K/2020 Muhammad Rashid Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed | ||
| 522 | Const. P. 6100/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2014 | Zaheer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 523 | Const. P. 4907/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | M/s Sakina Export International Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fareed and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-OCT-20 | Yes | The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not their employees but the employees of third party contractors. This plea is not tenable in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181), in which the workers employed by the third-party contractor were held to be the workers of the company--Reverting to the third point that there is no specific provision for the award of compensation in the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance, we do not agree with the aforesaid assertion for the simple reason that the learned SLAT has dealt with this issue at pargraphs11 and 12 of the impugned common judgment dated 16.01.2020 and assigned valid reasons to award a reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the private respondents as full and final payment for severance of their employment relationship with the petitioner-company--Dismissed in limine. The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not their employees but the employees of third party contractors. This plea is not tenable in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181), in which the workers employed by the third-party contractor were held to be the workers of the company--Reverting to the third point that there is no specific provision for the award of compensation in the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance, we do not agree with the aforesaid assertion for the simple reason that the learned SLAT has dealt with this issue at pargraphs11 and 12 of the impugned common judgment dated 16.01.2020 and assigned valid reasons to award a reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the private respondents as full and final payment for severance of their employment relationship with the petitioner-company--Dismissed in limine. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 524 | 2022 PLC (CS) 1289 | Const. P. 4077/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Yar Muhammad Bozdar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-NOV-20 | Yes | Repatriation, from the appointment as Assistant Commissioner (BPS-17) in Ex-PCS Cadre by way of nomination, to his parent department i.e. Board of Revenue, Sindh---we are not impressed with the grounds urged by the petitioner in his petition for the simple reason that the appointment of the petitioner in Ex-PCS cadre (BS-17) had already been declared as illegal by the Honorable Supreme Court and ordered his repatriation to his parent department i.e. Board of Revenue--In our view, since the directions of the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters are still in the field, we are bound to follow it under the Constitution. Besides the respondents have issued the impugned notification in pursuance of the orders passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings, therefore, no indulgence of this Court is required in the present matter--Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||
| 525 | Const. P. 4461/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Imtiaz Bibi (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 28-FEB-20 | Yes | Petitioner is the second wife of deceased Saeeduddin Qureshi, who passed away on 22.12.2009, seeks twenty-eight (28) month family pension, granted to deceased???s first wife namely Mst. Bushra Saeed, who passed away on 25.11.2016--On the aforesaid proposition, we seek guidance from the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by Hon???ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.48 of 2013 (International Islamic University, Islamabad V/S Jahanzaib Khan and others), wherein it was held, inter alia, that all the Government departments, agencies and officers deployed to serve the general public within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary / retirement benefits, and any violation of such direction shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them--This petition stands allowed / disposed of with no order as to costs along with pending application(s) in the above terms. Let notice be issued to respondents 1 and 2 as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and the Accountant General, Sindh, for compliance. Petitioner is the second wife of deceased Saeeduddin Qureshi, who passed away on 22.12.2009, seeks twenty-eight (28) month family pension, granted to deceased???s first wife namely Mst. Bushra Saeed, who passed away on 25.11.2016--On the aforesaid proposition, we seek guidance from the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by Hon???ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.48 of 2013 (International Islamic University, Islamabad V/S Jahanzaib Khan and others), wherein it was held, inter alia, that all the Government departments, agencies and officers deployed to serve the general public within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary / retirement benefits, and any violation of such direction shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them--This petition stands allowed / disposed of with no order as to costs along with pending application(s) in the above terms. Let notice be issued to respondents 1 and 2 as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and the Accountant General, Sindh, for compliance. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 526 | Cr.Bail 1225/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | MANZOOR ALI S/O MAQBOOL AHMED (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 21-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the subject case within three (03) months strictly in accordance with law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 527 | Cr.Bail 1249/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | MALIK AAMIR S/O NOOR KHAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 20-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Malik Amir son of Noor Khan is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 528 | Cr.Bail 1237/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | ADNAN S/O MUHAMMAD AYOUB (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 15-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the instant bail application is dismissed with direction to the learned trial Court to conclude the trial of the subject case within three (03) months strictly in accordance with law. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 529 | Const. P. 1497/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Nasir Kamal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 03-JUN-21 | Yes | PNSC is hereby directed to pay all the post-retirement benefits to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law without fail within fifteen (15) days and to submit compliance report to this Court through MIT-II within seven (07) days thereafter. For future as well as for cases pending for calculation and/or payment of post-retirement benefits, PNSC is further directed to ensure compliance of the directions given by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in Haji Muhammad Ismail Advocate (supra) and Province of Punjab, through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad (supra) in letter and spirit The petition is allowed in the above terms with costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan | C.P.1089-K/2021 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation through its Chairman v. Nasir Kamal & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 530 | Const. P. 584/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Ghulam Murtaza (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc Two were the plots purchased in the name of Munwar Ali and Ghulam Murtaza ,who are co-accused and have been drivers of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani , No case for pre arrest bail, Hence , dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 531 | Const. P. 2976/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Gulzar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS NAB and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc. Gulzar Ahmed???s case is almost on identical footings. He is said to have aided and abated accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani in acquiring illegal assets; and utilizing accounts of PW Sadaf Chohan and Syed Mobin Saeed by parking money therein for such Page 15 of 19purpose. There is however statement of only PW Sadad Chohan In this regard on record. But her statement tends to incriminate herself rather than accused Gulzar Ahmed. She says that the money was deposited in her account in Meezan Bank (by Gulzar Ahmed) and that she had issued cheques for withdrawing the same. She claims that the money was parked into her account by Gulzar Ahmed but admits at the same time that it was done by him on her own request as she wanted to improve statement of her bank account for applying for UK visa. c she claims, without any proof, deposited the money in her account has been arrayed as accused. Regarding transactions of 600 million found in his account, relevant evidence that this amount either belongs to or was parked by accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani and was utilized for purchasing assets on his behalf by this petitioner is yet to be produced by the prosecution in the trial. Bail granted. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.6306/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Gulzar Ahmed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 532 | Cr.Bail 464/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | FARHAN S/O ABDUL AZIZ (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 15-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 18.03.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. It is clarified that the observations made herein are tentative in nature which shall not prejudice the case of either party nor shall they influence the learned trial Court in any manner in deciding the case strictly on merits in accordance with law. This bail application is allowed in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 533 | Const. P. 233/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Muhammad Ramzan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-FEB-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan | ||||
| 534 | Const. P. 5659/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Muhammad Sajjad (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 11-MAR-20 | Yes | Petitioners questioned their transfer and posting orders issued by the respondent-Cantonment Board by invoking Constitutional Jurisdiction of this Court asserting that the post against which the petitioners were appointed was/is a non-transferable under Sub-Rule (I) of Rule 5 of the Pakistan Cantonment Servants Rules, 1954. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.1324-K/2022 Muhammad Javed & others v. The Federation of Pakistan through & Secretary, Petroleum & Natural Resources, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 535 | Const. P. 1641/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Sonya Durrani (Petitioner) VS NAB & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc., are identified as Benamidar/ostensible owners of the properties actually owned and possessed by him. We come to the case of family members of accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani (his wife, a son and three daughters). It is noted, they have been identified as Benamidar owners of certain properties like plots, flats ,bungalows, vehicles .s. Allegation to provide finance to purchase the properties is against him, and not against his family members. there is no evidence or even allegation that his family members were either privy to his alleged acts of depravity, aiding and abetting him. Petition of SoniaDurrani (C.P.No.D-1641/2020) is allowed and bail is confirmed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | C.P.6307/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Sonya Durrani Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Disposed of | |
| 536 | R.A (Civil Revision) 53/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Wali Muhammad (Applicant) VS Habib-ur-Rehman Through LRs & Another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 30-MAY-17 | Yes | Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 30.05.2017, whereby this civil revision application was allowed and the impugned order and judgment were set aside. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 537 | Const. P. 11/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2014 | Muhammad Ishaque (Petitioner) VS Shamsuddin & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 07-APR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 538 | I. A 9/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2011 | Nand Lal and another (Appellant) VS M/S Askari Bank Ltd.and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 15-MAR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 539 | R.A (Civil Revision) 85/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2015 | Mumtaz Ali and others (Applicant) VS Arz Mohammad and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 540 | Const. P. 56/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Syed Munawar Ali Shah (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 15-JAN-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 541 | F.R.A 52/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2008 | ANwar Ahamed (Appellant) VS jamil Ahmed (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | The impugned orders, being not sustainable in law or on facts, are liable to be set aside. Accordingly, all these appeals are allowed, however, with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 542 | Suit 1077/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Akhlaq Hashmi (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Bakht Bibi & others (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 08-APR-21 | Yes | Suit and listed applications were dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 31 within thirty (30) days. The amount of Rs.7,000,000.00 (Rupees seven million only) received by the said defendants from the plaintiff shall be returned by them to him within thirty (30) days. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 543 | Cr.Rev 41/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2012 | Imdad Hussain Tunio (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 04-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 544 | Const. P. 229/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2021 | Punhoon (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan | ||||
| 545 | Suit 950/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | CHINA MOBILE PAKISTAN LIMITED (ZONG) & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 27-AUG-21 | Yes | Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 27.08.2021 whereby C.M.A. No. 8722 of 2021 filed by defendants 3 and 4, seeking return of the plaint, was dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 546 | Const. P. 1807/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Mirza Fayyaz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-NOV-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 547 | Const. P. 411/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Najaf Ali Shah (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-NOV-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 548 | II.A. 55/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Gul Muhammad (Appellant) VS Nusrat Jamal (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-JUN-22 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 549 | Suit 1266/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | Chief Resident Representative WAPDA (Plaintiff) VS M/s Transglone Shippoing Services (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 30-NOV-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 550 | Cr.Rev 139/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Ghulam Rasool (Appellant) VS The State (Appellant) | S.B. | Order | 22-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 551 | Suit.B 4/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2010 | Askari Bank Ltd (Plaintiff) VS M/S.SHAHI TEXTILES & ORS. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 30-OCT-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 552 | Cr.Bail 1226/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | FAZAL WADOOD & 8 ORS (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 553 | Cr.Bail 1227/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | SAIF MALOOK SHAH & 6 ORS (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Appellant) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 554 | Suit.B 181/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | Emirates Global Islamic Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Abdul Salam Khan (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 21-DEC-12 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 555 | Const. P. 277/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Muhammad Iqbal (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Ahmed Ramzani (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 06-AUG-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam | ||||
| 556 | Suit 812/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2001 | Party-1 (Appellant) VS Party-2 (Appellant) | S.B. | Judgement | 10-JAN-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 557 | Suit 1447/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | Syed Amjad Mahboob (Plaintiff) VS Raja Mumtaz Hussain Arif & others (Defendant) | S.B. | Order | 15-APR-14 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 558 | Const. P. 2386/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2011 | Karachi Property Investment (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and ros (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 28-JUL-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.578-K/2017 Govt. of Sindh thr. Secy: Culture Deptt: v. Karachi Property Investment Company (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 559 | H.C.A 151/2006 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | Karachi Pipe Mills Ltd. & others (Appellant) VS Habib Bank Limited (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 03-JUN-16 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 560 | Const. P. 7084/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Muhammad Ateeq and others (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Shafiq and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 16-FEB-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 561 | Const. P. 1011/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | REHAN AHMED BIAG (Petitioner) VS MST. SABEEN NAZ & OTHERS (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-MAY-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 562 | Const. P. 6090/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Dr. Farrukh Mirza (Petitioner) VS The Sect: and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-FEB-20 | Yes | The petitioner, who is present in person, has referred to his comments filed on 27.01.2020 on report dated 07.12.2019 of Nazir of this Court and submits that he has received 50% commuted portion of pension with certain increases, but the restoration of 50% commuted portion of pension amount has been wrongly calculated by alleged contemnor as well as by Nazir of this Court--In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons alluded as above, we are satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent-department that compliance of the judgment of the Hon???ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been made in its letter & spirit. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with no order as to costs. The petitioner, who is present in person, has referred to his comments filed on 27.01.2020 on report dated 07.12.2019 of Nazir of this Court and submits that he has received 50% commuted portion of pension with certain increases, but the restoration of 50% commuted portion of pension amount has been wrongly calculated by alleged contemnor as well as by Nazir of this Court--In view of the facts and circumstances of the case and for the reasons alluded as above, we are satisfied with the explanation offered by the respondent-department that compliance of the judgment of the Hon???ble Supreme Court of Pakistan has been made in its letter & spirit. Accordingly, this application is dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.386-K/2020 Dr. Farrukh Mirza v. The Secretary Finance Division Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution | |
| 563 | Const. P. 494/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Custom Public School Thr. Akbar Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Aftab Ahmed and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 06-MAY-19 | Yes | Section 21 of SRPO 1979 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 564 | Const. P. 2438/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Syed Ali Abbas Rizvi Thr. Nisar Muhammad (Petitioner) VS The Addl. Controller of Rents Clifton & Another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 11-JUL-19 | Yes | The petition is dismissed with costs as the impugned order is an interlocutory order and it does not suffer from any jurisdictional defect or error, this petition, being misconceived and malafide, is not maintainable. The learned Rent Controller is directed to decide the subject rent case within forty five (45) days from receipt of this order strictly in accordance with law and in view of consent order dated 24.08.2010 passed by this Court in C.P. No.S-597/2010 and the judgment delivered by this Court on 10.04.2009 in FRA No.38/2008, and to report compliance within seven (07) days thereafter to this Court through MIT-II. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 565 | Const. P. 1592/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Muhammad Ishtiaq (Petitioner) VS IInd ADJ Karachi Central & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 29-JUL-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | C.P.531-K/2019 Muhammad Ishtiaq v. Syed Nazir Hussain Rizvi (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | ||
| 566 | Const. P. 3365/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Zubair Ahmed. (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others. (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 567 | Const. P. 2676/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Javed Akhtar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 568 | Const. P. 1177/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2010 | Perviaz Khan (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | ||||
| 569 | Const. P. 2633/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Ghulam Murtaza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 570 | Const. P. 125/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Murtaza (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant Petition stands disposed of directing Chief Secretary to Government of Sindh to consider the case of the Petitioner for his appointment on any post against deceased quota as per his qualification on the basis of Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 and in accordance with the dicta laid down by Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in C. P. No. 482-K & 503-K of 2016, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this order. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 571 | Const. P. 898/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Shahbaz Ali and another (Petitioner) VS Mola Bux and another (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 572 | Const. P. 1449/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst, Nadia (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 573 | Const. P. 538/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Arif and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 574 | Const. P. 2872/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Zulfiqar Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 575 | Const. P. 3066/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Muhammad Amir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 576 | Const. P. 5649/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Rao Muhammad Gulzar & Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-DEC-20 | Yes | Contempt--Prima-facie the question of downgrading some of the petitioners in the regularization process cannot be decided in contempt proceedings, which is a separate cause of action and it is for the aggrieved persons to avail their respective remedy as provided under the law against the purported action on the part of respondent-company, if any. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.3977/2019 Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd, Karachi v. Rao Muhammad Gulzar & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Disposed of | |
| 577 | Const. P. 2784/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Huzoor Bux and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 578 | Const. P. 609/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Sajid Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 579 | Const. P. 492/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Dildar Ali Khoso (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 580 | Const. P. 1587/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Faraz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 581 | Const. P. 1724/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Idrees Adil and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 31-OCT-19 | Yes | Learned counsel for the Petitioners while laying emphasis on Rule10- A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer Rules, 1974) argued that the Petitioners are entitled to be appointed on son quota. We are not impressed by the contention of learned counsel for the Petitioners for the reason that aforesaid legal position explicitly show that there is concept of deceased quota subject to all just exception and not son quota, since petitioners have applied admittedly against son quota in police department which under the aforesaid provision cannot be done so. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 582 | Const. P. 44/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Syed Muhammad Hassan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 27-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 583 | Const. P. 1318/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Syed Naimuddin Advocate (Petitioner) VS Chief Executive HESCO & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 05-DEC-19 | Yes | Contempt | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 584 | Const. P. 2768/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Nisar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 585 | Const. P. 112/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | Tariq Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 05-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 586 | Const. P. 3437/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Syed Hussain Abbas (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 587 | Const. P. 3031/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Sajidullah (Petitioner) VS Govt Of Sindh & Other (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.M.A.178-K/2020 Imdad Hussain v. Sajidullah Memon and others,C.P.1451-K/2020 Imdad Hussain v. Sajidullah Memon & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed,Disposed | ||
| 588 | Const. P. 2893/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-19 | Yes | Deceased Quota Deceased Quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 589 | Const. P. 317/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Zulfiqar Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 590 | Const. P. 158/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Muhammad Jawaid (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 06-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 591 | Const. P. 1794/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Manzoor Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and another (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 30-OCT-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 592 | Const. P. 521/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Rights Now Pakistan and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 593 | Const. P. 1544/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Dilshad Khan and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 594 | Const. P. 507/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Mohsin Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 595 | Const. P. 2928/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Misri (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 596 | Const. P. 1690/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Mst. Bano (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 26-NOV-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 597 | Const. P. 2021/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Tahir Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Govt. Of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | C.P.437-K/2020 Tahir Muhammad v. Government of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time | ||
| 598 | Const. P. 4906/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | M/s Sakina Export International Ltd (Petitioner) VS M. Shair Afzal Khan and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 12-OCT-20 | Yes | The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not their employees but the employees of third party contractors. This plea is not tenable in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181), in which the workers employed by the third-party contractor were held to be the workers of the company--Reverting to the third point that there is no specific provision for the award of compensation in the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance, we do not agree with the aforesaid assertion for the simple reason that the learned SLAT has dealt with this issue at pargraphs11 and 12 of the impugned common judgment dated 16.01.2020 and assigned valid reasons to award a reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the private respondents as full and final payment for severance of their employment relationship with the petitioner-company--Dismissed in limine. The main ground agitated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents were not their employees but the employees of third party contractors. This plea is not tenable in the light of judgment rendered by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of Messrs State Oil Company Limited v. Bakht Siddique and others (2018 SCMR 1181), in which the workers employed by the third-party contractor were held to be the workers of the company--Reverting to the third point that there is no specific provision for the award of compensation in the Industrial Relations Act/Ordinance, we do not agree with the aforesaid assertion for the simple reason that the learned SLAT has dealt with this issue at pargraphs11 and 12 of the impugned common judgment dated 16.01.2020 and assigned valid reasons to award a reasonable compensation of Rs.2,00,000/- each to the private respondents as full and final payment for severance of their employment relationship with the petitioner-company--Dismissed in limine. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 599 | Const. P. 790/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Atam Parkash Chanani (Petitioner) VS GOS & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 22-OCT-20 | Yes | Differently abled persons' plea for appointment in the quota reserved for such persons--We are of the view that the Chief Secretary Sindh, being the senior most officer in the Province, would be the most suitable person to oversee the entire process under his personal supervision in order to ensure not only the compliance of this Court's orders, but also to conclude the exercise in relation to those petitioners whose cases have not yet been considered and/or finalized--To ensure that appointment orders are received by all the 102 (81 + 21) petitioners, before the next date of hearing, who have been already recommended for appointment --To ensure that cases of all such petitioners in these petitions, that have not yet been considered and/or finalized, are considered on merits, strictly in accordance with law, and after providing adequate opportunity of hearing to them a speaking order is passed by the competent authority before the next date of hearing in relation to every such petitioner who is rejected for appointment --To ensure that all those petitioners who have been or will be recommended and have been / will be issued appointment orders are allowed to join their duties before the next date of hearing after completion of all codal formalities--To communicate this order to all the relevant departments and their Secretaries with direction to ensure implementation and compliance thereof in letter and spirit within the stipulated period. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 600 | Const. P. 6046/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2017 | Ghulam Mustafa Daudpota (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-OCT-20 | Yes | The disciplinary matters fall within the expression ???terms and conditions of service??? which in this case are non-statutory rules of service. Hence, the same cannot be called into question within the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Our view is supported by the latest decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Maj. (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas and other connected Appeals , 2019 SCMR 984. The disciplinary matters fall within the expression ???terms and conditions of service??? which in this case are non-statutory rules of service. Hence, the same cannot be called into question within the ambit of constitutional jurisdiction of this Court. Our view is supported by the latest decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Maj. (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas and other connected Appeals , 2019 SCMR 984. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.3452/2020 Ghulam Murtaza Daudpoto v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending | |
| 601 | Const. P. 7103/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2015 | Shakeel Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Sect: Education and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 17-DEC-20 | Yes | release his monthly salary--whether the salary of the petitioner can be withheld without providing an opportunity of hearing? --In our view, he, who seeks equity, must do equity and approach the Court with clean hands, ill-gotten gains cannot be protected. It is argued by the learned AAG that the petitioner had got his appointment through the backdoor, thus cannot agitate any grievance on the pretext of denial of due opportunity of hearing to him--we cannot determine the veracity of these documents, their claims, and counter-claims as these are disputed questions of facts between the parties, which cannot be adjudicated by this Court while exercising the Constitutional Jurisdiction and since the Competent Authority has already determined the genuineness or otherwise of the documents, claims, and counter-claims on the issue of appointment of non-teaching staff in the Directorate of School Education (Elementary/ Secondary / Higher Secondary Karachi), vide order dated 11.01.2019 on the subject as discussed supra, therefore, on the aforesaid plea the present petition filed by the petitioner cannot be maintained. On the issue of fake appointments in the department of the Government, we are guided by the pronouncement of the Judgment of the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Government of Punjab through Chief Secretary and others V/S Aamir Junaid and others 2015 SCMR 74. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 602 | Const. P. 1051/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Khizar Hayat Khan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 22-OCT-20 | Yes | Employees of KDA whose pension and other post-retirement benefits have been stopped or delayed by KDA--According to the report, public notice in terms of order dated 19.03.2020 was published in newspapers on 27.08.2020 ; a total amount of Rs.234,749,894.00 is payable by KDA to its retired employees ; and, an amount of Rs.23,741,450.00, being 10% amount of the pension and post-retirement benefits, has been paid by KDA to its 988 retired employees. Learned counsel for the petitioners have expressed some reservations with regard to the contents of the above compliance report and state that the orders of this Court have not been complied with by KDA in letter and spirit. The above named Director Finance & Accounts KDA is directed to produce before this Court on the next date of hearing the complete bank statement of the bank account opened by KDA for the above purpose in pursuance of the order dated 19.03.2020. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 603 | Const. P. 2157/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Kashmir Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 26-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 604 | Civil Revision 18/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2011 | Mehboob (Applicant) VS Nadir Hussain (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 16-DEC-19 | Yes | Revision Application and pending stay application were dismissed with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | |||
| 605 | Const. P. 4789/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Khizar Hayat (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 25-NOV-20 | Yes | whether the petitioner can challenge the show cause notice issued against him and his suspension order in a Constitution Petition?--We are clear in mind that pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, a final decision against the petitioner has yet to be taken by the respondent- Police Department and he has to overcome the clog of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, if not finalized earlier; the said proceedings shall be finalized within two months from the date of the decision of this Court. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 606 | Const. P. 160/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2016 | Muhammad Tahir (Petitioner) VS Gulab & another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 08-APR-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 607 | Const. P. 6275/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2020 | Noor Ahmed (Petitioner) VS D.J South Khi (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-DEC-20 | Yes | ACR--Admittedly, the Petitioner is a Civil Servant and his case falls within the ambit of the Sindh Subordinate Judiciary Service Tribunal which has the exclusive jurisdiction in respect of matters relating to the terms and conditions of service of Civil Servants working in Sindh Subordinate Judiciary under the law and the petitioner has a right to file an appeal against the impugned order adversely affecting the terms and condition of his service before the Tribunal subject to the qualification provided therein. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 608 | Const. P. 6032/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Waqarullah Korejo Advocate (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 29-OCT-20 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | ||||
| 609 | Const. P. 4210/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Mumtaz Ahmed Shah (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 08-DEC-20 | Yes | Essentially in service jurisprudence, appointment, promotion is of utmost importance. If these are made on merit in accordance with definite rules, instructions, etc., and the same will rightly be considered and treated as part of the terms and conditions of service of a civil/government servant, which cannot be interfered with under the constitutional jurisdiction, under the service law, besides that the petitioner has no vested right to claim promotion against the post which was meant for initial appointment, therefore, the petitioner is precluded to ask for the actualization of his alleged promotion made by DPC-II which was rightly cancelled. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 610 | Const. P. 6622/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Javed Iqbal and Ors (Petitioner) VS Home Dept Sindh: & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 18-MAR-20 | Yes | The grievance of the petitioners is that their candidature for the post of Police Constable (BPS-05) has been rejected and they have been declared medically unfit on the basis of medical reports submitted by respondent No.5, wherein it was stated that they were suffering from Hepatitis B & C.--In view of the aforesaid position, the basic grievance of the petitioners has been redressed. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners namely Abdul Sattar, Javed Iqbal and Sanullah, within a period of 02 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As far as petitioner No.3 Hafiz Muhammad Saleem is concerned, who was absent at the time of medical test, his medical test may be conducted in terms of order dated 26.02.2020, and if he clears the said test, he may be issued appointment order within two (02) weeks from the date of the result of his medical test. The grievance of the petitioners is that their candidature for the post of Police Constable (BPS-05) has been rejected and they have been declared medically unfit on the basis of medical reports submitted by respondent No.5, wherein it was stated that they were suffering from Hepatitis B & C.--In view of the aforesaid position, the basic grievance of the petitioners has been redressed. Resultantly, the respondents are directed to issue appointment orders in favour of the petitioners namely Abdul Sattar, Javed Iqbal and Sanullah, within a period of 02 (two) weeks from the date of receipt of this order. As far as petitioner No.3 Hafiz Muhammad Saleem is concerned, who was absent at the time of medical test, his medical test may be conducted in terms of order dated 26.02.2020, and if he clears the said test, he may be issued appointment order within two (02) weeks from the date of the result of his medical test. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.380-K/2020 The Province of Sindh & others v. Javed Iqbal Shah & others,C.A.1192/2020 The Province of Sindh thr. Secretary, Home Department & others v. Javed Iqbal Shah & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Leave Granted.impugned judgement is suspended.to be fixed after 3 months.,Disposed Dismissed | |
| 611 | Const. P. 3997/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Dr. Liaquat Ali Abro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-DEC-20 | Yes | i) whether the respondent namely Mrs. Abida Parveen was appointed in accordance with the law and had requisite qualifications and experience for the position of Registrar (BPS-19) in Environmental, Climate Change, and Coastal Development Department, Sindh Government to claim the post under the recruitment rules; ii) whether this Court can overrule the SPSC???s recommendation under Article 199 of the Constitution or otherwise? And iii) whether the private respondent was awarded punishment in her previous employment and in view of such punishment, whether she could seek government employment in any other department or office. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.150-K/2021 Dr.Liaquat Ali Abro v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 612 | Const. P. 730/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2018 | Muhammad Asim Panhwar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-MAR-20 | Yes | The petitioners have alleged that the subject school buildings in Districts Badin and Matiari are in dilapidated and dangerous condition, and are not fit or safe for the use of children who come there regularly for education purposes--The present cases deal with the issue of maintenance of Government school buildings situated in the interior Sindh, which are in precarious condition and need immediate repairs and regular maintenance--25% from each of the (i) District Development Fund / Budget, (ii) Bonus Production Fund and (iii) Social Welfare Fund, in respect of every District in the Province of Sindh, shall be allocated and utilized by the Government of Sindh only for the repairs and maintenance of the Government school buildings of the respective District--The Government of Sindh and District Oversight Committee shall maintain proper accounts of the above funds at all times--Allowed. The petitioners have alleged that the subject school buildings in Districts Badin and Matiari are in dilapidated and dangerous condition, and are not fit or safe for the use of children who come there regularly for education purposes--The present cases deal with the issue of maintenance of Government school buildings situated in the interior Sindh, which are in precarious condition and need immediate repairs and regular maintenance--25% from each of the (i) District Development Fund / Budget, (ii) Bonus Production Fund and (iii) Social Welfare Fund, in respect of every District in the Province of Sindh, shall be allocated and utilized by the Government of Sindh only for the repairs and maintenance of the Government school buildings of the respective District--The Government of Sindh and District Oversight Committee shall maintain proper accounts of the above funds at all times--Allowed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon | |||
| 613 | I. A 31/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2013 | Government of Sindh, through Secretary Education Department and others (Appellant) VS United Bank Limited (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 12-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 614 | II.A. 49/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | MUHAMMAD ASHRAF (Appellant) VS ASLAM PARVAIZ & OTHERS (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 31-JAN-19 | Yes | Appeal allowed with costs throughout. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.A.26-K/2019 Aslam Pervaiz and others v. Muhammad Ashraf Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 615 | Const. P. 5646/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Sahiba (Petitioner) VS PTCL and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 16-NOV-20 | Yes | retired employees / family members of deceased employee of the Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited (???PTCL???) and claiming a certain amount of contribution on account of Employees Old-Age Benefits--The petitioners are claiming the pensionary benefits under the EOB Act, 1976. We have to see whether petitioners were paid full-service benefits under the VSS scheme introduced by respondent-company in 2008 or are entitled to the issuance of EOBI Cards?--Adverting to the point raised by the petitioners that the respondent-PTCL deposited the requisite contribution with EOBI as such they are entitled to the benefits. We do not agree with the aforesaid proposition for the reason that the Hon???ble Supreme Court in the case of PTCL as discussed supra directed the respondent-PTCL to pay such contribution under the provision of Employees??? Old-Age Benefits Act, 1976, and as per the statement of the respondent-PTCL such demand of respondent No.2 was fully satisfied from the relevant period, whereas petitioners during their tenure of service never contributed such EOBI amount to respondent No.2 for payment before their voluntarily retirement. However, we may observe that if the petitioners would not have opted for VSS Scheme, the position of the case would have been different for the simple reason that after their option of VSS, they are estopped to claim such benefits---Dismissed. VSS is a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor is there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act. In the entire scheme of Pension Act and rules, there is nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract in the bargain with their post-retirement or pensionary benefits which they could have availed, for any prompt gain. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 616 | Const. P. 6999/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Shabbir Aslam (Petitioner) VS The Adjutant General & Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-MAR-20 | Yes | He assailed the aforesaid order before the Hon???ble Supreme Court in C.P No.428-K of 2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2019 with the observation that the petitioner, if he has any other subsisting grievance against the respondents, may avail his remedy in accordance with law.--Petitioner, who is present in person, states that his cause of action against the respondents still subsists, therefore, he has approached this Court. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner for the simple reason that Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan restricts this Court for making an order on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of armed forces of Pakistan or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces in respect of his terms and conditions of service or in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces or as a person subject to such law.--dismissed He assailed the aforesaid order before the Hon???ble Supreme Court in C.P No.428-K of 2019, which was dismissed vide order dated 29.08.2019 with the observation that the petitioner, if he has any other subsisting grievance against the respondents, may avail his remedy in accordance with law.--Petitioner, who is present in person, states that his cause of action against the respondents still subsists, therefore, he has approached this Court. We are not satisfied with the aforesaid assertion of the petitioner for the simple reason that Article 199(3) of the Constitution of Pakistan restricts this Court for making an order on application made by or in relation to a person who is a member of armed forces of Pakistan or who is for the time being subject to any law relating to any of those Forces in respect of his terms and conditions of service or in respect of any matter arising out of his service, or in respect of any action taken in relation to him as a member of the Armed Forces or as a person subject to such law.--dismissed | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | C.P.195-K/2020 Shabbir Aslam v. The Adjutant General and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Disposed Dismissed | |
| 617 | Const. P. 7604/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2018 | Syed Shoaib Hussain Zaidi (Petitioner) VS NIRC and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 24-FEB-20 | Yes | petitioner has assailed order dated 12.9.2018, passed by respondent-Karachi Electric (K.E) whereby he was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct--assailed the same before NIRC--There is no cavil to what the respondent-K.E says to the extent that case of the petitioner should be decided by the appellate forum i.e. Full Bench of NIRC, if petitioner approaches them with an application for condoning the delay in filing of the case before the NIRC. On the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified with the decision dated 11.06.2019 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1007 of 2019--We, in the circumstances, dispose of this petition with no order as to costs with the observation that if petitioner approaches the competent / appellate forum against the impugned orders passed by the respondents, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and the question of limitation, if any, shall also be dealt with in accordance with law and keeping in view the grounds to be urged by the petitioner for condoning the delay. petitioner has assailed order dated 12.9.2018, passed by respondent-Karachi Electric (K.E) whereby he was dismissed from service on the charge of misconduct--assailed the same before NIRC--There is no cavil to what the respondent-K.E says to the extent that case of the petitioner should be decided by the appellate forum i.e. Full Bench of NIRC, if petitioner approaches them with an application for condoning the delay in filing of the case before the NIRC. On the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified with the decision dated 11.06.2019 rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.1007 of 2019--We, in the circumstances, dispose of this petition with no order as to costs with the observation that if petitioner approaches the competent / appellate forum against the impugned orders passed by the respondents, the same shall be decided in accordance with law and the question of limitation, if any, shall also be dealt with in accordance with law and keeping in view the grounds to be urged by the petitioner for condoning the delay. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 618 | Const. P. 3247/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Prof: Syed Farhat Ali Jaffery (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 02-MAR-20 | Yes | By means of this petition, the petitioner has impugned office order dated 30.05.2016 whereby his extra assignment of the post of Principal, Karachi Medical & Dental College, KMC, in addition to his own duties, was cancelled / withdrawn--Admittedly, the petitioner is Government Servant and his case falls within the ambit of the terms and conditions of his service. In our view, a Government Servant has no vested right to claim a particular assignment in addition to his own duties forever or for a stipulated period as a matter of right. The respondents have already cancelled / withdrawn the aforesaid assignment vide Office Order dated 30.05.2016, which does not call for any interference-Dismissed. By means of this petition, the petitioner has impugned office order dated 30.05.2016 whereby his extra assignment of the post of Principal, Karachi Medical & Dental College, KMC, in addition to his own duties, was cancelled / withdrawn--Admittedly, the petitioner is Government Servant and his case falls within the ambit of the terms and conditions of his service. In our view, a Government Servant has no vested right to claim a particular assignment in addition to his own duties forever or for a stipulated period as a matter of right. The respondents have already cancelled / withdrawn the aforesaid assignment vide Office Order dated 30.05.2016, which does not call for any interference-Dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 619 | Const. P. 6845/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2016 | Juanid Ahmed Sarki (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 14-JAN-20 | Yes | Deceased quota-- Petitioner???s case if not approved by the competent authority may seek his remedy, if any, before the competent forum in accordance with law. Deceased quota | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 620 | 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 726 | Civil Revision 219/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2019 | Muhammad Ayoob, (Applicant) VS PO Sindh (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-DEC-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) | |||
| 621 | Cr.Bail 1443/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | HAZRAT BILAL S/O NAIMAT BAIG (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 07-OCT-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant / accused Hazrat Bilal son of Naimat Baz has made out a case for the grant of bail. Accordingly, the interim pre-arrest bail granted to him vide order dated 02.08.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. This bail application is allowed in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 622 | Const. P. 507/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Mst. Shakeela & another (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 623 | Const. P. 853/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Adil Raheem (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 20-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 624 | S.M.A 66/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Syeda Shakira Raza w/o Ghulam Raza (Petitioner) VS . (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 16-APR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 625 | Const. P. 1850/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2019 | Mitha Khan and Ors (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB and Ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 13-OCT-21 | Yes | Accused in reference, were extended a relief of pre and post arrest bail by this Court. NAB not satisfied with the order challenged the same before the Honorable Supreme Court where remanding the case back to this Court for deciding the afresh in the light of guidelines laid down in the cases reported in PLD 2018 SC 40, PLD 2005 SC364 and PLD 2019 SC 250. Case mainly revolves around allegations against accused Agha Siraj Durani, , for committing corruption and corrupt practices and illegal means accused in the reference, said to be his family members, associates, agents, domestic workers, gunmen, etc. Mitha Kan ,a driver in Local Government Department, aided accused Agha Siraj Khan Durani like Tufail Ahmed Shah in acquiring a property againstRs.46,000,000.00 in phase-VI DHA Karachi by getting pay orders issued in his name. He denied his role in the investigation. But bank record goes against him and implicates him in the alleged offence. No case for pre arrest bail, Hence , dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author) | |||
| 626 | Const. P. 529/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Sht. Seema & another (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 29-JAN-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar | ||||
| 627 | Cr.Bail 1400/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | USMAN S/O AHRAR (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 13-SEP-21 | Yes | In view of the above, the applicant Usman son of Ahrar is admitted to bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application stands disposed of in the above terms. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 628 | Const. P. 607/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2021 | Dawood Khan S/o Sher Ali (Petitioner) VS Rana Muhammad Rafique and others (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 12-OCT-21 | Yes | It would be seen that it has been consistently held by the Hon???ble Supreme Court that if the tenant asserts that he is no more a tenant as he had purchased the property, even then he has to vacate the property and file a Suit for specific performance of the sale agreement, and he would be entitled to possession of the property in accordance with law only if he succeeds in his Suit. It is also well-settled that till such time the Civil Court passes a decree against the landlord in a Suit for specific performance, landlord would be entitled to recover rent. In the present case, it is an admitted position that compliance of the tentative rent order was not made by the petitioner, therefore, the Rent Controller had no option, but to strike off his defence as held by the Hon???ble Supreme Court in Safeer Travels (Pvt.) Ltd. V/S Muhammad Khalid Shafi through legal heirs, PLD 2007 S.C. 504. The impugned orders are in accord with the law laid down by the Hon???ble Supreme Court. Accordingly, the petition and listed application are dismissed in limine with no order as to costs. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 629 | Const. P. 1943/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2012 | M/S Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Murtaza & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 03-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 630 | M.A. 1/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2009 | Nishat Raffiq & Ors. (Appellant) VS Securities & Exchange Commission (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-FEB-19 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain | ||||
| 631 | II.A. 27/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Mst. Tabasum Muneer & another (Appellant) VS Asghar Hameed & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 01-JUL-17 | Yes | The impugned judgments and decrees are set aside and the present appeal is allowed with costs throughout. Accordingly, the Suit filed by the appellants is decreed as prayed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | |||
| 632 | Const. P. 2973/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2012 | Anil Alam & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 07-OCT-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 633 | I. A 16/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2012 | Province of Sindh & others (Appellant) VS Deputy District Officer (Rev) & another (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 27-AUG-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 634 | I. A 36/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2017 | Anwar Ali Shah (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pak & Ors (Respondent) | S.B. | Order | 24-FEB-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 635 | Const. P. 542/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad | 2020 | Parvez Masih (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) | D.B. | Order | 09-MAR-21 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) | ||||
| 636 | R.A (Civil Revision) 184/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2013 | SYED MURSHAD ALI (Applicant) VS SYED AMJAD ALI & OTHERS (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 06-MAR-14 | Yes | Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 06.03.2014, whereby the impugned judgment was set aside, and this Civil Revision Application was allowed with costs of Rs.10,000/- (Rupees ten thousand only) payable by respondents 1 and 2 each to the applicant. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | C.P.520-K/2018 Syed Sarfaraz Ali v. Syed Murshid Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Dismissed | |
| 637 | Suit 1262/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2000 | SUZUKI MOTOR CYCLES (Plaintiff) VS MALIK QAISER ZAMAN & ORS. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 18-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 638 | R.A (Civil Revision) 50/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana | 2011 | Rafiq Ahmed Khichi (Applicant) VS Ashok Kumar & others (Respondent) | S.B. | Judgement | 05-MAY-15 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||
| 639 | Suit 641/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi | 2006 | MUHAMMAD SHOAIB (Plaintiff) VS JAMILA KHATOON & ORS. (Defendant) | S.B. | Judgement | 18-MAR-13 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author) | ||||