Export
Report-002 AFR

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:

Show Only Authored Judgements/Orders

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam

High Court of Sindh, Principal Seat Karachi, Bench at Sukkur, Circuit Courts at Hyderabad and Larkana
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 2014 CLC 322 Suit 119/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 MRS. SHABEENA FARHAT (Appellant) VS V/S M/S HIGHWAY HOUSING PROJECT & ORS (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 02-SEP-19 Yes Defendant has neither provided basic amenities in the Housing Scheme nor has produced any document, rules / bye-laws or Agreement between the parties hereto, to substantiate its evidence, that it is not the responsibility of Defendant to provide these basic amenities. the subject Housing Project launched by Defendant was not complete at least till the time of giving evidence till September, 2014; thus, the grievance of Plaintiff is of continuing nature, inter alia, in terms of Section 23 of the Limitation Law. This is a further ground in addition to the above, for determining that the present lis is maintainable. Hence, suit partly decreed. Defendant has neither provided basic amenities in the Housing Scheme nor has produced any document, rules / bye-laws or Agreement between the parties hereto, to substantiate its evidence, that it is not the responsibility of Defendant to provide these basic amenities. the subject Housing Project launched by Defendant was not complete at least till the time of giving evidence till September, 2014; thus, the grievance of Plaintiff is of continuing nature, inter alia, in terms of Section 23 of the Limitation Law. This is a further ground in addition to the above, for determining that the present lis is maintainable. Hence, suit partly decreed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
2 Suit 1461/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 A. QUBUBUDDIN KHAN (Plaintiff) VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 24-APR-19 Yes if illegallity is separable from the main award, the same can be modified / corrected by invocking section 15 of the Arbiration Act, 1940. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
3 Suit 315/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 S.M.INAMUL HAQ. (Plaintiff) VS MIRZA AMJAD BAIG & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-JAN-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
4 Suit 1763/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Mrs. Farha Zafar. (Plaintiff) VS Major (R) Wasim Pasha Tajammal & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 15-JAN-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
5 Election Appeal 3/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dehar (Appellant) VS Haji Muhammad Akbar and 14 others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-FEB-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
6 Const. P. 703/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Abdul Qadir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 26-SEP-17 Yes The action of Respondent No.3 in changing amenity nature and use of reserved plots is void ab initio. Consequently, very allotment in favour of private Respondents has no sanctity in the eyes of law and it is also settled principle that transferor cannot transfer a better title then what he himself possesses, therefore, if the title of the private Respondents being purported allottees of the above subject Plots is defective then further transfers of these plots do not improve the legal status of these allottees / private Respondents vis-??-vis the respective newly created purported Plots No.261 to 265 or any other Plot(s) created / allocated in a land exclusively earmarked / reserved for amenity purpose(s). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
7 Const. P. 2105/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2016 Mst. Bhalan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-MAY-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
8 Suit 1090/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Sunray Corporation (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Total Parco Marketing Ltd (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 14-OCT-16 Yes The Defendant in breach of its contractual obligation did not purchase the lubricants product from plaintiff. Suit decreed by awarding damages with markup rate of 12% from the date of institution of the suit till realization amount. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
9 2018 YLR 1319 Suit 1367/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Muhammad Iqbal Dawood and another (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Qayoom Hot and another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 11-MAY-17 Yes Suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits---Defendant was inducted by the plaintiffs as care taker to look after the suit land---Defendant/care taker had committed default in payment of money earned from the cultivation to the plaintiffs---Defendant had kept the plaintiffs out of possession of suit property---Plaintiffs were deprived of use and enjoyment of their land---Suit land was leased out to the plaintiffs and period/term of lease had been consumed by the care taker, mesne profits was to be granted to the plaintiffs in circumstances---Care taker was directed to hand over vacant possession of suit land to the plaintiffs free from all encumbrances and claims---Defendant/care-taker should pay mesne profits and contract money to the plaintiffs---Suit was decreed accordingly. Suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits. Suit Decreed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
10 Const. P. 222/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2018 Abdullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 14-NOV-18 Yes It is also necessary to clarify that a plot of land, even if it is situated in some housing scheme, cannot be presumed to be reserved for amenity purpose, unless it is shown as an amenity plot in the duly approved layout plan. No plausible material or document has been brought on record by the Petitioners side which can lead to the conclusion that the Plot Nos.163 and 164 were actually the amenity plots and their use was illegally changed/converted from amenity to that of commercial Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
11 Civil Revision 111/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 1999 Muhammad Sharif (Applicant) VS Mian Sajjad Ahmed (Respondent) S.B. Order 30-NOV-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
12 Suit 665/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 Umar Islam Khan (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Basit and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-FEB-18 Yes Suit for Declaration and Cancellation decreed. Held that the impugned transaction/transfer in favour of Defendant No. 1 is to be struck down on three grounds. (i) Admittedly no sale price was paid by the Defendant no. 1 to plaintiffs. (ii) Even the mother could not have entered into such type of transaction, if at all it even assumed that deceased mother of plaintiffs did sign the affidavit, though no convincing evidence has been led by Defendant No. 1 with regard to this fact, and (iii) Under section 11 of Contract Act, Plaintiffs No. 2 and 3, being minors at that relevant time, could not have entered into sale transaction with Defendant No. 1, again, even if it assumed that these plaintiffs had signed the documents under challenge; such kind of transaction is held void ab initio. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
13 Cr.Bail 275/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2019 Roshan Cholyani (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 28-JUN-19 Yes Mere absondence of Applicant cannot be made ground for rejection of bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail. Co-accused was already admitted to bail, hence, Applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. Case calls for further inquiry. Bail granted. Mere absondence of Applicant cannot be made ground for rejection of bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail. Co-accused was already admitted to bail, hence, Applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. Case calls for further inquiry. Bail granted. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
14 Election Appeal 7/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Muhammad Ameen and another (Appellant) VS Jawaid Ali and 5 others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 25-MAR-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
15 Suit 826/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Security Organizing System Pakistan (Pvt.) Limited (Plaintiff) VS National Bank of Pakistan & others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 28-JUL-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
16 R.A (Civil Revision) 13/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Sohail Ahmed Ansari (Applicant) VS Irfan Ahmed Ansari and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 10-AUG-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
17 Const. P. 14/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Abdul Aziz (Petitioner) VS Mst. Hurrat-ul-Maleka and 2 others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 10-AUG-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
18 S.M.A 47/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Raza Muhammad S/o (Late) Muhammad Hussain (Petitioner) VS Nil (Respondent) S.B. Order 06-JAN-20 Yes Petition not maintainable. Dismissed. Petition not maintainable. Dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
19 Const. P. 4634/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Muhammad Idrees and Ors (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 27-SEP-21 Yes 1. Extraneous considerations keep officials of SBCA away from illegal construction being raised by the persons. 2. If exemplary punishments are awarded to these officials, issue of illegal construction can be controlled. Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
20 Const. P. 1094/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2020 Suresh Kumar Hindu (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 17-FEB-21 Yes Precise facts are that Petitioners have challenged the Wheat Release Policy 2020-21 dated 14th October 2020 (said Policy), on the ground that Clause (xii) whereof is violative of the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, and the Food-grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, and consequently, be set aside and Flour Mills of Petitioners be given wheat as per the uniform Policy. The legal team of Respondents has stated that it is purely an executive matter regarding which no petition of the nature is maintainable. Crux of the rule laid down in these decisions is that ordinarily under Article 199 of the Constitution, High Court cannot interfere in the policy matters of the Executive, except if it is violative of law or is product of mala fide; whereas, the mala fide is also explained, inter alia, that unless an un rebuttable material is on record with regard to a specific plea of mala fide and not a vague one, the decision or action complained of, cannot be annulled or declared illegal This principle has been evolved through judicial pronouncements and opinions of jurists, the crux of which is that punishment must fit the crime. When on the record there is no evidence that Petitioners / Flour Mills have entered into plea bargain with NAB, then Clause (xii) cannot be stretched to include Petitioners / Flour Mills, and such an action of Respondents is hit by this doctrine of proportionality also and is unreasonable and discriminatory. Petitions are accepted only to the extent, that the Clause (xii) of the Wheat Policy is not applicable to the present Petitioners / Flour Mills and they are entitled to get their respective share / quota of wheat in accordance with the present Wheat Policy 202021 like other Flour Mills established and operating in the Province of Sindh. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
21 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
22 Suit 215/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Muhammad Rafiq (Plaintiff) VS Habib Bank Limited. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 14-JUL-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
23 Suit -758/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 MIAN NASSER HYATT MAGGO (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 19-MAY-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
24 Suit 1657/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 TCB AVIATION (PVT.) LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS SRI LANKAN AIRLINES LTD THR. COUNTRY MANAGER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 17-MAY-21 Yes The Court can take further proceeding, inter alia, as provided under Section 3 of the above Act, 2011, that is, invoking Civil Procedure Code. It must be clarified that grant of interim relief is not prohibited under the scheme of Arbitration Act, 2011, inter alia, in view of Section 3 thereof, but, in exceptional circumstances. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
25 Const. P. 370/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2014 Mst Bibi Naz Bibi (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 18-JAN-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
26 Const. P. 5895/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Uzma Naz and Ors (Petitioner) VS The D.G Rangers & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-MAY-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.860-K/2022 The Director General Rangers Sindh through Ashraf Hussain Shah Deputy Superintendent Rangers v. The Province of Sindh through Senior Member Board of Revenue Government of Sindh & others,C.P.859-K/2022 The Province of Sindh through Senior Member Board of Revenue Sindh & another v. Uzma Naz & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending Adjourned after summer vacation,Pending Adjourned after summer vacation
27 Suit 41/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Shahid & another. (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Zainab & others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 28-FEB-23 Yes no Inheritable Property. Plaint Rejected. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
28 Const. P. 1969/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Saifullah Abbasi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Faiza Mughal & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 06-APR-23 Yes Rule 22 W.P Family Court Act, 1964. Appellate Court decided appeal on merits, hence condoned the limitation. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.695-K/2023 Saifullah Abbasi v. Mst. Faiza Mughal & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
29 R.A (Civil Revision) 35/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Saeed Ahmed (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 23-OCT-23 Yes When the entire record is before the Appellate Court, it is not proper to remand the matter to the learned Trial Court in a routine manner, only for resolving trivial issues, which under the law, can be determined by the Appellate Court itself. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
30 R.A (Civil Revision) 18/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2000 Muhammad Bachal (Applicant) VS Banhoon & Others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 16-NOV-23 Yes Responsibility of First Appellate Court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
31 Const. P. 1168/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Syed Iftikhar Haider Rizvi S/o Syed Mumtaz Hussain (Petitioner) VS VIth ADJ, Karachi Central and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 20-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
32 Suit 972/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 DR. HASAN FATIMA JAFERY & ORS (Appellant) VS ROYAL SAUDI CONSULATE KARACHI & ANOTHER (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 18-DEC-19 Yes With the passage of time, the principle governing immunity has undergone a change. National Courts in different jurisdictions, specially where there exists constitutional dispensation, have generally narrowed down the scope of immunity, whether constitutional, diplomatic or any other type of immunity. One of the reasons for adopting such view, while interpreting the law or clauses relating to immunity is that the concept of immunity is to be balanced with the accountability and those rights guaranteed as fundamental and human rights. With the passage of time, the principle governing immunity has undergone a change. National Courts in different jurisdictions, specially where there exists constitutional dispensation, have generally narrowed down the scope of immunity, whether constitutional, diplomatic or any other type of immunity. One of the reasons for adopting such view, while interpreting the law or clauses relating to immunity is that the concept of immunity is to be balanced with the accountability and those rights guaranteed as fundamental and human rights. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
33 Suit 762/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1995 SHAHZAB GOTH RESIDENTS (Plaintiff) VS GOVT. OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Order 21-MAY-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
34 Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Order 20-APR-17 Yes Judgment debtor raised the plea that entire sale proceeds were received beyond statutory period of two weeks which was in violation of O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.---Validity---Time that was consumed in remitting amount from two accounts; one maintained by auction purchaser and other by the Court official on which neither court official nor auction purchaser had control---Such transaction and proceeds were governed by regulations of State Bank of Pakistan---Judicial sale had a sanctity and once sale was confirmed, auction purchaser had interest in proceedings---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Order XXI, Rule 85. Application dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
35 2016 CLC 1063 Suit 456/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1988 MUHAMMAD WAJID KHAN. (Plaintiff) VS M/S. ATTOCK CEMENT FAC. PAK. LTD. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 11-MAR-16 Yes A remedy available to a person under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, cannot operate as an absolute bar for seeking a remedy under an ordinary civil jurisdiction by filing a suit. Article 22 and 24 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where under an action to seek compensation for an injury should be instituted within one year, is not applicable in the instant case, for the reason that Plaintiff was made to run from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance but without any success. Plaintiff was lastly operated upon on 15.10.1987 and the suit was filed on 17.11.1987, hence the cause of action and so is the grievance is of continuous nature. Well entrenched principle that if a person has a right to claim compensation for a wrong done to him, he should also have a remedy, has been attracted in the instant case. The Defendants, who are Employer [Client], Contractor and sub-contractors, respectively, were jointly and severally held liable to pay damages for the negligent acts, which caused the Plaintiff serious injury and partial disability of permanent nature. Damages have been awarded by invoking the principle of composite negligence. A remedy available to a person under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, cannot operate as an absolute bar for seeking a remedy under an ordinary civil jurisdiction by filing a suit.The Defendants, who are Employer [Client], Contractor and sub-contractors, respectively, were jointly and severally held liable to pay damages for the negligent acts, which caused the Plaintiff serious injury and partial disability of permanent nature. Damages have been awarded by invoking the principle of composite negligence. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
36 Const. P. 7101/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Anwar Ahmed and others (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and another (Respondent) D.B. Order 12-SEP-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.634-K/2017 Anwar Ahmed and others v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others,C.P.4383/2017 Clifton Cantonment Board, Karachi v. Anwar Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
37 Suit 1063/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Abdul Rauf & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Amin Lakhani & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 11-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
38 Suit 1311/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2004 Shaikh Abdul Jabbar through his Legal Heirs (Plaintiff) VS Irfan Jami Rafique and another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 08-JUN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
39 Adm. Suit 539/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 Al-Riaz (Pvt.) Limited and another (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Ismail and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 14-JUL-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
40 Suit 1417/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 MRS. ZAIBA KABLY (Plaintiff) VS TARIQ NAZIR BUKHARI (Defendant) S.B. Order 02-APR-19 Yes Plaint will not be returned, merely because immovable property is situate outside territorial jurisdiction, when the actual relief sought is for recovery of sale price and damages against wrongful act. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
41 Suit 620/1994 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1994 ISMAIL MEMORIAL TRUST (Plaintiff) VS KARACH COOP H.S. UNION LTD. & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-MAY-19 Yes Hospitals fall within the category of amenity plots, as envisaged in Article 52-A of the Karachi Development Authority (KDA) Order, 1957. Suit decreed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
42 Suit 358/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1985 Ghazanfar Ali and another (Plaintiff) VS Cherat Cement Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-JUL-17 Yes NIL Suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Damages dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
43 Suit 1682/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MAZHAR SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS ATIF MAZHAR & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-JAN-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
44 Suit 1713/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 Sharif Ahmed Qureshi (Plaintiff) VS Wing Cdr.(R) Mazhar Mirza and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 03-MAY-19 Yes Housing Scheme_ If a Housing Scheme is announced by Defendant No.3, primarily, for Military Personnel, then either there should be a complete embargo on transferring of land to the civilians, or, if the same embargo is not in place and civilians / citizens can purchase in a housing scheme launched by Defendant No.3, then the policy and formalities of Defendant No.3 should be equitable and fair and no one should be discriminated against. It is understandable that there are security issues, for which NOC and other formalities are to be completed, but the security concern cannot be allowed to be misused, or, under the garb of security issue, rights of citizens cannot be compromised. Proprietary rights are guaranteed under the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973; inter alia, in terms of Article 24. Pleadings_ Admission made in Written Statement (on oath) does not need further proof. Executive Action_ Executive actions based on the premise of national security are justiciable on the basis of Rationale Basis Test. Sale NOC_ Non issuance of sale NOC by the Army Housing Directorate, violates Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897. Thus, requirement of NOC cannot be given that degree of importance or significance, that it can be allowed to impinge upon a statutory and fundamental right of ownership of a citizen, who is a lawful and bona fide transferee of a property, situated in a Housing Scheme of Official Defendants. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
45 Election Appeal 39/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2016 Mohib Ali (Appellant) VS Returning Officer and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 28-OCT-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
46 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 In our humble opinion, one of the reasons for introducing the doctrine of alternate remedy was to avoid and reduce the number of cases that used to be filed directly before this Court, and at the same time to allow the prescribed lower forum to exercise its jurisdiction freely under the law. Moreover, if a person moves this Court without exhausting the remedy available to him under the law at lower forum, not only would the purpose of establishing that forum be completely defeated, but such person will also lose the remedy and the right of appeal available to him under the law. Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
47 2019 CLD 185 Suit 1625/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s. Fine Enterprises Traders.. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Constellation Co-Op. H.S. Ltd., & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 15-AUG-18 Yes Suit by a partner on behalf of firm---Maintainability---Partner was not required to have an authority from other partners before initiating any action by way of a suit---No adverse consequence had been mentioned in the provision of O. XXX, R. 1, C.P.C. if compliance was not made---Partner could neither relinquish a claim of the firm nor withdraw a suit or proceeding without the authorization or endorsement of the other partners of a firm. Suit by a partner on behalf of firm---Maintainability---Partner was not required to have an authority from other partners before initiating any action by way of a suit---No adverse consequence had been mentioned in the provision of O. XXX, R. 1, C.P.C. if compliance was not made---Partner could neither relinquish a claim of the firm nor withdraw a suit or proceeding without the authorization or endorsement of the other partners of a firm. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
48 Criminal Appeal 20/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2018 Muhammad Sharif and another (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 24-JUL-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam Crl.P.1013/2019 Muhammad Sharif S/o Khuda Nazar Pathan & another v. The State thr. P.G. Sindh,Crl.A.183/2022 Muhammad Sharif S/o Khuda Nazar Pathan & another v. The State thr. P.G. Sindh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
49 Civil Revision 26/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Muhammad Iyas & others (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 02-MAR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
50 Const. P. 411/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 High Court Bar Hyd (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent) D.B. Order 18-MAR-20 Yes Petition pertains to the current issue of Corona Virus (COVID-19) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
51 Suit 1316/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 DR. ABDUL RASHID PARACHA (Plaintiff) VS THE DEF. HOUSING AUTHORITY (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-JAN-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
52 Election Appeal 12/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Hasnain Ali Chohan S/o Mumtaz Ahmed (Appellant) VS Miftah Ismail Ahmed and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 02-APR-21 Yes To a specific query, Appellant replied, which is supported by the record, that till date Respondent No.1 has not been convicted in the NAB Reference pending against him; but his assets have been frozen by the NAB (National Accountability Bureau), which shows that he is involved in corrupt and illegal practice. This argument is not acceptable as there is no supporting record, including any judicial order. No information or material has been brought on record to prima facie show that Respondent No.1 is a defaulter of loans, taxes and Government dues, as envisaged in sub-section (4) of Section 63 of the Elections Law. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
53 Const. P. 623/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2020 Haji Muhammad Siddique (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh through Home Secretary, Karachi & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 05-MAY-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
54 Suit 436/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1993 SHAHIMAH SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS BASE CDR PAF BASE MASROOR (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 26-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
55 Suit 493/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1993 Shahimah Sayeed (Plaintiff) VS Base Commander and three others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 26-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
56 Const. P. 300/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Mian Trust (Petitioner) VS Lyari Expressway And ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 18-OCT-21 Yes It may be noted that in view of the express statutory Bar, inter alia, as provided in Regulation 18-4.1 of the Karachi Building and Town Planning Regulations, 2002, a land reserved for amenity purpose cannot be converted and utilized for any other purpose. In this regard, a reported Judgment in the case of Mansoor Sharif Hamid vs. Shafique Rehman-2015 SCMR 1172 handed down by Honble Supreme Court, cited by the learned counsel for Petitioner is relevant. Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
57 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
58 J.M 8/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/S. GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LIMITED (Applicant) VS NOVARTIS AG & ANOTHER (Respondent) S.B. Order 02-SEP-21 Yes The Patents Ordinance, 2000. Section 27 of the Patents Ordinance, 2000, has two parts. One is relating to grant of Sealing Order about the main invention and the second part relates to Patent of Addition. There is no concept of automatic stay order, if a proceeding including that of Appeal is pending regarding the grant of patent in respect of the main invention. The Sealing Order under the Patents Ordinance, 2000, was issued after complying of fundamental requirements, coupled with the fact that there is a presumption under Article 129 Clause (e) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, that official acts are regularly performed, then, unless such official act is declared illegal in the main case, the basic ingredients for grant of injunction are not present in favour of Petitioner/Applicant. Injunction refused. Interpretation of statute: expressio unis est exclusio alterius and casus omissus explained. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.5311/2021 M/s Getz Pharma Pvt Limited, Karachi v. Novartis A.G. and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending Adjourned (Next Date: 13-Feb-24)
59 Election Appeal 13/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Zunaira Rehman W/o Ali Rehman (Appellant) VS The Election Commission of Pakistan and another (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 05-APR-21 Yes Once an identity of Seconder has been finally confirmed by NADRA, as discussed above, then difference in signature would not be a substantial defect (in terms of above provisions) and cannot be termed that it is not genuine, in the above given circumstances, resulting in rejection of the Nomination Form of present Appellant. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
60 Suit 1979/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Syed Sulaiman Jafri (Plaintiff) VS United Bank Limited & others (Defendant) S.B. Order 22-MAR-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
61 Suit 341/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 SHIAKH KHALID SAFDAR (Plaintiff) VS ALI HUSSAIN & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Order 29-SEP-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
62 II.A. 3/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 Nina Industries Limited (Appellant) VS Bhanero Textile Mills (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 24-JAN-24 Yes A legitimate claim is also proprietry, protected under Article 24 of the Constitution. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
63 Const. P. 362/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Dr. Ikram Baig (Petitioner) VS 6.th Addational Session judg Hyd & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 06-NOV-23 Yes In this writ jurisdiction appraisal of the evidence cannot be done, but it can be seen only to such an extent, to consider, whether the Finding / Decision of the Family Court or the Appellate Court is either contrary to the undisputed record or have completely ignored the law developed on a particular issue, by the Superior Courts. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
64 2016 YLR 2008, 2017 SBLR Sindh 202 Suit 871/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 MUHAMMAD HABIB (Plaintiff) VS HUMAYOON LTD. (Defendant) S.B. Order 24-OCT-13 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
65 Adm. Suit 7/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Fair Sea International FZC (Plaintiff) VS MV "MISKI" & Others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-SEP-19 Yes Plaintiff has incurred and still incurring expenses for supply of necessaries and other products to Defendant No.1 since or about 09.10.2017 and onwards, when the Defendant No.1 (subject Vessel) is berthed at Karachi Port; therefore, only those documents can be considered, which relate to this period and onwards, or, when the subject Vessel entered territorial waters of Pakistan and not before that. Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent of US Dollars-120,710.6 (US Dollars One Lac Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only) and Pak Rupees-22,42,497/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Four Hundred Ninety Seven only). Plaintiff has incurred and still incurring expenses for supply of necessaries and other products to Defendant No.1 since or about 09.10.2017 and onwards, when the Defendant No.1 (subject Vessel) is berthed at Karachi Port; therefore, only those documents can be considered, which relate to this period and onwards, or, when the subject Vessel entered territorial waters of Pakistan and not before that. Suit of the Plaintiff is partly decreed to the extent of US Dollars-120,710.6 (US Dollars One Lac Twenty Thousand Seven Hundred and Ten only) and Pak Rupees-22,42,497/- (Rupees Twenty Two Lacs Forty Two Thousand and Four Hundred Ninety Seven only). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
66 Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 02-JUN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
67 Suit 1408/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mirza Naseem Baig.. (Plaintiff) VS K.E.S.C. Employees Co-Op.H.S. Ltd., & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 01-APR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
68 J.M 7/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: J. M. No. 81 of 2015 2016 Muhammad Iqbal Pirani. (Applicant) VS Khurram Ashraf & Others. (Respondent) S.B. Order 25-APR-19 Yes Framing of Issues not mandatory. In exceptional cases while deciding 12(2) application, main case may also be decided. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
69 Suit 515/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 M/S SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SYED (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-FEB-19 Yes The Plaintiffs side has not pursued the matter diligently nor has come forward to lead the evidence, inter alia, at least Plaintiff could have examined any of its authorized representative, but he did not. It appears that the Plaintiff has lost interest in the matter. Unnecessarily a case for want of evidence should not be kept pending if the conduct of the parties does not seem to be bona fide, as in the present case, in view of the above discussion Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
70 Const. P. 4725/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2015 Mansoor Ashraf (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 30-AUG-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.662-K/2016 Mst. Fareeda Zafar and others v. Mansoor Ashraf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
71 2019 PLD Sindh 130, 2017 SBLR Sindh 2034 S.M.A 230/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 In the matter of Letter of Administration of deceased Tahir Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Nil (Defendant) S.B. Order 02-JUN-17 Yes It would be an inconvenience, rather a hardship for the present Petitioner and her siblings to file the proceeding in respect of properties of her deceased father in three different Countries; Pakistan for moveable property, United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates for the immoveable properties, particularly, when instant Proceeding is a noncontentious in nature. Proprietary rights are mentioned in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and hence they can neither be ignored nor their significance can be lessened. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
72 Suit 2651/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Zohaib Shakoor (Plaintiff) VS Mahwish Pirzada & another. (Defendant) S.B. Order 06-APR-17 Yes With these observations, the third basic ingredient of suffering irreparable loss is not difficult to decide. The forecasting done by Plaintiff while entering into the subject agreement and making investment in relation to that is bound to be frustrated and jeopardized if the injunctive relief is refused. Hence, Plaintiff cannot be compensated in monetary terms; whereas, the Defendants will not suffer any loss as they will be getting their agreed payments, rather now the enhanced payments as per Plaintiff Statement dated 30.01.2017 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
73 Suit 1689/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Mst. Saira Khatoon (Appellant) VS Syed Muhammad Ashraf and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-FEB-18 Yes Suit for Recovery of Earnest Money and Damages decreed. The defendant had not any authority from the owner of the apartment for its sale, hence, the defendant through misrepresentation and fraud, induced the plaintiff in paying the amount of rupees fifty thousand towards part payment/earnest money for sale of apartment. The Defendant no. 1 was directed to pay the earnest money and the damages of rupees five hundred thousand to the plaintiff. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
74 Adm. Suit 6/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 FAREED AHMED KHAN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI & ANOTHER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-SEP-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
75 Suit 1755/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Ahmed Saeed and others (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Education Department and two others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
76 Suit 1767/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Abdul Sattar Shaikh. (Plaintiff) VS Adeel Zahoor Malik & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 30-MAY-19 Yes Violation of proprietary right being a fundamental right should be remedied forthwith. Failure to examine both attesting witnesses of a Sale Agreement, which is a disputed document, is fatal to the case of Defendant, who is basing his claim on the Sale Agreement. Sufficient evidence is brought on record justifying grant of mesne profits. No Village / Goth can exist in a developed Scheme-36. The Passport entries and presumption of genuineness as envisaged in Articles-90, 92 and 129 (e) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, is attracted. Hence, Plaintiff is entitled to mesne profits. The conclusive evidence about the wrongful / illegal possession of Defendants No.1 and 2 of the suit plot does not require an inquiry as mentioned in Order XX, Rule 12, Sub Rule 1 (b). Suit Decreed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
77 Election Appeal 41/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2016 Tariq Hussain (Appellant) VS Subhan Ali (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 17-SEP-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
78 Suit 5/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 NOMAN ABID CO (Plaintiff) VS NAVEED HAIDER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 19-JUL-19 Yes The Plaintiff has already received the amount of disputed cheque, therefore, the present suit was filed with mala fide intention and is not maintainable. Not only this, the overall conduct of the Plaintiff Company, from the time of granting Leave to Defend Application was not of a bona fide litigant. Hence, the present suit is dismissed with costs. The Plaintiff has already received the amount of disputed cheque, therefore, the present suit was filed with mala fide intention and is not maintainable. Not only this, the overall conduct of the Plaintiff Company, from the time of granting Leave to Defend Application was not of a bona fide litigant. Hence, the present suit is dismissed with costs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
79 Civil Revision 169/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2015 Province of Sindh and others (Applicant) VS Mst. Tasleem Begum and another (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 10-AUG-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
80 Suit 1738/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 SYED HUSSAIN ALI (Plaintiff) VS SYED AKHTAR ALI & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 24-DEC-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
81 2020 YLR 2597 Const. P. 2180/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Masood Ahmed Wassan & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-APR-20 Yes For roads, bridges, gas/oil line etc. most precious lands were/are being acquired or intercepted in between to have a shortest distance to minimize the cost of that project, but we do not realize that while doing so we are not only destroying fertile/ agriculture land but so also risking our future. This acquisition is normally based on feasibility report of that particular project but there is no realization that for providing some convenience or low cost project, precious land is being destroyed, which is far more important for our future than the convenience and low cost project. The project may cost less but consequences would be detrimental. We are living in a world where natural resources such as fertile land is being vacuumed up by development of concrete structure and this would count a lot in future and no one would come for our rescue when we have to yield our own food for our own consumption. In this case land was attached with the research based agriculture department of Sindh which caters for not only fruit crop but other agri products as well. The authorities responsible for identifying this land have not applied their mind at all and in an attempt to please, the most fertile land of the province had been provided for an object which could conveniently be achieved on non-agriculture land, subject to law. Blanket recommendation was forwarded by the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose and without identifying the reasons of disassociating the land with the agriculture based research department, they have made this land available for a scheme called Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Town. The recommendation of the Committee and the action of the authority is neither transparent nor lawful but in fact a mala fide attempt to usurp the most precious and fertile land of district Mirpurkhas where research is being conducted. The provincial government should have emphasized to uplift the research system of the agriculture department and steered the progress by maintaining it rather than to ignore the research based system. They could always find the land anywhere else and provide resources and amenities for dwellers where the land could be developed by land developers. The performance of Ministry of Agriculture to save the land was half-hearted and they only presented themselves as marionette since they have not taken action against usurpation of their land. If we really want to protect the agricultural lands and to promote sustainable agrarian growth for the future, large scale basic reforms and legislation are needed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
82 2021 PLD Sindh Note 76 H.C.A 24/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd. (Appellant) VS M/s. Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 30-SEP-20 Yes Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) issued by the Company can be considered as directions /instructions with a binding effect provided it is not violative of fundamental principles of law Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.1054-K/2020 Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. M/s.Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises,C.A.4-K/2022 Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. M/s.Jawed Pervaiz Enterprises Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
83 2020 YLR 2188 Const. P. 620/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2014 The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust (Petitioner) VS Federal Land Commission & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-APR-20 Yes Subject: Resumption of land under MRL 115 Fauji Foundation a "Charitable Trust" operating under endowment Act 1980 was functioning through a committee formed vide notification of 08.03.1972 of federal Government. Committee after deliberation resolved that secretary to act as authorized person. Unless otherwise explained, it does not deemed to have empowered /authorized secretary to further delegate the powers by a simple authority letter signed by Secretary alone, when it's not borne out of resolution. In the earlier petition when resumption of land was questioned, the parties withdrew their lis in view of negotiation which ended as 30 years leases of subject land and the cause of resumption deemed to have exhausted by way of doctrine of election, Petitioner opted for a long term lease instead to continue litigation against resumption of land .Such right (if any) was bartered with long term lease. Such right to challenge the resumption of land thus was not available when present petition was filed. Process of execution for long term lease should have followed requirement of MLR 115 and section 17 of Act II of 1977 and since it was not transparent, the two leases were executed in an unlawful manner and which period (30 years) has already been exhausted. Scheme of recovery of land revenue includes a process of attachment of holding against arrears which are due. Unless a remedy is exhausted, immediate jump to arrest and detention would not be justified. The question of declaring MLR 115 being repugnant to injunctions of Islamic law has already been decided but with its prospective effect as highlighted in the judgment of Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner and the effective date was set as 23rd March, 1990 before which the process of resumption had already been completed yet long term leases were executed surrendering rights over the land. (if any) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.1751/2020 The Fauji Foundation, Charitable Organization under the Committee of Administration thr. Brig. (R) Sabir Ali, Fauji Foundation, Fauji Towers, Rawalpindi v. The Federal Land Commission thr. its Chairman, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
84 Const. P. 2589/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Saddique Ali Laghari (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 20-MAY-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.3389/2021 Saddique Ali Laghari v. The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
85 Const. P. 2588/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Sundor Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 20-MAY-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.3388/2021 Sundar Khan v. The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
86 Const. P. 2587/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Iltaf Hussain & Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 20-MAY-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.3387/2021 Iltaf Hussain and another v. The Federation of Pakistan through Chairman NAB, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
87 Const. P. 5539/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Mst Aysha Begum (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 17-NOV-21 Yes Bonafide purchaser for value without notice Rule will apply where purchasers are not equally at fault with their predecessors. Property purchased on the basis of official record and transactions spreading over many years and did not change hands in quick succession showing undue haste, hence 5th owner cannot be penalized. Responsible officials of KDA to be dealt with strictly, DG KDA directed to hold enquiry and fix responsibility on officials involved in committing illegality and fraud, whether in service or retired, alive or dead, should be mentioned in the Inquiry Report. An alternate plot of same value and utility be allotted to the petitioner. Cost of Rs.100,000/- is imposed on respondent KDA payable to the petitioner. Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.286-K/2022 Mst.Aysha Begum v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Housing & Town Planning & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
88 Const. P. 1893/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Mst. Bakhmina (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 26-NOV-21 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
89 Const. P. 1535/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Khaliq-ur-Rehman & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-JAN-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.222/2022 Imam Bux, Honorary Secretary of Madrass Cooperative Housing Society Ltd Karachi v. Province of Sindh, through the Secretary Cooperative Department, Sindh Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
90 Const. P. 99/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Mst. Syeda Sheerin (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 09-MAY-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
91 S.M.A 440/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Shamsuddin s/o Aboobakar (Petitioner) VS Yasin Hasan (Deceased) (Respondent) S.B. Order 12-AUG-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
92 Cr.Bail 1216/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Arbab (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 30-DEC-22 Yes Conversely, the case law relied upon by Applicants counsel is relevant, wherein bail was granted, inter alia, considering the earlier Court case. Both male members of a family are behind bars who are bread earners. There is no record of earlier conviction. Guilt of accused is yet to be determined in the above circumstances, because at this stage a deeper appreciation of facts cannot be made. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
93 Suit 777/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 UNITED BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 27-MAY-22 Yes Closure of Branch / Premises of Plaintiff is directly linked to commercial activity / trade, which is one of the fundamental rights; which cannot be compromised in the manner as is done by Defendant No.2. No specific statutory provision has been pointed out during arguments to show that Cantonment Board has this specific power to seal the Branch / Premises of the Plaintiff in such a situation. This penal consequence cannot be said to be an implied authority of Defendant No.2, but it has to be expressly mentioned in their parent statute viz. Cantonment Act, 1924. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
94 Suit 1652/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 MUHAMMAD AMIN (Plaintiff) VS ASIF YOUNUS & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 08-JUN-23 Yes Undisputedly, IPO is subsequent in time and following the rule laid down in the aforementioned Decisions, the present Lis and issues agitated therein is triable by the Tribunal [in accordance with law], established and functioning under the IPO. Consequently, this Application is treated as the one for return of plaint rather rejecting it. Accordingly accepted. Plaint is returned. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
95 Const. P. 167/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: IInd Appeal No.8 of 2020 & CP No.S-826 of 2022 2021 Muhammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Yasin & anothers (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-NOV-23 Yes APPLICATION OF A JUDICIAL MIND, THAT INCLUDES, ELEMENT OF VISIBLE FAIRNESS IN A DECISION. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
96 Suit 1347/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 ASADULLAH KHAWAJA (Appellant) VS INVESTMENT CORP. OF PAKISTAN (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 20-APR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
97 Suit 286/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 SYED WAQAR HAIDER ZAIDI (Plaintiff) VS MST.ALAM ARA (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 21-DEC-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
98 2017 YLR 242, 2017 YLR 424 Const. P. 846/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Abdul Haq and Others (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 26-APR-16 Yes Constitutional petition---Claim of petitioner was disputed by respondents and Revenue Authorities---Due process of law---Applicability---Due process of law was of wide import and its applicability varied from case to case in accordance with the set of facts and circumstances---Due process of law was also directly related to the rights, interest and entitlement of a person as recognized by law---Petitioners could not make out a prime facie case of their legal entitlement of possession of suit property---Entries in the revenue record about their alleged claim were under scrutiny before the concerned authorities---Term "due process of law" was not applicable in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Constitutional petition---Claim of petitioner was disputed by respondents and Revenue Authorities---Due process of law---Applicability---Due process of law was of wide import and its applicability varied from case to case in accordance with the set of facts and circumstances---Due process of law was also directly related to the rights, interest and entitlement of a person as recognized by law---Petitioners could not make out a prime facie case of their legal entitlement of possession of suit property---Entries in the revenue record about their alleged claim were under scrutiny before the concerned authorities---Term "due process of law" was not applicable in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.10-K/2017 Tariq Javed v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
99 2018 PTD 668 Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 02-JUN-17 Yes Ant- Dumping Case: Concept of dumping explained. Section 31 Anti Dumping Act, 2015, explained. NTC not required to first give an independent decision or determination before delivering its preliminary determination. Concession of parties cannot confer jurisdiction on a Court. Suit barred in view of Section 70 of the Anti Dumping Act, 2015. Confidentiality issue to be considered by Appellate Forum. Information and database about prices of a product obtained from Customs Department, not confidential, unless otherwise barred by any statute or rule. Decisions of National Tariff Commission should not be resulting in creating directly or indirectly any monopoly or cartel of any business. Claim of confidentiality should be decided on the touchstone of Article 19A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, and Freedom of Information Ordinance, 2002. Role of National Tariff Commission is very significant vis-a-vis CPEC. NTC to ensure that local industry is not destroyed. Time enlarged for filing Appeal before the Appellate Authority. Case referred to National Tariff Commission. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
100 Suit 74/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Mohammad Sarwar (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-JUN-17 Yes Suit for recovery of compensation amount--Deceased died in the custody of police officials---Contention of the police was that deceased died due to cardiac arrest---Validity---None of the police officials entered the witness box to defend the claim against them---Written statement filed by the police officials had lost its evidentiary value as contents whereof were never proved in the evidence---Deceased died while he was in the custody of police officials---Plaintiff was to prove the factum of incident only---Burden would shift on the police officials to disprove the causation if they wanted to succeed in the claim against the plaintiff---Present case did fall within the purview of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855---Prosecution in a criminal case was to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused but in civil proceedings the matter had to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities---Acquittal of (private) defendants in the criminal case did not have any adverse bearing on the present lis---Police official were liable to compensate the plaintiff by applying the rule of vicarious liability--- Claim of plaintiff with regard to quantum of damages was also unchallenged---Life expectancy of seventy five years in plaintiff's family had been proved---Deceased might also have lived for another fifty years approximately---Claim of awarding damages of Rs.50,00,000/- was justified---Master/employer in the claims with regard to tortuous liabilities would be liable for the wrongful acts of his employees/servants---Provincial Government and Inspector General of Police were liable to compensate the plaintiff besides other defendants---Defendants (Police officials) were liable to pay the damages/compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- together with 10% markup from the date of institution of suit till realization of the amount to the plaintiff and his wife i.e. parent of the deceased jointly and severally. Suit decreed. Custodial death, suit for recovery of compensation amount decreed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
101 Civil Revision 42/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Pir Ghulam Kareem Shah (Applicant) VS Ali Ahmed & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 21-DEC-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
102 Cr.Bail 286/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2019 Cr. Muzafar Ghanghro (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 20-JUN-19 Yes Case falling within the ambit of sick person as mentioned in the first proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C., Applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Challan submitted. Applicant was not required for further investigation. In order to prove the guilt of the Applicant and to connect him with the commission of the offense, matter requires further inquiry, which can only be done after conclusion of trial. Bail granted. Case falling within the ambit of sick person as mentioned in the first proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C., Applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Challan submitted. Applicant was not required for further investigation. In order to prove the guilt of the Applicant and to connect him with the commission of the offense, matter requires further inquiry, which can only be done after conclusion of trial. Bail granted. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
103 Suit 1271/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 HAJI SULEMAN. (Plaintiff) VS HAJI ADAM ALI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Order 18-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
104 2021 MLD 284 Cr.Rev 73/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2018 Muhammad Bux Chandio (Applicant) VS Zulfiqar Ali and others (Respondent) S.B. Order 24-JUN-19 Yes Investigation under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not properly done by the Trial Court and the case was decided merely on the reports of Officials without conducting further probe into the veracity of such reports. Impugned order set aside, case remanded. Investigation under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not properly done by the Trial Court and the case was decided merely on the reports of Officials without conducting further probe into the veracity of such reports. Impugned order set aside, case remanded. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
105 Suit 727/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 IQBAL RASHEED (Plaintiff) VS BABAR MIRZA CHUGTAI & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 19-JAN-17 Yes It is apparent from the record that no arbitration proceeding under the Arbitration Act, 1940 took place. To a query, learned counsel for the plaintiff did not deny this fact that the said arbitration decision which in fact is a Compromise Agreement, which is a result of mediation done by two persons, namely Zaheer H. Minhas, Advocate and Wazeerzada Afridi; the latter has also testified about the authenticity of the above document. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
106 Suit 1258/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 DR. ISHAQUE MUHAMMAD SHAH (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-JUL-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.1580/2021 Dr. Ishaque Muhammad Shah (deceased) through L.Rs v. National Bank of Pakistan through its President Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
107 2021 PLD Sindh Note 108 H.C.A 241/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Syed Asadul Haq (Appellant) VS M/s.Balochistan Glass Ltd., (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 30-SEP-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
108 Const. P. 2371/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Abdul Qudoos (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 18-MAR-20 Yes Direction A public office cannot be offered / bartered or given in consideration of some donation, but a vacancy in respect of a public office is to be filled up strictly in accordance with law and the recruitment rules so that merit is not compromised and nepotism is curbed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
109 H.C.A 347/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Naseem Ahmed Malik & others (Appellant) VS Saeed Iqbal & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 17-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.94-K/2021 Naseem Ahmed Malik & others v. Saeed Iqbal & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
110 Suit 168/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 SYED HAMID HUSSAIN RIZVI (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ASIF SAEED (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 04-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
111 I. A 51/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2010 Province of Sindh and another (Appellant) VS Land Acquisition Officer and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 18-JUN-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
112 H.C.A 116/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Shahzad Noor Muhammad (Appellant) VS Karachi Gymkhana & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 05-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
113 Const. P. 4454/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Tariq Wali & Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 14-OCT-21 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
114 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
115 M.A. 8/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s. EFU General Insurance Ltd. (Appellant) VS Jahangir Moghul (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-FEB-21 Yes As per Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, a claim is to be settled within ninety days, subject to certain conditions contained in the above provision. Consequently, finding of learned Tribunal, even on this issue, does not justify any interference. Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.445-K/2021 M/s. EFU General Insurace Ltd. v. Jahangir Moghul Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
116 2020 SBLR Sindh 744 Const. P. 213/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Burhan (Petitioner) VS Election Commisson Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent) D.B. Order 26-FEB-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
117 Suit 1717/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Muhammad Khalid Ali Khan (Plaintiff) VS Najam Ahmed & others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 08-NOV-22 Yes Collateral proceeding is principle of law and thus suit is barred. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
118 Suit 749/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 DR. NAFEES ZUBAIR (Plaintiff) VS MRS. SAEEDA BANO & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 22-DEC-22 Yes Since the Defendant No.1 has accepted a substantial amount of rupees six million as part payment towards sale price, and never returned the same till the above Order was passed, which means for almost seven years the same was beneficially utilized by her, therefore, Defendant No.2 (Purchaser) despite the afore discussed lacuna in her claim for damages, is entitled for monetary relief, in view of the judicial consensus, that by invoking Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where the circumstances so permit, monetary compensation can be given, while refusing the specific performance to plaintiff Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
119 Suit 610/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 UNION FABRICS PRIVATE LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 31-AUG-22 Yes In view of the above discussion, it must be reiterated, that Defendants have to formulate and implement a Policy, which should not result in the closure of businesses of consumers, including present Plaintiffs, as it would violative of Articles 18 and 24 of the Constitution, inter alia, relating to trade, business and proprietary rights. However, both the Plaintiffs are at liberty to invoke the jurisdiction of Oil and Gas Regulatory Authority, in accordance with the above Statute and other Regulations and if representations are filed, same should be decided expeditiously by the OGRA. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
120 Cr.Bail 45/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 15-JUL-22 Yes The state functionaries should realise that if such incidents are not curbed with an iron hand, then public trust in Police force will be completely diminished, resulting in a chaotic situation. Such incidents can result in disturbing the civil order of the Society, if persons in uniform act with such impunity. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
121 Suit 1202/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MRS.TARANUM SABIH (Plaintiff) VS KBCA & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 13-SEP-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
122 Cr.Rev 128/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 MUSHTAQUE ALI (Applicant) VS MUHAMMAD ALI (Respondent) S.B. Order 11-APR-23 Yes Owner unable to utilize his property, in effect is dispossessed, case falls within Section 3 of Illegal Dispossession Act. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
123 Const. P. 206/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Wateen Telecom Pvt. Ltd. Hyd (Petitioner) VS Abdul Sattar Khoso & others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 06-NOV-23 Yes No inquiry done under section 15 of the Sindh Payment of Wages Act 2015. Case remanded. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
124 Suit 323/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MST.RASHEEDA BANO & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MST.KHURSHEED BEGUM & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Order 22-MAR-24 Yes Reauction refused. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
125 Suit 58/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 ASGHAR HUSSAIN (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL WAKEEL & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 07-SEP-23 Yes Even if a cause of action there it ceases after cancellation of General Power of Attorney Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
126 Const. P. 277/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2024 Muhammad Nadeem and Another (Petitioner) VS Sumeira Nadeem Sulemani and Others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
127 Suit 462/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Sajid Ali Qureshi (Plaintiff) VS V/S Saleem Dawood. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 27-OCT-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
128 Const. P. 4570/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2015 Munir Ahmed (Applicant) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 06-APR-16 Yes Mere fact that petitioner opted for plea bargain, which was not even recommended by the NAB Authorities, or duly approved by the Accountability Court, cannot operate as a bar for withholding the bail, if the accused otherwise makes out a case for grant of bail on merits. Mere fact that petitioner opted for plea bargain, which was not even recommended by the NAB Authorities, or duly approved by the Accountability Court, cannot operate as a bar for withholding the bail, if the accused otherwise makes out a case for grant of bail on merits. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
129 2018 CLC Note 39 Suit 566/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Tariq Rafi. (Plaintiff) VS Topgen Health Care/T.G. Pharma & Ors. (Defendant) S.B. Order 27-APR-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
130 2017 PLC CS 625 Const. P. 1519/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2011 Abdul Ghafar (Applicant) VS Govt of Sindh & ors (Respondent) D.B. Order 13-APR-16 Yes Group Insurance being not part of inheritance (Tarka) and the same is payable to the nominee mentioned therein. Since, it is an admitted position as also supported by all documentary evidence, the present petitioner has been mentioned as nominee in the Nomination Form of State life Insurance Corporation, therefore, petitioner is entitled to amount of group insurance.---Rules 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 are interpreted and pensionary benefits were allowed to the petitioner being a nominee. Group Insurance being not part of inheritance (Tarka) and the same is payable to the nominee mentioned therein. Since, it is an admitted position as also supported by all documentary evidence, the present petitioner has been mentioned as nominee in the Nomination Form of State life Insurance Corporation, therefore, petitioner is entitled to amount of group insurance.---Rules 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 are interpreted and pensionary benefits were allowed to the petitioner being a nominee. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
131 Suit 421/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Rahim Ali Palari & ors. (Plaintiff) VS Govt. of Sindh & ors.. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 14-MAR-19 Yes Suit under Fatal Accident Act is independent of proceeding under Motor Vehicle Ordinance, 1965 and Criminal Proceeding (If any). Res Ipsa Loquitor applies to fatal accident cases. If accident / incident disputed then onus on Defendant to disprove negligence. Defendant to disprove causation of death. Criteria for awarding damages. Deprivation of the association of a family member (loss of consortium). Tort Law as a Tool for enforcing good governance. Computing income of deceased when no evidence of employment. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
132 Suit 1663/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 Clariant Pakistan Limited (Plaintiff) VS Deputy Commssioner Inland Revenue Service (AEC) and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 19-JUN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
133 Suit 752/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1984 Cherat Cement Company Limited (Plaintiff) VS Ghazanfar Ali & two others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-JUL-17 Yes Two Suits i-e, Suit for Recovery filed by the plaintiff and suit for Declaration, Cancellation and Damages filed by the defendants were decided in a single judgment. The Suit of Plaintiff was decreed whereas the Suit of defendant was dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
134 2017 CLD 1737 Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. Order 21-JUL-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
135 2019 PLD Sindh 697 Const. P. 1913/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2017 Gulzar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 31-MAY-18 Yes Cutting of Trees (Environment): Green Belt with trees is a 'Public Trust' resource. Environmental Human Rights are in fact fundamental human rights. Plea of National Security is also justiciable. "Rational Basis Test" explained. Balance is to be struck between the policies relating to security and civil liberties. State Institutions are subject to the accountability. Judiciary in a Muslim Polity is clothed with greater obligation. Only concern council can direct the cutting of dangerous trees under paragraph 55 of Part II-Schedule II of SLGA 2013. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
136 2016 SBLR Sindh 594 J.M 62/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 M/s. Shahtaj Textile Lmited. (Applicant) VS Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd., & Others. (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 07-DEC-15 Yes If triable issues are not involved, which required leading and recording of evidence, then it is not mandatory to frame issues and an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be decided on the basis of available case record and undisputed facts. Ratable distribution under Section 73 read with Order XXXIV Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code; Bank having a mortgage decree in its favour has a preferential status over a money decree, which is in favour of Plaintiff. Analysis of the discussion brings forth the conclusion that neither Judgment Debtors nor Bank have actively concealed a fact, or, misrepresented certain facts in such a fraudulent way, which, if not made or committed, would have not resulted in passing of the impugned Compromise Decree. Consequently, element of fraud is not present in instant cases. By analogy a cardinal principle of administrative law, which, time and again has been enunciated by the courts and later enacted as Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, inter alia, that an authority should act reasonably, fairly and justly, is also applicable to the financial institutions. If triable issues are not involved, which required leading and recording of evidence, then it is not mandatory to frame issues and an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be decided on the basis of available case record and undisputed facts. Ratable distribution under Section 73 read with Order XXXIV Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code; Bank having a mortgage decree in its favour has a preferential status over a money decree, which is in favour of Plaintiff. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
137 Execution First Appeal 25/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 M/s. S.K. Enterprises (Decree Holder) VS Dadabhoy Multi-purpose Coperative Housing Soceity (Judgment Debtor) S.B. Judgement 15-JUN-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
138 Suit 595/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 INAM HAFIZ SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Order 19-JUL-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
139 Const. P. 1407/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2013 Dr. Moiinuddin Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Federal Secretary, Water and Power, Govt. of Pakistan (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 23-OCT-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
140 Election Appeal 1/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2018 Allah Bux Khan (Appellant) VS Mukhtiar Ahmed Sahto (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 05-OCT-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
141 Suit 1315/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 MUHAMMAD IQBAL (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-AUG-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
142 Suit 845/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Ashraf Hussain Khan. (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Rehman Khan & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 30-SEP-19 Yes Cases involving rights of inheritence are at higher pedestal, inter alia, in view of the Sharia Act, 1991. Cases involving rights of inheritence are at higher pedestal, inter alia, in view of the Sharia Act, 1991. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
143 Suit 1472/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 Abdul Qadir (Plaintiff) VS Mr.Ameer Zadi& Ors (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 16-SEP-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
144 Suit 2227/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Allied Bank Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Qamar Hussain Naqvi & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 18-NOV-19 Yes Plaint rejected by invoking legal maxim ???actio personalis moritur cum persona??? and Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Legal maxim ???actio personalis moritur cum persona??? (a personal right of action dies with the person) ??? death extinguishes liability in Tort, is enforceable in Pakistan subject to certain exceptions. First, where a tortfeasor???s estate is benefited by the wrong done, then an action would lie against his representatives, secondly, when already a decree is passed, inter alia, for damages, the legal representatives / heirs of a deceased can continue the litigation, thirdly, if in a service case, the Trial Court has reinstated a petitioner in service, which is overturned by an appellate court and in the intervening period, person dies, his legal heirs can continue the litigation, because if a Higher Forum restores the Order of Trial Court, then the legal heirs would at least be entitled for the service benefits. However, no suit can be filed after the death of a person for his individual acts, against his legal heirs. Plaint rejected by invoking legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona and Article 36 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Legal maxim actio personalis moritur cum persona (a personal right of action dies with the person) death extinguishes liability in Tort, is enforceable in Pakistan subject to certain exceptions. First, where a tortfeasors estate is benefited by the wrong done, then an action would lie against his representatives, secondly, when already a decree is passed, inter alia, for damages, the legal representatives / heirs of a deceased can continue the litigation, thirdly, if in a service case, the Trial Court has reinstated a petitioner in service, which is overturned by an appellate court and in the intervening period, person dies, his legal heirs can continue the litigation, because if a Higher Forum restores the Order of Trial Court, then the legal heirs would at least be entitled for the service benefits. However, no suit can be filed after the death of a person for his individual acts, against his legal heirs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
145 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 571 H.C.A 428/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (Appellant) VS M/s. Data Stee Pipe Industries Pvt Ltd. & another (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 30-SEP-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
146 Suit 1847/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s. EFU General Insurance Ltd (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Emirates Airline / Emirates Sky Cargo & other (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-MAY-20 Yes Term an act of war or armed conflict as mentioned in Rule 18(2)(c) of the Fourth Schedule of Carriage by Air Act, 2012, also means non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Armed attack at Jinnah International Airport on 08.06.2014 falls within non-international armed conflict (NIAC) or at least it may be categorised as a hybrid phenomena; where repeated acts of terrorism in furtherance of defined objectives translated into a non-international armed conflict. Term an act of war or armed conflict as mentioned in Rule 18(2)(c) of the Fourth Schedule of Carriage by Air Act, 2012, also means non-international armed conflict (NIAC). Armed attack at Jinnah International Airport on 08.06.2014 falls within non-international armed conflict (NIAC) or at least it may be categorised as a hybrid phenomena; where repeated acts of terrorism in furtherance of defined objectives translated into a non-international armed conflict. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
147 2021 PCr.LJ 1270 Const. P. 2147/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Abdul Ghafar S/o Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 17-MAR-20 Yes Every disease, if not attended properly, would cause negative and hazardous effect to life but it doesn???t mean that its medical remedy is bail from the recovery of such diseases. His treatment in a best available hospital under a care of best team of doctors could serve the best option. These stresses and pressures discussed could only be ruled out if a patient remains away from all these stresses and strains and the best possible place for the prescribed health issues is a Hospital where a patient could be treated free from all such stress possibilities. Post Arrest Bail Application on medical ground dismissed in view of the recommendations of the Medical Board Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.363-K/2020 Abdul Ghaffar v. Federation of Pakistan & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
148 H.C.A 260/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Mrs. Zarina Iqbal (Appellant) VS Haji Jaffar & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 16-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
149 Const. P. 1905/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cp.D 1932/2011 &1269/2016 2011 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 08-APR-20 Yes Law Discussed: Land Acquisition Act, 1894----- Standing Order of the revenue department No.12, subsection 31 regarding land acquisition provides that if the land was not required for the purpose it was acquired, it should be relinquished and should be offered to the original occupant/owner on payment of compensation received by them and in case of their refusal to have it back on the said terms, it should be considered as a government property in the record. The proceedings of acquiring land could only be ended once the compensation is deposited and the possession was taken over by the acquiring agency. Thus, this would be in severe violation of Articles 23 and 24 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, depriving the land owner not only from enjoying the property but also from its compensation. Thus, there is no justification that he (the owner/private respondent) may be granted interest now after almost three decades of litigation when the value of the property multiplied several hundred folds, as against the compensation, the value of which was determined three decades before and grant of interests under Land Acquisition Act, under the circumstances has no justification. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.420-K/2020 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
150 2021 PTD 867 Const. P. 4793/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Kashif Feroz (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 10-DEC-20 Yes Implementation petitions. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
151 Suit 394/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1997 MUHAMMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS PAK. STEEL MILLS CORP. LTD. & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 02-MAR-20 Yes Non-production of Departmental Inquiry Report in the evidence by Defendants has raised adverse presumption against them, as envisaged in Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Loss of consortium; that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries or death caused by a tortfeasor. Well known rules about "foreseeability",causation and but for explained; if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s), then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of Care] that has resulted in causing injury and the "but for" test if simply put, means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. Legislative amendments are proposed. Non-production of Departmental Inquiry Report in the evidence by Defendants has raised adverse presumption against them, as envisaged in Article 129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Loss of consortium; that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to injuries or death caused by a tortfeasor. Well known rules about foreseeability,causation and but for explained; if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s), then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of Care] that has resulted in causing injury and the "but for" test if simply put, means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant's negligence. Legislative amendments are proposed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
152 Const. P. 771/2004 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2004 Capt. S. M . Asllam (Petitioner) VS Karachi Building Control Authority & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 12-OCT-21 Yes When the application was made in the year 2003, the Resolution No.383 dated 06.01.2004 was in the field. Commercialization charges /fees as applicable in the year 2004 should be charged. Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.1657-K/2021 Captain S.M.Aslam v. Sindh Master Plan Authority Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
153 Suit 1778/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Muhammad Iqbal. (Plaintiff) VS Zafar Hussain & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 24-JUN-21 Yes With regard to the claim of damages of Rupees Two Hundred Crores, for suffering mental agony and physical torture, no evidence has been led by the Plaintiff in support of the same. If Plaintiff was physically assaulted, the first thing, which comes to mind, is that whether any complaint was lodged with the Police? Plaintiff has not led any evidence, nor brought on record anything about the fact that he was physically tortured or suffered mental agony. Thus, this claim also cannot be accepted in absence of positive evidence, as onus to prove the same is on Plaintiff, but he failed to discharge it. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
154 I.T.R 201/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: 47/2006, 52/2006 & 442/2006 2005 M/s State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan (Applicant) VS Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 24-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
155 Const. P. 2116/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Mst. Nighat Naeem (Petitioner) VS K.D.A and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 08-APR-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
156 Suit 1205/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 HASAN AHMAD (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 11-JAN-23 Yes Since sale transaction in respect of the Suit Property has been proved by Plaintiff, therefore, Specific Performance can be granted, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
157 Suit 614/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 ZAFAR AHMED. (Plaintiff) VS ASSOCIATES PRESS OF PAK & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 22-AUG-22 Yes The Defendants have illegally deprived the Plaintiff from the benefits of enhanced pension since 01.07.2000. Defendants should have considered the service rendered by Plaintiff to the Organization; he has given his prime years of life to Defendants No.1 and in all fairness deserves a fair treatment from Defendant No1. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
158 Const. P. 509/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2020 Shoaib Ahmed Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Chairman NAB & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
159 Suit 2195/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Sohrab Khan (Plaintiff) VS Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited (Defendant) S.B. Order 26-JUN-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
160 Const. P. 826/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: IInd Appeal No.8 of 2020 & CP.No.S-167 of 2021 2022 Muhammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS Muhammad yasin & Others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-NOV-23 Yes APPLICATION OF A JUDICIAL MIND, THAT INCLUDES, ELEMENT OF VISIBLE FAIRNESS IN A DECISION. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
161 Criminal Miscelleneous 394/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: II.A. S.29/2022 2023 Nasreen Qadri (Applicant) VS Mian Bux (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-NOV-23 Yes Section 47 of C.P.C in wrongly invoked by the Anti-Encroachment Tribunal. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
162 J.M 33/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mrs. Samar Rais. (Applicant) VS Askari Bank Limited & others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-NOV-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
163 Suit 1008/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 WASIM IQBAL (Plaintiff) VS KARWAN E ISLAMI (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 14-NOV-22 Yes It is a settled rule that special damages cannot be awarded, unless Plaintiff has led a convincing and positive evidence in support of his claim, which in the present case has not been done. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
164 Execution 25/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 Askari Bank Ltd. (Decree Holder) VS A.H. International (Pvt) Ltd. & OTHERS (Judgment Debtor) S.B. Judgement 13-NOV-23 Yes Order of Banking Court cannot be interfered with in a collateral proceeding. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
165 Suit 1410/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Toyoshima & Co. limited (Plaintiff) VS Shadman Cotton mills limited (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 30-MAR-16 Yes Territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court was questioned by Defendant, primarily on the ground that Defendant-Company has been shifted from Karachi to Lahore, therefore, a foreign company / Plaintiff cannot enforce an International Arbitral Award by filing a suit in Sindh High Court. The crucial documentary evidence shows that when the suit proceeding was filed for enforcement of the Award under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, the Defendant had its registered office in Karachi and even Annual Report of the Company also shows that the Management notice for convening the Annual General Meeting was also to be held at Karachi. Consequently, it has been held, that Sindh High Court has jurisdiction in the matter. Territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court was questioned by Defendant, primarily on the ground that Defendant-Company has been shifted from Karachi to Lahore, therefore, a foreign company / Plaintiff cannot enforce an International Arbitral Award by filing a suit in Sindh High Court. The crucial documentary evidence shows that when the suit proceeding was filed for enforcement of the Award under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, the Defendant had its registered office in Karachi and even Annual Report of the Company also shows that the Management notice for convening the Annual General Meeting was also to be held at Karachi. Consequently, it has been held, that Sindh High Court has jurisdiction in the matter. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
166 2018 PLC Lab. 36 Const. P. 84/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mst. Samina Pathan (Petitioner) VS National Database and Registration Authority [NADRA] (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 17-MAY-16 Yes Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction. Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.2857/2016 National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) thr. its Chairman, Islamabad & others v. Samina Pathan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted
167 2018 PLD SC 483 Suit 139/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Diamond Weld Rods (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Messrs Stal Co GmbH and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-JAN-18 Yes Suit for recovery of money and injunction---Freight, payment of---Grievance of plaintiff company against shipping company was that due to local shipping agent, a delay was caused in unloading product from vessel and it resulted in incurring of demurrage and other avoidable expenses/charges---Validity---Document produced by plaintiff as Bill of Lading was though not forged but it did not fulfil requirement of Bill of Lading and same could be considered as such--- Bill of Lading produced by shipping company was genuine as it fulfilled its statutory requirements---Plaintiff was required to pay freight to shipping company as Bill of Lading clearly mentioned that Suit for recovery of money and injunction---Freight. Document produced by plaintiff as Bill of Lading was though not forged but it did not fulfil requirement of Bill of Lading and same could be considered as such--- Bill of Lading produced by shipping company was genuine as it fulfilled its statutory requirements---Plaintiff was required to pay freight to shipping company as Bill of Lading clearly mentioned that 'freight to be collected at destination port'---Such legal and factual position was backed by Ss. 47 & 48 of Karachi Port Trust Act, 1886 and goods could not be removed from public warehouse or sheds until freight in respect thereof was paid either to master or owner of vessel--- Suit was decreed accordingly. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
168 Const. P. 2378/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Shahzad Qamer Abbas (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-AUG-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
169 2018 PLD Sindh 327 Suit 750/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Syed Farukh Mazhar (Plaintiff) VS SGS Headquarters and others (Defendant) S.B. Order 17-APR-17 Yes Injunction dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
170 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 The prohibitions contained in Sections 3 and 4 and the punishments provided therein for their contravention clearly show that the persons who do not fall within the exemptions provided in Section 5 or who knowingly and willfully show disrespect for the persons fasting and/or for the holy month of Ramazan, are to be dealt with strictly and punished under Sections 3 and 4, as the case may be. Another important aspect is that no person should be allowed to take advantage of the exemptions provided in Section 5 or to exploit the same if he is not entitled to the same.Since the hotels and restaurants of the petitioners are admittedly not situated within the premises of any of the places enumerated in Section 5 of the Ordinance, they are not certainly entitled to seek exemption under the said Section, and as such all these petitions are liable to be dismissed. Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
171 Adm. Suit 2/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 HAYS TRADING & SHIPPING (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-SEP-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
172 Const. P. 4843/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Maj. Rtd. Tariq Lodhi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Khalida Jilajni and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-AUG-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.528-K/2017 Maj.(Retd) Tariq Lodhi v. Mst: Khalida Jilani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
173 Suit 862/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 PERVAIZ HUSSAIN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS MIAN KHURRAM RASOOL (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 19-JUL-19 Yes The Defendant issues / has issued the cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, but the same upon presentation could not be encashed because of closure of account, then this conduct on the part of Defendant is a mala fide one and is done with a dishonest intention to defraud the Plaintiffs. Hence, suit is decreed. The Defendant issues / has issued the cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, but the same upon presentation could not be encashed because of closure of account, then this conduct on the part of Defendant is a mala fide one and is done with a dishonest intention to defraud the Plaintiffs. Hence, suit is decreed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
174 Adm. Suit 1/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 M/S. COMMERCIAL BANK INT (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI AN OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 02-OCT-19 Yes There cannot be two decisions with regard to same loan transaction / finance facility; that is, one passed in the foreign jurisdiction as above and the other one in the present proceeding. the Judgment given by the Court of Sharjah (UAE) in the Case filed by present Plaintiff against Defendant No.2, can be executed through the present proceeding. Therefore, the Judgment of Sharjah Court in a sum of AED 5723557 (Five Million Seven Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven Dirhams) together with 5% (five percent) of the legal interest, can be executed through the present proceeding. There cannot be two decisions with regard to same loan transaction / finance facility; that is, one passed in the foreign jurisdiction as above and the other one in the present proceeding. the Judgment given by the Court of Sharjah (UAE) in the Case filed by present Plaintiff against Defendant No.2, can be executed through the present proceeding. Therefore, the Judgment of Sharjah Court in a sum of AED 5723557 (Five Million Seven Hundred Twenty Three Thousand Five Hundred and Fifty Seven Dirhams) together with 5% (five percent) of the legal interest, can be executed through the present proceeding Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
175 2020 MLD 257 Suit 725/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Mazhar Ali. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Pak Avenue Owners/Occup. Welf. Ass. & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 08-OCT-19 Yes The undisputed record and the evidence adduced by the parties, concludes that Defendants and particularly Defendant No.1 was responsible for causing the death of the deceased Mazhar Ali, because despite collecting enormous amounts towards maintenance charges each month from different offices/Units in the said Building, the elevators / lifts were not maintained properly. Negligence rather callousness of Defendant No.1 in particular, is also proved from the undisputed fact that no remedial measures were taken even after another incident preceding the one of the present lis, in which a person was injured due to fault in one of the lifts (in the said Building). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
176 Suit 1696/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 BEECHAM PAKISTAN PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS ASSTT. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-APR-20 Yes The imposition of impugned ten percent loading (charges) was in effect a levy, which could not have been imposed or recovered except through a valid legislation or other permissible statutory method. This impugned loading of 10% was/is illegal per se and cannot be sustained. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
177 Suit 432/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Muhammad Arif. (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Uzma Jawaid & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 30-DEC-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
178 S.M.A 38/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Muhammad Aijaz Khan S/o (Late) Haji Faiz Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Sikandar Begum (Respondent) S.B. Order 26-OCT-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
179 Suit 1438/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Sabir Hussain Warsi. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Rani (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 08-JAN-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
180 Const. P. 1272/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2020 Mst. Salma @ Ume-Salma (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh, through Secretary Home Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 05-MAY-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
181 Const. P. 1317/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Farida Azam Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 17-SEP-21 Yes Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925. The proceedings of Arbitration and that of the Appellate forum, under the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, are to be executed as a decree of Civil Court, hence, the same cannot be overturned or interfered with by exercising administrative revisional jurisdiction, under Section 64-A of the Cooperative Societies Act, 1925, by the Provincial Government. Proceeding declared coram non judice and impugned Order quashed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
182 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
183 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 16-MAR-21 Yes National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.3022/2022 Aijaz Hussain Jakhrani v. National Accountability Bureau through its Chairman NAB, HQ, Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
184 Const. P. 4882/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Muhammad Khalid Ali Khan (Petitioner) VS Court of Minister of Cooperation & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-DEC-21 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
185 Suit 379/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MISS. UZMA AMJAD ALI & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MRS.SAEEDA BANO & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 22-DEC-22 Yes Since the Defendant No.1 has accepted a substantial amount of rupees six million as part payment towards sale price, and never returned the same till the above Order was passed, which means for almost seven years the same was beneficially utilized by her, therefore, Defendant No.2 (Purchaser) despite the afore discussed lacuna in her claim for damages, is entitled for monetary relief, in view of the judicial consensus, that by invoking Section 19 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, where the circumstances so permit, monetary compensation can be given, while refusing the specific performance to plaintiff Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
186 Suit 424/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 MADNI AHMED ALI ARFAT SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED & ANOTHER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 03-OCT-22 Yes Length of service only is not a criteria for promotion; present qualification of plaintiff should have direct nexus with the Posts advertised. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
187 Suit 223/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 ARY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS INDEPENDENT MEDIA CORPORATION (PVT) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 14-MAR-23 Yes Injunction granted for broadcasting PSL-8. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
188 Suit 1132/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 NASIR HUSSAIN (Plaintiff) VS MST.SHAHNAWAZ BEGUM & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Order 06-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
189 Suit 1740/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 MUHAMMAD RAMEEZ KHAN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 06-MAR-23 Yes Application(s) for withdrawal of Suits dismissed. Directions given. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
190 Suit 538/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 UNIVERSAL LOGISTICS (PVT.) LTD (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL DATABASE AND REGISTRATION AUTH & ANOTHER (Defendant) S.B. Order 28-FEB-23 Yes Prima facie case even was there at the start of this Lis, in favour of Plaintiff together with the other two ingredients; balance of convenience and irreparable loss; these factors with the passage of time have diminished. Conversely, now it is Defendant No. 1 being a Procuring Agency is facing inconvenience and hardship because its Tender Process is incomplete, in which everyone is allowed to participate including Plaintiff. The interim arrangement with Pakistan Post Office cannot continue for an indefinite period as it would question the transparency of the Tender Process itself of the Procuring Agency, besides, over all governance Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
191 Suit 229/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Aga Khan Fund For Economic Development S.A. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 11-JAN-23 Yes It is held that provisions of Treaty, which are statutorily recognized in terms of Section 107 of the Income Tax Law, has been given preference and would prevail over the provisions of the Income Tax Law. In Paragraph-9 of the above judgment, question of imposition of Super Tax has been specifically dealt with and the contention of the Department / Suit No.229 of 2017 present Defendants, has been discarded. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
192 Suit 234/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 BASIRAT DAD KHAN LODHI & ORS (Plaintiff) VS FARHAT DAD KHAN LODHI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 07-APR-23 Yes Defendant is bonafide Purchaser for Value whose interest is to be protected. Suit dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
193 R.A (Civil Revision) 55/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2011 Muhammad Tarique (Applicant) VS Director of Southern Circle of Archeology (Respondent) S.B. Order 02-MAY-23 Yes Cause of action ceased to exist cannot be revived by a subsequent correspondence. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
194 F.R.A 1/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 9 of 2023 2023 Mirza Nadeem Baig (Appellant) VS Pakistan Kaimkhani Education Trust (Respondent) S.B. Order 25-MAY-23 Yes Rent Controller determined unfair rent instead of fair rent. Order set-aside. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.1004-K/2023 Pakistan Kaimkhani Education Trust v. Mirza Nadeem Baig Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
195 II.A. 8/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: CP.No.S-167 of 2021 & CP.No.S9826 of 2022 2020 Muhammad Yaseen (Appellant) VS Muhammad Aslam (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-NOV-23 Yes APPLICATION OF A JUDICIAL MIND, THAT INCLUDES, ELEMENT OF VISIBLE FAIRNESS IN A DECISION. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
196 Const. P. 1241/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Wilayat Khan thr: L.Rs (Petitioner) VS Aamir Azad & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 13-DEC-23 Yes Sale of property is confirmed in writ Jurisdiction. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
197 Suit 1592/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 MST.SHAMIM AKHTER & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MST.NAZAR BARI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-SEP-23 Yes Muslim Family Law Ordinance, 1961, not applicable retrospectively. Legal Heirs of pre-deceased son will not inherit. Suit not maintainable. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
198 Const. P. 1242/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.P.No.D-1385 of 2023 2023 Faisal Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 16-NOV-23 Yes Human Capital Development is the need of the hour. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
199 Suit 390/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2001 CAPT. TARIQ MEHMOOD MALIK. (Appellant) VS P.A.L.P.A. (Appellant) S.B. Judgement 02-AUG-21 Yes Claim of Plaintiff has been disproved that he suffer any loss (financial or otherwise) or mental anguish on account of any decision or acts on the part of Defendant. Plaintiff was adequately compensated monetarily by his erstwhile employer - PIAC, International Association as well as Defendant, coupled with the fact that he was reemployed by PIAC. Consequently, not encashing the cheque given by Defendant will not improve the case of Plaintiff, who is not entitled for any further amount in view of Bye-Law 25(v). Both Issues are answered in affirmative that Plaintiff received his insurance and other compensation. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
200 2016 SBLR Sindh 162 Const. P. 4404/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Syed Dost Ali (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-NOV-15 Yes * In exceptional circumstances the writ jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked, despite availability of an alternate remedy.---- * Excessive use of unlawful powers is itself unlawful.---- * Under grab of a pending civil suit, in which even no restraining order is operating and which is ex facie being not pursued, a bona fide purchaser of a property cannot be deprived of its use and enjoyment, as this violates the fundamental rights of a citizen relating to proprietary rights and guaranteed under article 23 and 24 of the Constitution. Caution note attached by the respondent-DHA to the property in question merely on the ground that some civil suit is pending as stated above, is not a proper exercise of discretion vested in Respondent-DHA, in the circumstances, as admittedly Respondent-DHA refused to even process the application for approval of the completion plan issuance of completion certificate of the Subject property on the basis of the impugned caution note it has put in its record. * A Genuine claimant can invoke section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, by notifying the concerned registrar/ responsible for registration of sale/ conveyance deed (under Registration Act, 1908) about the pendency of litigation in competent Court of Law, inter alia, to protect one * In exceptional circumstances the writ jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked, despite availability of an alternate remedy. * Excessive use of unlawful powers is itself unlawful. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
201 Suit 1482/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) VS Deedar Ali Issran (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-DEC-17 Yes Sale Deed registered in favour of defendants are valid documents and have been entered by the authorized Attorney (having registered sub-irrevocable general power of attorney which is in pursuance of earlier registered irrevocable general power of attorney given by the legal heirs to one of legal heirs) of the plaintiffs. Suit dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
202 2018 YLR 1557 H.C.A 47/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Haroon Zia Malik (Appellant) VS Mst. Fariha Razzak and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-NOV-17 Yes Plaintiff was owner of suit property who voluntarily gifted the same to the donee-wife---Trial Court had correctly appraised the evidence while recording his findings---Impugned gift deed was not a forged and fabricated document but same had been signed by the donor---Suit property had been gifted in favour of defendant who was wife of donor at the relevant time---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which were present in the case---Possession of suit property was already with the donee which till date continued to be with her---If husband had made a gift of anything to his wife or vice-versa then it could not be retracted---Transaction in question was not a financial one but it was gift of which a reciprocal financial obligation was not a consideration---Provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable in the matter of gift---Gift did not require a compulsory registration---Donor did not suffer any mental distress at the hand of donee---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Plaintiff was owner of suit property who voluntarily gifted the same to the donee-wife---Trial Court had correctly appraised the evidence while recording his findings---Impugned gift deed was not a forged and fabricated document but same had been signed by the donor---Suit property had been gifted in favour of defendant who was wife of donor at the relevant time---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which were present in the case---Possession of suit property was already with the donee which till date continued to be with her---If husband had made a gift of anything to his wife or vice-versa then it could not be retracted---Transaction in question was not a financial one but it was gift of which a reciprocal financial obligation was not a consideration---Provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable in the matter of gift---Gift did not require a compulsory registration---Donor did not suffer any mental distress at the hand of donee---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.96/2018 Haroon Zia Malik v. Mst. Fariha Razzak and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
203 Suit 2322/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Dr. Arifa Farid and others (Plaintiff) VS Mitha Khan and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 24-APR-19 Yes Exception to right of hearing; where the results can and would not have been any different. Dispute between the government departments should not affect bona fide purchasers. Judgment in rem / personam. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
204 Suit 160/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 FAHIM ZAFAR LARI (Plaintiff) VS M/S. SANDAL DYESTUFF IND. LTD. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 04-FEB-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
205 2019 CLC 583 Const. P. 1802/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Premier Battery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and another (Respondent) D.B. Order 15-AUG-17 Yes Petitioner had not participated in bidding process and assailed Public Notice and bidding process without fulfilling any of the conditions mentioned in the Public Notice---Validity---Petitioner had commercial motive that entire process should be started afresh--- Once the procuring authorities started bidding/ tendering process, provisions of Rr. 17(3) & 18 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, would be applicable and such stage was a subsequent one and had not reached---Petitioner did not have any locus standi to assail procurement process, as it did not even participate in first stage of the process by submitting Expression of Interest---Public Notice in question did not violate any of the provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010---Basic information according to R. 73 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, contained about subject project, eligibility of participants, date of purchase of Expression of Interest document and the same could also be down loaded from Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority website and last date of submission also---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Once the procuring authorities started bidding/ tendering process, provisions of Rr. 17(3) & 18 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, would be applicable and such stage was a subsequent one and had not reached---Petitioner did not have any locus standi to assail procurement process, as it did not even participate in first stage of the process by submitting Expression of Interest---Public Notice in question did not violate any of the provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010---Basic information according to R. 73 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, contained about subject project, eligibility of participants, date of purchase of Expression of Interest document and the same could also be down loaded from Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority website and last date of submission also---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.481-K/2017 Premier Barrtery Industries (Pvt) Ltd v. Karachi Water & Seawerage Board and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
206 Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. Order 05-OCT-17 Yes The Limitation Law is a part of positive law as held in Ghulam Qadir case (ibid) and should be given due effect in the light of numerous dicta. When an action is filed after the prescribed period of limitation, it can prejudice rights and interest of opponents, which right have accrued in the intervening period, hence, time barred actions cannot be termed as a mere technicality. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
207 Suit 112/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS MOHSIN ALI (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
208 Suit 357/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Muhammad Junaid Makhdumi. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Iqbal & Others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 19-FEB-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
209 Suit 786/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 MUHAMMAD MANSOOR (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD RASHID (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-FEB-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
210 S.M.A 58/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Mrs. Atteeya Mahmood (Petitioner) (Petitioner) VS Nighat Muzaffar and another (Respondent) S.B. Order 12-JUL-17 Yes The Objectors' counsel has failed to point out any error, factual or legal in the order dated 30-01-2017, sought to be reviewed by the present applicant. C.M.A dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
211 Suit 1569/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 Ali Muhammad & another (Plaintiff) VS Faizullah & another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 21-MAY-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
212 Suit 1546/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Trustees of the Port of Karachi (Plaintiff) VS Syed Fazal Mahmood Shah (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 25-JAN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
213 2016 SBLR Sindh 1651 Adm. Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1990 Jugolinifa (Plaintiff) VS Sayeed A.Tayyab (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-MAR-16 Yes Rule of 'best evidence' explained; according to which, if a best piece of evidence is not produced by a party or is withheld, then an adverse inference would be drawn against such party, that it deliberately not produced the evidence coupled with some ulterior motive. Objection can be taken during pendency of case that the Suit has been instituted by a person who was not duly authorized or competent to file the proceeding, as envisaged under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, even though no specific Issue was framed in this regard, but, in the evidence the Plaintiff witness was cross-examined on this particular fact and was given an opportunity to produce relevant authorization, under which the suit was instituted, but, he failed to do so. Since defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed. Suit filed by unauthorized person---Defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
214 2018 CLC Note 24 Suit 611/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Qadir and another (Plaintiff) VS Laeeq Ahmed and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 07-JUL-17 Yes Defendant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had concealed material facts---Validity---Object and principle of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was that a frivolous litigation should be laid to rest at the earliest and bona fide parties should be saved from rigors of such a litigation---Subject matter of litigation in question, i.e. the house property was not in dispute and sale consideration was admitted---Communication of offer and acceptance by parties to each other with regard to subject matter and total sale consideration was acknowledged by both the parties---All ingredients of a valid agreement enforceable as a contract existed---Defendants failed to make a case for grant of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Defendants failed to make a case for grant of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
215 2018 YLR 1053 Suit 327/1966 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1966 Raza Hussain and others (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Khan and others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 15-AUG-17 Yes Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise on behalf of defendants---Scope---Transferee of property could not confer upon a transferor a better title than he himself possessed---Defendants had no lawful authority, right or interest at the relevant time in the subject property when they entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs---Neither any appeal was preferred against the partition order nor authenticity or validity of the same was challenged by any of the parties---Possession of suit property was wrongly handed over to the plaintiffs by the Nazir of the Court---Nazir of the Court was directed to take appropriate measures to hand over the possession of suit land to its claimants. Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Directions to the Nazir to handover the possession of suit land to its claimants. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
216 Civil Revision 144/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2014 Mst. Parveen Raza Jadun through her legal heirs (Applicant) VS Bashir Ahmed Chandio and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 12-JUL-19 Yes (i). In direct benami claim requires a higher standard of proof; (ii) every transaction between family members cannot be recognized as benami; (iii). Claimant not challenged the purchase of property by father in favour of his son, during the life time of the father, then claim of Plaintiff (sister) is meritless. (i). In direct benami claim requires a higher standard of proof; (ii) every transaction between family members cannot be recognized as benami; (iii). Claimant not challenged the purchase of property by father in favour of his son, during the life time of the father, then claim of Plaintiff (sister) is meritless. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
217 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 460 H.C.A 251/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Government of Pakistan & Ors. (Appellant) VS Mian Khalid Manzoor (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-OCT-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
218 Suit 1954/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 RAZAK LATIF & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS ACE SECURITIES (PVT) LTD (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-APR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
219 Const. P. 3088/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2018 Mukhatiar Ali (Petitioner) VS Shahdad Ali and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-APR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.447-K/2020 Mukhtiar Ali v. Shahdad Ali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
220 H.C.A 249/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (Appellant) VS Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 18-NOV-20 Yes principal of awarding demurrage charges and analysis of Force Majeure clause of COA Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.A.76-K/2020 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Pakistan State Oil Company, Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
221 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
222 Suit 2364/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 M/s. Wadood Engineering Services (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS The Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 22-NOV-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
223 W.T.A 938/2000 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: WTA 939 of 2000 2000 Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) VS M/s Hashwani Services (Pvt) Ltd (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 10-SEP-20 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
224 Suit 611/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 WESTERN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (Plaintiff) VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 31-AUG-22 Yes Undoubtedly, the provisions of OGRA Law and its purposive interpretation given by the Courts, have comprehensively elaborated the statutory scheme. However, in the present cases, issue of implementation of Policy concerning RLNG is to be considered, coupled with the fact, that Plaintiffs have seriously disputed the Undertakings given by them for supply of RLNG and the apprehended discontinuance of Gas Supply, as it was done before. Therefore, in my considered view, the facts of present case fall within the exception to the Rule laid down in the above Case Law relied upon by the learned Advocate of Defendant No.2, and the plaints of both these Suits should not be rejected at this stage. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
225 Suit 28/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Isphanyar M. Bhandara.. (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Goshi M. Bhandara & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-MAR-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
226 Cr.Bail 45/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Muhammad Iqbal Abbasi (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 15-JUL-02 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
227 Cr.Bail 1215/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Tayyab (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 30-DEC-22 Yes Conversely, the case law relied upon by Applicants counsel is relevant, wherein bail was granted, inter alia, considering the earlier Court case. Both male members of a family are behind bars who are bread earners. There is no record of earlier conviction. Guilt of accused is yet to be determined in the above circumstances, because at this stage a deeper appreciation of facts cannot be made. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
228 Suit 1189/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Captain Adnan Andalib Siddiqui & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Shahnaz Hyder & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 24-OCT-22 Yes The other undisputed but crucial fact is that since decades both Plaintiffs and their families are residing in the Suit Property, although the lease is in the name of Claimant. It is to be determined through a proper trial that whether the Suit Property was given to the Claimant as her exclusive Property or the same was the compensation given to the Family of Deceased Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
229 R.A (Civil Revision) 205/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2000 Province Of Sindh & Others (Applicant) VS Ali Muhammad & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 09-MAY-23 Yes Highhandedness in supply of water, will result in disastrous situation. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
230 Const. P. 1382/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Syed Hussain Ali Shah & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 22-NOV-23 Yes This Province is longing for a good governance, but due to dishonest and corrupt officials, the sufferings of people at large are increasing day by day and an ordinary citizen does not even have access to Senior Officials, for redressal of their grievances and to hear complaints against the Subordinate Officials. This continuous mal-administration, abuse of authority and corrupt practices have resulted in an unprecedented level of litigation against the Government, which is unnecessarily burdening the Courts. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
231 II.A. 29/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cr.Misc.A.S.394/2023 2022 Mian Bux. (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & others. (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-NOV-23 Yes Section 47 of C.P.C in wrongly invoked by the Anti-Encroachment Tribunal. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
232 I. A 36/1986 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 1986 L.A.O Nawabshah & others (Appellant) VS Haji Ghulam Nabi thr: L.Rs (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 18-DEC-23 Yes LAND ACQUISITION ACT. No Notice under Section 12. Limitation of six months as mentioned in Section 18 2(b) applies. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
233 Suit 1724/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MST.ZAIBUNISA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS IQBAL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-JAN-19 Yes Section 39 of Specific Relief Act. Cancellation of Document. An instrument inherently void not required a formal cancellation under Section 39 of Specif Relief Act. Object of Law is to advance justice and remedy the wrong forthwith, instead of putting a law abiding person through the mill. to enforce orderly behaviour in a society. General Damages awarded for sufferings of Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs awarded general damages due to protracted litigation and on account of fraudulent act of Defendants. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
234 Adm. Suit 3/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 GLANDER INTERNATIONAL BUNKERING DMCC (Plaintiff) VS M.V. MISKI AND 2 OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-SEP-19 Yes It is an established Rule that pleadings themselves cannot be considered as evidence unless the Plaintiff or Defendant, as the case may be, enters the witness Box and lead the evidence in support of one's claim or defence. Plaintiff has not come forward to testify and discharge the burden of proof about its claim. The reported decision of Hon???ble Supreme Court handed down in the case of Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer Khan-2015 SCMR page-1401, is relevant. Since Plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations against the Defendants, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Suit dismissed. It is an established Rule that pleadings themselves cannot be considered as evidence unless the Plaintiff or Defendant, as the case may be, enters the witness Box and lead the evidence in support of one's claim or defence. Plaintiff has not come forward to testify and discharge the burden of proof about its claim. The reported decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court handed down in the case of Rana Tanveer Khan v. Naseer Khan-2015 SCMR page-1401, is relevant. Since Plaintiff has failed to prove the allegations against the Defendants, thus the Plaintiff is not entitled to any relief. Suit dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
235 Suit 209/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 MOHSIN ALI (Plaintiff) VS SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-MAR-19 Yes Suit for Specific Performance should have been filed and no possession can be given without seeking a Declaration in respect of title, because Agreement of Sale cannot be considered as a title / ownership document. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
236 Const. P. 2732/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Hayat Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Order 12-NOV-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.1438-K/2018 Hayat Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan thr.Secy: M/o Defence and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
237 Suit 1107/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Work Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 01-SEP-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
238 Const. P. 428/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2019 Khuda Bux (Petitioner) VS SHO P.S K.N.Shah and others (Respondent) S.B. Order 27-JUN-19 Yes Parties recklessly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of Court, which act on their part consumes valuable time of Court and litigants should be dealt with strictly and such type of petition is to be dismissed with heavy costs. Parties recklessly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of Court, which act on their part consumes valuable time of Court and litigants should be dealt with strictly and such type of petition is to be dismissed with heavy costs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
239 Suit 504/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1985 TEWFIQ FIKREE & ORS (Plaintiff) VS V/S USMANI FIKREE & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 18-JAN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
240 Suit 1396/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 AURANGZAIB QURESHI & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS THE CHAIRMAN P.I.A & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 08-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
241 2021 PLD Sindh Note 88 Suit 1498/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Feroze Sajan & others (Plaintiff) VS Farzana Sajan (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-APR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
242 Const. P. 598/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2014 Kamran Mustafa (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-APR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
243 Const. P. 302/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2012 Asif Ali (Petitioner) VS Secretary Board of Revenue & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-MAR-20 Yes Service Although it is not a vested right of the Petitioner to get an appointment order from the official Respondents, but at least he has a legitimate expectation, and for that matter any citizen, who is qualified and cleared different tests as prescribed by government functionary, to be dealt with fairly and considered for the post advertised, and in this regard an eligible candidate cannot be discriminated against or not considered, merely on account of extraneous consideration, which includes political consideration and nepotism. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
244 Suit 1213/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 SYED ZIANUDDIN (Plaintiff) VS M/S. CONTINENTAL LTD. & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-JUL-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
245 Const. P. 2186/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Zabardast Khan Mehar (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 05-APR-21 Yes NAB Petition for Reduction of Surety Amount Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam C.P.4267/2021 Zabardast Khan Mahar v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Chairman NAB,Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
246 Suit 1152/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2004 INAYAT MASIH & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS WAQAR AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 27-SEP-21 Yes Outcome of a criminal proceeding would not adversely affect determination of a Civil liability in a fatal accident suit, inter alia, because standard of proof in both proceedings is different. Family of the deceased is also entitled for damages for "loss of consortium", that is, deprivation of the benefits of a family relationship due to the death caused by a tortfeasor. Suit decreed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
247 R.A (Civil Revision) 34/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2003 Nandomal and others (Applicant) VS The P.O. of Sindh and others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 01-OCT-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
248 Const. P. 8680/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Muhammad Muqeem (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 31-AUG-21 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
249 R.A (Civil Revision) 26/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Muhammad Iyas & others (Applicant) VS VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 02-MAR-20 Yes A first question which comes to mind is that Defence Quota must have been based on a criteria that a person or a beneficiary of this Defence Quota must have performed any act of gallantry or bravery for the State of Pakistan. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
250 Suit 133/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 MRS. PARVEEN MEHMOOD. (Plaintiff) VS THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC CO. LT (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 02-AUG-21 Yes The delay in filing the claim in not of few days but it is of eleven months regarding which the Plaintiff had not led any positive evidence to justify that why the above delay beyond prescribed period should be condoned, or, the said delay in filing this Lis, is not hit by Rule 29. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
251 Const. P. 3902/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Mst. Rukhsana Bano and Ors (Petitioner) VS KMC and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 10-DEC-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) C.P.55-K/2022 Haji Jaffer Khan v. KMC (Karachi Muncipal Coorporation) & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
252 Civil Revision 74/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2020 Ameer Ahmed Jagirani (Applicant) VS P.O. Sindh & others. (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 14-MAR-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
253 Execution First Appeal 20/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 M/S. METROPOLITAN STEEL CORP. LTD (Decree Holder) VS MEPCO & AN ANOTHER (Judgment Debtor) S.B. Order 16-FEB-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
254 Criminal Miscelleneous 475/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2021 Mst.Mumtaz & Ors (Applicant) VS The State & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 03-MAR-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
255 Suit 66/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MOIN US SAMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MRS.TANVEER QAZI (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 22-AUG-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
256 Suit 1228/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Mst. Shahnaz Abid. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Visionary Baluchistan Media Corp. (Pvt) Ltd. (Defendant) S.B. Order 06-SEP-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
257 Suit 1188/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Sadia Siddiqui & another (Plaintiff) VS Adnan Andalaib Siddiqui & others (Defendant) S.B. Order 24-OCT-22 Yes The other undisputed but crucial fact is that since decades both Plaintiffs and their families are residing in the Suit Property, although the lease is in the name of Claimant. It is to be determined through a proper trial that whether the Suit Property was given to the Claimant as her exclusive Property or the same was the compensation given to the Family of the above named Deceased, through his widow, viz. the Claimant, as children, including the above Son [Adnan Andalib] were minors [at the relevant time]. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
258 Cr.Rev 14/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 NOOR MUHAMMAD (Applicant) VS IST A.D.J BADIN & OTHERS (Respondent) S.B. Order 24-MAY-23 Yes It is not prohibited under the law for complainant to become investigation officer, provided it does not prejudice the accused person;but, this practice is not approved by the Courts, as it would compromise his impartiality as an investigation officer to find out the truth. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
259 Const. P. 1385/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.P.No.D-1242 of 2023 2023 Mumtaz Ali & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 16-NOV-23 Yes Human Capital Development is the need of the hour. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)