Note: The figures in the following table only show the number of important Judgements/Orders uploaded on this site. It does not reflect total disposal of the Hon'ble Judges.
Apex Court: Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan:
| ||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| S.No. | Citation | Case No. | Case Year | Parties | Bench Type | Order/Judgment | Order_Date | A.F.R | Head Notes/ Tag Line | Bench | Apex Court | Apex Status |
| 1 | 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 | Const. P. 1007/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2018 | Muhammad Mehboob (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & ors (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 28-MAY-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 4 | 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 | ||||
| 5 | 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 | ||||
| 6 | 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 | Pakistan Act 1990,UK Civil Procedure Law (UAE) | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||
| 7 | 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 | ||||
| 8 | 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 | |||
| 9 | 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 | ||||
| 10 | 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 | |||
| 11 | 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 | ||
| 12 | 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) | ||||
| 13 | 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 | |||
| 14 | 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) | |||
| 15 | 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) | ||||
| 16 | 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 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. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | |||
| 17 | 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) | ||||
| 18 | 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) | ||||
| 19 | 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) | ||||
| 20 | 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) | |||
| 21 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | |||
| 22 | I. A 5/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2015 | Abdul Samad Mahar & others (Appellant) VS The Habib Bank Limited & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 19-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 23 | 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) | ||||
| 24 | 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) | ||||
| 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 ,Pending | ||
| 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 | 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) | |||
| 29 | 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) | ||||
| 30 | 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) | |||
| 31 | 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 | ||
| 32 | 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,Pending Dismissed as Not Pressed | ||
| 33 | 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 | ||||
| 34 | 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 | ||||
| 35 | 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) | |||
| 36 | 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 | |||
| 37 | 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 | |||
| 38 | 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 | ||||
| 39 | 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) | |||
| 40 | 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 | ||||
| 41 | 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) | ||
| 42 | 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 Before Supreme Court of Pakistan | Pending Leave Granted | ||
| 43 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 44 | 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) | ||||
| 45 | 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) | |||
| 46 | 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) | ||||
| 47 | 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 | ||||
| 48 | 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) | ||||
| 49 | 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) | ||||
| 50 | First Appeal Against Order 6/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2015 | Yameen Ali (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 07-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 51 | 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) | ||||
| 52 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 53 | 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) | ||||
| 54 | 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) | |||
| 55 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 56 | 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 | |||
| 57 | 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 | |||
| 58 | 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) | ||||
| 59 | 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 | ||||
| 60 | 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) | |||
| 61 | 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 | ||
| 62 | 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 | |||
| 63 | 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) | ||||
| 64 | 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 | ||||
| 65 | 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 | |||
| 66 | 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 | ||||
| 67 | 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 | |||
| 68 | 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) | |||
| 69 | 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) | ||||
| 70 | 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) | ||||
| 71 | 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 | ||
| 72 | 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 Senior Pusine 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 |
| 73 | 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 Adjourned |
| 74 | 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 | ||||
| 75 | 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 | Pending Dismissed as Not Pressed | ||
| 76 | 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 | |
| 77 | 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 | ||||
| 78 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 79 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 80 | 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 | ||
| 81 | 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) | ||||
| 82 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 83 | 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) | ||||
| 84 | 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) | |||
| 85 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 86 | 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) | ||||
| 87 | 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) | ||||
| 88 | 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 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 |
| 89 | 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 | ||
| 90 | 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 | |||
| 91 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 92 | 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 Petitioner???s 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) | |||
| 93 | 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) | ||||
| 94 | 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) | |||
| 95 | 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) | ||||
| 96 | 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) | ||
| 97 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 98 | 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) | ||||
| 99 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | |||
| 100 | 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 | |||
| 101 | 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 Senior Pusine 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 | ||
| 102 | 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) | ||||
| 103 | 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) | ||||
| 104 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 105 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 106 | 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 Hon???ble Supreme Court, cited by the learned counsel for Petitioner is relevant. | Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | |||
| 107 | I. A 5/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2013 | Javed-ur-Rehman and others (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & another (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 17-NOV-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 108 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 109 | 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 | |||
| 110 | 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) | |||
| 111 | 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) | |||
| 112 | 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) | ||||
| 113 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 114 | 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) | ||||
| 115 | 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 Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | |||
| 116 | 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 | |||
| 117 | 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 Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||
| 118 | 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) | |||
| 119 | 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 | ||||
| 120 | 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 | |||
| 121 | 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 | |||
| 122 | 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) | ||
| 123 | 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 | ||
| 124 | 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 | ||||
| 125 | 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 | ||||
| 126 | 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 | ||||
| 127 | 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 | ||||
| 128 | 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) | ||||
| 129 | 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 | |||
| 130 | 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 | ||||
| 131 | 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) | |||
| 132 | 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) | |||
| 133 | 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 | Pending Disposed of |
| 134 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 135 | 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 | Pending Dismissed | |
| 136 | 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) | ||
| 137 | 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) | |||
| 138 | 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 Senior Pusine 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 | |
| 139 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 140 | 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 | Hon'ble Senior Pusine 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 | ||
| 141 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 142 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 143 | 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) | |||
| 144 | 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) | ||||
| 145 | 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 | |||
| 146 | 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 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 |
| 147 | 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 | ||
| 148 | 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 | ||||
| 149 | 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) | ||
| 150 | 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) | ||||
| 151 | 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 | ||
| 152 | 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 | |||
| 153 | 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 | |||
| 154 | 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) | ||||
| 155 | 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) | ||||
| 156 | 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) | ||||
| 157 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 158 | 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 | ||||
| 159 | 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) | |||
| 160 | I. A 9/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2011 | Nand Lal and another (Appellant) VS M/S Askari Bank Ltd.and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 15-MAR-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 161 | 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 | Pending | |
| 162 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 163 | 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) | |||
| 164 | 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) | ||||
| 165 | 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) | |||
| 166 | 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 | Factors of injunction diminished with the passage of time. Injunction Application dismissed. | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | |||
| 167 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 168 | 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 | ||
| 169 | 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 | |||
| 170 | 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 |
| 171 | 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) | |||
| 172 | 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 | ||||
| 173 | 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 | Pending Dismissed |
| 174 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 175 | 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 | ||||
| 176 | 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 | ||||
| 177 | 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 | ||||
| 178 | 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 | |||
| 179 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 180 | 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) | ||||
| 181 | 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 | ||||
| 182 | 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 | ||
| 183 | 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 | ||
| 184 | 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 | ||
| 185 | Const. P. 2149/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: Const. P D 4729/2015 | 2015 | Abdul Hameed and another (Petitioner) VS Provicne of Sindh and others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 30-MAY-18 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 186 | 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 | |||
| 187 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | |||
| 188 | 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 | ||||
| 189 | 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 Adjourned | ||
| 190 | 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 Senior Pusine 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 | |
| 191 | I. A 7/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur | 2014 | Chaudhry Abdul Jabbar (Appellant) VS Presiding Officer, Banking Court-II, Sukkur & others (Respondent) | D.B. | Judgement | 13-DEC-17 | Yes | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 192 | 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) | ||||
| 193 | 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 Senior Pusine 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 | |
| 194 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 195 | 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) | ||||
| 196 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 197 | 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) | ||||
| 198 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 199 | 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) | |||
| 200 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 201 | 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 | |||
| 202 | 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 | Pending Dismissed | ||
| 203 | 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) | ||||
| 204 | 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) | |||
| 205 | 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) | ||||
| 206 | 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) | ||||
| 207 | 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) | |||
| 208 | 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) | ||||
| 209 | 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) | |||
| 210 | 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) | ||||
| 211 | 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 | |||
| 212 | 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) | |||
| 213 | 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) | ||||
| 214 | 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 2020???21 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) | |||
| 215 | 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 Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam | ||||
| 216 | 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) | |||
| 217 | 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 | Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author) | ||||
| 218 | 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 | ||
| 219 | 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) | ||||
| 220 | 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) | ||||
| 221 | 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) | ||||
| 222 | 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) | ||||
| 223 | 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) | ||||