High Court of Sindh at Karachi, Bench at Sukkur and Circuit Courts at Hyderabad and Larkana
Category Wise List of cases (Judgments / Orders )
Total Judgements/Orders :
Code
S.No.
Citation
Case No.
Case Year
Parties
Bench
Order_Date
A.F.R
Head Notes
Judgement/Order
106157
1
2016 YLR Note 133
Suit 241/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2008
MRS. ZAREENA (Plaintiff) VS ISLAM UDDIN & OTHERS. (Defendant)
S.B.
24-NOV-15
No
Principle of res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, can in appropriate cases be made applicable to the interlocutory orders as well, particularly to forestall the abuse of process of Court, which is apparent from the conduct of the parties.
106497
2
2017 CLC 1783
Suit 378/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1987
Habib Jute Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (Defendant)
S.B.
26-FEB-16
No
Nil.
106974
3
2017 CLC 1387
Suit 1052/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1988
Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., (TCP) (Plaintiff) VS Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umar (Pvt) Ltd (Defendant)
S.B.
16-SEP-16
No
Nil.
124273
4
Suit 1318/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
Mrs. Almas Farooqi and another (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (Defendant)
S.B.
09-MAR-18
No
Nil.
139407
5
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.
02-JUN-17
Yes
Nil.
138156
6
Suit 1461/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1998
A. QUBUBUDDIN KHAN (Plaintiff) VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (Defendant)
S.B.
24-APR-19
Yes
Nil.
115794
7
Suit 74/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1991
Mohammad Sarwar (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh and others (Defendant)
S.B.
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.
116570
8
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.
21-JUL-17
Yes
Nil.
127649
9
Suit 1526/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2008
Creek Marina Private Limited (Plaintiff) VS Guangdong Overseas Construction Group Company Limited and another (Defendant)
S.B.
08-JUN-18
No
Nil.
138574
10
Suit 1306/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
DARUS SALAM C.H.S (Plaintiff) VS KBCA & OTHER (Defendant)
S.B.
07-MAY-19
No
Nil.
140144
11
Suit 1315/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2006
MUHAMMAD IQBAL (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ORS (Defendant)
S.B.
23-AUG-19
Yes
Nil.
157154
12
Suit 1954/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
RAZAK LATIF & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS ACE SECURITIES (PVT) LTD (Defendant)
S.B.
144204
13
Suit 394/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1997
MUHAMMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS PAK. STEEL MILLS CORP. LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
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.
176360
14
Suit 749/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2005
DR. NAFEES ZUBAIR (Plaintiff) VS MRS. SAEEDA BANO & ORS (Defendant)
S.B.
22-DEC-22
Yes
207972
15
Suit 66/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
MOIN US SAMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MRS.TANVEER QAZI (Defendant)
S.B.
207983
16
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.
189912
17
Suit 777/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2022
UNITED BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
27-MAY-22
Yes
200326
18
Suit 2195/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2017
Sohrab Khan (Plaintiff) VS Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited (Defendant)
S.B.
26-JUN-23
Yes
225313
19
Suit 1294/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2024
ABDUR RAZZAQ & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)
Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Appellant) VS V/S Muhammad ASLAM SIDDIQUI & ORS (Respondent)
S.B.
29-JAN-16
No
It is proved that Defendant No.3 was the sole beneficiary of embezzled amount, which landed in her bank account. Therefore, the stance of Defendant No.3 has been rejected that the amount was embezzled by her husband (Defendant No.1) who has since disappeared and the said Defendant No.3 is not a beneficiary. In the circumstances, Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 squarely applies to the facts of the present case.
Defendant Bank has been also held liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the losses it suffered, as admittedly relationship between Defendant No.2-Bank and Plaintiff is of a fiduciary nature and thus former (Defendant No.2) owed a duty of care to the latter (Plaintiff) that its bank account had to be maintained in a professional and diligent manner. Nature of duty of Defendant No.2 implies exercise of due diligence and by making payment of such a substantial amount on the basis of a Request Letter containing some alternations and that too in the name of Defendant No.3 (the beneficiary of said amount) with which the Plaintiff-the customer of Defendant No.2 had no business relationship, latter (said Defendant No.2) had acted negligently.
152449
22
Suit 390/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2001
CAPT. TARIQ MEHMOOD MALIK. (Appellant) VS P.A.L.P.A. (Appellant)
S.B.
02-AUG-21
Yes
81226
23
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.
24-OCT-13
Yes
Nil.
106076
24
Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1990
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
28-MAR-16
No
Nil.
103218
25
2016 CLC 1326, 2016 CLD 2106
Suit 749/1989 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1989
Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Plaintiff) VS Mohammad Alam (Defendant)
S.B.
01-APR-16
No
In absence of a counter claim, the Defendant being a handling agent of Plaintiff was held liable to render report of the outstanding balance of unaccounted for rice stock lying in go-down, which was in custody of Defendant. Latter status is of bailee of the goods, who is clothe with the same obligations.
Import and applicability of Sections 151 and 161 of the Contract Act [1872] has been discussed vis-??-vis res ipsa loquitur [things speak for themselves]. Defendant has been held liable to compensate Plaintiff for the losses it suffered.
106762
26
2017 CLC 1783
Suit 378/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1987
Habib Jute Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (Defendant)
S.B.
26-FEB-16
No
Claim under Risk Sale is only tenable when there is an enforceable agreement, that is, a contract as defined in subsection (h) of Section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872, exists between the parties, which is subsequently breached by Defendant.
In order to succeed in his claim, the Plaintiff has to show that what measures it took to mitigate its losses before arranging or manufacturing the requisite goods / gunny bags for Defendants, if at all, the Plaintiff was under an impression or understanding that it had been actually awarded the contract. Any prudent businessman or a corporate entity like Plaintiff would have addressed a notice or any other type of communication to the Defendants about the fact that the Plaintiff was about to make preparation or commence production of subject goods / jute bags for supplying them to Defendants within the given time frame.
In response to Plaintiff bid, the Defendant by its correspondence reduced the price of gunny bags with an explicit condition that the communication is without any commitment. It is also an admitted position that other requisite formalities in such type of tender were never completed. For instance, Plaintiff was never issued a letter of intent nor the latter submitted any performance bond, which fact has been acknowledged by Plaintiff
103219
27
Suit 750/1989 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1989
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
01-APR-16
No
Nil.
121453
28
Suit 1482/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1998
Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) VS Deedar Ali Issran (Defendant)
When a Government functionary or statutory body was vested with discretionary powers then same were to be exercised in a structured manner---Discretion was to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner. Suit of Plaintiff was decreed except the claim of damages.
114511
30
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)
INAMULLAH SHAIKH. (Plaintiff) VS M/S.CITY SECURITIES & OTHER (Defendant)
S.B.
20-FEB-19
No
Nil.
137313
33
Suit 1203/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Ehtisham Zubair. (Plaintiff) VS Ashraf Hussain & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
25-JAN-19
No
Nil.
118373
34
Suit 1511/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1999
Pakistan Railwasy Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Plaintiff) VS Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig and others (Defendant)
S.B.
18-SEP-17
No
Nil.
116569
35
Suit 358/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1985
Ghazanfar Ali and another (Plaintiff) VS Cherat Cement Limited and others (Defendant)
S.B.
28-JUL-17
Yes
NIL
112776
36
Suit 2651/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Zohaib Shakoor (Plaintiff) VS Mahwish Pirzada & another. (Defendant)
S.B.
06-APR-17
Yes
Nil.
145174
37
Suit 1569/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2000
Ali Muhammad & another (Plaintiff) VS Faizullah & another (Defendant)
S.B.
21-MAY-20
Yes
Nil.
138575
38
Suit 425/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
RIZWAN AHMED (Plaintiff) VS JAMEEL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
29-JAN-19
No
Nil.
124146
39
Suit 1744/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Hanif Ahmed and another (Plaintiff) VS Sindh Building Control Authority and others (Defendant)
S.B.
15-FEB-18
No
Nil.
114896
40
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.
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.
157028
41
Suit 1498/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2015
Feroze Sajan & others (Plaintiff) VS Farzana Sajan (Defendant)
S.B.
145463
42
Suit 1258/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
DR. ISHAQUE MUHAMMAD SHAH (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Defendant)
S.B.
06-JUL-20
Yes
Nil.
149929
43
Suit 493/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1993
Shahimah Sayeed (Plaintiff) VS Base Commander and three others (Defendant)
S.B.
26-FEB-21
Yes
157114
44
Suit 215/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2015
Muhammad Rafiq (Plaintiff) VS Habib Bank Limited. (Defendant)
S.B.
156289
45
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.
22-NOV-21
Yes
172223
46
Suit 341/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
SHIAKH KHALID SAFDAR (Plaintiff) VS ALI HUSSAIN & OTHER (Defendant)
S.B.
29-SEP-22
Yes
171639
47
Suit 852/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2021
M/s Visionary Baluchistan Media Corporation (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Shahnaz Abid & others. (Defendant)
S.B.
06-SEP-22
No
207978
48
Suit 614/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2003
ZAFAR AHMED. (Plaintiff) VS ASSOCIATES PRESS OF PAK & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
170495
49
Suit 614/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2003
ZAFAR AHMED. (Plaintiff) VS ASSOCIATES PRESS OF PAK & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
22-AUG-22
Yes
171637
50
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.
06-SEP-22
Yes
185616
51
Suit 1740/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2022
MUHAMMAD RAMEEZ KHAN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
06-MAR-23
Yes
186440
52
Suit 41/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2019
Shahid & another. (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Zainab & others. (Defendant)
S.B.
28-FEB-23
Yes
189910
53
Suit 229/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2017
Aga Khan Fund For Economic Development S.A. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
11-JAN-23
Yes
203305
54
Suit 1592/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
MST.SHAMIM AKHTER & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MST.NAZAR BARI & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
28-SEP-23
Yes
225345
55
Suit 1414/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2017
Collachi Cooperative Housing Society (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)
S.B.
23-JAN-25
No
171625
56
Suit 1008/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
WASIM IQBAL (Plaintiff) VS KARWAN E ISLAMI (Respondent)
S.B.
14-NOV-22
Yes
102318
57
2016 PLD Pesh. 367
Suit 1030/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1991
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
07-MAR-16
No
Nil.
147981
58
Suit 462/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2013
Sajid Ali Qureshi (Plaintiff) VS V/S Saleem Dawood. (Defendant)
Mr. Hamood Mehmood (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others (Defendant)
S.B.
10-NOV-17
No
Suit for specific performance of contract---Ad-interim injunction subject to deposit of balance sale consideration---Object---Non-deposit of balance sale consideration---Effect---Object for giving direction to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court was to see the bona fides of a purchaser---Injunction in such case was granted so that the corpus of dispute remained intact and ultimately could be transferred to a successful party in litigation---Balance sale consideration was to be invested in some profit bearing scheme enabling the vendor/defendant to get an increased amount as sale consideration---If purchaser/plaintiff was unsuccessful then deposited amount was to be returned back to him with accruals in order to safeguard his interest---Non-deposit of sale consideration would raise adverse presumption against plaintiff that he was not serious in performing his agreed part of contract disentitling him to decree for specific performance---Party seeking remedy of specific performance was to apply to the Court for depositing the balance amount---Any contumacious/ omission in that regard would entail in dismissal of suit or decretal of the same if it was filed by the other side---Plaintiff, in the present case, enjoyed the ad-interim injunctive relief but despite giving ample opportunities and chances to comply with the orders of Court he kept on defying all such directions/orders---One who sought equity must also do equity---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
Sarfaraz Khamisani & others (Plaintiff) VS The Province of Sindh & others (Defendant)
S.B.
23-AUG-23
No
2788
86
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.
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.
89736
87
2017 CLC 155
Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
11-DEC-14
No
Nil.
103224
88
Suit 67/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1988
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
22-FEB-16
No
Nil.
106094
89
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.
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.
119865
90
Suit 1151/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
Mrs. Hailey Vincent D'Abreo (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and another (Defendant)
S.B.
27-OCT-17
No
Rent arrears of School building. S.R.P.O does not apply to the Government buildings. Relief of rent arrears and possession of school building was allowed.
112439
91
2018 MLD 1099
Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant)
S.B.
17-APR-17
No
Nil.
138015
92
Suit 421/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1991
Rahim Ali Palari & ors. (Plaintiff) VS Govt. of Sindh & ors.. (Defendant)
S.B.
14-MAR-19
Yes
Nil.
115028
93
Suit 101/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1984
Karachi Properties Investment Company (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Properties Investment Company (1974) (Private) Limited and others (Defendant)
S.B.
12-JUN-17
No
Nil.
119257
94
Suit 601/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2008
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
24-OCT-17
No
Nil.
123072
95
2019 PLC CS 178
Suit 754/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2005
Mrs. Rukhsana Yahya (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan (Defendant)
S.B.
06-FEB-18
No
Nil.
137310
96
Suit 1037/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2005
M/S SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY & ORS (Defendant)
S.B.
07-FEB-19
No
Nil.
114892
97
Suit 2531/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
01-JUN-17
No
Nil.
138573
98
Suit 1079/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
MAKRAN COMM. &ORS (Plaintiff) VS CHINA MOBILE PAK (Defendant)
S.B.
08-MAY-19
No
Nil.
128512
99
Suit 886/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1999
Syed Raza Haider Rizvi (Plaintiff) VS Gordon Shipping Company Ltd. and another (Defendant)
S.B.
02-JUL-18
No
Plaintiff was employee of defendants (employers) who were bound to provide him proper medical treatment---Plea raised by plaintiff was that due to failure of defendants to provide medical treatment, he had suffered permanent physical disability due to injury sustained by him during duty---Validity---Defendants neither produced any document about complete recovery of plaintiff nor had questioned authenticity of documents produced by plaintiff---Expert opinion of doctors further substantiated the fact that till March-1999 plaintiff was not fully recovered from injury which inhibited his pursuit of career---Testimony of plaintiff (employee) and undisputed documentary evidence produced by him weighed in favour of plaintiff as against oral evidence of defendant that complete medical treatment was given to plaintiff---To extent of negligence shown by defendants (employers) in providing incomplete medical treatment of plaintiff stood proved---Suit for damages and compensation was decreed accordingly.
114894
100
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.
14-OCT-16
Yes
Nil.
118372
101
Suit 889/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1998
Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Railways and others (Defendant)
S.B.
18-SEP-17
No
Nil.
124156
102
Suit 1650/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2008
Mrs. Shamima Alam (Plaintiff) VS Syed Abu Obedah and others (Defendant)
S.B.
01-MAR-18
No
Nil.
138572
103
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.
03-MAY-19
Yes
Nil.
132916
104
Suit 127/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
SURRIYA ZAHEER (Plaintiff) VS MRS.RUQAYA & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
04-OCT-18
No
Nil.
130736
105
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.
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.
140145
106
Suit 1396/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
AURANGZAIB QURESHI & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS THE CHAIRMAN P.I.A & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
08-MAR-19
Yes
Nil.
144066
107
Suit 1680/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2015
Shahzad Nabi. (Plaintiff) VS Naseer Turabi & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
18-OCT-19
No
Nil.
143030
108
Suit 432/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2015
Muhammad Arif. (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Uzma Jawaid & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
30-DEC-19
Yes
Nil.
145030
109
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.
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.
145052
110
Suit 1954/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
RAZAK LATIF & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS ACE SECURITIES (PVT) LTD (Defendant)
S.B.
20-APR-20
Yes
Nil.
153978
111
Suit 1152/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2004
INAYAT MASIH & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS WAQAR AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
27-SEP-21
Yes
149990
112
Suit 436/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1993
SHAHIMAH SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS BASE CDR PAF BASE MASROOR (Defendant)
MRS. PARVEEN MEHMOOD. (Plaintiff) VS THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC CO. LT (Defendant)
S.B.
207967
115
Suit 611/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2022
WESTERN TEXTILE INDUSTRIES (Plaintiff) VS THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
207966
116
Suit 1202/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2005
MRS.TARANUM SABIH (Plaintiff) VS KBCA & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
207962
117
Suit 66/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
MOIN US SAMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MRS.TANVEER QAZI (Defendant)
S.B.
172221
118
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.
03-OCT-22
Yes
189906
119
Suit 1188/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2021
Sadia Siddiqui & another (Plaintiff) VS Adnan Andalaib Siddiqui & others (Defendant)
S.B.
24-OCT-22
Yes
189904
120
Suit 434/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2019
Imtiaz Ahmed & another. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Hussain (Defendant)
S.B.
07-NOV-22
No
138872
121
2017 YLR 1551
Suit 13/1972 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1972
PREMIER INSURANCE CO. V/S KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING (Plaintiff) VS M/S. FAROOQI & CO., Surridge & Beecheano, ARFIN & CO., Abdul Rauf, Samiuddin Sami, H. A. Rahmani (Defendant)
S.B.
02-MAY-16
No
Marine Insurance Policy is assignable and consequently an Insurance Company after being subrogated, can sue the tortfeasor in its own name, in terms of Sections 130A read with 135A, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882.
Foreseeability Causation and but for is that 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 is negligence.
Subject Marine Insurance Policy being a 'time policy' had covered the risk, while the Vessel in question was dry-docked and subsequently damaged.
103220
122
2016 CLC 1326, 2016 SBLR Sindh 967
Suit 796/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1987
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
18-MAR-16
No
No party is allowed to set up a new case in evidence, which is beyond his pleadings.
Defendant was appointed as handling agent of Plaintiff in respect of one of latter's go-downs, inter alia, with an express obligation to submit periodical Reserve Stock Account (RSA), which Defendant failed to submit. Defendant being bailee in terms of Section 161 of Contract Act, 1872, was responsible for delivery of goods as well as keeping a proper account for the same. Defendant held liable for the reported short fall in the rice stock and bardanas (wheat / gunny bags).
Concept of the Best Evidence Rule' vis-??-vis Article 129, Illustration (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 has also been discussed; that if a party relying upon a best piece of evidence but withholds it while leading evidence, then it will be presumed that under some sinister motive the best piece of evidence was not produced.
106275
123
Suit 826/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1987
M/S. MUSTAFA SONS PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY. (Defendant)
S.B.
15-AUG-16
No
There is a distinction between a routine board resolution that authorizes a person / Officer of a Company to do certain acts, including instituting a legal proceeding and a non-routine resolution as contemplated under Section 164 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (the Ordinance 1984). Similarly, a special resolution passed under Section 172 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, which has been defined in Section 2 sub-section (36) of the Ordinance 1984, is also of distinct nature and different import. For a routine and a procedural resolution as mentioned hereinabove, there is no requirement that the same should be filed with the SECP (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan).
If a board resolution is passed without giving prior notice to the Directors of the Board then the meeting convened and the resolution passed there at, both are held to be invalid and not in accordance with the Ordinance 1984. Even otherwise, if a Board Meeting is allowed to be held without prior notice to other directors, then it would lead to a chaotic situation and it will be against the basic principle of good corporate governance, which cannot be permitted.
A suit instituted on behalf of a Plaintiff-Company without a valid authorization simply means that the plaint is not existing for all intents and purposes.
126454
124
Suit 1063/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Abdul Rauf & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Amin Lakhani & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
11-SEP-23
Yes
Nil.
112908
125
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)
MRS. ZAIBA KABLY (Plaintiff) VS TARIQ NAZIR BUKHARI (Defendant)
S.B.
02-APR-19
Yes
Nil.
137303
128
Suit 315/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2000
S.M.INAMUL HAQ. (Plaintiff) VS MIRZA AMJAD BAIG & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
28-JAN-19
Yes
Nil.
137307
129
Suit 515/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2006
M/S SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SYED (Defendant)
S.B.
06-FEB-19
Yes
Nil.
115648
130
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.
19-JUN-17
Yes
Nil.
135717
131
Suit 1682/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
MAZHAR SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS ATIF MAZHAR & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
23-JAN-19
Yes
Nil.
135933
132
Suit 2501/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Muhammad Umer Sharif & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Saeed Bakhsh (Pvt) Limited. (Defendant)
S.B.
02-JAN-19
No
Nil.
138471
133
Suit 1767/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2014
Abdul Sattar Shaikh. (Plaintiff) VS Adeel Zahoor Malik & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
30-MAY-19
Yes
Nil.
124293
134
Suit 1142/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2003
Pakistan Battery Mfg. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Fahad Farooqi and others (Defendant)
S.B.
09-MAR-18
No
Nil.
138976
135
Suit 771/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2005
MASJID E ABDEEN TRUST (Plaintiff) VS DUBAI SHOPING MALL (Defendant)
S.B.
23-MAY-19
No
Nil.
139291
136
Suit 5/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
NOMAN ABID CO (Plaintiff) VS NAVEED HAIDER (Defendant)
S.B.
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.
140233
137
Suit 1472/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1998
Abdul Qadir (Plaintiff) VS Mr.Ameer Zadi& Ors (Defendant)
S.B.
16-SEP-19
Yes
Nil.
141562
138
Suit 2227/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2015
Allied Bank Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Qamar Hussain Naqvi & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
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.
157185
139
Suit 1213/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2000
SYED ZIANUDDIN (Plaintiff) VS M/S. CONTINENTAL LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
147980
140
Suit 1316/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2000
DR. ABDUL RASHID PARACHA (Plaintiff) VS THE DEF. HOUSING AUTHORITY (Defendant)
S.B.
20-JAN-20
Yes
157118
141
Suit 436/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1993
SHAHIMAH SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS BASE CDR PAF BASE MASROOR (Defendant)
S.B.
151947
142
Suit 1778/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2014
Muhammad Iqbal. (Plaintiff) VS Zafar Hussain & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
24-JUN-21
Yes
151356
143
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.
17-MAY-21
Yes
202437
144
Suit 58/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2021
ASGHAR HUSSAIN (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL WAKEEL & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
07-SEP-23
Yes
142921
145
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.
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.
3415
146
Suit 1150/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1991
ISLAMIC ESTATES & BUILDERS (Appellant) VS V/S HAJI ALLAH DINO & ORS (Respondent)
S.B.
01-FEB-07
No
Nil.
148654
147
Suit 286/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2003
SYED WAQAR HAIDER ZAIDI (Plaintiff) VS MST.ALAM ARA (Defendant)
S.B.
21-DEC-20
Yes
138578
148
Suit 762/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1995
SHAHZAB GOTH RESIDENTS (Plaintiff) VS GOVT. OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
21-MAY-19
Yes
Nil.
112438
149
Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
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.
106077
150
Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1990
Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)
S.B.
26-FEB-16
No
Nil.
102308
151
2016 CLC 878, 2017 CLC 1387
Suit 176/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1985
Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd (Plaintiff) VS Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umer ltd (Defendant)
S.B.
21-JAN-16
No
??? Any shortcoming in compliance of Order 29 Rule 1 is curable, for instance, if a formal Board Resolution is not there, then the Articles of Association and / or internal record [un-rebutted one] like Note Sheets, can be taken into account to determine about the authority of a person instituting a legal proceeding / suit. Articles of Association empower the Board of Directors to institute and defend legal proceedings; Articles 106 and 113, deal with quorum and at least two Directors can pass an effective and valid Board resolution. Since Noting sheet produced in the evidence confirms that Directors of the Plaintiff Corporation had discussed the issue and authorized the filing of instant suit, which was subsequently filed by the person authorized in the above document, the conclusion is that the suit was properly and competently filed. Noting sheet can be taken as Board Resolution by Circulation.
??? If the very suit has been unauthorizedly and incompetently filed, that is, neither any authorization from the Board of Directors exists, nor the Articles of Association provide such authority, then such a defect remains incurable, even by a subsequent ratification.
122573
152
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.
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
112440
153
Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant)
S.B.
12-APR-17
No
Nil.
137999
154
Suit 1724/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
MST.ZAIBUNISA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS IQBAL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
28-JAN-19
Yes
Nil.
116568
155
Suit 752/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1984
Cherat Cement Company Limited (Plaintiff) VS Ghazanfar Ali & two others (Defendant)
S.B.
28-JUL-17
Yes
Nil.
118616
156
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.
05-OCT-17
Yes
Nil.
137297
157
Suit 112/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS MOHSIN ALI (Defendant)
S.B.
29-MAR-19
Yes
Nil.
137306
158
Suit 357/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
Muhammad Junaid Makhdumi. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Iqbal & Others (Defendant)
S.B.
19-FEB-19
Yes
Nil.
135932
159
Suit 1022/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2005
ABID & ORS (Plaintiff) VS K.B.C.A (Defendant)
S.B.
25-JAN-19
No
Nil.
112926
160
Suit 595/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
INAM HAFIZ SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. & OTHER (Defendant)
S.B.
19-JUL-17
Yes
Nil.
139312
161
Suit 862/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
PERVAIZ HUSSAIN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS MIAN KHURRAM RASOOL (Defendant)
S.B.
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.
139391
162
Suit 727/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2012
IQBAL RASHEED (Plaintiff) VS BABAR MIRZA CHUGTAI & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
19-JAN-17
Yes
Nil.
140721
163
Suit 845/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Ashraf Hussain Khan. (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Rehman Khan & Others. (Defendant)
S.B.
30-SEP-19
Yes
Cases involving rights of inheritence are at higher pedestal, inter alia, in view of the Sharia Act, 1991.
157191
164
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.
174883
165
Suit 1717/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2019
Muhammad Khalid Ali Khan (Plaintiff) VS Najam Ahmed & others. (Defendant)
S.B.
08-NOV-22
Yes
207973
166
Suit 341/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2009
SHIAKH KHALID SAFDAR (Plaintiff) VS ALI HUSSAIN & OTHER (Defendant)
S.B.
187058
167
Suit 223/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2023
ARY COMMUNICATIONS LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS INDEPENDENT MEDIA CORPORATION (PVT) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
14-MAR-23
Yes
207964
168
Suit 234/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2007
BASIRAT DAD KHAN LODHI & ORS (Plaintiff) VS FARHAT DAD KHAN LODHI & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
219907
169
Suit 377/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2023
ABDUL REHMAN (Plaintiff) VS PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)
S.B.
23-SEP-24
Yes
219511
170
Suit 336/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2024
JAVED AKHTAR ARBAB (Plaintiff) VS FEDERAT (Defendant)
S.B.
20-SEP-24
Yes
218109
171
Suit 33/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2011
MUHAMMAD AMIN HOOSEIN (Plaintiff) VS EXPORT PROCESSING ZONES AUTHORITY (Defendant)
S.B.
30-JUL-24
Yes
238191
172
Suit 230/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2019
Raees Didar Hussain Rind (Plaintiff) VS Hashmat Ali & others. (Defendant)
S.B.
31-JAN-25
No
145055
173
Suit 1347/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2006
ASADULLAH KHAWAJA (Appellant) VS INVESTMENT CORP. OF PAKISTAN (Respondent)
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.
107334
176
Suit 646/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1999
KHAN JAMAL (Plaintiff) VS M/S. LONG LIFE BUILDERS & ORS. (Defendant)
S.B.
03-OCT-16
No
Nil.
114606
177
2018 CLC 883
Suit 2489/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
M/s. Al Naseeb Welfare Foundation International (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Latif Memorial Hospital & others (Defendant)
S.B.
30-MAY-17
No
O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action, absence of---Defendant, a Welfare Association was dissolved and plaintiff, a Welfare Foundation, wanted to takeover the assets of the Association---Plea raised by plaintiff was that objectives contained in Memorandum of Association of both the organisations were similar, therefore after dissolution, Association was bound to donate its assets to any such organization---Validity---Held, in absence of any clause under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of defendant Association, that assets would be given/handed over or donated to any specific entity or any agreement between the organizations that was plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff could not as a matter of right claim the assets of dissolved entity should be handed over to plaintiff---Such was an undisputed factual position and in absence of any such document or undertaking by defendant Association, neither any right nor any interest had accrued in favour of plaintiff for bringing an action of such nature---Plaintiff did not have any legal character for instituting suit as no cause of action had accrued for filing the same and it was hit by S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Basic features to attract O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. were present---Plaint was rejected in circumstances.
112681
178
Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant)
S.B.
08-FEB-17
No
Nil.
114522
179
Suit 1353/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2016
Iqbal Umer (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Gymkhana and others (Defendant)
S.B.
21-SEP-16
No
Nil.
122209
180
Suit 504/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
1984
Tewfiq Fikree and others (Plaintiff) VS Umahani Fikree and others (Defendant)
S.B.
18-JAN-18
No
Nil.
137294
181
Suit 209/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2010
MOHSIN ALI (Plaintiff) VS SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS (Defendant)
S.B.
29-MAR-19
Yes
Nil.
124173
182
Suit 1689/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2008
Mst. Saira Khatoon (Appellant) VS Syed Muhammad Ashraf and others (Respondent)
S.B.
27-FEB-18
Yes
Nil.
116012
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.
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.
124138
184
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.
06-MAR-18
Yes
Nil.
116992
185
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.
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.
123493
186
Suit 665/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi
2003
Umar Islam Khan (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Basit and others (Defendant)