Note: The Sorting of following cases is based on the search by public, Litigant.It does not reflect Ranking of Hon'ble Judges.
1) 208/2015 Suit Mirza Shakir Baig (Plaintiff) V/S Miss. Iffat Chughtai & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author)
Order Date: 22-MAR-16
Approved for Reporting
2) 615/2014 Const. P. Mst. Zarina Begum (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahnawaz Tariq, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 12-JUN-14
Approved for Reporting
3) 4/2011 H.C.A Salehbhoy through LRs (In person) (Appellant) V/S M/s. Pak Maniar Investment (Pvt.) Limited and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 22-NOV-12
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.41-K/2013 Salehbhoy v. M/s Pak Maniar Investment (Pvt.) Limited and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Not Reached
4) 262/2010 Civil Revision Mst. Farasa Aijaz (Applicant) V/S M/s. Qamran Construcation (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 19-APR-12
Approved for Reporting
5) 59/2016 Civil Revision Dr. Bhagwandas & Others (Applicant) V/S Mashooq Ali Jatoi & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XVII Rule 3 CPC)
Citation:2019 CLC Note 58
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 18-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
6) 1761/2020 Const. P. Abu Hashim & another (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Judgment in NADRA case passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan whereby the show cause notices issued under Section 18 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 are quashed. The blocking of CNICs of the petitioners was declared illegal.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 19-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
7) 1316/2011 Suit KHAIR MUHAMMAD KHATIAN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S LIAQUAT ALI G. KAZI & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 13-MAY-15
Approved for Reporting
8) 167/2012 Suit Naseem-ul-Haq (Plaintiff) V/S Raees Aftab Ali Lashari & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 YLR 550
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 12-FEB-13
Approved for Reporting
9) 1630/1998 Suit NOTHERN POLYTHENE LTD (NPL) (Plaintiff) V/S NAT BANK OF PAK & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 MLD 782
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 27-FEB-13
Approved for Reporting
10) 1019/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Ayaz Khan & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 24.07.2020 in the case of Muhammad Ayaz Khan and others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with C.P.No.D-1046/2019), whereby, Members of the Establishment of Sindh High Court and Members of Establishment of the Establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary of Province of Sindh, expressed their grievance against withholding of income tax by the Accountant General Sindh on the amounts paid towards Judicial Allowance and Special Judicial Allowance by treating the same as part of their salary income chargeable to tax under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. The Hon'ble bench of Sindh High Court has been pleased to allow both these petitions in the following terms:-
"In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that amount of judicial allowance and special judicial allowance paid to the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as to the Members of the establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary of Province of Sindh falls within the exclusion in terms of clause (c) of sub-section (2) of Section 12 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, therefore, not part of their taxable salary income, hence, not chargeable to Tax or deduction under Section 149 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Accordingly, withholding of income tax on the aforesaid amounts is hereby declared to be illegal and without lawful authority. Consequently, both the constitutional petitions are allowed along with listed applications. Respondents are directed not to withhold any amount of income tax from judicial allowance and special judicial allowance of the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as the Members of establishment of sub-ordinate judiciary in Province of Sindh. The amounts already deducted from the salary of the Members of establishment of Sindh High Court as well as to the sub-ordinate judiciary, shall be refunded by the FBR, on their filing refund applications in accordance with law, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of such claims."
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 24-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.484-K/2020 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Muhammad Ayaz Khan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
11) 77/2012 Const. P. Haji Abdul Ghaffar (Petitioner) V/S Head Master Govt Primary School Bhutta Road Suk (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: PROPERTY
Tag Line:ence, it could be safely observed that the pleadings of the plaint do support the proposed amendment sought by the petitioner. In the same way, will not change the nature and complexion of the suit. Had the proposed amendment be not supported by the pleadings in terms of Para 6 as well as in terms of prayer clause A, it could be a possibility that nature and complexion of the suit may have been altered by introduction of these impugned, proposed amendments, but that is not the case here.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 02-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
12) 903/2007 Suit Allah Dino Khaskheli (Plaintiff) V/S HBL (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Damages employement HBL
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 08-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
13) 830/2013 Suit S. Abdul Mannan Muttaqi (Plaintiff) V/S Defense House Authority & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 28-APR-14
Approved for Reporting
14) 2149/2015 Const. P. Abdul Hameed and another (Petitioner) V/S Provicne of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973 (Jurisdiction: Remedy before proper forum)
Tag Line:In our humble opinion, one of the reasons for introducing the doctrine of alternate remedy was to avoid and reduce the number of cases that used to be filed directly before this Court, and at the same time to allow the prescribed lower forum to exercise its jurisdiction freely under the law. Moreover, if a person moves this Court without exhausting the remedy available to him under the law at lower forum, not only would the purpose of establishing that forum be completely defeated, but such person will also lose the remedy and the right of appeal available to him under the law.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 30-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
15) 1022/2011 Suit MST. AZRA PERVEZ & ORS (Plaintiff) V/S SHEIKH ASHFAQ HUSSAIN & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 09-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
16) 71/2008 Suit.B SONERI BANK LTD (Plaintiff) V/S CLASSIC DENIM MILLS PVT LTD (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 04-JUN-12
Approved for Reporting
17) 161/2014 Cr.Rev SIP Ahmed Saeed Shaikh and others (Applicant) V/S Muhammad Bakhsh and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 02-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
18) 240/2014 Const. P. Sikandar Ali Lashari (Petitioner) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shaukat Ali Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 26-JUN-15
Approved for Reporting
19) 30/2009 Cr.Rev Haji Muhammad Usman. (Applicant) V/S Abdul Sattar and others. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 03-JUN-11
Approved for Reporting
20) 252/2021 Cr.Bail Ahmed Ali @ Ali Bhutto and another (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:Post Arrest Bail
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-JUL-21
Approved for Reporting
21) 308/2011 Cr.Misc. Yasmin Gul Khanani and another (Applicant) V/S Tariq Mehmood (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 18-JUL-13
Approved for Reporting
22) 69/2011 Cr.Rev Akhtar Pervaiz Qrueshi (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 14-APR-12
Approved for Reporting
23) 1699/2010 Suit ABBAS ALI (Plaintiff) V/S ASIF ABBAS & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 01-AUG-12
Approved for Reporting
24) 174/2010 Civil Revision Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Applicant) V/S M/s. Seaward Surveyors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 MLD 24
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 06-AUG-14
Approved for Reporting
25) 1413/2014 Cr.Bail SHAH JAHAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 SBLR Sindh 796
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 09-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
26) 1285/2010 Const. P. Safdar Ali Sahito (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 19-OCT-10
Approved for Reporting
27) 3309/2011 Const. P. M/S Ibrahim Fibres Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Prov. of Sindh and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Infrastructure fee / cess levied vide Sindh Finance Act, 2017 applicable retrospectively w.e.f. 01.07.1994 is intra vires; all petitions stand dismissed to that effect; however, Insofar as the first four versions of law introduced through Sindh Finance Act, 1994, amended through Sindh Finance Act, 1996, the Sindh Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 2001, and the Sindh Finance (Second Amendment) Ordinance, 2001 are concerned, their applicability on the petitioners who had litigated earlier and were Appellants in Sanofi Aventis(PLD 2009 Karachi 65), has attained finality and is a past and closed transaction, notwithstanding promulgation of its fifth version vide Sindh Finance (Amendment) Ordinance, 2006, further amended by The Sindh Finance (Amendment) Act, 2007 (Sindh Act No: II of 2007, and The Sindh Finance (Amendment) Act, 2009 (Sindh Act No: III of 2009);
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.869/2021,C.P.1434-K/2021,C.A.953/2021,C.P.4321/2021,C.P.1564-K/2021,C.P.1544-K/2021,C.A.1628/2021,C.A.1637/2021,C.A.1586/2021,C.A.1619/2021,C.P.6039/2021,C.A.1635/2021,C.A.2049/2022 SCP Status:Pending ,Disposed Leave Granted. Interim Relied,Pending ,Disposed Allowed, Leave Granted and Impugned Judgment suspended.,Disposed Leave Granted. Interim Relied,Disposed Leave Granted. Interim Relied,Pending ,Pending ,Pending ,Pending ,Disposed ,Pending ,Pending
28) 447/2008 Const. P. Ali Asghar Siddiqui (Petitioner) V/S M/s. Tyms Education Limited & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 12-APR-12
Approved for Reporting
29) 135/2012 Suit Independent Media Corporation Private Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Mr. Ali Azmat & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Defamation Ordinance, 2002. (Application filed by defendant is allowed)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 15-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
30) 3415/2017 Const. P. Dr. Uzma Shaheen Pirzada (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Pension matters)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 1100
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.614-K/2017 Dr.Uzma Shaheen Pirzada v. Province of Sindh and others,C.A.9-K/2019 Dr.Uzma Shaheen Pirzada v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted [ Early date ],Disposed Disposed of
31) 69/2004 Execution Allied Bank of Pakistan (Decree Holder) V/S Fateh textile Mills ltd & othes (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed
Order Date: 22-DEC-06
Approved for Reporting
32) 365/2010 Cr.Acq.A. Nabi Bux S/o Vikio Machhi (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 09-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
33) 641/2020 Suit Mr. Shakeel Qadir (Plaintiff) V/S Mst. Shumaila Umair (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 26-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
34) 128/2011 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector Model Customs Hyderabad (Applicant) V/S M/s Khuda Raheem & anothe (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 16-DEC-11
Approved for Reporting
35) 1899/2021 Cr.Bail FARAZ TASNEEM S/O TASNEEM UR RASHEED (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Primarily, in bail matters, it is the discretion of every Court to grant the bail, but such discretion should not be arbitrary, fanciful, or perverse, as the case in hand begs a question as to what constitutes an offense under section 489-F, P.P.C. Every transaction where a cheque is dishonored may not constitute an offense. The foundational elements to constitute an offense under this provision are the issuance of a cheque with dishonest intent, the cheque should be towards repayment of a loan or fulfillment of an obligation, and lastly that the cheque in question is dishonored.
Advocates:Chaudry Rizwan ur Rasheed(ADVO-13051-SBC-MLR),Aurangzeb(ADVO-3048-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
36) 272/2020 Cr.Bail ABDULLAH S/O MEHMOOD RAZA & ANOTHER (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Bail Matters (Bail dismissed U/S 9 C After arrest. )
Citation:2021 MLD 267
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
Order Date: 13-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
37) 191/2021 Cr.Bail Mujeeb Rehman @ Mujahid (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:Post Arrest Bail
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-JUL-21
Approved for Reporting
38) 575/2009 Const. P. Dr.Jalil Qadir (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 27-APR-10
Approved for Reporting
39) 6383/2015 Const. P. Tehseen Muzammil and others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:School Fees, Schools who have increased their
tuition fees over 5% per annum for the last three years
from the date of their respective registration/reregistration, no further enhancement be permitted until
their re-registration whereupon enhancement be
regulated in strict compliance of Sub-rule 7 (3) of the
Rules 2002
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 07-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.869-K/2016 Generation School (Pvt) Ltd. and another v. Province of Sindh and others,C.A.11-K/2017 Generation School (Pvt) Ltd. and another v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed
40) 1542/2008 Suit MUHAMMAD BACHAL (Plaintiff) V/S PROV OF SINDH & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 25-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
41) 46/2006 II.A. Muhammad Aqil (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Amir & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Specific Relief Act, (Section 27 - Relief against subsequent buyer )
Tag Line: The newly developed question in these proceedings while the instant appeal was pending adjudication is the alienation of the property by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondent No.3. It is claimed to have changed hands and respondent No.3 claimed to have acquired rights in the property and very ably represented by the same counsel who represents the respondents No.1 and 2. Its alienation was effected while the interim order was operating. Additionally Mr. Abrar argued issue of lis pendens. Admittedly the notice under section 18 of the Registration Act in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was not issued. The question of lis pendens would take its effect when proceedings would be initiated in terms of section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908 for its effectiveness and cure as required in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.975/2018 Syed Muhammad Sami-ud-Din v. Muhammad Aqil & others,C.A.976/2018 Muhammad Amir & another v. Muhammad Aqil & another,C.A.32-K/2018 Muhammad Aqil v. Muhammad Amir and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending ,Pending ,Disposed Dismissed
42) 3757/2013 Const. P. Yaqoob Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan (199)
Tag Line:A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, has pronounced the judgment on 02.07.2020, filed by large number of petitioners, whereby, imposition of Income Support Levy at the rate of 0.5% on the value of Net Moveable Assets, through Income Support Levy Act, 2013, has been challenged for being ultravires to Constitution, as according to petitioners, subject levy did not possess the characteristic of a tax, therefore, could not be introduced through Finance Act 2013, along with Money Bill in terms of Article 73 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The subject levy was also challenged for being violative of the provisions of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, as according to petitioners, Income Support Levy is discriminatory in nature, as it creates unreasonable classification between the same class of persons having Net Moveable Assets exceeding Rs.1.00 Million. The Hon?ble Divisional Bench of this Court, after having examined in detail all the constitutional and legal points involved in these petitions, has been pleased to allow the petitions in the following terms:-
(i) The levy imposed through Income Support Levy Act, 2013 alongwith Money Bill, does not possess the characteristics of a tax, as it is not a common burden for raising revenue to be utilized for general public purpose, on the contrary, it is a levy in the nature of fund to be charged and utilized for a specific purpose i.e. ?to provide for financial resources for raising an income support fund for the economically distressed persons and their families?. Accordingly, the Income Support Levy Act, 2013, could not be introduced through Finance Act, 2013, in terms of Article 73 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the same is hereby declared to be ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973.
(ii) The levy imposed through Income Support Levy Act, 2013, is hereby declared to be ultravires to the Constitution for being discriminatory, as it creates unreasonable classification within the same class of person i.e. persons having Net Moveable Wealth exceeding Rs.1.00 M (One Million), whereas, its incidence and charge of levy falls un-equally upon the existing taxpayers only, who file or required to file Wealth Statement under Section 116 along with their Income Tax Return under Section 115 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, , however, non-existing taxpayers, who are not required under law, or do not file their Wealth Statement along with Income Tax Return, inspite of having much higher Net Moveable Wealth, exceeding Rs.1.00 M (One Million), have been excluded from the incidence and charge of such levy, which is in clear violation of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic of Pakistan, 1973.
(iii) All the Notices and the proceedings, including assessment order(s) passed under Section 5 of the Income Support Levy Act, 2013 after repeal of the Income Support Levy Act, 2013, under clause 10 of the Finance Act, 2014, in the absence of any saving or validation clause to protect or validate the Income Support Levy Act, 2013 are hereby declared to be without jurisdiction and lawful authority.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 02-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1396/2013 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Karachi v. Yaqoob Ahmed & others,C.P.1796/2013 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I, Karachi v. Yaqoob Ahmed & others,C.P.1237-K/2020 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Yaqoob Ahmed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous,Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed
43) 230/2016 S.M.A In the matter of Letter of Administration of deceased Tahir Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) V/S Nil (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: International Law, Civil Procedure Law (UAE), Civil Procedure Code CPC (Section 13.), Civil Procedure Code CPC (Section 44.)
Tag Line:It would be an inconvenience, rather a hardship for the present Petitioner and her siblings to file the proceeding in respect of properties of her deceased father in three different Countries; Pakistan for moveable property, United Kingdom and United Arab Emirates for the immoveable properties, particularly, when instant Proceeding is a noncontentious in nature. Proprietary rights are mentioned in Article 17 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights and hence they can neither be ignored nor their significance can be lessened.
Citation:2019 PLD Sindh 130, 2017 SBLR Sindh 2034
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 02-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
44) 84/2011 Execution M/s. NIB Bank Ltd (Decree Holder) V/S Apollo Textile Mills Ltd & others (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 PLD Sindh 430
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 02-APR-13
Approved for Reporting
45) 227/2013 Cr.Bail Waheed Ali & Ors (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Murder Bail (Ocular evidence is corroborated by medical evidence), Criminal Pre Arrest Bail (Bail Dismissed)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 26-OCT-15
Approved for Reporting
46) 1724/2009 Suit MST.ZAIBUNISA & ORS. (Plaintiff) V/S IQBAL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Cancellation Sale Deed)
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 28-JAN-19
Approved for Reporting
47) 2650/2019 Const. P. Ms. Saba (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:ADJ appointment/retest case
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 17-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.429-K/2019 Ms. Saba v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
48) 309/2019 Const. P. Rashid Ali Noonari (Petitioner) V/S Mst Zoya & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Family matter (Family Court dismissed Conditional dower amount ,DJ allowed .High Court Restored Family Court Order and Sat aside Appellate Court Order .)
Tag Line:1. A supreme court judgment, though later in time, is not binding if it has not considered an earlier view of a bench of co-equal strength; nor has referred the matter for constitution of a larger bench. The earlier view will be the binding precedent till such time it is in the field.
2. Family court has no jurisdiction under clause 9 of Schedule to Section 5 of the Family Court Acts, 1964 in cases of enforcement of clause 18 and 19 of the Nikahnama which are dependent on the happening of or related to KHULA or DIVORCE. It vests in the ordinary courts as settled by the Supreme Court in the case of Mukhtar Hussaid Shah (PLD 2011 SC 260)
A supreme court judgment, though later in time, is not binding if it has not considered an earlier view of a bench of co-equal strength; nor has referred the matter for constitution of a larger bench. The earlier view will be the binding precedent till such time it is in the field.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 21-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
49) 1637/2013 Const. P. Dawood Singhar and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahnawaz Tariq, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 28-APR-15
Approved for Reporting
50) 166/2019 H.C.A Najmul Hassan & ors (Appellant) V/S Romana Qamar & ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 01-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1357-K/2020 Najmul Hassan & others v. Romana Qamar & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
51) 2389/2014 Suit Al-Tamash Medical Society (Plaintiff) V/S Dr. Anwar Ye Bin Je & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Amenity Plot , Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial)
Tag Line:With all humility, the aforesaid dictums are distinguishable as on the face of it in the present case there is no change or conversion of amenity plot to commercial or residential use but throughout the pleadings, nothing has been surfaced that the defendant Nos.1 and 2 or the defendant Nos.8 to 10 are endeavoring to convert the use of land from amenity to commercial or residential use.
Citation:2017 MLD 785
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 16-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
52) 416/2011 Suit GHULAM NABI SHAH (Plaintiff) V/S PIAC & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 PLC CS 768
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 07-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
53) 708/2011 Adm. Suit Mohammad Ibrahim Tunio (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-JAN-12
Approved for Reporting
54) 43/2013 Cr.Rev Shahrukh Jatoi (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 15-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
55) 451/2016 Const. P. Ghulam Ali (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Sindh Tenancy Act 1950 (Peasants Rights (Sindh Tenancy Act 1950)), Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950
Tag Line:Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 01-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.652-K/2019 Province of Sindh thr. Senior Member Board of Revenue and others v. Ghulam Ali Leghari,C.A.7-K/2022 Province of Sindh thr. Senior Member Board of Revenue and others v. Ghulam Ali Leghari Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Notice be repeated
56) 636/2012 Suit Mari Gas Company Ltd (Plaintiff) V/S Byco Petroleum Pakistan Ltd. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 PLD Sindh 314
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 25-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
57) 628/2009 Suit ILYAS AHMED (Plaintiff) V/S MUHAMMAD MUNIR & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 17-NOV-11
Approved for Reporting
58) 22/2003 Suit.B M/S.AZMAT TRADING CO. (Plaintiff) V/S NDLC IFIC BANK (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 21-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
59) 102/2012 Civil Revision Chaudhry Manzoor Ahmed & another (Plaintiff) V/S Faisal Manzoor & other (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 30-MAR-15
Approved for Reporting
60) 277/2014 Const. P. Pharmatee Pakistan PVT LTD (Petitioner) V/S Bakht Rehman and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 25-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
61) 89/2015 Cr.Acq.A. SYED MUHAMMAD AHSAN (Appellant) V/S MUNAWAR ALI NAQVI & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 (Section 8), Criminal Procedure Code (Sub-section 4 of Section 403)
Tag Line:(a) Illegal Dispossession Act (XI of 2005)-
----Ss. 3, 5 & 7---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 265-H & 417(2A)---Appeal against acquittal--- Appreciation of evidence--- Illegal dispossession---Declaration to title---Proof---Appellant was complainant and was aggrieved of dispossession from subject property by accused persons---Trial Court under S. 265-H(i), Cr.P.C. acquitted accused persons---Validity---Law of land and even Shia Personal Law did not authorize Momineen of any locality to request anyone amongst themselves to unlawfully control or occupy immovable property of an orphanage owned by some registered private institution with intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy said property and dispossess otherwise lawful occupiers of such property---Accused persons, despite backing of so-called religious scholars and their goodwill in community were conscious of fact that they had no moral authority or legal defense to justify taking over possession of subject property and grab and control of resources of private institution---Accused persons never filed any civil suit to seek declaration of their title in respect of subject property as they knew that their so-called working committee was not even fraudulently registered---High Court set aside judgment of acquittal passed by Trial Court and convicted accused persons under S. 3(2) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 along with fine---Appeal was allowed accordingly.
2010 YLR 2139; Muhammad Akram and 9 others v. Muhammad Yousuf and another 2009 SCMR 1066; PLD 1989 SC 283; PLD 1971 SC 550; 2012 CLC 793; Shahabuddin v. The State PLD 2010 SC 725; Mumtaz Hussain v. Dr. Nasir Khan and others 2010 SCMR 1254; Shaikh Muhammad Naseem v. Mst. Farida Gul 2016 SCMR 1931 and Mst. Gulshan Bibi and others v. Muhammad Sadiq and others PLD 2016 SC 769 ref.
(b) Illegal Dispossession Act (X1 of 2005)---
----S. 3---Illegal dispossession---Abandoned property---Principle---Even abandoned property is supposed to be in constructive possession of its lawful owner---If at all there is any defect in status of owner to hold, occupy and control subject property of private institution, accused are not supposed to contravene S. 3(1) of Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005. (c) Illegal Dispossession Act (X1 of 2005)---
----Ss. 3 & 5---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 92---Illegal dispossession---Criminal and civil liabilities---Determination---Accused persons cannot contend that complainant has no lawful authority to file legal proceedings in view of S. 92, C.P.C. when raised before a court seized of a criminal case---Proceedings under Criminal Procedure Code, 1898 cannot be regulated by Civil Procedure Code, 1908.
Zafar Ahmad and 5 others v. The State and 3 others PLD 2007 Lah. 231 and Bashir Ahmed v. Additional Sessions Judge PLD 2010 SC 661 ref
Citation:2020 YLR Sindh 1
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 17-JUL-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.161-K/2019,Crl.P.166-K/2019,Crl.P.158-K/2019,Crl.P.913/2019,Crl.P.987/2019,Crl.A.403/2019,Crl.A.404/2019,Crl.A.405/2019,Crl.A.406/2019,Crl.A.407/2019 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted( Notice in Crl.MAs for suspension of sentence in all cases for 29.10.2019),Disposed Leave Granted( Notice in Crl.MAs for suspension of sentence in all cases for 29.10.2019),Disposed Leave Granted( Notice in Crl.MAs for suspension of sentence in all cases for 29.10.2019),Disposed Leave Granted( Notice in Crl.MAs for suspension of sentence in all cases for 29.10.2019),Disposed Leave Granted( Notice in Crl.MAs for suspension of sentence in all cases for 29.10.2019),Disposed Allowed with direction to Auqaf Department, Govt. of Sindh.,Disposed Allowed with direction to Auqaf Department, Govt. of Sindh.,Disposed Allowed with direction to Auqaf Department, Govt. of Sindh.,Disposed Allowed with direction to Auqaf Department, Govt. of Sindh.,Disposed Allowed with direction to Auqaf Department, Govt. of Sindh.
62) 3693/2011 Adm. Suit Mohammad Khan Jalbani (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 31-MAR-15
Approved for Reporting
63) 819/2015 Const. P. Ghulam Murtaza (Petitioner) V/S Mst Khursheed Lubna & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Citation:2018 YLR 2003
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 27-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
64) 1011/2013 Const. P. REHAN AHMED BIAG (Petitioner) V/S MST. SABEEN NAZ & OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 06-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
65) 1761/2008 Suit Mst. Shagufta Noor (Plaintiff) V/S Defendant (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Appointment of commissioner to record evidence)
Citation:2012 CLC 1902
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Order Date: 06-AUG-12
Approved for Reporting
66) 159/2022 Const. P. Sadam Hussain and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether the private respondents have the requisite length of service to claim promotion to the post of Executive Engineer (BS-18) in the PHED; and, whether the DPC considered the case of the petitioners along with private respondents for promotion under law and policy of the Government of Sindh as introduced in the year 1984 or otherwise
Advocates:Muhammad Sarfraz Ali Metlo(ADVO-11638-SBC-KHI),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Faizan Hussain Memon(ADVO-15395-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 23-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
67) 1914/2020 Const. P. Amir Akbar Khan (Petitioner) V/S NAB & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Applicability of the regime of sections 204 and 91 Cr.P.C. to a Reference under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi
Order Date: 26-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.5188/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Amir Akbar Khan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
68) 2798/2014 Const. P. Arham Aziz Shaikh (Petitioner) V/S Province Of Sindh and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Appointment)
Citation:2018 PLC (CS) Note 121
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 09-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
69) 1072/2015 Suit Delhi Mercantile Muslim Co-operative Housing Society (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 02-SEP-16
Approved for Reporting
70) 22/2010 Cr.Appeal Syed Naveed Ali (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 03-OCT-12
Approved for Reporting
71) 9/2020 Const. P. Mst. Shabana (Petitioner) V/S Nadir Ali Magsi & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
72) 1250/2016 Const. P. Dawood Baloch (Petitioner) V/S Muhammad Saleem & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar
Order Date: 23-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
73) 43/2013 Cr.Appeal Jabbar Gopang (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 13-AUG-13
Approved for Reporting
74) 526/2014 Const. P. data not available, hyd case (Petitioner) V/S data not available (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 24-JUL-14
Approved for Reporting
75) 878/2014 Const. P. Jaffar Ali (Petitioner) V/S SHO Airport PS Latifabad Hyd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 25-FEB-15
Approved for Reporting
76) 618/2012 Const. P. Nasrullah Domki (Petitioner) V/S SHO PS Saddar Jacobabad and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:Nasrullah Const.p: Petitions No. S- 618 of 2012.S-65, 74, 79, 134, 164, 226, 284, 337, 697, 814,834, 845, 932 and 1079 of 2015.
Citation:2016 PLD 238
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 14-OCT-15
Approved for Reporting
77) 217/2013 Const. P. Muhammad Usman (Petitioner) V/S Amanullah and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: LIMITATION (CP dismissed, Execution application is time barred, in rent case, section 48 CPC is applicable . )
Citation:2020 YLR Note 979
Advocates:Eijaz Ali Hakro Associates(Firm-390-SBC-HYD)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 10-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.657-K/2019 Muhammad Usman v. Amanullah and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
78) 20/2009 Civil Revision Mst Rabia Khatoon (Applicant) V/S Abbas Ali and an other (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 12-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
79) 780/2001 Suit Zafar Mahmood Khan (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Ali Khan and another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 13-MAY-15
Approved for Reporting
80) 88/2002 Civil Revision Syed Shahan Shah @ Syed Nasrullah Shah (Applicant) V/S Syed Amanullah Shah and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 05-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
81) 2322/2014 Suit Dr. Arifa Farid and others (Plaintiff) V/S Mitha Khan and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Judgment in rem / personam, Exception to right of hearing
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 24-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
82) 79/2014 Cr.Misc. M/s.Abid S. Zuberi & others (Applicant) V/S M/s.Kh.Shamsul Islam and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 26-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
83) 2847/2017 Const. P. Sajjad Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan
Tag Line:Declare that naming, renaming any street, road, government
institute, town, or city after the name of any individual having no
positive social, role, courage or exceptional dedication to service
in ways that bring special credit to an area, city town is illegal,
unlawful against the basic rights of citizens of particular areas,
towns, cities and public at large.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 24-JUL-19
Approved for Reporting
84) 1458/2011 Suit NAJMUDDIN ZIA & ANOTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S MST. ASMA QAMAR & 3 OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 SBLR Sindh 666
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 07-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
85) 7077/2016 Const. P. Shahbaz Garment (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 22-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2873/2018,C.M.A.8722/2018,C.M.A.8723/2018,C.M.A.8724/2018,C.M.A.8725/2018,C.P.461-K/2019,C.P.462-K/2019,C.P.463-K/2019,C.P.464-K/2019,C.P.465-K/2019,C.P.466-K/2019,C.P.467-K/2019,C.P.468-K/2019,C.A.98-K/2019,C.A.99-K/2019,C.A.100-K/2019,C.A.101-K/2019,C.A.65-K/2019,C.A.102-K/2019,C.A.103-K/2019,C.A.104-K/2019,C.A.105-K/2019,C.A.106-K/2019,C.A.107-K/2019,C.A.108-K/2019,C.A.109-K/2019,C.A.110-K/2019,C.A.111-K/2019,C.A.112-K/2019,C.A.113-K/2019,C.A.114-K/2019,C.A.115-K/2019,C.A.117-K/2019,C.A.116-K/2019,C.P.469-K/2019,C.P.470-K/2019,C.P.471-K/2019,C.P.472-K/2019,C.P.473-K/2019,C.P.474-K/2019,C.P.475-K/2019,C.P.476-K/2019,C.P.477-K/2019,C.P.478-K/2019,C.P.479-K/2019,C.P.480-K/2019 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed
86) 29/2021 Cr.Rev MS.RUBINA MIR D/O LATE MIR MUHAMMAD (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Spl.Prosecutor Customs(SpPCus),Khawaja Shams ul Islam(ADVO-3953-SBC-KHS),Firdous Khatoon(ADVO-3796-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 16-JUL-21
Approved for Reporting
87) 28/2019 Const. P. Arsalan Aijaz (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Sanober & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
88) 518/2013 Const. P. Amir Aslam Shaikh & ohters (Petitioner) V/S COurt of IV th Rent Controller & ohters (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:the jurisdiction vested in it was not exercised fairly justly and in fact the findings of the learned Rent Controller has completely shut down the plea raised by the petitioners/tenants wherein it is alleged by tenants that in terms of section 18 the default claimed is to be regulated by section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and despite the fact that 30 days period was provided under section 18 to tender the rent, the tenants/petitioners can still avail the rights guaranteed to them in terms of proviso to section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, provided that they have fulfilled the conditions laid down therein. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.3 are not relevant to the present case. They relate to the issue of interlocutory orders regarding which no appeal lies, however, in the instant case issue is totally different wherein the learned Rent Controller has not performed and exercised the jurisdiction, as required.
Citation:2014 SBLR Sindh 495
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Order Date: 11-JUL-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.200-K/2013 Muhammad Nadeem v. Aamir Aslam Shaikh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
89) 2533/2019 Const. P. Asif Ali (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Deceased Son Quota, Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion andTransfer) Rules,1974 (Rule 11-A)
Tag Line:Sindh Government /Police Department cannot circumvent the law to make recruitment to the post of ASI on the basis of Son/Shaheedquota by issuing Standing Ordersor by invoking Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion andTransfer) Rules,1974 and Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014by relaxing the requisite qualification for appointment in the disciplinary force. The appointment of ASI can only be made through competitive process on merit.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.392-K/2019 Asif Ali v. Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Home Deprtt: Govt. of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
90) 1134/2011 Suit M/S. SADAT BUSINESS GROUP LTD (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 )
Citation:2013 CLD 1451
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 09-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
91) 1497/2020 Const. P. Nasir Kamal (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:PNSC is hereby directed to pay all the post-retirement benefits to the petitioner strictly in accordance with law without fail within fifteen (15) days and to submit compliance report to this Court through MIT-II within seven (07) days thereafter. For future as well as for cases pending for calculation and/or payment of post-retirement benefits, PNSC is further directed to ensure compliance of the directions given by the Honble Supreme Court in Haji Muhammad Ismail Advocate (supra) and Province of Punjab, through Conservator of Forest, Faisalabad (supra) in letter and spirit The petition is allowed in the above terms with costs.
Advocates:Waleed Rehan Khanzada(ADVO-14977-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Khalid Javed(ADVO-2417-SBC-KHI),Abdul Ghaffar(ADVO-4097-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1089-K/2021 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation through its Chairman v. Nasir Kamal & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
92) 813/2020 Const. P. Usman Hamid Thr. Attorney Muhammad Adnan Hamid (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Sundus Wahid and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Jurisdiction is Challenged in G&W Case. Marriage is Solemnized In Karachi ,and Minor born in Karachi, Hence Jurisdiction is Karachi.)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author)
Order Date: 01-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
93) 34/2005 Cr.Appeal Muhammad Pali (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 12-FEB-15
Approved for Reporting
94) 2415/2016 Suit Saleem Butt (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan and Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Given the mechanism in-built in section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, which includes the providing of reasons in writing to the taxpayer, the power conferred on the Commissioner to call for record under section 177(1) of the Ordinance, does not by itself offend Article 25 of the Constitution. The question then, whether such power has been used unlawfully, is different, and one that may vary with the circumstances of each case. While making such challenge, the Plaintiff had also to demonstrate infringement of a Fundamental Right. The invoking of section 177(1) does not militate against the concept of deemed assessment under section 122 of the Ordinance. Malafides had to be pleaded with particulars.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
95) 1254/2015 Suit Mrs Naveen Irfan (Plaintiff) V/S Mst Shama Parveen (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 03-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
96) 763/2021 Const. P. Ayub Khan (Petitioner) V/S The Dist & Session Judge West and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:the appointment of sons of deceased/retired and serving employees of the District and subordinate Courts--whether the Petitioners son is entitled to be appointed on the son quota basis in view of policy decision /directives of the Honble Chief Justice of this Court vide letters dated 03.03.2010, 23.7.2012 & 4.3.2013--In the light of the above rule position, no further action is required on our part in exercising the power under Article 199 of the Constitution on the premise that petitioner failed to point out any administrative decision of the member of the subordinate judiciary; and, merely agitating the claim that his son was not accommodated in the Judicial District was/is no ground to direct the respondent No.1 to appoint his son. However, the petitioner is at liberty to apply for the post on merit as and when the vacancy occurs in the office of District & Sessions, Judge Karachi West.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.544-K/2021 Ayub Khan v. The District & Sessions Judge Karachi (West) & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
97) 1231/2006 Suit Muhammad Ibrahim Hajano (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan State Oil Company Ltd (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 15-MAY-17
Approved for Reporting
98) 62/2010 H.C.A Muhammad Naved Aslam & Ors. (Appellant) V/S Mst.Aisha Siddiqui & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-DEC-10
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.166-K/2011 Muhammad Naveed Aslam and others v. Mst. Aisha Siddiqui and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
99) 37/2014 H.C.A Syed Mumtaz Ali & others (Appellant) V/S Mst.Khatoon Begum (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
Order Date: 07-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
100) 3/2018 Judicial Companies Misc. Dr. Muhammad Imran Qureshi & Others (Applicant) V/S Mohammad Asif & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Forensic Audit of Company / Respondent No. 5 ordered in terms of Section 286 of the Companies Act ordered.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 18-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
101) 1511/2005 Const. P. K.E.S.C Labour Union and others (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973
1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: -
"62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:-
a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications.
b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also.
c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also."
2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 21-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.482-K/2021 KESC Labour Union through its Chairman & another v. Federation of Pakistan Through the Cabinet Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
102) 288/2013 Const. P. Syed Sajid Abbas Rizivi (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Naureen and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Family matter (Petitioner used delay tactus . CP dismissed with Cost .)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam, Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 25-APR-13
Approved for Reporting
103) 232/2007 H.C.A Muhammad Saad &others (Appellant) V/S Amna & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Order Date: 29-AUG-13
Approved for Reporting
104) 1928/2016 Suit Mr. Mehtab Tahir Niazi (Plaintiff) V/S M/s Al-Qasmia Properties & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Asim Iqbal(ADVO-4488-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Shafi(ADVO-2185-SBC-KHC),Farman Ullah(ADVO-11315-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 04-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.445/2023 Khawaja Muhammad Awan v. Government of Sindh through its Secretary Home, Sindh Secretariat, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
105) 444/2019 Const. P. Aam Loeg Ittehad & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Election Commission of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan (199), Election Matters
Tag Line:A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 12.06.2020 filed by Aam Log Ittehad, through its Secretary General Azhar Jamil and Mr. Wajihuddin Ahmed (former Judge of Hon?ble Supreme Court of Pakistan) in his capacity as Human Rights and Political Activist, challenging the appointment of respondents No.2 to 5, Justice (Retired) Shakeel Ahmed Baloch, former Judge, Balochistan High Court; (ii) Justice (Retired) Irshad Qaiser, former Judge, Peshawar High Court; (iii) Justice (Retired) Altaf Ibrahim Qureshi, former Judge Lahore High Court; & (iv) Abdul Ghaffar, a former bureaucrat, who according to petitioners, have been appointed in violation of Article 207 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, which provides that "a person who has held office as a Judge of the Supreme Court or of a High Court shall not hold any office of profit in the service of Pakistan, not being a judicial or quasi-judicial office or the office of Chief Election Commissioner or of Chairman or member of a law commission or of Chairman or member of the Council of Islamic Ideology, before the expiration of two years after he has ceased to hold that office". This being a case of first impression on the subject constitutional and legal points has been decided through this detailed judgment by Hon?ble Bench in the following terms:
"22. We would, therefore, sum up our findings on various constitutional and legal grounds agitated by the petitioners and the objections as to maintainability of instant petition raised by the respondents, in the following terms:
(i) Petitioners have the locus standi to file instant constitutional petition in the nature of quo-warranto under Article 199(i)(b)(ii) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 for the reason that any person, who may not be an aggrieved party, can invoke the constitutional jurisdiction of a High Court for issuance of a writ of quo-warranto so that a High Court may examine the validity of an appointment to a public office, on constitutional and legal grounds. In view of our detailed finding as recorded in Para: 9 to 12 hereinabove, the objections raised by the respondents with regard to maintainability of instant petition on various grounds, including: (i) locus standi of petitioners to file instant petition; (ii) mala fide on the part of the petitioners; (iii) latches; and (iv) lack of territorial jurisdiction of this Court, are hereby declared to be without any substance, hence over-ruled.
ii) Office of Election Commission of Pakistan is a "quasi-judicial office", therefore, bar of expiration of two years in terms of Article 207(2) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, would not be attracted in the case of appointment of retired judges of Supreme Court and High Court(s). Therefore, a writ of quo-warranto cannot be issued against respondents Nos. 2 to 4 being the retired Judges of different High Courts on the grounds that their appointments have been made before expiration of two years from the date when they ceased to hold office as Judges of High Courts. Accordingly, writ against respondents Nos.2 to 4 is misconceived and not maintainable.
iii) As regards issuance of writ of quo-warranto against respondent No.5, a retired bureaucrat, no substantial constitutional or legal ground has been agitated, nor any sufficient material or evidence has been produced in support of the allegations of corruption, therefore, we are not inclined to conduct any inquiry or to make a probe into the allegations levelled against respondent No.5 while exercising constitutional jurisdiction under Article 199(i)(b)(ii) of the Constitution in the instant case. Accordingly, writ against respondent No.5 is not maintainable.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 12-JUN-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.479-K/2020 Aam Loeg Itehad & others v. The Election Commission of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
106) 601/2017 Const. P. Kashif Hussain Gaad (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 13-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
107) 1461/2016 Suit Mohsin Abbas. (Plaintiff) V/S Air Waves Media (Pvt) Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 16-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
108) 158/2010 I.T.R.A Commissioner (Legal) V/S M/S EFU General Insurance Ltd (Applicant) V/S Commissioner (Legal) V/S M/S EFU General Insurance Ltd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 06-JUN-11
Approved for Reporting
109) 6550/2020 Const. P. Abdul Raheem @ Manghar (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Encroachment on irrigation land.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 18-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
110) 1682/2009 Suit MAZHAR SAYEED (Plaintiff) V/S ATIF MAZHAR & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 23-JAN-19
Approved for Reporting
111) 1109/2013 Cr.Bail ALI BUX QADRI S/O NATHU KHAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 28-JAN-14
Approved for Reporting
112) 1513/2009 Suit M/S.RABBIYA ASSOICATES (Plaintiff) V/S M/S.ZONG CHINA MOBILE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 15-DEC-10
Approved for Reporting
113) 173/2009 S.M.A Muhammad Javed .... Petitioner (Petitioner) V/S aaa (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 PLD Sindh 1
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
114) 162/2019 Criminal Appeal SHAHID WAHAB SIDDIQUI S/O ABDUL WAHAB (Appellant) V/S SYED FARHAJ AHMED & OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 02-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
115) 3337/2013 Const. P. Zaheer Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Director General of Intelligence and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 11-JUN-14
Approved for Reporting
116) 181/2016 H.C.A Adam A. Muchhadda (Appellant) V/S Captain (R) H.A.Rahim (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
Order Date: 10-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.301-K/2017 Adam A. Muchhadda v. Capt. (R) H.A. Rahim Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
117) 248/2014 H.C.A Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Appellant) V/S M/s Friends Corporation Stevedores (Pvt.) Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII Rule 10)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 31-JUL-17
Approved for Reporting
118) 152/2019 Spl.Anti.Ter.A. SYED MEHROZ MEHDI ZAIDI S/O SYED HASSAN MUHAMMAD (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 19-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
119) 2069/2011 Const. P. Ayaz Ali and others (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Service matters (Deceased quota)
Tag Line:since the delay in appointment cannot be attributed to the petitioner No.1, as such the notification dated 17-07-2009 being adversely affecting the petitioner No.1 cannot be applied retrospectively, as prior to issuance of such Notification; the petitioner No.1 had already acquired a vested right and was entitled to be governed by the Notifications dated 02-09-2002 and 11-03-2008 read with letter dated 13.12.2008 issued by S&GAD. On the basis of these observations, the petitioner No.1 is entitled to be appointed under the deceased quota, after fulfillment of requisite codal formalities as otherwise required under the said policy
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 23-APR-14
Approved for Reporting
120) 730/2012 Const. P. M/s. Muhammadi Builders (Pvt.) Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 21-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
121) 424/2020 Cr.Bail Wajid Pahore (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Bail Matters (Post arrest bail Rejected.U/S 377 PPC, as direct evidence available.)
Tag Line:Post Arrest Bail
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 08-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
122) 5158/2014 Const. P. Zeeshan Mustafa Lashari and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.69-K/2015 Mir Salman Abro and another v. Zeeshan Mustafa Lashari and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
123) 2666/2020 Const. P. Saeed Habib (Petitioner) V/S National Bank of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:NBP--We are constrained to observe that despite the legal position established in view of plethora of pronouncements by the Honble Supreme Court as discussed above, the present petitioner filed this petition seeking a relief to which he was not entitled under the law. In other words, the petitioner wanted this Court to grant a declaration contrary to the law settled by the Honble Supreme Court. Not only this, he obtained an ad-interim injunction order in these proceedings against the respondent-bank. Such conduct on his part is not acceptable as he has consumed and wasted valuable time of this Court which could have been utilized to decide genuine and urgent matters. Therefore, the petition is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.305/2021 Saeed Habib v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
124) 2025/2008 Const. P. Syed Jarrar Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Prov. of Sindh &Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial)
Citation:1990 PLD 504, 2000 SCMR 506, 2001 SCMR 683, 2006 SCMR 178, 2007 SCMR 287, 2008 SCMR 105, 2010 SCMR 1925, 2011 SCMR 279, 2015 SCMR 456, 1994 CLC 2214, 2006 CLC 342, 2008 CLC 573, 2014 CLC 965, 2015 PLC 719, 2005 YLR 2423, 1917 OTHER 56, 1957 OTHER 97, 1957 OTHER 311, 2010 OTHER 373
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 04-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4266/2018 City Schools (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi v. Province of Sindh, thr. Secretary, Cooperation Department, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
125) 2694/2019 Const. P. Human Resources Solution (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 27-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
126) 500/2006 Suit DELHI MERCANTILE COOPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD (Plaintiff) V/S REGISTRRA COOPERATIVE SOCIETIES SINDH & (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 25-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
127) 4053/2016 Const. P. Syed Maqbool Hussain Zaidi (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Reinstatement into service)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) Note 14
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-JAN-18
Approved for Reporting
128) 7470/2017 Const. P. Mst Almas Ismail (Petitioner) V/S Fayyaz Hussain & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 CLC 199, 2018 SBLR 1606
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 01-JUN-18
Approved for Reporting
129) 109/1985 Civil Revision Ali Bux through his legal heirs & others (Applicant) V/S Mst. Bhagbhari through her legal heirs & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 25-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
130) 14/2013 Cr.Bail SYED OBAID AHMED THE STATE (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 27-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
131) 2/2021 Const. P. Salman Bari S/o Abdul Bari (Petitioner) V/S Samia Khan and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Under Article 199 of Constitution,
Petitioner seeks recall of order dated 01.12.2020, whereby non-bailable warrants (NBWs) was issued against the petitioner-- Section 51, CPC-- In the present case, the petitioner has specifically, pleaded that he had already paid a partial payment of Rs.2,71,000/- (Rupees Two Lac and Seventy-One Thousand) to the private respondent vide statement dated 10.11.2020 (available at page 73 of memo of petition) and undertake to pay the remaining amount within a reasonable time as per his financial position-- In the light of the aforesaid legal position of the case and an undertaking of the petitioner, the operation of NBWs issued against him by the learned trial Court is converted into BWs, enabling him to furnish security / appropriate bond equivalent to the remaining amount before the learned trial Court. However, the petitioner is directed to appear before the trial Court on the next date of hearing and in case of failure, the order passed by the learned trial Court on 01.12.2020 shall be operative.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
132) 31/2011 Cr.J.A Dhani Bux s/o Bagh Lakhiar (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 07-DEC-10
Approved for Reporting
133) 4930/2015 Const. P. Musheer Ahmed and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 1278
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 27-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.263-K/2020 Province of Sindh and others v. Musheer Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
134) 1076/2013 Suit Digri Sugar Mills Limited and others. (Plaintiff) V/S Mian Kamran Elahi and others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:In a Suit for Declaration, Injunction, Cancellation, Rendition of Accounts and Recovery, Plaintiffs had sought a restraining order against Defendants from presenting postdated cheques given as security pursuant to written agreements between the parties; or to use the same for any criminal proceedings or otherwise. Defendants opposed this application on the ground that section 56 (e) of the Specific Relief Act bars grant of any such permanent injunction; hence, no temporary injunction can be granted. The Court repelled this argument and allowed the injunction application by passing a temporary injunction and restrained the Defendants from using such cheques in any manner pending trial of the Suit.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 19-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
135) 2157/2008 Const. P. Muhammad Saleem Shaikh. (Petitioner) V/S Prov. of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Judgment passed by Honble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi in the petitions filed to challenge the Combined Competitive Examination 2003 (CCE-2003) conducted by Sindh Public Service Commission (SPSC). The Honble Judges constituted a High Powered Inquiry Commission to probe and submit the report to the competent authority.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 13-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.413-K/2020,C.P.406-K/2020,C.P.407-K/2020,C.P.408-K/2020,C.P.409-K/2020,C.P.410-K/2020,C.P.411-K/2020,C.P.412-K/2020,C.P.777-K/2022 SCP Status:Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time,Pending
136) 1731/2009 Suit JEHANGIR SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) V/S NOMAN ABID INVESTMENT MANAGMENT & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-MAY-12
Approved for Reporting
137) 323/2009 Cr.Misc. Haji Muhammad Zakria Seth (Applicant) V/S The State & 2 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 25-FEB-10
Approved for Reporting
138) 2477/2019 Const. P. Hajj Organizers Association of Pakistan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 26-JUN-19
Approved for Reporting
139) 4843/2013 Const. P. Maj. Rtd. Tariq Lodhi (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Khalida Jilajni and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 21-AUG-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.528-K/2017 Maj.(Retd) Tariq Lodhi v. Mst: Khalida Jilani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
140) 4596/2021 Const. P. Employers Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Minimum Wages Act 2015 (Section 4), Sindh Minimum Wages Act 2015
Tag Line:Title Minimum Wages under the Sindh Minimum Wages Act 2015
Advocates:M/S. RASHID RAZVI & ASSOCIATES.(FIRM-104-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Zaheer ul Hassan(ADVO-8707-SBC-KHI),Rasheed A. Rizvi(ADVO-2131-SBC-KHI),Khalid Mahmood Siddiqui(ADVO-6801-SBC-KHS),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 15-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.5863/2021,C.P.5800/2021,C.P.64/2022,C.P.1370/2022,C.P.6605/2021,C.P.6606/2021 SCP Status:Pending Adjourned. Club with CA 952/18 etc,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed
141) 510/2020 Cr.Bail Syed Zaman Ali Shah (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Bail Matters
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 22-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
142) 4164/2021 Const. P. Haleem Adil Shaikh (Petitioner) V/S Election Commission of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Muhammad Asif Qureshi(ADVO-10738-SBC-KHI),Faran Sardar(ADVO-19278-SBC-KHW)
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Order Date: 28-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
143) 3/2013 I. A Soofi Rice Mills & Others (Appellant) V/S N.B.P & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Citation:2019 CLD 395
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 26-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4495/2018 Sofi Rice Mills, Larkana & others v. National Bank of Pakstan thr. its Manager Branch at Rato Dero, Larkana,C.A.318/2020 Sofi Rice Mills, Larkana & others v. National Bank of Pakstan thr. its Manager Branch at Rato Dero, Larkana Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
144) 5220/2017 Const. P. Sami Pharmaceuticals (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Province Of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Tag line
Dispute regarding value of supply of services of labor and manpower under heading 9829.0000;
Held, that under Sindh Sales Tax Act 2011 read with Rule 42(E) of Sindh Sales Tax Rules 2011 such value does not include the amount of salary and wages reimbursed by the recipient of the service and tax is payable only on the service charges component.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 02-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
145) 160/2018 Spl.Anti.Ter.A. RAO NADEEM @ GOGA S/O HASSAN ALI (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro(Author)
Order Date: 15-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
146) 242/2009 Cr.Acctt.A State / Anti Narcotics Force (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Adeel Hussain & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 27-JAN-10
Approved for Reporting
147) 5463/2013 Const. P. Zamir Iqbal Khan (Petitioner) V/S Provice of Sindh and ORs (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 SBLR Sindh 942
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 21-JAN-14
Approved for Reporting
148) 31/2009 Cr.Misc. P.C Zulfiqar Ali Jakhrani (Applicant) V/S Shah Muhammad and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
Order Date: 02-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
149) 0/2020 Suit Damen Shipyards Gorinchem B.V. (Plaintiff) V/S The Ministry of Maritime Affairs and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Application for conditional withdrawal of Suit Order 23 Rule 1 CPC dismissed as plaintiff wanted permission to allow prosecution of Constitution Petition filed on the same cause of action after urgency was declined due to current pandemic in this Suit. Plaintiff had filed petition without first withdrawing the Suit, and had instead sought permission post-facto. such conduct cannot be permitted as it amounts to Bench-hunting.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 18-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
150) 669/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Hassan Zaman S/o Muhammad Zaman (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Bilquees and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Petition of Father dismissed, as well as G&W court and Appellate Court. Minors remain with Grand mother (nani )after death of wife.)
Advocates:Syed Saeed Hasan Zaidi(ADVO-1549HLC-SBC-KHI),Asif Ali(ADVO-4531-SBC-KHI),Farhan Ul Hassan(ADVO-15556-SBC-KHI),Kabir Ahmed(ADVO-4213HLC-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Zaheer ul Hassan(ADVO-8707-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 29-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
151) 378/2016 Cr.J.A MUHAMMAD BABAR S/O MUHAMMAD SALEEM (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha
Order Date: 02-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
152) 4674/2018 Const. P. Pakistan Services Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Full Bench NIRC & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:(i) Whether Petitioner-PSL has locus standi to approach this Court as an aggrieved party under Article 199 of the Constitution against the decisions of NIRC?
(ii) Whether petitioner-PSL is a Trans-Provincial Organization and falls within the ambit of National Industrial Relations Act, 2012?
(iii) Whether or not the registration of industry-wise trade unions by the Registrar, Trade Union NIRC, Islamabad is violative of the mandatory requirement of Section 8 of Act, 2012, based on strength of workforce; and, liable to be canceled, in view of mandate of Section 11 of the IRA-2012?
(iv) Whether the registrar of trade unions and/or NIRC is competent to determine the registration of the respondent unions?
Citation:2022 SBLR Sindh 957
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 27-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3497/2021 Pakistan Services Limitd, Islamabad through Director v. Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission, comprising three embers at Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
153) 571/2016 Const. P. Muhammad Mateen Khan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 PLC (CS) 1
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 28-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.653-K/2018 Muhammad Mateen Khan v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
154) 1211/1996 Suit LT. COL (R) MUHAMMAD WALI KHAN. (Plaintiff) V/S UNIVERSITY OF KARACHI (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 18-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
155) 470/2006 H.C.A Mst. Halima Tahir & Ors (Appellant) V/S Mst. Naheed Ejaz &Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 18-JAN-10
Approved for Reporting
156) 264/2010 H.C.A Asadullah Mirbahar & Ors. (Appellant) V/S Mrs.Ayesha Muzahir & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 08-FEB-11
Approved for Reporting
157) 75/2012 H.C.A Shaikh Muhammad Sabir (Appellant) V/S M/s. K.K Builders (Pvt) Ltd., and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Advocates:Nadeem Ahmed(ADVO-3719-SBC-KHI),Faisal Siddiqi(ADVO-8504-SBC-KHI),Munir Uddin(ADVO-10835-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
158) 5807/2021 Const. P. Syed Muhammad Ali (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Khursheed Jehan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Syed Muhammad Mansoor Akhtar(ADVO-16880-SBC-KHC),Zahid Hussain(ADVO-14979-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Order Date: 28-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
159) 815/2010 Suit MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ & OTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S K.E.S.C & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VI Rule 17)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 25-APR-16
Approved for Reporting
160) 74/1991 Suit Mohammad Sarwar (Plaintiff) V/S Government of Sindh and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: Fatal Accident (Recovery of Damages)
Tag Line:Custodial death, suit for recovery of compensation amount decreed.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 23-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
161) 1268/2014 Suit Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Fahim (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 25-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
162) 2899/2013 Const. P. UMER FAROOQ (Petitioner) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 PTD 894
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 27-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
163) 49/2012 Civil Revision Mumtaz Ali Hulio (Applicant) V/S Azhar Ali and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Pre-emption
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 25-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
164) 5113/2021 Const. P. OBS Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 239 ), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 221), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (S.170), Workers" Welfare Fund Ordinance, 1971 (section 4(1))
Tag Line:The impugned Circular has only restored the process of Section
170 of Ordinance 2001 for claiming refund only however actions which
have already been taken thereunder are not open for a scrutiny at least
under Section 221 of Ordinance 2001. For convenience however we may
say that impugned Circular has prospective effect only. The adjustments
made and allowed on the basis of Circular 4 cannot be subjected to
provisions of Section 221 of Ordinance 2001. Applications made under
section 170 of Ordinance 2001 for refund has the limitation of three
years in terms of Section 170(2) i.e. deemed assessment or when tax was
paid whereas deemed assessment itself could be subjected to
amendment within five years of such deemed assessment hence the
purpose which cannot be achieved under Section 170 is available under
other provisions of Ordinance 2001.
Citation:2022 PTD 290
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Ovais Ali Shah(ADVO-14184-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 17-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.139-K/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited,C.P.70-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. OBS Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
165) 12/2010 Const. P. Safdar Ali Sahito (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 01-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
166) 3969/2011 Const. P. Mst. Rukhsana (Petitioner) V/S Prov. of Sindh and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Order Date: 20-SEP-12
Approved for Reporting
167) 3962/2011 Const. P. Muhammad Naved Aslam & Others (Petitioner) V/S EDO Revenue & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2016 CLC 132
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 13-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.413-K/2014 Mst. Aisha Siddiqi v. Muhammad Naveed Aslam and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
168) 6382/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Jibran Nasir & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Police case
Citation:2021 PLC (CS) Note 179
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 29-JAN-20
Approved for Reporting
169) 286/2003 Suit SYED WAQAR HAIDER ZAIDI (Plaintiff) V/S MST.ALAM ARA (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 CLC 535
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 07-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
170) 836/2012 Suit KHURRAM NASEEMUDDIN (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration and Permanent Injunction)
Tag Line:Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----Ss.42, 54, 56 (d) & (e)---Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 (VIII of 1975), S.5---Suit for declaration and injunction---Criminal investigation---Refusal of injunction---Plaintiff assailed notices issued by Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) to Habib Bank Limited in furtherance of inquiry that certain immovable properties of someone had been fraudulently offered by two persons to various banks for obtaining loans against said properties in favour of plaintiffs company---Validity---Defendants were officers of FIA established under Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974 and were fully competent to inquire into fraud committed by different persons in obtaining loans from banking institutions---One of the defendants was posted in commercial banks circle and it was within the purview of his duty to inquire into and investigate complaint registered, numbered and marked to him in terms of S.5 of Federal Investigation Agency Act, 1974---Remedy was quashment, if made out and not simple declaration and decree prohibiting public functionaries from performing their duties within the four corners of law---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
Mian Hamza Shahbaz Sharif v. Federation of Pakistan and others 1999 PCr.LJ 1584; Messrs K.G. Traders and others v. Deputy Collector of Customs and 4 others PLD 1997 Kar. 541; Assistant Director Intelligence and Investigation, Karachi v. Messrs B.R. Herman and others PLD 1992 SC 485; Shahzad Ahmed Corporation v. Federation of Pakistan and others 2005 PTD 23 and 2005 PTD (Trib) 135 distinguished.
Citation:2014 PLD 264
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 21-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
171) 6572/2016 Const. P. Sultan Ahmed Shaikh (Petitioner) V/S M/s Sui Southerm Gas Co. & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Promotion case
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
172) 415/2018 Const. P. Ghulam Mehdi & others (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: PROPERTY
Tag Line:he subsequent judgment of the Member Board of Revenue dated 20.04.2017 not only ignored the order of his predecessor, but also ignored the fact that the suit, challenging the order of his predecessor, was also dismissed. These orders i.e. order of the Senior Civil Judge and more importantly the order of the Member Board of Revenue is implied res judicata as the subject matter of the appeal is nothing but the land which is defined as UA No.437 and 438. Here, it could safely be added that legally the litigation (s) are meant to decide controversies (issues). Where, the controversy / issue is that of general application and not limited to a party only then any decision thereon by a competent forum shall be binding upon all, including those who even were not before the legal forum / authority. A mere change of name of parties would never be sufficient to open a new round of litigation for the thing which otherwise stood decided by a lawful forum / authority. If this is ignored, there shall be no end to litigations and interested shall keep things hanging merely by substituting parties. An aggrieved however may get such decision reversed by appeal or reviewed, subject to law, but cannot seek another order from same forum / authority on plea of his being not a party to earlier lis. Any departure to such concept, shall result in frustrating the object of res judicata which otherwise has application in all matters, including Revenue jurisdiction.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 27-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
173) 279/2007 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Collector of Sales Tax and Fderal Excise (Applicant) V/S M/s. Abbott Laboratorie (Pakitan) Ltd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Order Date: 09-DEC-09
Approved for Reporting
174) 73/2015 Const. P. Rafiq Haji Usmani (Petitioner) V/S The Chairman NAB and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 02-MAR-15
Approved for Reporting
175) 4614/2022 Const. P. Hakimsons (Impex) (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Income-tax
Tag Line:Levy of tax on deemed income from capital assets in terms of Section 7E of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, is valid; within the competence of the Federal Legislature and is not ultra vires to the Constitution.
Advocates:Imtiaz Ali Solangi(ADVO-15225-SBC-KHS),M/S. MOHSIN TAYEBALY & CO.(FIRM-118-SBC-KHI),Additional Attorney General(),Dr. Shah Nawaz(ADVO-2108-SBC-HYD),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 28-OCT-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.51-K/2023 Zulfiqar Ali Hakim & others v. Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Revenue Division Government of Pakistan Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
176) 4045/2012 Const. P. Taj Rani (Petitioner) V/S National Bank of Pakistan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Deceased Son Quota
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.70-K/2018 Mst: Taj Rani v. The President National Bank of Pakistan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
177) 905/2017 Const. P. M/s MCB (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 05-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2612/2019 MCB Bank Ltd, Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Zulfiqar Hussain Awan, Director (Legal-II), Office of Consultant Legal Affairs to the President of Pakistan, Islamabad & others,C.A.533/2020 MCB Bank Ltd, Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Zulfiqar Hussain Awan, Director (Legal-II), Office of Consultant Legal Affairs to the President of Pakistan, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 4 weeks a/w C.As.1386/2018 etc,Pending Adjourned.to be heard a/w CP5354-5356/20
178) 941/2013 Suit Ms. Rehana Ahson & Another (Plaintiff) V/S Mr. Zulfiqar Mohammad (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 11-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
179) 1872/2016 Suit Saleem Butt.. (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Challenge to the vires of section 230(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the ground of delegation of excessive legislative power not successful. While making such challenge, the Plaintiff had also to demonstrate infringement of a Fundamental Right. SRO 115(I)/2015 re the conferring of powers and functions on the DG I&I, was within the jurisdiction of the FBR. Effect of striking-down of same SRO by another High Court discussed. The invoking of section 176 does not militate against the concept of deemed assessment under section 122 of the Ordinance. Malafides had to be pleaded with particulars.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
180) 52/2011 Cr.Rev Abdul Hameed (Applicant) V/S P.O Sindh (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 14-JUN-12
Approved for Reporting
181) 1109/2014 Adm. Suit SIKANDER ALI LASHARI S/O ALI MUHAMMAD LASHARI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 12-DEC-14
Approved for Reporting
182) 15/2018 I. A Pak Leather Crafts Limited & others (Appellant) V/S Al-Barak Bank Limited (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Limitation)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 19-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1422-K/2018 Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others v. Al-Baraka Bank Limited,C.A.24-K/2019 Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others v. Al-Baraka Bank Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed
183) 1808/2016 Suit Mst. Bilqis Bano & another. (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan Defence Housing Authority & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 17-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
184) 3271/2020 Const. P. Bilqees (Petitioner) V/S The Sect: Wafaqi Mohtasib and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether Wafaqi Mohtasib is competent to absorb any deputationist by appointing her/him by transfer in the Establishment of the Wafaqi Mohtasib, Islamabad?
Citation:2022 PLC (CS) 235
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1164/2021 Ms. Shahina Ahmed v. Bilqess and others,C.A.1349/2021 Ms. Shahina Ahmed v. Bilqess and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.status quo be maintained.to be fixed after 3 months,Pending Adjourned
185) 1569/2000 Suit Ali Muhammad & another (Plaintiff) V/S Faizullah & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 16-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
186) 583/2021 Suit SICPA SA (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII Rule 10)
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author)
Order Date: 20-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
187) 9/2010 I. A M/s.Shaz Packages & Ors. (Appellant) V/S M/s.Bank Alfalah Ltd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
188) 304/2016 Cr.Appeal JAHANZEB S/O MUHAMMAD ASLAM (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 07-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
189) 538/2002 Suit Imdad Ali & other (Plaintiff) V/S Professional Builders & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed
Order Date: 07-NOV-08
Approved for Reporting
190) 191/2018 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Commissioner I-R Zone-IV (Applicant) V/S Byco Petroleum Pakistan Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Default surcharge and penalty, in relation to the circular debt.
Advocates:Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI),Hyder Ali Khan(ADVO-44631-PBC-LHR)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 06-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1221-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s. Byco Petroleum Pakistan Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
191) 85/2020 Suit Touqeer Ahmed (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Younus Lakhani & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 09-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
192) 6712/2020 Const. P. M/s Telenor Microfinance Bank Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Employees Social Security Act, 2016
Tag Line:Social Security for workers
Advocates:Waheed Ali Ghumro(ADVO-18218-SBC-KHS),Regan(ADVO-18058-SBC-KHC)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
193) 30/2020 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Fatima Fertilizer Company Limited (Applicant) V/S Commissioner-II SRB (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Person liable to tax.
Citation:2021 PTD 484, 2021 TAX 122
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.705/2021 Commissioner-II, Sindh Revenue Board, Karachi v. Fatima Fertilizer Company Limited, Lahore Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
194) 411/2022 Const. P. Gul Mina Afridi D/o Khan Muhammad (Petitioner) V/S Rana Abdul Kareem and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Ali Wahid(ADVO-16298-SBC-KHS),Tamar Victor Lawrence(ADVO-18974-SBC-KHE),Imran Sami(ADVO-19341-SBC-KHS),Jamshad Ahmed Abbasi(ADVO-15974-SBC-KHS),Fozia Muneer(ADVO-5018-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAR-23
Approved for Reporting
195) 1092/2015 Const. P. Sarha Rasheed (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Anwar Hussain, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 14-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
196) 182/2009 Cr.Misc. Khuda Bux (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 19-MAR-10
Approved for Reporting
197) 677/2015 Suit The Kathiawar Co-operative Housing Society & another (Plaintiff) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 08-FEB-17
Approved for Reporting
198) 261/2018 Spl.Anti.Ter.A. SIKANDAR ALI LASHARI S/O ALI MUHAMMAD (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Decision/Judgment in the appeals filed by Sikandar Ali Lashari (District Judge) against the conviction of death penalty decided by A.T.C. on the charge of murder of Aqib Hussain son of District & Sessions Judge.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 20-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:J.P.294/2020 Muhammad Irfan Khan @ Faheem v. The State,Crl.P.592/2020 Sikandar Ali Lashari v. The State thr. PG Sindh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Leave Granted
199) 100/2013 Cr.J.A Abdul Aziz Bhatti (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 17-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
200) 4662/2017 Const. P. M/s Quality Steel Re-Rolling (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:SRO 583(I)/2017 struck down.
Citation:2022 PTD 39
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 07-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
201) 4769/2014 Const. P. Muhammad Kausar Noor (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Mansoorul Haque Solangi(ADVO-6746-SBC-KHI),Zubair Ahmed Rajput(ADVO-7308-SBC-KHI),Imtiaz Ali(ADVO-1474-SBC-KHP),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
202) 421/2020 Cr.Bail SALEEM KHALID S/O KHALID ABDUL AZIZ (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 PCr.LJ 119
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
Order Date: 09-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
203) 6241/2016 Const. P. Anjum Badar (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Contract appointments)
Tag Line:petitioners have prayed that their temporary contractual appointments / services be regularized in BPS-17 under Section 3 of The Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013---Whether temporary employees appointed on contract in BS 16 and above can be deemed to have been validly appointed on regular basis, without going through the competitive process of selection through the Sindh Public Service Commission, merely in view of Section 3 of the Act of 2013 ?--Whether the mandatory requirement of competitive process of selection only through the Sindh Public Service Commission for appointments in BS 16 and above, which is the command of the Constitution and specific direction to the Government of Sindh by the Honble Supreme Court, can be waived, relaxed, done away with, exempted and or bypassed in view of Section 3 of the Act of 2013 ?--Whether the petitioners have any vested right for regular appointment, or to claim regularization, or to approach this Court in its constitutional jurisdiction to seek redressal of their grievance relating to regularization ; and, is there any corresponding legal duty cast on the Government of Sindh to appoint them on regular basis ? If no, then can a writ of mandamus to this effect be issued against the Government of Sindh ? --Whether Section 3 of the Act of 2013, to the extent of regularization / appointment in BS 16, 17 and 18 without the mandatory competitive process of selection through the Sindh Public Service Commission, is ultra vires the Constitution and against the law laid down and the direction given by the Honble Supreme Court to the Government of Sindh in Ali Azhar Khan Baloch and others V/S Province of Sindh and others, 2015 SCMR 456.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 08-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.735-K/2021,C.A.28-K/2021,C.A.27-K/2021,C.M.A.589-K/2021 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted [ C.As be fixed after three months ],Pending ,Pending ,Disposed Allowed [ C.P. be numbered & leave granted & C.A. be fixed after three months ]
204) 196/2010 Const. P. M/S Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd and another (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:M/S. MOHSIN TAYEBALY & CO.(FIRM-118-SBC-KHI),Moin Azhar Siddiqui(ADVO-3955-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 17-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1218/2022 Competition Commission of Pakistan Govt. of Pakistan, Islamabad v. M/s Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
205) 215/2015 Suit Muhammad Rafiq (Plaintiff) V/S Habib Bank Limited. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Faraz Faheem Siddiqui(ADVO-12257-SBC-KHI),Mohammad Jamshid Malik(ADVO-16711-SBC-KHS),In Person(INP)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 14-JUL-21
Approved for Reporting
206) 315/2010 Cr.Appeal Adil Sher (Appellant) V/S The state (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Order Date: 05-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
207) 117/2011 Suit.B I.G.I. Investment Bank Limited (Plaintiff) V/S M/S Admore Gas (Pvt) Ltd & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 30-OCT-13
Approved for Reporting
208) 1916/2016 Const. P. M/s Continental Biscuit (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Input Tax adjustment denied pursuant to section 8(1)(h) & (i). Held-yes-Petition dismissed.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 04-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
209) 247/2010 Suit Maula Bux Khatian (Plaintiff) V/S The Sui Southern Gas Company Limited & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 24-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
210) 2323/2014 Const. P. Muhammad Sultan (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
211) 89/2009 Cr.J.A Abdul Hayee (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Order Date: 10-AUG-12
Approved for Reporting
212) 774/2011 Suit Trading Corporation of Pakistan. (Plaintiff) V/S M/s.Abdullah Sugar Mills Ltd. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940 Section 34)
Citation:2013 PLD Sindh 254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 18-JAN-13
Approved for Reporting
213) 368/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Siddique (Petitioner) V/S Silk Bank Limited & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 06-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.278-K/2019 Muhammad Siddique v. Silk Bank Ltd and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
214) 3548/2019 Const. P. M/s Younus Textile Mills (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Mushtaque Hussain(ADVO-14825-SBC-KHS),Deputy Attorney General(),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 28-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
215) 1141/2009 Const. P. M/S EFU General Insurance Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 08-MAR-10
Approved for Reporting
216) 30/2011 Cr.Rev Feroz Khan Baloch (Applicant) V/S First Women Bank & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 24-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.38-K/2011 First Women Bank Ltd. v. Feroze Khan Balouch and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
217) 1009/2015 Suit M/s. Century Paper & Board Mills Limited. (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 SBLR Sindh 1269
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 26-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
218) 1150/2011 Adm. Suit A.KHALID ANSARI (Plaintiff) V/S INDEPENDENT NEWSPAPER CORPORATION & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 15-APR-15
Approved for Reporting
219) 855/2021 Suit ISHRAT SWALEH (Plaintiff) V/S MST. FARZANA SHAIKH & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Tag Line:under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section of 151 CPC Defendant No. 2, seeks rejection of the Plaint.
suit for Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction.
Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. The Contract Act, 1872 [the Act] defines the term Contract under its section 2 (h) as An agreement enforceable by law.
it cannot be revoked/terminated, yet it may be observed that merely the use of the word irrevocable in a power of attorney will not make it so, unless it is clear from the terms that it is an agency coupled with interest of the agent without which it will be only an independent authority lacking the interest as envisaged in Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872.
Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, provides period of limitation of three years for filing of a suit for specific performance of contract.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 10-JUN-22
Approved for Reporting
220) 916/2015 Const. P. Khawaja Muhammad Salman (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Saeed-ud-Din Nasir, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 04-SEP-15
Approved for Reporting
221) 4235/2012 Const. P. Mehar Ali Dayo (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 01-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.694-K/2013 Mehr Ali Dayo v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
222) 1000/2020 Cr.Bail Nabi Bux (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 02-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
223) 47/2013 H.C.A Haroon Zia Malik (Appellant) V/S Mst. Fariha Razzak and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: H.C.A (Revocation of Gift)
Tag Line: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.
Citation:2018 YLR 1557
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 21-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.96/2018 Haroon Zia Malik v. Mst. Fariha Razzak and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
224) 766/2018 Cr.Misc. Khalid Hussain & others (Applicant) V/S Asif Iqbal & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Citation:2021 PCr.LJ 242
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
225) 5128/2020 Const. P. Farkhunda Muslim (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line: A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: -
13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from the Non delegation Doctrine which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.745/2021 Commissioner Inland Revenue AEOI, Karachi and others v. Farkhunda Muslim,C.A.380/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue AEOI, Karachi and others v. Farkhunda Muslim Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,impugned judgment suspended,Disposed Disposed of
226) 6/2008 Suit.B Transmission Engineering Industries Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XVII Rule 3 CPC)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 03-DEC-13
Approved for Reporting
227) 127/2011 Adm. Suit Mulo Ahmed (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 06-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
228) 43/2017 II.A. Mst. Saba and others (Appellant) V/S Mst. Fatima and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: II Appeal (Appeal allowed . Judgment of Appellate Court and Trial Court is Sat aside.)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 22-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
229) 24/2020 M.A. MUHAMMAD SHAH KAKAR THR ATTORNEY AHMED SHAH (Appellant) V/S INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL AT SINDH & BALOCHIS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: TRADE MARK (Section 5(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 ), TRADE MARK (Section 40 of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001), Custom Act, 1969 (147), Itellectual Property Law (Trade Mark Cases)
Tag Line:SRO 170(I)/2017 dated 17.03.2017 is for "imported goods only" and was not applied to parallel or grey market imports and de-minimis imports.
Powers to take action, detention, seizure, confiscation of goods imported into or taken out of Pakistan were/are always available with the customs officials and it is not that SRO 170(i)/2017 that has empowered them, it only set the process to be initiated by custom officials in relation to goods being imported. What was amended by virtue of SRO 768(I)/2014 is also very material. In Section 3CC and 3E of Customs Act, 1969 formation of the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement was redesigned along with its functions, jurisdiction and powers.
In the present case Tribunal could only pass order to the extent of trade mark being an infringed one or otherwise and to restrain it from being violated. The Procedural action of custom officials was not questioned independently by respondent. Once the effect of infringement was determined by tribunal the customs officials would definitely have followed it.
Color and color scheme also at time claimed to be an inventive one but that is not the case here as no one has claimed livery or color scheme or get up to be a mark of distinction under any intellectual property rights. Both parties are contesting over one mark i.e Tabiat and no one has claimed any exclusive right over livery or dress up of mark. So everything is a disclaimer except "Tabiat". If there are deceptive liveries of common product like rice, with one trade mark "Tabiat" in the absence of a right claimed under the liveries, the buyer would definitely get confuse and jump to some other brand as a natural course.
In terms of Section 5(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 goods even if not meant for a local consumption but only to enter the port for onwards journey, would mean the use of mark within jurisdiction.
Unless goods in transit are defined otherwise, only aforesaid meaning is deducible. Construction of our Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 is also based on same scheme and there is no inconsistency as far as framing of relevant provision trade mark is concerned.
The word import or export (exclusively or inclusively) not defined under the law in hand differently that is dealing with goods in transit. The case of the appellant is on better footing since the attempt is made to export the goods from the territory where the mark is registered
The word "use" as explained above is also applicable to goods "for export only" and hence Section 5(2) read with section 40 of Trade Mark ordinance 2001 would be interpreted accordingly as use within territory of Pakistan.
Citation:2021 CLD 48
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-20
Approved for Reporting
230) 1995/2016 Const. P. M/s Dairy Land (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Employee Old Age Benefits Act, 1976
Tag Line:It is also, prima facie, evident that vires of the Act 2016 has not been challenged, but the notification, so issued under such Act, impugned. A challenge to application of notification only
without assailing the vires of the Act under which the notification has been issued, legally, cant be made, particularly where things notified are with reference to the Act itself. On this count, too, the instant petition (s) are not tenable in law. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to cost.
Advocates:Naeem Suleman(ADVO-7422-SBC-KHI),M/S. "ARAIN LAW ASSOCIATES"(FIRM-280-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Arshad Hussain(ADVO-12906-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
231) 144/2009 Cr.Rev Mrs. Ghazala Parveen (Applicant) V/S Sadiq Daniel & 18 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 08-DEC-11
Approved for Reporting
232) 203/2002 Suit ADVOCATE GENERAL SINDH (Plaintiff) V/S ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 07-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
233) 6847/2019 Const. P. Wazeer Ali Khushk and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
234) 346/2019 Suit Syed Khaliluddin (Plaintiff) V/S Rafiq Ahmed Qandhari & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 23-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
235) 120/2014 R.A (Civil Revision) Shabbir Ahmed Memon and others (Applicant) V/S Shahnawaz and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 18-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.548-K/2021 Shabbir Ahmed & others v. Shahnawaz & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned
236) 2252/2019 Const. P. Amara Gohar & Others (Petitioner) V/S FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Sindh Public Service Commission Act 1989 (Sindh Public Service Commission (Functions) Rules, 1990)
Tag Line:Having come to the irresistible conclusion that, when (a) the framers of the Constitution consciously chose to abstain from making provisions for mandatory creation of Public Service Commission; (b) the Chief Minister of Sindh having no powers to appoint Chairman and Members of the Commission under Rule 5(ii)/Schedule-III/Entry(3) of the Sindh Government Rules of Business 1986; (c) the appointments of Chairman and Members of the Commission made under Rule 5(2) and (3) of Sindh Public Service Commission (Appointment of Chairman and Member) Rules 2017 being violative of the Rules of Business and made with utter disregard to the maintenance of political neutrality of the Commission; (d) No right to appeal having been provided to an aggrieved person; (e) Chairman and Members having taken no oath of office; (f) function of Examination of
candidates restricted to Testing and then narrowed down to Interviewing under the Sindh
Civil Servants (Functions) Rules, 1990 being ulta vires to the provisions of 1989 Act; (g) no
Annual Reports as required by Section 9(1) of the Act, 1989 having been made available to
the Public; (h) no data having been made available with regards advice refusal of the Commission under Section 8 of the Act, 1989 then how could one expect that any legit and
useful fruit could be borne by this skewed and merit-throttling recruiting process; thats
why Courts are kept engaged by Commissions Members and operatives constantly on a
permanent basis since inception of the Commission in the year 1989 when the said Act was enacted for no Constitutionally compelling reasons in the presence of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion & Transfer) Rules, 1974; the Sindh Civil Servants (Probation, Confirmation and Seniority) Rules, 1975; the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and half a dozen alike laws/rules; and whereas, the Province (to a great extent) had been well served by honest, qualified and motivated civil servants before 1989 when this institution in its present form was born - according to one view, to serve as one window facility to foster
whole-sale corruption, has lost every shred of legitimacy and ought to be brought to a nullity in its present form
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.816-K/2021,C.P.822-K/2021,C.A.1502/2021,C.A.1508/2021,C.P.5751/2021,C.P.5765/2021 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted.status quo be maintained.to be fixed in 1st week of Dec.2021,Disposed Leave Granted.status quo be maintained.to be fixed in 1st week of Dec.2021,Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
237) 7241/2015 Const. P. Muhammad Saleem Baloch and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:In view of the foregoing, we find that a five-member Bench of the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Gul Taiz Khan Marwat (supra) has decided the question of maintainability of a Constitutional Petition under Article 199 of the Constitution against the administrative orders passed by an Administrative Committee or the Honorable Chief Justice of High Court. Besides that, all the legal grounds raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners in the present petition have already been set at naught by the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid decisions as such this Court cannot further dilate upon the issue more.
Advocates:Riaz Ahmed Phulphoto(ADVO-16022-SBC-KHS),Khawaja Shams ul Islam(ADVO-3953-SBC-KHS),Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 31-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
238) 2970/2021 Suit SHUJABAD AGRO INDUSTRIES (PT.) LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Policy-making by the CCI under Article 154(1) is in a different sphere than policy-making by the Federal Government in the exercise of its executive authority under Article 97. The Natural Gas Allocation & Management Policy, 2005 was within the legal competence of the Federal Government and not the CCI. Under the GSAs between the Plaintiffs and the SSGC, the Plaintiffs cannot assert a right to receive gas for industrial use during the months of December, January and February. Article 158 of the Constitution exists as a prerogative of a Provincial Government, and therefore it does not give actionable cause to a person other than the concerned Provincial Government to invoke the same.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 04-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
239) 84/2014 II.A. Pervaiz Iqbal (Appellant) V/S Faisal Akram (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Limitation )
Tag Line:Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 30.08.2017 whereby this appeal was allowed with no order as to costs, the impugned judgments and decrees were set aside and Suit No.563/2010 for specific performance of contract and permanent injunction filed by the respondent against the appellant was dismissed.
Advocates:S. M. Mustafa(ADVO-3851-SBC-KHI),Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(ADVO-6819-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 30-AUG-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.61-K/2018 Faisal Akram v. Pervaiz Iqbal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
240) 2458/2018 Suit Khawaja Ahad Rahman & others. (Plaintiff) V/S Province of Sindh & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
241) 2268/2017 Const. P. Attaullah Khan Chandio (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Promotion), Service matters (Seniority)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 1157
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-JAN-18
Approved for Reporting
242) 750/2016 Suit Syed Farukh Mazhar (Plaintiff) V/S SGS Headquarters and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction)
Tag Line:Injunction dismissed.
Citation:2018 PLD Sindh 327
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
243) 8/2016 H.C.A Haroon (Appellant) V/S Abdul Aziz (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 07-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.390-K/2017 Haroon v. Abdul Aziz and another,C.A.67-K/2017 Haroon v. Abdul Aziz and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Disposed of,Disposed
244) 6211/2016 Const. P. M/s Liberty Mills Ltd and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 PTD 347
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 24-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.423-K/2021 M/s. Liberty Mills Limited & others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Finanace & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
245) 159/2020 Cr.Rev SYED ALI ZAIDI & ORS (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author)
Order Date: 20-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
246) 302/2017 Suit FatimaFert Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order 39 Rule 1 & 2 CPC)
Tag Line:Thus, it is unanimous view that an order of suspension of the operation of the judgment and decree or leave granting order would not operate to have a binding effect on other parties; it could operate inter parties since the operation of the judgment and decree was suspended in a particular suit/appeal with reference to particular party.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 03-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
247) 210/2017 Cr.Misc. muhammad anwar qureshi (Applicant) V/S muhammad ayoob & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Citation:2019 YLR 839
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 20-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
248) 212/2019 Suit M/s. Shan Associates (Plaintiff) V/S M/s. Getz Pharma (Pvt.) Limited & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 01-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
249) 19/2013 Spl.Cr.A.T.A. Nawab Siraj Ali S/o Imdad Ali Talpur (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Judgment in murder case of Shahzaib
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 13-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.2-K/2018,Crl.A.3-K/2018,Crl.P.724/2019,Crl.A.400/2019 SCP Status:Disposed ,Disposed Disposed of+ directions,Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed
250) 1208/2011 Const. P. M/s.International Business Management (Petitioner) V/S Aziz Ahmed (Late) & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (Judgment of Rent Controller &Appellate Court order is Set-aside . One day delay not default being Sunday Last day )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 04-DEC-13
Approved for Reporting
251) 114/2011 I. A Muhammad Ismail (Appellant) V/S Dubai Islamic Bank Limited (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2016 CLD 5
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 15-DEC-14
Approved for Reporting
252) 205/2019 II.A. Ms. Qaiser Jehan Begum Thr. Salman Hussain Memon (Appellant) V/S Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Tag Line:the provisions of Section 42 were misconstrued by Courts below. A plaint could only be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC if it is barred by law. None of the provisions of law was cited by respondents counsel and/or find mention in the orders/judgment of two Courts below whereby a plaint of the suit of the appellant could be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC. The appellant had a cause of action on account of a threat to her property in view of alleged unlawful and illegal construction beingraised on the adjacent plot.
Citation:2022 MLD 308
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 30-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.815-K/2021 Amir Nisar v. Qaiser Jehan Begum & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
253) 1179/2017 Const. P. Mohammad Anwar (Petitioner) V/S Fed:of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 06-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
254) 858/2016 Const. P. Irshad Ali and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 15-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
255) 575/2008 Const. P. Naseeruddin & another (Petitioner) V/S Syed Daulat Ali & ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 10-JUL-14
Approved for Reporting
256) 4506/2018 Const. P. Mst. Shabana Noor (Petitioner) V/S D.G Immigration & Passport & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 12-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
257) 1085/2013 Const. P. Syed Muhammad Abbas Rizvi & Others (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 SBLR Sindh 145
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahnawaz Tariq, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 30-OCT-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.336-K/2014 Muhammad Abbas Rizvi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others,C.A.1343/2014 Muhammad Abbas Rizvi and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted. (C.A. be fixed on 06.11.14),Disposed Dismissed
258) 3100/2016 Const. P. Ms. Surriya Kanwal (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether the resignation once tendered by the civil servant voluntarily and accepted by the competent authority and communicated to him/her could be considered to be final and cannot be revoked afterwards?
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 29-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
259) 4469/2013 Const. P. Prof. Dr. Masood Hameed Khan (Petitioner) V/S Governor of Sind and Ors (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 PLC CS 1014
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 12-JUN-14
Approved for Reporting
260) 21/2020 Criminal Appeal Sanaullah & Another (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Appeal (Control of Narcotic 9(C) Appeal allowed On Ground contradictions in the evidence of complainant and mashir, )
Tag Line:Against Order of Trial Court(Narcotics Life)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
261) 433/2000 Suit MRS. SHABINA AZIZ (Plaintiff) V/S STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORP. OF PAKISTAN (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XIII Rule 4 CPC)
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XVI, R. 1(2)---Limitation Act (IX of 1908) S.3---Summoning and attendance of witnesses---Object, scope and nature of O.XVI R.1, C.P.C.---List of witnesses, non-filing of---Provisions of O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. were mandatory---Use of the word "shall" in O.XVI, R.1(1), C.P.C. was re-emphasized with a prohibition that the party "shall not" be permitted to call witnesses other than those in the said list except with the permission of the court on showing "good cause" for the omission of said witnesses from the list---Time limit was an essential requirement of O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. for seeking any relief with respect to summoning and attendance of court witnesses---Limitation of seven days was imposed so that the other side should be well aware of possible evidence expected in the case to meet it in rebuttal---Such limitation, if was allowed to be flouted with impunity, then the parties would keep on surprising each other by introducing witnesses and documents in evidence---After seven days from the time of framing of issues, upon failure to file list of witnesses, a statutory right was accrued in favour of opposite party which was; that even if evidence was available with a party such evidence shall not be used by the party having such evidence in their possession---Said right was analogized to the right of parties under S.3 of the Limitation Act, 1908---Rights survived but the remedy was extinguished---Evidence may be available but its effect was barred seven days after framing of issues by the court---Not only the "good cause" had to be shown by the delinquent party for calling a witness through the court but at the same time the applicant was required to explain the delay in disclosing the name of the witness---Failure of party to explain such delay would disentitle such party from getting relief and it would be against the spirit of the law to causally condone the time limit given in O.XVI, R.1, C.P.C. in the name of doing justice on merit.
Muhammad Umar Mirza v. Waris Iqbal and others 1990 SCMR 964; 2008 YLR 1871 and 2008 CLC 1334 rel.
(b) Administration of Justice---
----Submission of irrelevant case-law by counsel appearing in court---Complaint of overwork in the judiciary was one of the basic obstacles in the administration of justice and it was not for the courts alone to administer justice and ensure that justice was not denied on account of inordinate delay in the disposal of cases---Each and every lawyer appearing in court had an equal responsibility to ensure that they should not consume the time of the court out of proportion to the issue in hand on the date of hearing---Very valuable time of the court can be consumed in the reading of case-law submitted by counsel and if such case-law was not relevant, it was one of the major contributing factor in the delay of administration of justice----Counsel were expected to be brief and to the point to help save time of the courts which in turn would utilized by the courts in disposal of other cases particularly the old cases.
Citation:2014 CLC 420
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 10-OCT-13
Approved for Reporting
262) 223/2008 H.C.A Abdul Rasheed & Ors. (Appellant) V/S Abdul Ghani & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 13-JUN-11
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.764-K/2011 Abdul Ghani (decd) thr. his L.Rs. & others v. Abdul Rashid (decd) his L.Rs. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
263) 1463/2016 Cr.Bail Siraj Muhammad (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 YLR 99, 2016 OTHER 1559, 2017 SBLR 1433
Advocates:Babur Ishaq(ADVO-11008-SBC-KHE),Inamullah(ADVO-11910-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 14-NOV-16
Approved for Reporting
264) 121/2010 I. A Asif Kudia (Appellant) V/S M/s. KASB Bank Limited & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 10-JUN-14
Approved for Reporting
265) 82/2018 R.A (Civil Revision) Arthur Lawerance Private Limited (Applicant) V/S M/S Actlaw (The Legal Consortium) (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----Ss. 115, 6 & 15 & O. VII, R. 10---Revision before High Court---Procedure---Revision, in the present case, was filed before High Court without availing remedy before District Judge---Validity---Power of High Court with regard to the cases decided by any Court subordinate to High Court in which no appeal lay was not subject to any limitation---Revisional power of District Court was dependent on its pecuniary jurisdiction---Revisional power of Court was unfettered when it was exercised by the High Court and/ or District Court suo motu---When such jurisdiction had been invoked then copies of all the proceedings should have been furnished and revision should have been filed within ninety days from the date of order in which no appeal lay---Revisional powers of High Court and District Court were concurrent only when it was exercised by said courts at their own---Pecuniary value of claim of petitioner, in the present case, did not exceed the limits of appellate jurisdiction of District Court---If suit had been dismissed or decreed by the Trial Court on merit then first appeal would lie before District Judge on account of pecuniary value of the decretal amount---When revisional jurisdiction had been invoked against a particular order then it would not be a case of concurrent jurisdiction and mandatory provisions of S.6 read with Ss.15 to 20 of C.P.C. were also be considered---Aggrieved party had no option in the matter of jurisdiction of Court and it should respect each and every word of statute with regard to the jurisdiction---Every suit was to be instituted in the Court of lowest grade---Provisions of Ss.6 & 15 of C.P.C. were to be complied with while filing revision/appeal---Revision/appeal could not be filed in the High Court unless pecuniary value of the subject matter did exceed the appellate jurisdiction of District Court---When case had been filed in a Court which had no jurisdiction on pecuniary ground then plaint/revision should be returned to the party to file it in the Court having both territorial and pecuniary jurisdiction within limitation prescribed for filing the same---Petitioner had consumed more than ninety days time to overcome objection raised by the office---Revision petition could not be presented in the Court of District Judge after expiry of ninety days which was dismissed, in circumstances.
Muhammad Din v. Muhammad Amin PLD 1995 Lah. 15 and Mst. Safia Mushtaq v. Wali Muhammad and 18 others 2010 CLC 120 distinguished.
Khalid Ahmed and another v. Syed Hassan Shah Bukhari and others 1994 MLD 903; HOECHST Pakistan Limited and others v. Maqbool Ahmed and another 1998 CLC 134 and Shafi-ur-Rehman and 2 others v. Fateh Muhammad PLD 2002 Kar. 511 rel.
(b) Appeal---
----Appeal/revision was a continuation of original suit.
(c) Interpretation of statutes---
----Court could not interpret one section of an Act which might render the other mandatory provision of the said Act meaningless.
Citation:2020 PLD Sindh 129
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 05-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2380/2019 Arthur Lawrence (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi v. M/s Actlaw, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
266) 994/2020 Const. P. M/s. Guidance Schooling System Thr. M. Ashraf (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Seema Mohsin and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Rent matter-- In view of the above, no illegality is found to have been committed by both courts below. Writ of certiorari against the order passed in rent jurisdiction can be exercised only if the order is beyond the jurisdiction or patently illegal, which is not the present case. Accordingly, the petition is dismissed in limine along with listed applications with no order as to costs.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
267) 938/2017 Suit Farrukh Afzal Munif (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Afzal Munif & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 SBLR Sindh 31
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 28-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
268) 1589/2013 Const. P. Kaleemullah (Petitioner) V/S C.E.O HESCO and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: WAPDA CASES
Citation:2020 SBLR Sindh 365
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 05-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
269) 1352/2014 Const. P. Tahir Ayub Khan (Petitioner) V/S Ms. Aalia Anwar and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Ashraf Jehan
Order Date: 27-DEC-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.232-K/2015 Tahir Ayub Khan v. Ms. Alya Anwar and another,C.M.A.986-K/2016 Tahir Ayub Khan v. Ms. Alya Anwar and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed,Disposed Allowed
270) 3400/2012 Const. P. Sarfraz Ali (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Son Quota (Dismissed))
Tag Line:In the light of above discussion, it is crystal clear that Police Department cannot circumvent the law to make recruitment to the post of police constable on the basis of Son/Shaheed quota by issuing Standing Orders or by invoking Rule 11-A of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1974 and Sindh Shaheed Recognition and Compensation Act, 2014. The appointment of police constable can only be made through competitive process on merit as provided under the recruitment rules and not otherwise. In view of what has been discussed above, the instant Constitutional Petition is dismissed along with pending application(s)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
271) 2939/2011 Const. P. Dr. Ashfaq Ahmed Tunio & others (Petitioner) V/S Federal Investigation Agency & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 SBLR Sindh 1
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 28-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
272) 4201/2020 Const. P. Shamsuddin Dal (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:The pivotal question involved in the present proceedings is whether a Civil / Government Servant who is found guilty of misconduct under The Sindh Civil Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1973, and a minor penalty was imposed upon him could be considered for promotion? ---In our view, the promotion to a post depends upon several circumstances. To qualify for the promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. An employee found guilty of misconduct cannot be placed at par with the other employees, and his case has to be treated differently. While considering an employee for promotion his entire service record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion committee takes the penalties imposed upon the employee into consideration and denies him the promotion, such denial cannot be termed as arbitrary, discriminatory, illegal or unjustified. In our view, the evaluation made by an Expert Committee should not be easily interfered with by this Court which does not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. It is a settled proposition that the DPC, within its power to make its assessment, has to assess every proposal for promotion, on case to case basis. In cases where disciplinary case / criminal prosecution against the Civil / Government servant is not concluded even after the expiry of two years from the date of the meeting of the first DPC which kept its findings in respect of the Government servant the appointing authority may consider the desirability of giving him an ad-hoc promotion--Dismissed.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.405-K/2021 Shamsuddin Dal v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
273) 2271/2021 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD TAHIR S/O GHULAM QADIR (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (Sindh Prohibition, Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019), Criminal After Arrest Bail (Dismissed)
Tag Line:post-arrest bail in FIR No.451/2021 for offences punishable under sections 269, 270 PPC & 8(i) of Sindh Prohibition of Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale & Use of Gutka and Manpuri, Act 2019
Advocates:Muhammad Hanif(ADVO-13389-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Fareed(ADVO-18678-SBC-KHE),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
274) 2275/2017 Suit M/s. Inbox Business Technologies Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 SBLR Sindh 244
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 09-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
275) 2019/2015 Suit A&Z Agro Industries (Pvt) Limited. (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others.. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Search of premises under section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
276) 42/2020 Suit Syed Zain Ul Abideen (Plaintiff) V/S Federal Board of Revenue & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Ouster of jurisdiction to try a civil suit in respect of matters arising under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 and exceptions to such ouster.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
277) 319/2021 Cr.Bail Majid Ali (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:For the above reasons, the applicant Majid Ali has made out a case for post-arrest bail in FIR No.42 of 2021, registered with Police Station Darri, District Larkana, for offenses punishable under sections 452, 376, and 511 P.P.C. Accordingly, the applicant is admited to post arrest bail; he shall be released in the aforesaid crime subject to furnishing his bail bond in the sum of Rs.50, 000/- (Fifty Thousand Ruprees) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
278) 354/2010 Cr.Appeal Heman and another (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 13-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
279) 4864/2020 Const. P. Hasan Khursheed Hashmi (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3927/2021 Mst. Hira Imam and others v. Hasan Khurshid Hashmi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
280) 145/2009 Cr.Rev Mrs. Ghazala Parveen (Applicant) V/S Sadiq Daniel & 18 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 08-DEC-11
Approved for Reporting
281) 323/2020 Suit Shabbir Ahmed Arif & another. (Plaintiff) V/S Rizwan Riaz & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi(Author)
Order Date: 19-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
282) 3511/2011 Const. P. Nazir Oad (Petitioner) V/S Registrar High Court of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 27-NOV-12
Approved for Reporting
283) 4725/2015 Const. P. Mansoor Ashraf (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (Eviction of tenant during pendency of Rent Case and Civil Suit)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 30-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.662-K/2016 Mst. Fareeda Zafar and others v. Mansoor Ashraf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
284) 4371/2020 Const. P. Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Judgment passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P. No.D-4371 of 2020 filed by Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin against Government of Sindh (vehicle number plats petition). The petition has been dismissed.
Advocates:Sarosh Jameel(ADVO-18157-SBC-KHS),Mohammad Maaz Waheed(ADVO-16053-SBC-KHE),Muhammad Osman Ali Hadi(ADVO-11058-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 29-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1464-K/2021 Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin & another v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
285) 41/2019 M.A. Roshan Ara and others Thr. Yasir Ali Palijo (Appellant) V/S Abdul Karim and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925) ---
----Ss. 372, 373 & 295---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 85 & 128---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Succession certificate, issuance of---Public document---Presumption of truth---Legitimacy of a child---Proof---DNA test, conducting of---Respondents being sisters of deceased filed application for conducting DNA test of minor son of deceased with the contention that he was adopted son and was not entitled for inheritance---Petition for conducting DNA test and objections were dismissed and succession certificate was issued in favour of petitioners---Validity---Documents produced on behalf of petitioners were official which had not been disputed by the respondents---Respondents should have sought declaration and cancellation of said documents before raising objections to the legal status of minor after death of his mother---Legitimacy of a child or his status as son of deceased could not be disproved by any oral evidence as against documentary evidence from official record which was a public document---Civil Court in presence of documentary evidence could not hold that the child was not born from the marriage of the parties---Father, in the present case, had not challenged that deceased was not mother of the minor son---Respondents had failed to challenge or rebut the evidence of official record of National Database and Registration Authority and other evidence before the Trial Court---DNA test could not be a sole proof of paternity of a child---Trial Court had rightly refused request of respondents for conducting DNA test, in circumstances---Respondents had made a frivolous challenge to the paternity of a child to deprive him from inheritances---Appeal was dismissed in, circumstances.
2012 YLR 1752 distinguished.
Mst. Laila Qayyum v. Fawad Qayum and others PLD 2019 SC 449; Salman Akram Raja v. Government of Punjab 2013 SCMR 203 and Ghazala Tehsin Zohra v. Ghulam Dastagir Khan PLD 2015 SC 327 rel.
Citation:2020 CLC 1670
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 03-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
286) 9/2016 Civil Revision Ashfaque Hussain Lahori (Appellant) V/S Lal Bux Soomro and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
Order Date: 21-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
287) 7114/2016 Const. P. Asifa Jawed (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 PLC (CS) 326
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-AUG-19
Approved for Reporting
288) 13/2018 Civil Revision Manzar Alam (Applicant) V/S Malik Muhammad Yamin & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Citation:2019 YLR 598
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 01-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
289) 1399/2018 Cr.Bail FAHAD PAREKH S/O MUHAMMAD IQBAL (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author)
Order Date: 02-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
290) 59/2007 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Digri Sugar Mills Ltd (Applicant) V/S The Additional Collector of Customs & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2023 PTD 825
Advocates:Muhammad Farogh Naseem(ADVO-3459-SBC-KHI),Danish Zuberi(ADVO-6720-SBC-KHI),Amjad Javed Hashmi(ADVO-9187-SBC-KHI),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI),Imran Ali Mithani(ADVO-15070-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-22
Approved for Reporting
291) 461/2011 Cr.Bail Rashid (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 13-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
292) 3913/2020 Const. P. Abdul Ghaffar (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:i) Whether the petitioner possesses the required qualifications for the post of police Constable (BS-05) in Sindh Police as per recruitment Rules-2016 ? And
ii) Whether police Constable (BS-05) in Sindh Police can be recruited on a contract basis and subsequently be regularized in service under the law?
Advocates:Muhammad Ashraf Samoo(ADVO-8176-SBC-KHI),JAM SHAHID IQBAL(ADVO-30845-PBC-LHR),Qaim Ali(ADVO-11490-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1725-K/2021 PC.77 Jan Muahmmad & others v. Province of Sindh thorugh Secretary, Home Department Govt, of Sindh & others,C.P.5160/2021 Abdul Ghafar and others v. Province of Sindh through Home Secretary and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed ,Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time
293) 1010/2020 Cr.Bail HASSAN RABBANI S/O TARIQ RABBANI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
294) 654/2010 I.T.R.A Commissioner (legal) (Applicant) V/S M/s Habib Metropolitan Bank (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 02-DEC-11
Approved for Reporting
295) 4668/2015 Const. P. Lucky Cement Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Employee Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 (Payment of contribution under EOBI Act 1976)
Tag Line:Petitioner employers sought declaration that demand of contributions by the Federal EOBI under EOBI Act 1976 is illegal as EOBI became federal subject after 18th Amendment and subsequent Sindh EOBI Act 2014; Sindh Province did enact the Act 2014 but could not establish the Institution; CCI resolved EOBI shall remain with Federal Government. Held petitioners cant take benefit of dispute between the Federation and Province; priority must be given to the employees as the Old Age Benefit law is a beneficial law, aimed for the benefit of the employees therefore in case contribution amount is not received by the EOBI ultimately it is the employees who will suffer. Hence these petitions are disposed of in terms that petitioners shall deposit the contributions and other dues according to EOBI Act 1976; all amount deposited with the Nazir shall be returned in favour of the EOBI established under the EOBI Act 1976.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 07-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
296) 1657/2020 Suit TCB AVIATION (PVT.) LIMITED (Plaintiff) V/S SRI LANKAN AIRLINES LTD THR. COUNTRY MANAGER (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Arbitration Law (Section 20 of Arbitration Act, 1940 )
Tag Line:The Court can take further proceeding, inter alia, as provided under Section 3 of the above Act, 2011, that is, invoking Civil Procedure Code. It must be clarified that grant of interim relief is not prohibited under the scheme of Arbitration Act, 2011, inter alia, in view of Section 3 thereof,
but, in exceptional circumstances.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 17-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
297) 71/2010 Execution ARK GARMENT INDUSTRY (Decree Holder) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ANOTHER (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Execution. )
Tag Line:the Applicant/ Decree Holder under Order IX Rules 9 of C.P.C read with Section of 151 C.P.C
the applicant has clearly demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance on 27.10.2015 and 18.11.2015. Accordingly, present application is allowed and the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by this Court is recalled and Execution Application is restored to its original position.
Citation:2018 CLC 155
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 20-SEP-17
Approved for Reporting
298) 6/2006 Adm. Suit Muhammad Hashim and another (Applicant) V/S Ghulam Mujtaba Shah and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 02-MAR-15
Approved for Reporting
299) 639/2010 Const. P. Abrar Hussain (Petitioner) V/S VIIth A.D.J. South at Karachi & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Rent Matters)
Tag Line:Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act (XXXV of 1973)---
----Ss. 41(2)(4) Proviso, 42 & 55---Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976, Chap. XII---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.151 & 153---Constitution of Pakistan, Art.199---Constitutional petition---Canon of professional conduct and etiquette of advocates---Misconduct---Dispute as to property---Constitutional petition filed for recalling an earlier order of dismissal of petition being not pressed, was not supported by affidavit---Application under Ss.151 & 153, C.P.C. was not filed on behalf of the petitioner by the advocate who also submitted his own affidavit---Validity---Lawyer earns a reputation worthy of some value by demonstrating his sincerity and honest conduct both towards his client and court in administration of justice---Upright lawyer is supposed to be an officer of court fairly assisting court in dispensing justice and not slave of his client nor greedy to serve him against law and facts---Lawyer has to contest cases on merit and merit alone, he was to adhere to standards of duties of lawyer explained in Chapt.XII (Canon of Professional Conduct and Etiquette of Advocates) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Rules, 1976---Counsel for petitioner, in the present case, filed application in question on his own without any authority from anyone---High Court directed Pakistan Bar Council to initiate disciplinary proceedings against the counsel for professional misconduct by treating contents of order as complaint under S.41(2) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973---High Court further directed the Tribunal for decision in terms of proviso to S. 41(4) of Legal Practitioners and Bar Councils Act, 1973---Court official was directed to seal the property in question and locate respondents to hand over its possession to them after proper verification---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation:2018 CLC 664
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 24-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
300) 4747/2016 Const. P. Rukhsana Yahya (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 18-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
301) 566/2013 Suit Tariq Rafi. (Plaintiff) V/S Topgen Health Care/T.G. Pharma & Ors. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2018 CLC Note 39
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 27-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
302) 180/2019 Cr.Bail Waheed Dehpal Chandio (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Bail Matters (Post arrest bail dismissed, section 20, 21, 24, PECA,FIA Cyber Crime. Accused used Neked Photos )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 24-JUN-19
Approved for Reporting
303) 436/1993 Suit SHAHIMAH SAYEED (Plaintiff) V/S BASE CDR PAF BASE MASROOR (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 26-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
304) 83/2011 Civil Revision Manzoor Meeraci & otheres (Applicant) V/S Muhammad Umar Mangsi & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 24-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
305) 2955/2017 Const. P. Syed Faisaluddin (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-AUG-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.556-K/2019 Syed Faisal Uddin v. Federation of Pakistan and others,C.A.44-K/2020 Syed Faisal Uddin v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary M/o. Interior and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted/ to be fixed at Islamabad after 3 months,Pending Adjourned
306) 293/2020 Cr.Bail Muhammad Yaseen (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author)
Order Date: 17-AUG-20
Approved for Reporting
307) 5/2017 Spl.H.C.A Syed Wajahat Hussain Zaidi & another (Appellant) V/S United Bank Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 CLD 91
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 24-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
308) 39/2007 R.A (Civil Revision) Nasim Hayat (Applicant) V/S Mrs.Naseem Akhtar and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 22-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
309) 2/2017 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. IMS Health Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Applicant) V/S Commissioner-II SRB (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 , Finance Act, 2014
Tag Line:It is the consideration in money including federal and provincial
duties and taxes which constitute value of taxable services which the
person provides against the consideration but it excludes the amount of
sales tax under the ibid Act. The Tribunal was of the view that the
invoices generated on the amount includes the expenses/expenditures
plus 10-% service charges and is to be taken as one revenue component
for services rendered. The Tribunal is also of the view that in certain
cases there is specific rule in Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011
providing for valuation of a particular service and providing a certain
minimum threshold and also any exemption and exception. However,
Tribunal considered that since no rule is available for the category of Business Support Services full value of generated invoices shall be
taken as the value of services rendered or provided in terms of
provisions of Section 5 ibid.
--Primarily value of service charges for the purposes of Act 2011 is
governed by the value of service agreed upon between the provider and
the recipient as the market itself is so competitive that nothing could
defeat the actual amount being declared to be taxed. However, in case
such understanding of value of service is doubtful as it does not disclose
correct value of service, it was open for the department to have
considered the open market price of such service as required to be
determined under section 6 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011
which is not the case here. Two provisos to Section 5 deals the situation
of value of service. In a situation where the consideration of value of service is in kind or is partly in kind and partly in money, value of service
shall mean open market price2
excluding the amount of sales tax under
Act 2011. Similarly in case where service is provided by provider to a
recipient who is an associated person and the value is not the actual
value of service, then the value of service which is being provided by a
provider to a non-associated person shall be counted and in case no
consideration is claimed or value is lower than it is being provided by
other persons, the value of service shall be of open market. In principle
the department has not disputed the value of services rather the
department is of the view that reimbursed amount or the amount of
maintenance/expenses incurred should be made part of the value of the
service.
Citation:2022 PTD 576
Advocates:Muhammad Makhdoom Ali Khan(ADVO-2885-SBC-KHI),Hyder Ali Khan(ADVO-44631-PBC-LHR)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 29-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
310) 1331/2008 Const. P. Sardar Nisar (Petitioner) V/S Registrar Coop. Societies & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Order Date: 04-FEB-10
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.156-K/2011 Sardar Nisar v. Registrar Cooperative Societies and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time
311) 795/2020 Suit Mahnaz Mirza Malik (Plaintiff) V/S Bilal Embroidery & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author)
Order Date: 14-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
312) 111/2013 Cr.Misc. Mst.Saeeda Shaikh (Applicant) V/S The SSP Larkana and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 03-JUN-13
Approved for Reporting
313) 4729/2021 Const. P. Wazir Ali Ind Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Federal Excise Duty (Section 46), Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 25)
Tag Line:Since 2010, Commissioner entrusted with the mandate of calling the record as and when required. Now one thing is for sure that this "as and when required" is not meaningless as being consistently followed and maintained throughout. We now need to understand what could be the event or stage when this phrase may come into play and be given some meaning. Eventually when a Commissioner examines the return of a tax payer, he may have some queries which might be tempting to call record as he may not be able to reconcile and/or resolve them through return statement. Those queries must be understood and settled to the satisfaction of the commissioner before he could make up his mind further. Now the audit is nowhere in the scheme when such questions came for consideration after going through the returns while the Commissioner acts under 25(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990. Surely the record may satisfy the curious mind but queries must be genuine at the time of calling the record which could not have been answered without going through the record required. Therefore, record calling could not be a roving exercise and cannot be a courtesy call either. The phrase "as and when required" had remained part of Section 25 throughout ever since it was introduced.
It is not "as and when desired" but "as and when required". Therefore, the reasons in the shape of "mindful queries" must be in existence and disclosed before calling record for the fulfillment of requirement "as and when required". The requirements of 25(1) are neither unfettered nor are so liberal that a hunting expedition would commence. It is the periodical transfiguration of the provisions of Section 25 that led us believe that there has to be an event or occasion when the Commissioner required the record and documents maintained under this Act or any other Act. Even requiring the documents/record for satisfaction of queries must be revealed so that notice may not transform into a hunting time.
However, if the mindful queries were not met, he may authorize an officer of the Inland Revenue, on the basis of record obtained under subsection (1) by him, to conduct audit. Now, if the officer of the Inland Revenue subordinate to the Commissioner is under the obligatory command of Commissioner to conduct audit then the Commissioner must disclose the discrepancies he found while forwarding record already obtained by him, for audit be conducted in pursuance of the queries of the Commissioner, which queries must see the daylight so that the officer of the Inland Revenue proceed accordingly. The officer of the Inland Revenue on his own without having knowledge of discrepancies, queries of the Commissioner, cannot start the proceedings of audit which has to be under the authorization. It would only be general audit but not as contemplated under section 25(1) which compelled the commissioner to call record. The authorization thus should contain the reasons and mindful queries required to be processed through the audit which he has passed on to designated officer.
Thus, insofar as Section 25 is concerned, we would conclude that for purposes of Section 25(1) Commissioner must frame legitimate mindful queries to the knowledge of a taxpayer after going through the returns which must be either be satisfied after calling the record or otherwise.
Advocates:Abdul Rahim Lakhani(ADVO-4061-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Atta Mohammad Qureshi(ADVO-584-SBC-SUK)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 20-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.315-K/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Wazir Ali Industries Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
314) 5842/2022 Const. P. Shell Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Super Tax - Section 4C of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001.
Citation:2023 PTD 607
Advocates:Muhammad Farogh Naseem(ADVO-3459-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ahmed Hussain(ADVO-15940-SBC-KHI),Attorney Gen. Pakistan(),Faisal Siddiqi(ADVO-8504-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 13-JAN-23
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.220-K/2023,C.P.221-K/2023,C.P.222-K/2023,C.P.223-K/2023,C.P.224-K/2023,C.P.227-K/2023,C.P.228-K/2023,C.P.230-K/2023,C.P.126-K/2023,C.P.229-K/2023,C.P.226-K/2023,C.P.225-K/2023 SCP Status:Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi
315) 5396/2014 Const. P. Naeem Akhtar Chang (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Deputy Attorney General(),Zamir Hussain Ghumro(ADVO-10861-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 11-JAN-17
Approved for Reporting
316) 327/1966 Suit Raza Hussain and others (Plaintiff) V/S Muhammad Khan and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: Specific Performance of Contract (Transfer of Property)
Tag Line:Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell. Directions to the Nazir to handover the possession of suit land to its claimants.
Citation:2018 YLR 1053
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 15-AUG-17
Approved for Reporting
317) 1170/2021 Const. P. Haroon Sohail (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Citation:2022 SBLR Sindh 1061
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 01-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
318) 2070/2017 Const. P. Muhammad Yaqoob (Petitioner) V/S Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Criminal Miscellaneous Application . (Father filed for Custody In his fever .Dismissed with direction Settled In Guardian Court.)
Citation:2019 YLR 1507
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 02-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
319) 1704/2018 Const. P. Al-Razzaq Fibres & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 3)
Tag Line:WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973
A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan has pronounced the judgment on 18th January 2021 in the case of Al-Razzaq Fibres Pvt. Ltd. and others v. The Federation of Pakistan and another (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the vires of the amendment in in subsection (2)(b) of Section 3 and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge" as well as SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(I)/2011 for being ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Divisional Bench of this Court has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: -
"11.Accordingly, for the above reasons, instant petitions are allowed in the following terms:-
(i) Amendment in Section 3(2)(b) read with Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, through Finance Act, 2017, to the extent of substituting the words " Board with the approval of Federal Minister Incharge", is ultravires to Constitution, and contrary to law, hence of no legal effect.
(ii) SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 issued in terms of and in purported exercise of powers conferred by, the amendment in Section 3(2)(b) and Section 4(c) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, particularly adding of a new condition XIV to SRO 1125(1)/2011, is declared to be ultra vires the Constitution, and is of no legal effect.
(iii) The respondents are restrained from demanding any duty in terms of SRO 584(I)/2017 dated 01.07.2017 from the petitioners.
(iv) Provisions of Section 74A, suffice to say, have no relevance to the controversy in hand because it seeks validation of the acts of "Federal Government, and not that of the Board, with the approval of the Federal Minister-in-Charge"."
Citation:2021 PTCL 270
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 18-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.610-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-I v. Al Razzaq Fibres (Pvt) Ltd & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
320) 263/2016 H.C.A The Collector Model Customs Collectorate & others (Appellant) V/S M/s. Naveena Industries Ltd. & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 03-AUG-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1231/2017,C.A.1509/2017,C.A.1513/2017,C.A.1503/2017,C.A.1502/2017,C.A.1230/2017,C.A.1234/2017,C.A.1179/2017,C.A.1218/2017,C.A.1216/2017,C.A.1217/2017,C.A.1215/2017,C.A.1208/2017,C.A.1212/2017,C.A.1203/2017,C.A.1207/2017,C.A.1204/2017,C.A.1200/2017,C.A.1206/2017,C.A.1205/2017,C.A.1201/2017,C.A.1198/2017,C.A.1202/2017,C.A.1242/2017,C.A.1199/2017,C.A.1505/2017,C.A.1255/2017,C.A.1504/2017,C.A.1508/2017,C.A.1512/2017,C.A.1211/2017,C.A.1232/2017,C.A.1236/2017,C.A.1506/2017,C.A.1510/2017,C.A.1514/2017,C.A.1209/2017,C.A.1213/2017,C.A.1233/2017,C.A.1507/2017,C.A.1511/2017,C.A.1515/2017,C.A.1210/2017,C.A.1214/2017 SCP Status:Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed
321) 3468/2021 Const. P. M/s Kiran Food Products (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Import of betel nuts under Serial No.5 of Part-I and Serial No.155 of Part-III of Appendix B of Import Policy Order, 2020; has to be regulated by Plant Protection Department under the Quarantine Act and the Rules framed thereunder and not by the Customs department.
Advocates:Abdul Sattar Pirzada(ADVO-13903-SBC-KHI),Mamoon Nawaz Chaudhry(ADVO-11348-SBC-KHE),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Shahab Imam(ADVO-19121-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad(Author)
Order Date: 23-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
322) 81/2011 Cr.J.A Mujahid @ Ghulam Shabir Gahejo (Applicant) V/S he State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 04-JUN-18
Approved for Reporting
323) 836/2019 Const. P. Sardar Muhammad Bux Mahar Thr. Tasawar Hussain (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Saman Muhammad Mahar and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 7, 8 and 25)
Tag Line:The natural guardians/mother and father of minors are not required to seek declaration of their guardianship through the Court. The Court under Section 7 of the Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 is not empowered to decide title of guardian about custody of the ward.
Citation:2020 PCr.LJ 1079
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 16-AUG-19
Approved for Reporting
324) 2680/2020 Const. P. Pakistan Broadcaster Association (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Judgment passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P.No.D-2680 of 2020 whereby the Court declare that the powers of the PEMRA vested in Section 30 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 could not be delegated to the Chairman or any other official of PEMRA by dint of Section 13 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 for suspension of Broadcast Media Licenses without framing of Rules. The decision of the Authority conveyed vide minutes of meeting dated 24.04.2020 is also declared null and void. All actions taken by the Chairman pursuant to the delegated powers for suspension of Broadcast Media Licenses are strike down.
Advocates:Kashif Hanif(ADVO-8551-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Muhammad Vawda(ADVO-14001-SBC-KHI),Faisal Siddiqi(ADVO-8504-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 13-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.11/2022 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad v. Pakistan Broadcasters Association Karachi and another,C.P.5303/2021 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad v. Pakistan Broadcasters Association Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed
325) 4497/2018 Const. P. Muntazir Mehdi & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:The petitioners who are serving as Deputy Prosecutor Generals in the prosecution department Government of Sindh contend that they are holding the LLM Degree and have claimed LLM degree allowance through this petition based on equality.
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Samiullah Soomro(ADVO-960-SBC-SUK),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 02-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
326) 178/2017 Criminal Appeal BILAWAL S/O RAMZAN & ANOTHER (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Syed Shabeer Hassan Shah(ADVO-11693-SBC-KHI),Mubashir Ahmed Mirza(ADVO-5495-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 04-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
327) 3310/2018 Const. P. Muhammad Asad ul Rehman (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:the petitioners are seeking regularization of their services against the quota reserved for deceased civil servants as provided under the Prime Ministers Assistance Package for the Families of Government Employees, on the premise that their parents were serving in the Federal Investigation Agency (FIA) on different posts, who passed away during their service.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
328) 4942/2022 Const. P. Irfan Hussain Halai & Others (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Levy of CVT on foreign assets through Section 8 of Finance Act, 2022; Held; is not ultra vires and is within the competence of the Parliament under Entry 50 of the Federal Legislative List in 4th Schedule to the Constitution.
Advocates:M/S. MOHSIN TAYEBALY & CO.(FIRM-118-SBC-KHI),Attorney Gen. Pakistan(),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 30-DEC-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.M.A.1108/2023,C.P.245-K/2023,C.P.247-K/2023,C.P.249-K/2023,C.P.57/2023 SCP Status:Disposed Allowed. stay. Early date,Pending ,Pending ,Pending ,Pending
329) 940/2016 Const. P. M/s Al-Zarina Glass (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 14-JUL-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.920/2018 The Chief Commissioner (IR) Region, Hyderabad v. M/s Al-Zarina Glass Industries and others,C.P.472-K/2017 The Chief Commissioner (IR) Region, Hyderabad v. M/s Al-Zarina Glass Industries and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted
330) 913/2020 Const. P. Ali Muhammad and another (Petitioner) V/S Mukaram Khan and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Petition allowed, female minor custody handed over to mother and father has right to meet minors and approach G&W Court . )
Tag Line:Habeas Corpus--custody of minors--In view of the statement of the parties, the petitioners are directed to furnish an indemnity bond of Rs. 200,000/- before the Nazir of this Court for the aforesaid purpose and in the meanwhile petitioners shall not take away the custody of minors out of the jurisdiction of the learned Guardian and Wards Court without intimation to the concerned Court. However, the respondent-father shall have visitation rights in the intervening period subject to tentative payment of maintenance of the minors @ Rs.3000/- per month for each minor and maintenance at the rate of Rs.5000/- per month for petitioner-mother till final adjudication by the learned trial Court. On the aforesaid proposition, I am fortified by the decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Humayun Hassan v. Arslan Humayun and another, PLD 2013 SC 557.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
331) 95/2020 Cr.Rev GHOUS BUX S/O SUFAR KHAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author)
Order Date: 16-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
332) 232/2004 Civil Revision Zeal Pak Cement Factory (Applicant) V/S Kazi Nisar Ahmed and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 22-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
333) 5608/2014 Const. P. Mansoor ul Haq Solangi (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Back benefits)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-APR-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.859-K/2016 Pakistan Automobile Corporation Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan thr.Secy: M/o Industries and Production and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
334) 1575/2017 Const. P. Muhammad Akram Thr. M Anwer Khan (Petitioner) V/S Shri Mahant Baboo Lalgir Mahraj & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Rent Matters), Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (FRA Remanding Order Set aside and declared null & void. )
Tag Line:Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---
----Ss. 15, 18, 20 & 21---Ejectment of tenant---Change of ownership on the basis of decree of the Court---Denial of relationship of landlord and tenant by the tenant---Default in payment of rent---Expression "or by such other mode" in S. 18 of the Ordinance---Scope---Dispute of title or ownership---Determination of---Procedure---Landlord became owner of demised premises through decree of the Court and tenant was intimated with regard to change of ownership and was requested for payment of rent to the new landlord---Tenant denied the relationship of landlord and tenant---Eviction petition was allowed by the Rent Controller on the ground of default in payment of rent---Appellate Court remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to decide the same afresh after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties and directed the civil Court to amend the decree passed in the civil suit---Contention of tenant was that decree of the Court did not create any title---Validity---Tenants were in possession on the demised premises as tenants and they were not claiming ownership---Notice for change of ownership of demised premises had been received by the tenants---Tenants were bound to tender rent to the new owner of the demised premises within 30 days from the moment they had received the intimation of transfer of ownership by sale, gift, inheritance "or by such other mode"---Notice from new owner to the tenant for change of ownership was enough---Tenants on receiving the said notice refused to tender rent to the new owner on the ground that the decree of Court did not create any title---Decree of Court could also be one of the "such other mode" for transfer of ownership of demised premises---Decree of Court was against previous landlord/owners who were party to the suit in which same was passed---Tenant had no right to question the title of landlord---Tenants on receiving notice of change of ownership were supposed to protect their right as tenant in the demised premises in their possession by tendering rent to the person who had sent them the notice---Tenants had failed to tender rent to the new owner of demised premises---Courts while exercising authority under the law had no jurisdiction to decide or even comment on the title/ownership of the property in possession of tenant---If issue of relationship of landlord and tenant was complex then it should be left for the Civil Court to decide the same---Appellate authority in the present case had remanded the matter to the Rent Controller with the direction to decide the issue of relationship between the tenant and new landlord by re-examining the issue of ownership/title of demised premises already decided by the Civil Court---Judgment of Civil Court could not be examined by the Rent Controller---Appellate Court had exercised powers not vested in it and order for modification/preparation of fresh decree and remand of the case was perverse and void---Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aide and order for preparation of fresh decree and remand of rent case were declared null and void---Tenants were directed by the High Court to vacate the demised premises within thirty days---Constitutional petition was disposed of accordingly.
Messrs Habib Bank Limited v. Sultan Ahmed and another 2001 SCMR 679 and Allahditta and others v. Member (Federal) Board of Revenue 2018 SCMR 1177 rel.
Citation:2019 CLC Note 25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 20-DEC-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.95-K/2019 Evacuee Trust Property Board (ETPB) thr. Administrator v. Shri Mahant Baboo Lalgir and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
335) 2396/2012 Const. P. Mir Muhammad Raza Talpur (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Mahar
Order Date: 17-JAN-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1374/2017,C.A.1380/2017,C.P.108-K/2017,C.P.290/2017 SCP Status:Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
336) 132/2020 Cr.Acq.A. Abdul Qayoom (Appellant) V/S Raja Khoso (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 05-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
337) 887/2018 Const. P. Hassan Zada & Ors (Petitioner) V/S FOP & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:that their contingent/contractual/ work-charge appointments/services be regularized in respondent- Directorate of Training and Research (Customs, Excise & Sales Tax) Karachi without discrimination, with a further assertion, that they have already served in respondent- Directorate for a considerable period; and, they have the legitimate expectation for appointment on regular basis.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4119/2021 Directorate General of Training & Research (Customs), Karachi and another v. Hassan Zada and others,C.A.1564/2021 Directorate General of Training & Research (Customs), Karachi and another v. Hassan Zada and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.impugned is suspended.to be fixed after 3 months,Pending
338) 136/2019 Civil Revision Zia-Ul-Haque Mugheri. (Applicant) V/S Muhammad Murad Mugheri and others. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XVII Rule 3 CPC)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 09-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
339) 63/2000 Civil Revision Sachedino Kalwar (Applicant) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Order VII, Rule 11. (Section 161(B) of Land Revenue Act)
Tag Line:Applicant first chose to contest the matter before the Revenue authority by filing its objections and attending hearings, and then once the order was passed, filed a Suit challenging the same. When an order is an appealable order in terms of s.161 ibid, which has not been availed, then the very maintainability of the Suit under section 9 CPC is big question mark; and impliedly bars jurisdiction of the Civil Court in such matters where the jurisdiction to adjudicate exclusively vested with the revenue Courts.
.
Admittedly, the Applicant failed to avail the statutory remedied of appeal and
revision before the Commissioner and the Board of Revenue respectively
against the orders passed by the Assistant Commissioner
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 05-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
340) 6131/2017 Const. P. Dr. Moomal and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Chairman SPSC and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 01-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
341) 18/2014 I.T.R.A COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Applicant) V/S M/S. UNIVERSAL LEATHER (PRIVATE) LTD (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 01-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.61-K/2019 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Univeral Leather (Pvt) Ltd.,C.P.21-K/2018 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Univeral Leather (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
342) 655/2010 Suit LUCKY CEMENT LTD (Petitioner) V/S HMS BERGBAU AG & OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-DEC-10
Approved for Reporting
343) 1736/2013 Const. P. Akhlaque Hussain Memon and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether the post of Additional/Assistant Advocate General could be filled amongst District Attorneys as per the Sindh Law Officers (Conditions of Service Rules), 1940 as amended up to date; and, whether between the notification dated 10.5.2016 bearing S.REG:1(22)2015/117 and notification dated 9.4.2018 bearing S.REG.4(07)/2018 which one is to prevail; and, whether the service structure for Deputy District Attorney and District Attorney in Solicitor Department, Government of Sindh needs to be streamlined ?
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1633-K/2021 Amir Ahmed Kehar v. The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
344) 360/2016 Cr.Appeal SAIFULLAH S/O BABAR ALI SHAH (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 21-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
345) 460/2018 Criminal Appeal THE STATE / ANF (Appellant) V/S NADEEM BAHADUR (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: LIMITATION (Article 157)
Tag Line:Her reference to Article 157 of the Limitation Act is erroneous as the appellant has not filed an appeal against an order of acquittal. This Revision Application is against conviction in which, according to the appellant, Respondents No.2 and 3 have been awarded lesser punishment. In our humble view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mst. Fazeelat Bibi (PLD 2013 SC 361) has authoritatively held that ANF can only invoke the jurisdiction of appeal under Section 48(i) of CNS Act, 1997 for challenging the order of Special Court under CNS Act
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput
Order Date: 23-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.199-K/2020 The State/Anti Narcoties Forec v. Nadeem Bahadur,Crl.A.11-K/2021 The State/Anti Narcoties Forec v. Nadeem Bahadur Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Adjourned
346) 39/2011 Const. P. Darakshan Jahan (Petitioner) V/S Prov of Sindh & Ors (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 23-FEB-11
Approved for Reporting
347) 45/2014 S.M.A Mst. Mehrunnissa (Petitioner) V/S N.A (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: S.M.A (Nephew of Petition and Nazir of this Court appointed as Guardian.)
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Ashraf Jehan
Order Date: 19-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
348) 1171/2012 Cr.Bail ALI ASGHAR (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 25-FEB-13
Approved for Reporting
349) 789/2018 Suit Mst. Nadia Shakeel & another (Plaintiff) V/S Shagufta Baqar & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:There is no concept of amendment in the disposed of memo of petition for Letter of Administration in respect of ONE identified deceased on subsequent death of another person who was legal heir of the deceased whose petition has been disposed of prior to the death of the other person
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
350) 22/2018 I. A Mashooq Ali Rajpar (Appellant) V/S Raja Abdul Hameed & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 04-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1277-K/2020 Mashooq Ali Rajpar v. Raja Abdul Hameed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
351) 83/1995 Adm. Suit Mst. Parveen Shoukat (Petitioner) V/S none (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 07-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
352) 76/2018 I. A Muhammad Ahmed Siddiqui & another (Appellant) V/S Abdul Abid Advocate & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 PLD Pesh. Note 1, 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 77
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 30-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
353) 1753/2012 Const. P. Muhammad Iqbal (Applicant) V/S Mst.Zahida and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 15-FEB-13
Approved for Reporting
354) 656/2019 Const. P. Rao Abdur Razik & Others (Petitioner) V/S FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 11-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
355) 405/2012 Const. P. Ali Gohar and another (Petitioner) V/S SSP Kamber Shahdadkot and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 30-JAN-13
Approved for Reporting
356) 876/2007 Suit Mustafa H. Jivanjee (Plaintiff) V/S The Director General Karachi Development Authority (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 06-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
357) -819/2021 Suit SYED GHULAM SARWAR SHAH (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line: As a result of the above discussion, it is hereby held that the instant Suit is barred by limitation, and also under Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, and Order VI Rule 4 CPC, and is bad for non-joinder of necessary parties. Accordingly, the Suit is liable to be dismissed with costs.
Foregoing are the reasons of the short order announced by me on 08.04.2021 whereby this Suit and the listed applications were dismissed with costs of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only). The amount of costs shall be deposited by the plaintiff with the Nazir of this Court within thirty (30) days, which amount shall be transferred / deposited forthwith by the Nazir in the bank account of Edhi Foundation.
Advocates:Muhammad Ali Shaikh(ADVO-2056-SBC-HYD)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 21-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
358) 8261/2019 Const. P. Attaullah Arbab (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Repatriation from the post of Additional Deputy Commissioner-I, Hyderabad to his parent department i.e. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. vide Notification dated 12.2.2016 issued by Chief Secretary--whether the petitioner was qualified to be inducted from Sui Southern Gas Company in Sindh Government on deputation for three years' And, whether the Chief Minister, Sindh was competent to nominate the petitioner as Assistant Commissioner in Ex-PCS cadre under the Rule 5(4) (b) of the West Pakistan Civil Service (Executive Branch) Rules, 1964? and, whether his repatriation to his parent department is in accord with the direction given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court?--It is well-settled law that a deputationist does not have any vested right to remain on the post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period. He can be repatriated to his parent department at any time. The Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Shafiur Rehman Afridi v. CDA, 2010 SCMR 378, has settled the issue on the aforesaid proposition. Therefore, no further deliberation is required by us--In our view, since the direction of the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid matters is still in the field, we are bound to follow it under the Constitution. Besides the respondents have issued the impugned notification in pursuance of the orders passed by the Honorable Supreme Court in the aforesaid proceedings, therefore, no indulgence of this Court is required in the present matter--Dismissed.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
359) 7596/2017 Const. P. Zulfiqar Ali Domki, Advocate (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 27-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
360) 5176/2013 Const. P. Syed Muhammad Shoaib (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 SBLR Sindh 443
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 15-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.121-K/2017 M/s Hadeed Welfare Trust thr. CEO Bin Qasim, Karachi and another v. Syed Muhammad Sohaib and others,C.P.599-K/2018 Syed Muhammad Shoaib and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
361) 3153/2021 Const. P. Yasir Ali Baloch and Others (Petitioner) V/S Administrative Sect: STEVTA and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Rajesh Kumar Khagaija(ADVO-1791-SBC-SUK),In Person(INP),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.931-K/2022 The Managing Director, Sindh Technical Education & Vocational Training Authority (STEVTA) v. Yasir Ali Baloch & another,C.P.1281-K/2022 Yasir Ali Baloch & another v. The Administrative Secretary STEVTA & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending ,Pending
362) 5920/2015 Const. P. Kainat Soomro and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of SIndh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Muhammad Vawda(ADVO-14001-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 13-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
363) 38/2020 Cr.Rev Pir Bux Brohi & another (Applicant) V/S The State & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Tag Line:Against Order of Trial Court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 05-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
364) 1952/2014 Const. P. Syed Ali Ammar Jafry and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.424-K/2019 Pakistan Telecommunication Company Limited and another v. Syed Ali Ammaar Jafrey and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
365) 64/1992 Civil Revision Province of Sindh and others (Applicant) V/S Rahim Buc,through his L.Rs.and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:Limitation. Revisional jurisdiction is corrective and supervisory in nature; hence, Court seized of a revision petition can exercise its suo motu jurisdiction to correct the errors of jurisdiction committed by the courts below and can condone delay
Public document within the meaning of Article 85(1) & (4) of the Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, was admissible in evidence in terms of Article 76(f) ibid; hence, even if the same was not produced in original, they can be relied upon as secondary evidence.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 14-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.555/2022 Rahim Bux Khan (deceased) through LRs and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation and Power Department, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
366) 5107/2021 Const. P. Atlas Honda Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 177), Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 214C )
Tag Line:Sectoral benchmark ratios are therefore figures for various business metrics that must be used by the Commissioner to determine taxable income for a taxpayer where a taxpayer has been lawfully selected for audit but is unable to provide the relevant information, sufficient explanation for the record. Sectoral benchmark ratio does not concern with sectoral audit selection. It only empowers the Commissioner on an event when a taxpayer has failed to furnish record or documents including books of accounts or has furnished incomplete record or books of accounts or is unable to provide sufficient explanation regarding defect in relation to the documents or books of accounts on the basis of an independent procedure of Section 177 of Ordinance 2001. It is at this stage when the guidelines of sectoral benchmark ratios, as prescribed by the Board, could be adhered to.
Citation:2022 PTD 866, 2022 PTCL 253
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Hyder Ali Khan(ADVO-44631-PBC-LHR),Ali Tahir(ADVO-17114-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 18-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.680-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Atlas Honda Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
367) 398/2020 S.M.A Batul Husain Dharamsey d/o Hussain Dharamsey (Petitioner) V/S Nil (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: S.M.A ( power of attorney is not a title document , does not render any ownership its holder in any manner, dismissed .)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author)
Order Date: 24-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
368) 7678/2015 Const. P. HBL (Petitioner) V/S Full Bench NIRC and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:HBL--back benefits--Through this petition, the petitioner-Habib Bank Limited (HBL) is praying for setting aside the order dated 28.10.2015 passed by the Full Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission Islamabad (NIRC-FB) in Appeal No.12(18)/2015-K, whereby order dated 05.01.2015 passed by the learned Single Bench of National Industrial Commission, at Karachi (NIRC-SB), in Grievance Petition No.4B (187)/2012-K, filed by the private respondent, was allowed with the compensatory cost of Rs.100,000/- while granting salary and all admissible back benefits to him by treating him to be in service from the date of his dismissal from service i.e. 09.09.2003, till reaching the age of superannuation i.e. 12.12.2012; and, he was also declared to be entitled to have pensionary benefits with effect from 12.12.2012 in terms of the ratio of the judgment passed by this Court in C.P. No.D-886 of 2011.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3062/2021 Habib Bank Limited, Karachi v. Full Bench, National Industrial Relations Commission and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
369) 77/2008 M.A. Smithkline Beecham P.L.C. (Appellant) V/S The Registrar of Trade Marks and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 02-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
370) 71/1994 Const. P. Gul Ahmed Textile Mills (Petitioner) V/S Collector of Customs & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan, Constitution of Pakistan (199)
Tag Line:Constitutional petition is maintainable even if Federation or Province not impleaded as respondent.
Citation:2019 PLD Sindh 144
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 19-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
371) 43/2009 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S Shaikh Nasir Ali (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 10-MAR-10
Approved for Reporting
372) 723/2011 Const. P. Asghar Khan & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 CLC 1534
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Rasool Memon
Order Date: 12-MAY-14
Approved for Reporting
373) 168/2011 Civil Revision Asad Khan & another (Applicant) V/S The Taluka Nazim Qasimabad & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 23-DEC-14
Approved for Reporting
374) 4800/2016 Const. P. Muhammad Akram (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain
Order Date: 29-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
375) 99/2011 J.M M/S. BESROCK (PVT) LTD. (Petitioner) V/S PAKISTAN STEEL MILLS CORP (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Arbitration Law (Section 14 of Arbitration Act, 1940)
Citation:2013 CLD 719
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 31-OCT-12
Approved for Reporting
376) 12/2020 M.A. Awais Aziz (Appellant) V/S Learned Presiding Officer Hyderabad & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 01-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
377) 4980/2015 Const. P. Ameen Steel (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 01-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
378) 1139/2007 Suit Muhammad Imran (Plaintiff) V/S President KASB Bank Limited & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 07-OCT-13
Approved for Reporting
379) 599/2009 I.T.R.A M/s. Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. (Applicant) V/S The Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 14-DEC-11
Approved for Reporting
380) 1074/2018 Const. P. Mst. Parveen Ara (Petitioner) V/S Muhammad Hanif & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (Section 15 )
Tag Line:Evidence available does not fulfill the requirement of Section 15-A of the SRPO as it has to be proved independently that the premises was re-let. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to prove its contention through evidence that it was a misuse of section 15 of the SRPO whereby the eviction of the petitioner was acquired through a mala fide attempt.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 07-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.580-K/2021 Mst.Parveen Ara v. Muhammad Hanif & others,C.P.1475-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s. Amir Asim Steel Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt) Ltd. & others,C.A.47-K/2021 Mst.Parveen Ara v. Muhammad Hanif & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed,Pending Adjourned to Next Session
381) 7382/2019 Const. P. Akhtar Hussain and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:issuance of offer/appointment orders to the post of Gavi Vaccinators (BPS-6) in the Health Department on the plea that they have already been declared successful candidates based on marks they obtained in the competitive process --i) Whether the recruitment process for the post of vaccinator (BPS-6) was flawed under the law?
ii) Whether the Selection Committee was lawfully constituted; and, the Provincial Minister was competent to reduce the passing marks and facilitate private respondents/beneficiaries for appointment to the posts of vaccinators (BPS-6)?
iii) Whether some of the private respondents/beneficiaries on the recommendation of the two-member Selection Committee were lawfully appointed as vaccinators in BPS-6?
iv) Whether the petitioners can claim a right to be appointed through the two-member Selection Committee to the posts of vaccinators (BPS-6)?--
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 12-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3111/2021 Ghayasuddin Shahani and others v. Akhtar Hussain and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
382) 22/1999 Civil Revision Ghulam Hyder Mahar (Applicant) V/S Ellahi Bux and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:A Suit for declaration without any title or legal right is not maintainable under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act..
similarly a declaration of lawful possession cannot be maintained under section 42 of the Specific Relief Act.
a mere application for allotment of land creates no title
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 29-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
383) 362/2015 Suit Wakeel Akhtar (Plaintiff) V/S Shahzad Alam (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:While Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order provides a mode for proving execution of a document by comparison of signature or hand-writing, that is an additional mode and not a substitute of or an alternate to the mandatory provision of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The mode of proof by way of Article 84 is not the most desirable of modes in that, the signature and hand-writing of a person may vary with time and age; or a person called upon under sub-Article (2) of Article 84 to give a specimen of his signature or hand-writing may feign the same to defeat the comparison.
Citation:2021 CLC 54
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 29-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
384) 111/2004 H.C.A Muhammad Aslam V/S M/s.Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Aslam V/S M/s.Colony Sarhad Textile Mills Ltd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 24-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.158-K/2011 Muhammad Aslam v. M/s Colony Sarhad Textile Mills limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
385) 4677/2013 Const. P. Dr. Naeem Memon (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and ORs (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Whether supersession is punishment---in promotion matters to such post could not be made in a mechanical manner and a variety of factors, such as examination of service records, evaluation reports of training institutions, record of disciplinary proceedings, reputation of integrity and efficiency, suitability for handling particular assignment, etc. had to be taken into consideration--- NCA Employees Service Rules 2011, on the aforesaid proposition, the matter has been set at rest by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Shafique Ahmed Khan and others v. NESCOM through Chairman Islamabad and others (PLD 2016 SC 377)] therefore, question of declaring the Chapter II of the NCA Employees Service Rules 2011 as ultra vires of Section 9, 11 of the National Command Authority Act 2010 and Articles 4,9,10-A of the Constitution of Pakistan, 1973 are not apropos at this stage for the reason discussed in the preceding paragraphs.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 18-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
386) 2865/2013 Const. P. Rashid Latif (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 27-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
387) 8/2021 J.M M/S. GETZ PHARMA (PVT.) LIMITED (Applicant) V/S NOVARTIS AG & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 02-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.5311/2021 M/s Getz Pharma Pvt Limited, Karachi v. Novartis A.G. and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
388) 84/2012 Cr.Appeal Abdul Qadir (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 09-JUN-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.A.37-K/2014 The State (ANF) v. Abdul Qadir,Crl.P.90-K/2014 The State (ANF) v. Abdul Qadir Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted
389) 466/2021 Const. P. Ajaz-ul-Haque (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Urooj & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 06-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
390) 882/2003 Const. P. Tanveer Hidayatullah Hashmi and another (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Fozia Naheed and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Ashraf Jehan
Order Date: 15-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
391) 551/2017 Suit Muhammad Saeed (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 PLD 622
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 21-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
392) 109/2017 Civil Revision Shafi Muhammad Khan (Applicant) V/S Abdul Rehman & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 16-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
393) 470/2010 Cr.Acq.A. THE STATE (Appellant) V/S MUSHTAQ AHMED SOLANGI & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Abdul Baqi Mahar(ADVO-13425-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ashraf Samoo(ADVO-8176-SBC-KHI),Haseeb-Ur-Rehman(ADVO-4032-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS),Ashiq Ali(ADVO-15549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 03-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
394) 1502/2008 Adm. Suit Mr. Nazar Akbar, Advocate for the Plaintiff. (Plaintiff) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 01-OCT-10
Approved for Reporting
395) 1014/2016 Const. P. Faraz Alamgir (Petitioner) V/S ADJ-VIII Karachi South & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 7, 8 and 25)
Tag Line:The petitioner through the instant constitutional petition has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) while dismissing the family Appeal filed by petitioner upheld the order passed by learned Family Judge Karachi (South) in G & W Application; returned the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1980, under order VII Rule 10, CPC.
Order VII Rule 10 CPC & Provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and The West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, in the light of guide lines set by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anne Zahra vs. Tahir Ali Khilji and 2 others(2001 SCMR 2000). And Major Muhammad Khalid Karim Vs. Mst. Saadia Yaqub and others (PLD 2012 SC 66) were discussed.
This Constitutional Petition was disposed of directing the learned Family Judge Karachi (South) to rehear the case of the petitioner and decide the question of territorial jurisdiction afresh, inter alia, in the light of Rules framed under the Family Courts Act, 1964.
Citation:2017 YLR 994
Advocates:Mohsin Kadir Shahwani(ADVO-12570-SBC-KHS),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 21-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
396) 190/2011 Const. P. Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd.,(MOBILINK) (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Stamp duty.
Citation:2021 SBLR Sindh 859
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
397) 920/2017 Suit Mst. Hajani Sherbano (Plaintiff) V/S Qazi Muhammad Fareed & Ors (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11), Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 24-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
398) 6218/2020 Const. P. Dr. Faraz Ahmed Wajidi (Petitioner) V/S Chancellor DOW University (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: The DOW University of Health Sciences Act, 2004 (Dow Employees (Service) Statute, 2007)
Tag Line:The caption petition has raised substantial questions of law involving interpretation of the certain provisions of
The DOW University of Health Sciences Act, 2004 (`Act-2004`) and the Dow Employees (Service) Statute, 2007, and the principles governing the Writ of Quo Warranto as well as the power of the syndicate/competent authority of respondent-University to make a contractual appointment under the Act-2004 as amended up-to-date and Service Statute 2007--In our view, the evaluation made by an Expert Committee of respondent-university ought not to be easily interfered with by this Court which does not have the necessary expertise to undertake the exercise that is necessary for such purpose. It is a settled proposition that the competent authority, within its power to make its assessment, has to assess the candidature of a candidate for regular appointment or on contract basis, on case to case basis. On the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified with the decision of the Honourable Supreme Court in the case of Muhammad Ashraf Sangri v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2014 SCMR 157). In the instant case, prima-facie, the competent authority has assessed the candidature of the private respondents and appointed them in the respondent-university, which does not require interference at our end.
Advocates:Abdul Sattar Pirzada(ADVO-13903-SBC-KHI),Qazi Umair Ali(ADVO-17282-SBC-KHS),Fareeda Mangrio(ADVO-11275-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 13-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
399) 411/2012 Const. P. Najaf Ali Shah (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 18-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
400) 101/2015 Adm. Suit Muhammad Saeed (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Baqir Bukhari (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 24-JAN-17
Approved for Reporting
401) 3954/2015 Const. P. Syed Ishtiaque Ahmed Hashmi (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.887-K/2018 Syed Ishitiaque Ahmed Hashmi v. Province of Sindh thr. its Director General and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
402) 17/2012 I. A First Dawood Investment Bank Limited (Appellant) V/S BankIslami Limited (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 31-OCT-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.686-K/2013 First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd. v. Bank Islami Pakistan Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
403) 79/2011 Cr.Tran Bakshoo (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 10-JAN-12
Approved for Reporting
404) 202/2017 Cr.Rev N. J. AUTOS (Applicant) V/S THE STATE & 02 OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author)
Order Date: 22-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
405) 1021/2014 Suit Muhammad Ali Zubair. (Plaintiff) V/S Sabira Khatoon & another. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Specific Performance of Contract (Transfer of Property -Suit Dismissed )
Tag Line:(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)---
----S. 12---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXIII, R. 3 & O. VII, R. 11---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise---Cause of action---Power-of-attorney---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Executant of power of attorney died prior to the execution of agreement to sell---Effect---Agreement was not validly entered into by and between the parties after the death of principal---Said agreement to sell was not enforceable at law even if contesting parties were ready and willing to abide by its terms---Sub-attorney who claimed to have entered into an agreement of sell with the attorney had not invited objections on entering into agreement of sale of suit property---Even (present) plaintiff after entering into agreement of sale with the sub-attorney had not issued any public notice in newspapers for inviting any objection from public-at-large for transfer of title of suit property---Had such effort been made, legal heirs of the deceased executant of power-of-attorney could have warned the plaintiff before making any further payment of suit property---Search certificate of suit property was not obtained from the office of Sub-Registrar of the properties concerned---Defendant had already breached promise with the plaintiff---Broken promise by the compromising parties could not be endorsed by the court---Application for compromise of suit was liable to be dismissed---No cause of action existed for filing of suit against the defendant---Cause of action shown in the plaint was a false and collusive statement of plaintiff and defendant---Plaintiff had attempted to obtain a compromise decree from the court---Defendant had never refused to perform her part of contract---When cause of action had ceased to exist, provisions of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. would attract and plaint was liable to be rejected---Suit for specific performance was liable to be rejected once defendant had conceded that he was ready and willing to perform his part of contract---Nazir of the court could not be allowed to perform part of contract under circumstances---Suit had become infructuous and plaint was liable to be rejected---Both the suit and compromise application were dismissed with cost of Rs. 100,000/- to be jointly and severally borne by the plaintiff and defendant---Said cost should be paid within specified period and if the same was not paid, Nazir of the court should take step for recovery of cost including attachment of movable and immovable properties of plaintiff and defendant---Member Inspection Team of High Court was directed to examine the record and if any criminal case was made out, he should initiate or cause to initiate criminal proceedings against plaintiff and defendant in accordance with law.
Diamond Rubber Mills v. Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. and 2 others 1989 CLC 1989 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VII, R. 11---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Jurisdiction of civil court to exercise its authority to adjudicate between the parties would co-exist with the "cause of action" to settle the grievance of plaintiff against the defendant on his/her denial to accept/acknowledge certain rights of plaintiff---No suit could be filed without a "cause of action" and if at all such suit was filed, plaint should be rejected for want of cause of action---If cause of action had ceased to continue after filing of suit, nothing was left for the court to exercise its authority.
Citation:2017 YLR 138
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 12-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
406) 31/2016 F.R.A Dr.Muhammad Hassan (Appellant) V/S Additional Controller of Rents & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963 (entire trial in the name 18 of Section 19(8) of the CRRA, 1963 was a malafide attempt to deprive to applicant .FRA allowed.)
Tag Line:(a) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)---
----S.3---Rent Controller---Jurisdiction---Government building---Neither any other Court nor parties can confer jurisdiction on a Court / Tribunal when it is expressly barred by Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
(b) Jurisdiction---
----Question of---Principle---Whenever question of jurisdiction of a Court is raised by any party it has to be decided first by the Court as preliminary issue.
A.M Qureshi v. Government of Sindh and others 1991 SCMR 1103 rel.
(c) Jurisdiction---
----Interim order, passing of--- Principle--- Court having no jurisdiction to adjudicate on dispute between parties on merit, cannot even pass interim order and then penalize parties for its non-compliance.
(d) Cantonments Rent Restriction Act (XI of 1963)---
----Ss.3, 17, 19(8) & 24--- Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 10-A & 23---Eviction of tenant---Property rights---Rent Controller, jurisdiction of---Petitioners were having lease agreements in their favour executed by Federal Government and the Government sought their eviction from Rent Controller on the plea of raising commercial buildings---Validity---Tenants had perpetual right in demised shops under the agreements with Federal Government and whenever the government decided to launch any commercial project by demolishing the property in question, the rights of tenants under existing agreement were to be protected and no effort should be made to wriggle out of the contractual obligations except in accordance with law---Tenants were to be properly informed with relevant material details of any proposed action---Landlord had filed cases in the Court of Additional Rent Controller despite the fact that he had no jurisdiction and then tried to subvert entire trial in the name of S. 19(8) of Cantonments Rent Restriction Act, 1963 which was a mala fide attempt to deprive tenants from their Constitutionally guaranteed lawful right in demised shops---High Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction set aside eviction orders passed by Rent Controller---Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
Suo moto Case No.04 of 2010 PLD 2012 SC 553; Inaam-ul-Haq v. Muhammad Ali Shaheen and another 2013 CLC 904; Sh. Riaz-ul-Haq and another v. Federation of Pakistan through Minisry of Law and others PLD 2013 SC 501; Zulfiqar Ahmed khan v. Station Commander, Station Headquarters, Karachi and another 2010 CLC 354 and Ghulam Mustafa Bughio v. Additional Controller of Rents, Clifton and others" 2006 SCMR 145 ref.
M.H Mussadaq v. Muhammad Zafar Iqbal 2004 SCMR 1453; Khawaja Muhammad Mughees v. Mrs. Sughra Dadi 2001 SCMR 2020; Asif Najma Ansaizi v. Mrs. Mariam Mirza and another 2014 MLD 1304; Arif Lakhani v. Irfan Nazar and another 2014 CLC 1756; Uzma Construction Co. v. Navid H. Malik 2015 SCMR 642; Muhammad Saqib v. S.M Mushtaq 2015 YLR 723; Mian Muhammad Lateef v. Mst. Nasima Warsi through L.R 2009 CLC 279; Najma Aziz Sethi v. Muhammad Azeem Butt 2008 MLD 42; Dawood Khan through Attorney v. Sheraz Ahmed 2009 YLR 1238; Zulfiqar Ahmed Khan v. Station Commander, Station Headquarters, Karachi an another 2010 CLC 354; M.K. Muhammad and another v. Muhammad Abu Bakar 1993 SCMR 200; Mrs. Ghazala Iftikhar v. Controller/Additional Controller of Rents and another 2012 YLR 74 and Abdul Latif and another v. Messrs Parmacie Plus 2019 SCMR 627 distinguished.
Citation:2020 CLC 1720
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 06-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
407) 147/2009 H.C.A M/S Tee Jays Exclusive (Pvt.) Limited & another (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Naveed (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 PLD 88
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 26-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.138-K/2016 M/s Tee Jays Exclusive (Pvt) Ltd and another v. Muhammad Naveed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned
408) 4026/2012 Const. P. Rashid Latif (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 27-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
409) 694/2019 Cr.Bail Atta Muhammad Janwari (Applicant) V/S The state (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (Granted, 22 days delay in Lodging FIR, Recovered article not identified before Magistrate, Already enmity exists. )
Citation:2020 PCr.LJ 1221
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 24-JAN-20
Approved for Reporting
410) 29/2011 Civil Revision Haji Abdul Rasool Tunio (Applicant) V/S S.D.O Hesco Wapda and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 18-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
411) 2112/2015 Const. P. China Harbour Engineering Company Limited (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 23-SEP-15
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.2475/2016 Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue and another v. China Harbour Engineering and others,C.P.604-K/2015 Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue and another v. China Harbour Engineering and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted
412) 422/2012 Const. P. Hafizullah & ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed: of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 12-DEC-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4655/2018,C.P.574/2019,C.A.1125/2019,C.A.1127/2019 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted , stay,Disposed Leave Granted , stay,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed.CMAs are also Disposed of.,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed.CMAs are also Disposed of.
413) 136/2014 Cr.Appeal Basar & others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 13-FEB-17
Approved for Reporting
414) 1272/2020 Const. P. Mst. Salma @ Ume-Salma (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh, through Secretary Home Department Sindh Secretariat, Karachi & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 05-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
415) 2188/2012 Const. P. Adam Sugar Mills (Petitioner) V/S Respondent (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Tender (tender process)
Tag Line:Petitioner on payment of outstanding dues in terms of the Award cannot be termed as a defaulter and hence cannot be ousted to participate in the subject tender process.
Citation:2012 CLC 1780, 2012 CLD 1734, 2013 SBLR Sindh 806, 2013 SBLR Sindh 1244
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Order Date: 02-JUL-12
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.236-K/2012 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. v. Adam Sugar Mills Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
416) 4849/2016 Const. P. Rafique Ahmed Memon (Petitioner) V/S The NAB (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan
Order Date: 28-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.2129/2017 Rafique Ahmed v. The NAB thr. its Chairman, Islamabad,C.P.4706/2017 Rafique Ahmed v. The NAB thr. its Chairman, Islamabad Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
417) 6107/2020 Const. P. Muhammad Rizwan Dalia and Ors (Petitioner) V/S The Ombudsman and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Harassment of Women at the Workplace Act, 2010
Tag Line:We, in view of the foregoing, are of the opinion that it would be premature to pass such orders as evidence in the matter is yet to be recorded and soon after issuance of the impugned show cause notice the Petitioners/accused have approached this Court and since then no progress has been made in the proceedings pending before the Respondent No.2. The Petitioners are directed to file their reply to the show cause notice, which will be considered on its own merits.
Advocates:M/S. ABID S. ZUBERI & CO(FIRM-229-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Jamshad Ahmed Abbasi(ADVO-15974-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Order Date: 07-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.295/2022 Muhammad Rizwan Dalia and others v. Ombudsman (The Protection against harassment of women at the workplace) Sindh, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned, before 3HJJ
418) 5297/2021 Const. P. Mst. Shah Bano and Others (Petitioner) V/S The D.G SBCA and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Faiz Mehmood Khan Durani(ADVO-4955-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh(Author)
Order Date: 06-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
419) 2941/2016 Const. P. Muhammad Ayub Fazlani (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 11-NOV-16
Approved for Reporting
420) 426/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. United Refrigeration Industires Ltd. (Applicant) V/S Director D I&I-FBR (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 08-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.830-K/2021 Director, Directorate General Intelligence & Investigation (Customs) v. United Refrigeration Industries Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
421) 421/1991 Suit Rahim Ali Palari & ors. (Plaintiff) V/S Govt. of Sindh & ors.. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Fatal Accident (Compensation and Damages)
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 14-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
422) 722/2018 Cr.Bail Jumoon S/o Muhammad ALi (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 25-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
423) 1764/2014 Suit Muhammad Hussain & Others (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001
Tag Line:Faced with the presumptive taxation of imports, supplies, contract, exports etc. under section 80-C and 80-CC of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, where tax payers challenged the constitutionality of presumptive taxation, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its landmark judgment of Ellahi Cotton Mills (Supra) held that section 80C and 80CC (Section 148 and 153 and 154 in Ordinance 2001) provides for presumptive taxation of income within the category of presumptive tax as under the same the persons covered by them pay a pre-determined amount of presumptive tax in full and final discharge of their tax liability in respect of the transactions on which above tax is levied. If Entry 47 is read in isolation without reference to Entry No.52 one can urge that Entry 47 does not admit the imposition of presumptive tax as the expression tax on income employed therein should be understood as to the working out of the same on the basis of computation as provided in the various provisions of Ordinance. Thus, it can be held that presumptive tax is in fact akin to capacity tax i.e. capacity to earn.
Citation:2016 PTD 622, 2016 SBLR Sindh 1484
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 08-SEP-15
Approved for Reporting
424) 96/2017 Cr.Appeal Ghulam Muhammad Mazari and Others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
Order Date: 01-JUN-18
Approved for Reporting
425) 1096/2015 Const. P. Muhammad Mumtaz (Petitioner) V/S Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 20-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
426) 491/2011 Cr.Appeal Abdul Ghaffar (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Order Date: 31-MAR-16
Approved for Reporting
427) 2703/2016 Const. P. Nadar Shah & others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 31-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
428) 102/2013 Cr.Appeal Abdul Qadir alilas Fauji (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Order Date: 17-MAR-16
Approved for Reporting
429) 5850/2018 Const. P. Zeeshan Usman (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were appointed in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) as Executive in Information Technology and Medical Services Department in Grade-I respectively, on contract basis vide office letter dated 14.11.2012. They continued to serve them till 31.12.2017, but their services were not regularized---In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petitions are disposed of in the terms whereby the competent authority of respondent-company is directed to consider the case of the petitioners without any discrimination for regularization of their service in accordance with law, and dicta laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court vide unreported order dated 12.03.2018 passed in Civil Petitions No.67-K and 68-K of 2018, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment--Disposed of.
Topic: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)
Tag Line:The case of the petitioners, in nutshell, is that they were appointed in Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. (SSGC) as Executive in Information Technology and Medical Services Department in Grade-I respectively, on contract basis vide office letter dated 14.11.2012. They continued to serve them till 31.12.2017, but their services were not regularized---In the light of above facts and circumstances of the case, the instant petitions are disposed of in the terms whereby the competent authority of respondent-company is directed to consider the case of the petitioners without any discrimination for regularization of their service in accordance with law, and dicta laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court vide unreported order dated 12.03.2018 passed in Civil Petitions No.67-K and 68-K of 2018, as discussed in the preceding paragraph, within a period of two months from the date of receipt of this judgment--Disposed of.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1754/2020 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited thr. its attorney S.M. Hassan Meerza v. Zeeshan Usmani and others,C.A.936/2020 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited thr. its attorney S.M. Hassan Meerza v. Zeeshan Usmani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 3 months.status quo be maintained.,Disposed Allowed
430) 421/2020 Const. P. Sohail Abbasi (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Khusboo & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 15-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
431) 194/2010 Cr.Bail Muhammad Shoaib (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 03-APR-10
Approved for Reporting
432) 5330/2019 Const. P. Mujahid Hussain (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
i) Whether the petitioner was non-suited by this Court vide judgment dated 30.3.2018 in earlier round of litigation and the same view was affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court in Civil Petition No457-k of 2018, vide order dated 19.4.2018, therefore, similar relief cannot be claimed by filing subsequent legal proceedings?
ii) Whether Rule 12 of Sindh Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules 1974 was amended vide Notification dated 14.9.2018 issued by the Chief Secretary Sindh, whereby relaxation up to maximum of fifteen (15) Years in the upper age limit to all the applicants applying for the vacancies in all the Departments of Government of Sindh were done away against the posts to be filled through Combined Competitive Examination by the Sindh Public Service Commission?
Topic: Service matters (age relaxation)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
433) 2543/2011 Const. P. Mansur-ul-Haque (Petitioner) V/S Government of Pakistan and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Back benefits)
Citation:2017 PLC (CS) 1255
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 17-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.313-K/2017 Mansoor-ul-Haque v. Govt. of Pakistan thr. its Secy: M/o Defence and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
434) 8551/2017 Const. P. Danish Iqbal (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 21-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.466-K/2020 M/s. Danish Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Law & others,C.A.1324/2020 Danish Iqbal v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary of Law & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
435) 13/2010 I. A Muhammad Ameen (Appellant) V/S Wali Khan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 12-FEB-15
Approved for Reporting
436) 3/2019 Criminal Appeal Dost Muhammad Thebo & Another (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Appeal (Control of Narcotic 9(C) Appeal allowed On Ground contradictions in the evidence of complainant and mashir, )
Tag Line:Against Order of Trial Court(Narcotics Life)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
437) 270/2012 Cr.Bail Mumtaz Ali Lashari (Applicant) V/S The state (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Bail Matters (Bail before arrest Granted In Section under Sections 379, 462-B, 462-C, 427, PPC)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 16-NOV-12
Approved for Reporting
438) 6198/2014 Const. P. K-Electric Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Registrar of Trade Union and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 15-JAN-18
Approved for Reporting
439) 6629/2018 Const. P. Imran Khan Sahito (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2008/2019 Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani v. Imran Khan Sahito & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
440) 51/2005 Cr.Appeal Abdullah Bhutto (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 12-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
441) 461/2011 Cr.Bail Muhammad Arshad (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 18-JAN-12
Approved for Reporting
442) 71/2008 Suit.B SONERI BANK LTD (Plaintiff) V/S CLASSIC DENIM MILLS PVT LTD (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 30-NOV-10
Approved for Reporting
443) 2728/2014 Const. P. Advance Telecom (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 PTD 462
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 22-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
444) 33/2016 II.A. Muhammad Tariq (Appellant) V/S Afzal Hussain (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan
Order Date: 03-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
445) 1073/2009 Const. P. Aziz ur Rehman Chaudhry. (Petitioner) V/S PIAC (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Order Date: 10-JUL-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.276-K/2013 Pakistan International Airline Corporation (PIAC) v. Aziz-ur-Rehman and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Allowed
446) 4151/2020 Const. P. M/s Popular Juice Ind Pv Ltd and Othes (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.124-K/2021 Federation of Pakistan thorugh Chairman Federal Board of Revenue & others v. M/s. Popular Juice Industries & others,C.A.3934/2022 Federation of Pakistan thorugh Chairman Federal Board of Revenue & others v. M/s. Popular Juice Industries & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Adjourned. After vacations
447) 151/2017 Const. P. Sahoo (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
448) 519/2019 Cr.Bail Ali Sher (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 26-JUL-19
Approved for Reporting
449) 8/2008 H.C.A Shafi Muhammad & another (Appellant) V/S Waseem Ahmed Khan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 13-JUN-11
Approved for Reporting
450) 7042/2018 Const. P. M/s Karachi Golf Club (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Doctrine of Mutuality.
Citation:2021 PTD Sindh 558, 2021 SBLR Sindh 2102, 2022 TAX 203
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.538-K/2021 The Province of Sindh & others v. M/s. Karachi Golf Club (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
451) 1325/1999 Suit CHINA INT. WATER & ELECTRIC CORP. (Plaintiff) V/S PAK. WATER & POWER (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2018 CLC 188
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 12-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
452) 589/2011 Cr.Bail Badshah alias Muhammad Saleh (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 26-AUG-11
Approved for Reporting
453) 850/2020 Suit Dewan Sugar Mills Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Selection for audit under section 25 of the Sales Tax Act and section 46 of the Federal Excise Act requires the giving of reasons.
Advocates:Abdul Sattar Pirzada(ADVO-13903-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Faheem Bhayo(ADVO-2534-SBC-HYD),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Aqeel Qureshi(ADVO-7601-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 09-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
454) 1141/2019 Cr.Bail Kashif Dars S/o Muhammad Usman Dars (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Bail Matters ( under Section 498 Cr.P.C r/w Section 561-A Cr.P.C), Criminal Procedure Code
Tag Line:a) S.498, 561-A Cr.P.C--- Scope: Application of proper procedure;
S.498, 561-A Cr.P.C--- Order under S.497(5) Cr.P.C passed by the District & Sessions Judge cancelling the bail of accused charged under Cyber Crime was assailed before High Court---The Court observed that the proceedings filed were half criminal bail application and half criminal Miscellaneous Application. It was further observed that surprisingly the Counsel who was protecting the liberty of his client was unaware of the law and nature of proceedings. As the proceeding under both the provision are distinguished in nature, in fact Deputy Registrar Judicial had to check that whether the instant application under Section 498 Cr.P.C was in the prescribed format for such an application or not. And if it was not the Deputy Registrar should have raised objection to bring it in the proper form.
b) Supreme Court.16, 20, 21, PECA 2016 r/w 49, 420, 109 PPC (Prevention of Electric Crimes Act) ---
S.497(5) Cr.P.COrder:
In fact in Cyber Crime the accused cannot allege malafide in associating/ connecting him in the crime. The complainant was not aware of the applicant. He had only noticed certain fake pages on internet and Facebook carrying objectionable. FIA by using scientific technics reached to the accused through cell phone number which has been used to the Facebook carrying offensive material. Held--- Since the complainant party was never aware of the person behind this misuse of internet, it cannot be said that complainant had malafidely named the accused and arrested or associated with the offence. The Cell phone was in use of Accused and sufficient documentary evidence appeared against him connecting him with commission of offence. Application dismissed.
Citation:2020 PCr.LJ 259
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 16-AUG-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.171-K/2019 Kashif Dars v. The State and others,Crl.A.397/2019 Kashif Dars v. The State and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed
455) 6554/2019 Const. P. Ms. Urooj Fatima (Petitioner) V/S PM & DC and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:(a) The repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was by virtue of Article 89(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, i.e., by a resolution of the Senate disapproving the same and not by way of any repealing enactment. Therefore, the effect of repeal contained in sections 6, 6-A and section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which otherwise apply only when a repeal is by way of a repealing enactment, were neither triggered nor would those serve as an aid in construing the effect of repeal under a Constitutional provision such as Article 89. In other words, on the repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 by the effect of Article 89 of the Constitution, nothing contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897 would come to save the Amending Admission Regulations that had been made under the repealed Ordinance. In view of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik (supra), Article 264 of the Constitution also did not have the effect of saving or giving permanency to the Amended Admission Regulations when the effect of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was only temporary as it was never accorded approval by the Parliament. Therefore, on 29-08-2019, when the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was repealed by the effect of Article 89 of the Constitution, the Amended Admission Regulations also stood repealed and the Original Admission Regulations were revived.
(b) It will be seen that while the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 50 of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 repeals all previous Regulations, but that is subject to sub-section (7) which provides that the previous Regulations will continue to apply to the on-going admission process. The repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 1962 by the PMC Ordinance, 2019, the former being a permanent statute under the 1973 Constitution, is not a repeal by virtue of Article 89 of the Constitution, but a repeal by a repealing statute, albeit a temporary one, and one which has been expressly made subject to section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which in turn provides that the repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect. We have already discussed above that on 29-08-2019 the Amended Admission Regulations had ceased and the Original Admission Regulations had revived. Therefore, when sub-section (7) of section 50 of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 provides that the previous Regulations will continue to apply to the on-going admission process, those can only be the Original Admission Regulations.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 14-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4221/2019 Pakistan Medical & Dental Council thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Ms. Urooj Fatima & others,C.A.610/2020 Pakistan Medical & Dental Council now Pakistan Medical Commission thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Ms. Urooj Fatima & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
456) 916/2018 Const. P. Sub-Engineer / Staff Welfare Association (Petitioner) V/S GOS & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 09-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
457) 518/2020 Const. P. Abdul Haleem Chachar & others. (Petitioner) V/S P.O. Sindh & others. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial)
Tag Line:For the reasons noted above, the impugned action of converting the Amenity Plot reserved for playground situated at Sindh Cooperative Housing Society, Sukkur into residential plots by the present as well as previous Management of Sindh Cooperative Housing Society, Sukkur is
declared to be against the rights of petitioners of Constitution Petition No.D-518 of 2021 and others and a result of an arbitrary exercise of power, therefore, is set aside. Accordingly,
the respondents are directed to restore the amenity Plot reserved for Playground situated at Sindh Cooperative Housing Society, Sukkur to its original position in accordance with the sanctioned plan of this area.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
458) 4496/2018 Const. P. Muhammad Sadiq (Petitioner) V/S Chairman EOBI and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Employee Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 (Pensionary Benefits )
Tag Line:With regard to length of service, counsel for the EOBI contends that the petitioner remained employee of the respondent for a period of four years, therefore, he is not entitled for any benefit. Needless to mention that decision/termination was challenged by the petitioner in referred grievance application which was allowed, hence, it cannot be said that length of service of the petitioner was only four years. That service would be treated as upto the age of superannuation.
Advocates:S. Ashfaq Hussain Rizvi(ADVO-3111-SBC-KHI),Syed Jaffar Ali Rizvi(ADVO-15659-SBC-KHS),In Person(INP),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 10-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
459) 80/2015 I.T.R.A The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appellant) V/S Tianshi International Pakistan Co (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 07-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
460) 65/2005 Civil Revision Liaquat Ali alias Khabar and others (Applicant) V/S Habibullah and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:Concurrent finding of two courts below can be interfered with if the court lacked jurisdiction or a case of misreading and non reading of evidence is made out;
a registered sale deed as against a mutation entry will have precedence over it.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 08-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
461) 4106/2019 Const. P. M/s Elite Screener (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 19-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
462) 1522/2016 Suit Nirmal Das (Plaintiff) V/S Tekchand (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 YLR 336
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 16-FEB-17
Approved for Reporting
463) 8592/2018 Const. P. Al-Noor Sugar Mills Ltd and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 CLC 232
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 05-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
464) 1482/1998 Suit Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) V/S Deedar Ali Issran (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Specific Performance of Contract (Cancellation of Sale Deed)
Tag Line: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
Order Date: 29-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
465) 4391/2018 Const. P. Zaheer uddin Mujahid (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.277/2019 Zaheeruddin Mujahid v. Province of Sindh thr. Cooperative Department, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
466) 3055/2016 Const. P. Maqsood Ahmed and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Since respondent No 3 has crossed the age of 60 years and left his position from KPT, no further action is required. However, it is made clear that he is not entitled to a second pension from KPT due to his illegal deputation and subsequent absorption in KPT in the intervening period without the approval of the competent authority as discussed in the preceding paragraphs---Before parting with this order, it may be observed that even on moral ground, the illegalities committed by the management of KPT and respondent No.3, being a retired naval forces personnel and a patriot, was expected to act honestly in the best interest of the country. However, he chose not only to get himself illegally absorbed in KPT, but also claimed and received pension from their different services causing heavy loss to the national exchequer.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 12-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1325/2021 CDR (R) Khalid Munir v. Maqsood Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
467) 852/2019 Const. P. Naeem Sadiq and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:CBC janitorial staff-- minimum wage
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
468) 94/2021 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Commissioner inland revenue legal (Applicant) V/S M/s filters pakistan pvt. ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 11(2))
Tag Line:Section 6 is pari materia to provisions for recovery of sale tax in
respect of goods imported into Pakistan and time and manner shall be
similar to that of recovery made under Customs Act, 1969. For the
instant matter, for determining tax liability for the period 2011-12
limitation would perish by 30 June, 2017. Show cause notice was issued
on 21.08.2017, after requisite period. Hence, any notice that was issued
belatedly i.e. beyond the statutory requirement would have no bearing.
--The consequential point that arises is whether a timeframe
prescribed under Section 11(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for issuance of
show-cause notice and after the expiry of timeframe prescribed, could
be extended and/or resurrected a time barred cause under SRO
394(I)/2001 dated 21.05.2009 read with Section 74 of the Act, 1990.
Citation:2022 PTD 345, 2022 PTCL 415
Advocates:Imtiaz Ali Solangi(ADVO-15225-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 18-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
469) 2500/2015 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone-IV (Applicant) V/S M/s. Hamdam Paper Products (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Kafil Ahmed Abbasi(ADVO-7764-SBC-KHI),Aqeel Ahmed Khan(ADVO-12466-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad
Order Date: 22-AUG-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1091-K/2022 Commissioner-IR Zone-IV v. M/s. Hamdam Paper Products (Private) Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
470) 4/2017 Const. P. Scherazade Jamali (Petitioner) V/S Hasim Gillani & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Family Courts Act, 1964 (section 14(1)(b)), Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 1997 (sections 105), Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 25), Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (47), Uniform Child Custody Jurisdiction and Enforcement Act, 1997 (Section 102 subsection 15 ), Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Section 9), West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965 (Rule 6), Citizenship Act, 1951
Tag Line:The primary object of the Guardian & Ward Court or for that matter appellate Court was to discover as to where the welfare of the ward lies and how such welfare can be effectively achieved and maintained and should not have concerned with the visitation rights of father.
--Jurisdiction Issue-
The child may be an American national by birth and he may have been permanently residing in Kuwait with parents but he is a dual national. When the respondent/ father surrendered to the jurisdiction of the trial Court by moving an application under section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, it was promptly responded and replied by filing written statement and jurisdiction conceded by petitioner.
--Once petitioner acquiesced to the jurisdiction, she cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The question of jurisdiction even if made dependent on ordinary residence of ward, it may not be a pure question of law that can be assailed at any forum or at any time. For that it has to be specifically pleaded so that the facts in this regard be brought to the notice of the Court. It is, thus, not a simple question of law rather a mixed question of law and facts which requires determination through evidence.
--Movement or Restriction in Movement of ward-The ward belongs to a family which can afford a better upbringing, education and environment either in Pakistan or anywhere in the world which was restricted and curtailed by restriction in his movement.
The Courts below should not have seen welfare only from the angle that the father/respondent must not miss his opportunity to see his child but it must also be seen from the angle as to whether a ward who is capable of studying abroad, in case the opportunities are available to him, should he be deprived of on account of the fact that father must not miss a visiting opportunity?
--In any other case it would have been the welfare considering the situation of the ward while being at Karachi and only Pakistani national but the situation here is different as the child is privileged to have access to any educational institution around the world including Pakistan. An educational institute or an environment for which most of the children could only dream for. Every child has its own peculiar circumstances and the welfare demands may vary. The restriction in the movement in the present case appeared to be a tool to settle score with mother/petitioner but it will not serve as the welfare of the child. The father/respondent who had raised serious allegations against the mother/petitioner as he claimed that she is not fit to take care of ward yet is not serious in having the custody of the ward, although none of them stands proved in evidence. There are ways and mechanism to regulate the movement which is not achieved by of restricting the movement.
Citation:2018 PLD Sindh 377
Advocates:Kazim Hassan(ADVO-2630-SBC-KHI),Sameer Ghazanfar(ADVO-11222-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI),Shahan Karimi(ADVO-15097-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 27-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1034/2018 Hashim Gillani v. Scherazade Jamali & others,C.A.1355/2018 Hashim Gillani v. Scherazade Jamali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of,Disposed
471) 64/2011 Const. P. Syed Akbar Ali Shah (Petitioner) V/S Mst Mehar-U-Nisa and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 29-JUL-19
Approved for Reporting
472) 40/2014 Spl.Cr.Bail THE STATE (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 10-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
473) 755/2020 Const. P. Karim Bux Tanwri & Others (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:Group Insurance Policy matures only on death; petitioners who are alive; retired and have crossed the age of 65 years are not entitled for refund or return of contribution made by them during service.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
Order Date: 13-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
474) 3319/2011 Const. P. Muhammad Ayub (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 27-APR-12
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1685/2012 N.A.D.R.A. thr. its Chairman, Islamabad v. Muhammad Ayub & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
475) 68/2021 R.A (Civil Revision) Mst. Naseem Kausar and others Thr. Junaid Safdar (Applicant) V/S Sardar Abdul Rehman (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC, LIMITATION (Limitation Act 1908)
Tag Line:Reader and even for that matter court had no jurisdiction to extend time for filing leave application against statutory period and that too without any justified reason. By that time the service has already been effected at least by publication on 06.12.2020. In terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3, CPC, the leave to defend application is supposed to have been filed within the period prescribed therein.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.812-K/2021 Mst.Naseem Kausar & others v. Sardar Abdul Rehman & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
476) 4035/2019 Const. P. Bashir Ahmed Kalwar (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Declare the supersession of the petitioner made by the Respondent No.02 / CSB and the competent authority through impugned order dated 06.06.2018 as illegal--Direct the respondents to consider the case of promotion of petitioner in BPS-20, in terms of original reference of December, 2016--when a civil/public servant is recommended for supersession by the Central Selection Board (CSB) and the recommendation of the CSB is approved by the competent authority, what is its effect, and whether supersession is punishment?
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 31-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
477) 101/2009 Cr.Appeal Khadim Khoso & another (Appellant) V/S The state (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito
Order Date: 04-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
478) 733/2003 Suit COL. (RETD) MUHAMMAD SHARIF (Plaintiff) V/S SQ. LDR. NOW LT. COL. (RETD) GHULAM FARI (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 29-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
479) 1704/2019 Cr.Bail RAHIM S/O SHOUKAT (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (Offence not falling under prohibitory caluse )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 02-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
480) 68/2014 Cr.Acq.A. Zulfiqar Ali Baloch (Appellant) V/S Parkash & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar
Order Date: 08-NOV-16
Approved for Reporting
481) 116/2020 H.C.A Shahzad Noor Muhammad (Appellant) V/S Karachi Gymkhana & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC, H.C.A
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 05-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
482) 1119/2016 Const. P. M/s Qasim International Container Terminal Pak Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 19-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
483) 149/2008 H.C.A Mst.Ishrat Jehan & Ors. . (Appellant) V/S Syed Anisur Rehman & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah, Mr. Justice Mushir Alam
Order Date: 12-OCT-12
Approved for Reporting
484) 644/1986 Const. P. Karachi Bulk Storage & Terminals (pvt) Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Collector Of Courts & Excise & Lands & C (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 28-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
485) 200/2003 I.T.C The Commissioner of Income Tax (Appellant) V/S M/S. Dewan Khalid Textile Mills Ltd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 09-MAR-10
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.457/2010 M/s. Dewan Khalid Textile Mills Ltd. v. Commissioner of Income Tax (LTU) Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Allowed.also short order
486) 32/2020 I.T.R.A THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Applicant) V/S MAHVASH & JAHANGIR SIDDIQUE FOUNDATION (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Section 177(6A) of the Income Tax Ordinance
Advocates:Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 25-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
487) 195/2010 H.C.A Light Metal & Rubber Industries Pvt.,Ltd., & Ors. (Appellant) V/S Sarfraz Quadri (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2018 SBLR Sindh 841
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 13-JUN-11
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.765-K/2011 Light Metal & Rubber Industries (Pvt.)Limited and others v. Sarfaraz Quadri Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
488) 665/2003 Suit Umar Islam Khan (Plaintiff) V/S Abdul Basit and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration and Cancellation)
Tag Line: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
Order Date: 23-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
489) 190/2018 Civil Revision Muhammad Bachal (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio(Author)
Order Date: 23-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
490) 8633/2017 Const. P. Ghulam Ali Bhatia (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
Tag Line:WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan, has pronounced the judgment on 09.10.2020 in the case of Ghulam Ali Bhatia & others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with connected petitions), whereby, the petitioners have expressed their grievance against impugned amendment in SRO 583/2017 dated 01.07.2017, for being discriminatory, as according to petitioners, the concession and reduction in payment of duty and taxes to the Ship Breaking Industry in respect of re-rollable and re-meltable scrap is violative of Article 25 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, whereas, a declaration has been sought to the effect that petitioners, who are the importers and manufacturers of re-rollable and re-meltable scrap, may be given the similar concession/reduction in tax liability as according to the petitioners, they fall within the same class of persons. The aforesaid petitions have been dismissed by the Divisional Bench of this Court while holding that petitioners, who are importers of re-rollable and re-meltable scrap are covered under PCT Heading 7204.4910, whereas, ship (vessel) imported by the Ship Breaking Industry are covered under PCT Heading 8909.0000, hence cannot be treated at par. It has been further held that through impugned amendment, reduction of tax liability has been granted as an incentive for the revival of ship breaking industry pursuant to policy decision, whereas, there seems no legal impropriety in the impugned amendment. No additional liability or burden has been created through impugned amendment, in violation of constitutional provisions or the law, therefore, the allegation of discrimination amongst the same class of person is otherwise misconceived. Reliance has been placed in the case of Messrs Elahi Cotton Mills Ltd. and others vs. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1997 SC 582), wherein, it has been held as under:-
"(vi) That the tests of the vice of discrimination in a taxing law are less rigorous. If there is equality and uniformity within each group founded on intelligible differentia having a rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved by the law, the Constitutional mandate that a law should not be discriminatory is fulfilled."
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 09-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1482-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Ghulam Ali Bhatia Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
491) 1016/2013 Const. P. Nadeem Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aziz-ur-Rehman, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
492) 571/2009 Cr.Bail Muhammad Hanif S. Kalia and two others (Applicant) V/S State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha
Order Date: 06-JUL-09
Approved for Reporting
493) 1965/2021 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD UMER S/O SAINDAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal After Arrest Bail (Sindh Prohibition, Preparation, Manufacturing, Storage, Sale and use of Gutka and Manpuri Act, 2019)
Tag Line:In view of the above, the applicant / accused Muhammad Umar son of Saindan is admitted to post-arrest bail subject to his furnishing solvent surety in the sum of Rs.100,000.00 (Rupees one hundred thousand only) and a P.R. bond for the same amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court. The instant bail application is allowed in the above terms.
Advocates:Muhammad Akbar(ADVO-6812-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 03-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
494) 120/2019 Cr.Bail Shahid Ahmed Shaikh (Applicant) V/S PO SIndh (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 21-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
495) 4658/2018 Const. P. Dewan Motors (Pvt) Ltd and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi, has pronounced the judgment on 06.08.2020 in the case of Dewan Motors (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. Federation of Pakistan & others (along with connected petitions), wherein, the Hon'ble bench of Sindh High Court has been pleased to dispose of all the petitions in the following terms:-
" (i) The impugned sub-section (2) of Section 221-A of the Customs Act, 1969, as added vide Finance Act, 2018, is ultra vires to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as through impugned amendment the legislature has attempted to validate constitutional defect while making amendment in sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, and issuance of SRO 1035(I)/2017 dated 16.10.2017, through Finance Act, 2017, however, without making the required constitutional amendment.
(ii) The Regulatory Duty charged and collected pursuant to amendment in sub-section (3) of Section 18 of the Customs Act, 1969, and issuance of SRO 1035(I)/2017, through Finance Act, 2017, has already been declared by the Divisional Bench of this Court in the case of Premier Systems (Pvt) Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others (2018 PTD 861), as illegal and unconstitutional in the light of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Mustafa Impex, Karachi & others vs. The Government of Pakistan & others, (PLD 2016 SC 808), therefore, in the absence of any constitutional amendment, cannot be validated through subsequent amendment in law, while giving it retrospective effect in respect of past and closed transaction, therefore, no Regulatory Duty can be charged, collected or recovered for the period starting from the date of commencement of Finance Act, 2017 till the date of commencement of Finance Act, 2018. .
Citation:2021 PTD 232, 2021 PTCL 178
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 06-AUG-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.836-K/2020 Federation of Pakistan through Revenue Division & others v. Dewan Motors (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
496) 787/2019 Criminal Appeal Akhtar Meen S/o Khayal Jan (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Aftab Ahmed(ADVO-4091-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 18-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.90-K/2021 Sheeraz Gul Thebo v. Akhtar Meen Afridi,Crl.P.91-K/2021 The State through Prosecutor General Sindh v. Akhtar Meen Afridi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned,Pending Adjourned
497) 2249/2016 Suit Indus Motor Co., Limited. (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Audit of Taxpayers under Section 25 of the Sales Tax Act 1990 and Section 45 and 46 of the Federal Excise Act 2005.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 13-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
498) 1218/2017 Cr.Misc. Mst. Zuriat W/o Sheeral Khan (Applicant) V/S Kouro Khan @ Kouro and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Re-investigation of Case (Magistrate Joined the Let of accused U/S 302 PPC and Granted Bail .In Petition Sataside about Bail . )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-JUN-19
Approved for Reporting
499) 1476/2013 Cr.Bail ABBASS ALI S/O ABDUL KHALIQ (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 PCr.LJ 1791
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 09-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
500) 252/2009 Const. P. Filters Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Board of Revenue & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 26-JUL-10
Approved for Reporting
501) 68/2015 Const. P. Sherbaz Khan Rind And ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.881-K/2018 M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Limited and another v. Sherbaz Khan Rind and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
502) 201/2019 Cr.Rev MST. NAGHMA IMJRAN WD/O IMRAN KHAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal Revision (Revision application is dismissed. The Applicant may move the same before the Sessions Court.)
Tag Line:The Explanation clause of section 435 Cr.P.C. entails that while the High Court can call for and examine the record of proceeding before a Magistrate, either suo moto or in Revision arising from an order of a Sessions Judge, a Revision application against the order of a Magistrate is to filed by the litigant to the Sessions Judge to whom the Magistrate is a Court inferior within the meaning of the Explanation clause of section 435 Cr.P.C.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 06-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
503) 3026/2015 Const. P. Muhammad Waris (Petitioner) V/S E.O.B.I (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Employee Old Age Benefits Act, 1976 (Pensionary Benefits )
Tag Line:VSS is a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor is there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act. In the entire scheme of Pension Act and rules, there is nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract in the bargain with their post-retirement or pensionary benefits which they could have availed, for any prompt
gain.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
504) 25/2012 II.A. Sikandar Ali (Appellant) V/S Abdullah & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Delay in payment of Court Fee)
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
---O. XXIII, R. 1(3) & 0. II, R.2---Withdrawal of suit---Fresh suit, institution of---Scope---Suit was decreed by the Trial Court but same was dismissed by the Appellate Court being barred under O.II, R.2, C.P.C.---Validity---Plaintiff was precluded from filing another suit after withdrawl of earlier suit on same "cause of action", on same "subject matter" and against the same defendant without permission to institute a fresh one-Provisions of O.XXIII, R.1(3) and O.II, R.2, C.P.C. were complementary to each other to control the litigation after litigation between the same parties on the same subject matter.
Ghulam Nabi and others v. Seth Muhammad Yakoob and others PLD 1983 SC 344; Muhammad Suleman v. Ehsan Ali PLD 1983 Kar. 537; State Life Insurance of Pakistan v. Mst. Zainab Khatoon and others PLD 1987 SC AJ&K 5; Manzoor Hussain v. Rasool Bukhsh 1991 CLC 640; Qazi Shamas-ur-Rehman and another v. Mst. Chaman Dasta and others 2004 SCMR 1798 and Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 ref.
Muhammad Suleman v. Ehsan Ali PLD 1983 Kar. 537; State Life Insurance of Pakistan v. Mst. Zainab Khatoon and others PLD 1987 SC AJ&K 5; Manzoor Hussain v. Rasool Bukhsh 1991 CLC 640; Qazi Shamas-ur-Rehman and another v. Mst. Chaman Dasta and others 2004 SCMR 1798 and Siddique Khan and 2 others v. Abdul Shakur Khan and another PLD 1984 SC 289 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 99---Appeal---Court fee, non-payment of---Effect---Ministerial staff of court was bound to point out non-payment of court fee and if such had been done then appellant could pay the same to avoid dismissal of appeal on account of non-payment of court fee---If such objection had been raised by the Appellate Court only then appellant could have been penalized---Jurisdiction of Appellate Court was not disputed to entertain the appeal, therefore order passed thereon was not affected adversely on account of non-payment of court fee---Impugned judgment and decree passed by the Appellate Court were protected by the provision of S.99, C.P.C. despite the fact that no court fee on the appeal was paid---Appellate Court had no power to set aside the judgment and decree on the ground of error or irregularity which had not affected the merits of the case or jurisdiction of the court---Non??payment of court fee was mere irregularity which could be corrected at any time and such irregularity had not rendered the impugned order void or without jurisdiction---Appellant (respondent) had not refused to pay the court fee and High Court could not non-suit him on the ground of filing first appeal without court fee---No punitive action could be taken against the appellant (respondent) without recourse to the provision of O. VII, R.11, C.P.C.---High Court could call upon the appellant (respondent) to pay the court fee---Appellant (respondent) was directed to deposit/pay the requisite court fee in the High Court within a specified period to rectify the irregularity occurred on account of non-payment of court fee before the first Appellate Court.
Citation:2015 PLD 155
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 09-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
505) 5025/2020 Const. P. Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla (Petitioner) V/S Deputy Commissioner I.R and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973
A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad has pronounced the judgment on 22nd December 2020 in the case of Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla v. Deputy Commissioner Inland Revenue and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the issuance of notice under Section 182(2) read with Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, enforcing penalty for not submitting returns regarding Foreign Income and Assets Statement. The plea of the petitioners was that the petitioners have already declared Foreign Income and Assets from all the sources in their wealth statement filed under Section 116 alongwith their return of total income for the Tax Year 2019 under Section 114 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, within the prescribed time limit, by availing e-filing facility via IRIS, whereas, such return was duly accepted, as no notice was issued to the petitioners by the Department in terms of Section 120(3) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, requiring the petitioners to furnish any short documents in this regard. It was further argued on behalf of the petitioners that omission in filing returns was neither deliberate nor it has any financial implications or involvement of payment of any taxes, etc. therefore, the penalty provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Learned Divisional Bench of this Court by examining all the relevant provisions of law and case-laws has been pleased to allow the aforesaid Petitions in the following terms: -
"13. In view of the foregoing discussions, we are of considered opinion that in the absence of prescribed format notified under Section 116A of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, whereas, nothing has been concealed by petitioners, nor there is any consequence either on income or tax liability of petitioners for non-filing of Foreign Income & Assets Statement along with return of income for Tax Year 2019, the penal provisions of Section 182 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, could not be invoked. Particularly, when respondents have failed to establish willful default or mens rea on the part of petitioners. We derive analogical guidance from the Non delegation Doctrine which is well established in jurisprudence and is attracted in the instant circumstances. Issuance of notices under section 182(2) cannot be validated, therefore, impugned notices having no support of lawful authority are hereby declared as illegal, hence, of no legal consequence. For these reasons, the petitions were allowed vide short order announced on 22.12.2020.
Citation:2021 PTD 335
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.742/2021 Commissioner Inland Revenue AEOI, Karachi and others v. Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla,C.A.377/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue AEOI, Karachi and others v. Aameer Mustaaly Karachiwalla Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,impugned judgment suspended,Disposed Disposed of
506) 133/1998 Suit MRS. PARVEEN MEHMOOD. (Plaintiff) V/S THAI AIRWAYS INTERNATIONAL PUBLIC CO. LT (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC, Civil Procedure Code CPC (Recovery of amount/damages)
Tag Line:The delay in filing the claim in not of few days but it is of eleven months regarding which the Plaintiff had not led any positive evidence to justify that why the above delay beyond prescribed period should be condoned, or, the said delay in filing this Lis, is not hit by Rule 29.
Advocates:SURRIDGE & BEECHENO(FIRM-101-SBC-KHI),Khalid Rehman(),Malik Muhammad Riaz(ADVO-6493-SBC-KHI),Sohail Mazaffar(ADVO-2086-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
507) 182/2017 Cr.Misc. Ch. Azeem Ahmed (Applicant) V/S S.H.O P.S Sanjar Chang District Tando Allahyar & 17 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 01-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
508) 141/2017 Const. P. Muhammad Usman (Petitioner) V/S PTCL and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Pakistan Telecommunication (Reorganization) Act, 1996, Pakistan Telecommunication Corporation Act, 1991, Civil Servants Act, 1973, Constitution of Pakistan
Tag Line:Subsection 2 of Section 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 enabled an employer, with the consent of the transferred employee, to award appropriate compensation in lieu of whatever benefits they could have gained at the end of their tenure. These employees were given service benefits, which were not even matured at the time the employees opted VSS, hence it cannot be said that any guarantee or secured right was arbitrarily snatched by the employer. These employees could have continued to serve without opting VSS.
VSS is a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor is there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act. In the entire scheme of Pension Act and rules there is nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract (for any prompt gain) in bargain with their post retirement or pensionary benefits.
Citation:2020 PLC (CS) 895
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 19-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
509) 83/2015 Suit Nawab Brothers Steel Mills Ltd., & another. . (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Customs Act 1969)
Tag Line:Customs Act (IV of 1969)---
----Ss.18(3), 30, 79, 104 & 131---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, grant of---Rate of duty---Determination---Principle---Plaintiffs imported goods from foreign supplier under contract executed prior to issuance of Notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Plea raised by plaintiffs was that authorities be restrained from applying/deducting regulatory duty in terms of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Validity---Manner and method of date of determination of rate of duty on goods imported into Pakistan were subject to Ss.79 & 104 of Customs Act, 1969, and date of determination of rate of duty on goods exported was subject to provisions of S.131 of Customs Act, 1969---Imposition and collection of regulatory duty on "import" and "export" was different and distinct and no analogy could be drawn for interpreting the provision of one section of the statute with the other section in the same statute by referring to case-law dealing with one particular levy---Provisions of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015, were applicable on shipments of plaintiffs in terms of S.30 of Customs Act, 1969, irrespective of the fact that plaintiffs had entered into contract for purchase of consignments with foreign suppliers and opened letter of credits prior to 14-1-2015---High Court declined to grant interim injunction against applicability of notification S.R.O. 18(I)/2015, dated 14-1-2015---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation:2015 PTD 1308
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 27-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
510) 38/2021 Const. P. Hamid Baig (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Saba Khan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 26-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
511) 4461/2017 Const. P. Imtiaz Bibi (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Petitioner is the second wife of deceased Saeeduddin Qureshi, who passed away on 22.12.2009, seeks twenty-eight (28) month family pension, granted to deceased???s first wife namely Mst. Bushra Saeed, who passed away on 25.11.2016--On the aforesaid proposition, we seek guidance from the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by Hon???ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.48 of 2013 (International Islamic University, Islamabad V/S Jahanzaib Khan and others), wherein it was held, inter alia, that all the Government departments, agencies and officers deployed to serve the general public within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary / retirement benefits, and any violation of such direction shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them--This petition stands allowed / disposed of with no order as to costs along with pending application(s) in the above terms. Let notice be issued to respondents 1 and 2 as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and the Accountant General, Sindh, for compliance.
Topic: Service matters (Pension)
Tag Line:Petitioner is the second wife of deceased Saeeduddin Qureshi, who passed away on 22.12.2009, seeks twenty-eight (28) month family pension, granted to deceaseds first wife namely Mst. Bushra Saeed, who passed away on 25.11.2016--On the aforesaid proposition, we seek guidance from the order dated 21.02.2013 passed by Honble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.48 of 2013 (International Islamic University, Islamabad V/S Jahanzaib Khan and others), wherein it was held, inter alia, that all the Government departments, agencies and officers deployed to serve the general public within the limits prescribed by the Constitution and the law shall not cause unnecessary hurdle or delay in finalizing the payment of pensionary / retirement benefits, and any violation of such direction shall amount to criminal negligence and dereliction of the duty assigned to them--This petition stands allowed / disposed of with no order as to costs along with pending application(s) in the above terms. Let notice be issued to respondents 1 and 2 as well as to the Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, and the Accountant General, Sindh, for compliance.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 28-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
512) 924/2009 Const. P. Baber Qayyum Raja (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 06-NOV-09
Approved for Reporting
513) 3184/2021 Const. P. Tahira Haneef (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:In the light of the above discussion, in our view, a deputationist could not be treated as an aggrieved person, because she has no vested right to remain on a post as deputationist forever or for a stipulated period and can be repatriated at any time to her parent department more particularly in the light of aforesaid decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court. Reference is also made to the case of Dr. Shafi-ur-Rehman Afridi V/s CDA, Islamabad through Chairman and others (2010 SCMR 378). Even otherwise she cannot continue to serve on deputation in Sindh Government after her removal from service by the parent department, as discussed supra.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
514) 1324/2015 Const. P. SSGC-LPG (PVT) LTD (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 28-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.525-K/2017 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sui Southern Gas Company and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time
515) 3657/2017 Const. P. Ehsan Ali Siddiqui (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
516) 77/2013 II.A. ABDUL RASHID (Appellant) V/S MAQBOOL AHMED (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author)
Order Date: 14-JUN-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.65-K/2018 Abdul Rasheed v. Maqbool Ahmed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
517) 109/2018 I. A Muhammad Jawed (Appellant) V/S First Women Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 CLD 254
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 05-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
518) 107/1987 Suit Allwin Engineering Industries Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Karachi Electric Supply Corporation (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi
Order Date: 14-MAR-06
Approved for Reporting
519) 838/2012 Suit GLOBAL QUALITY FOODS (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S HARDEE'S FOOD SYSTEMS, INC. Dis (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940 Section 34)
Citation:2016 PLD Sindh 169
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 18-NOV-15
Approved for Reporting
520) 1710/2012 Const. P. Fauji Oil Terminal & Distribution Company Ltd., (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan, through the Secretary, Revenue Division & Ex-Officio Chairman, Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad& 2 others, (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 28-MAY-12
Approved for Reporting
521) 1018/2021 Const. P. Riaz Hussain (Petitioner) V/S Chief Sect: Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Promotion (department concerned shall provide the complete set of ACRs of the concerned officer to DPC well in advance cases for promotin)
Tag Line:the decision of PSB-II for promoting the private respondent No.8 in BPS-19 against future vacancy in absence of ACRs is/was an erroneous decision--ACRs--it is directed that the Government of Sindh shall ensure that in future before convening the meeting of PSB and/or DPC for considering the cases for promotion of civil / Government servants, the department concerned shall provide the complete set of ACRs / PERs of the concerned officer to PSB / DPC well in advance so that the cases for promotion should be decided without any delay. It may be observed that if the promotion of any civil / Government servant is deferred or delayed after passing of this order for want of ACR / PER, the Secretary of the department concerned, the competent authority, and all officials responsible for deferring or delaying the promotion shall be held personally responsible for defiance of the above direction of this Court.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
522) 607/2012 Suit Dr. Dilnawaz Rafi Shaikh and others (Plaintiff) V/S Riyazur-Rahim and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 08-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
523) 32/2016 Criminal Appeal Muhammad Nawaz and others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 14-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
524) 613/2019 Cr.Bail ABDUL MAJEED S/O ALLAH DITTA (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Bail Matters (Bail Granted In Theft of Sui Southern Gas .)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 30-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
525) 288/2019 Criminal Appeal MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAHZAD S/O PARO (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 04-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
526) 261/2007 Suit SM SHOAIB BAGHPATI (Plaintiff) V/S UMER GUL AND OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 01-DEC-14
Approved for Reporting
527) 638/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s. Junaid Enterprises (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 24-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
528) 12/2013 J.M Karachi Development Company (Applicant) V/S IM Technologies Pakistan & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 CLC Note 157
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 15-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
529) 270/2012 Cr.Appeal Lalio & others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Order Date: 11-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
530) 2/2017 Cr.Rev Party-1 (Applicant) V/S Party-2 (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 18-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
531) 108/2014 Cr.J.A Riaz Khan and others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Qadir Leghari, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 27-APR-16
Approved for Reporting
532) 3998/2021 Const. P. Lal Muhammad Jokhio (Petitioner) V/S NAB and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: National Accountability (Second Amendment) Ordinance XXIII, 2021 (Bail under section 7)
Tag Line:In the view of above legal position, it is observed that superior Court can entertain application for pre-arrest bail and grant relief to the accused in appropriate cases where accused could inter alia establish that he was prevented from approaching the lower Court concerned in the first instance. An accused normally can approach in the first instance the Court of Sessions/NAB Courts (now in view of the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Ordinance XXIII, 2021) for bail before arrest as propriety so demands but depending on the compelling circumstances, an accused can approach the High Court directly by invoking its concurrent jurisdiction. In the present case, no compelling circumstances have been pointed out
Advocates:Spl. Prosecutor NAB(SpPNAB),Muhammad Shafi(ADVO-2185-SBC-KHC),Abbas Rasheed Razvi(ADVO-14822-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
Order Date: 27-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
533) 3930/2020 Const. P. Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Service Regulations
Tag Line:The pivotal question involved in the listed application is whether Civil / Government / public servant is entitled to have the protection of the previous service rendered as Adhoc temporary/contingent basis in the organization for fixation and counting of the previous service for pension.
Advocates:Moula Bux Khatian(ADVO-13552-SBC-KHI),Bashir Ahmed(ADVO-14353-SBC-KHI),Ali Asadullah Bullo(ADVO-12811-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Tanveer Aftab(ADVO-17883-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.77/2022 Karachi Port Trust through its Manager Legal, Karachi v. Mohammad Khan and another,C.P.5919/2021 Karachi Port Trust through its Manager Legal, Karachi v. Mohammad Khan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
534) 163/2013 Adm. Suit Muhammad Hussain (Applicant) V/S The State (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Sarwar Korai
Order Date: 18-FEB-14
Approved for Reporting
535) 37/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Mithal (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 14-JAN-19
Approved for Reporting
536) 3532/2020 Const. P. China Power Hub Generation Co. Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 11-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.546-K/2021 Commissioner Inland Revenue Z-III v. China Power Hub Generation Copmpany (Pvt) Ltd. & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
537) 212/2019 Criminal Appeal Parvaiz (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
1200 grams of charas appeal allowed
Tag Line:1200 grams of charas appeal allowed
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-AUG-20
Approved for Reporting
538) 410/2017 Cr.Appeal SHABBIR AHMED S/O SHER MUHAMMAD (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author)
Order Date: 08-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
539) 642/2003 Suit M/S.SILVER FLOUR MIOLLS. (Plaintiff) V/S K.E.S.C (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2018 YLR Note 258
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 01-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
540) 100/2009 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. M/s.P & G International Lahore (Appellant) V/S Assistant Collector of Customs & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 14-JAN-10
Approved for Reporting
541) 185/2017 Civil Revision Muhammad Yousuf (Applicant) V/S Masood Ahmed (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
542) 217/2018 R.A (Civil Revision) Muhammad Saleem (Applicant) V/S Haresh Kumar & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XVII Rule 3 CPC)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
543) 249/2018 H.C.A Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (Appellant) V/S Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC, Arbitration Law
Tag Line:principal of awarding demurrage charges and analysis of Force Majeure clause of COA
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 18-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.76-K/2020 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Pakistan State Oil Company, Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
544) 5430/2020 Const. P. Imad Samad (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 PTD 2063
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
545) 41/2016 Election Appeal Tariq Hussain (Appellant) V/S Subhan Ali (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 17-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
546) 868/2019 Const. P. Muzammil Mumtaz Meo (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Legislation on manufacture sale and use of gutka, mainpuri and mawa etc
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi
Order Date: 03-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4922/2019 Raja Haider Ali and others v. Province of Sindh thr. Home Secretary, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi & others,C.M.A.4542/2020 Raja Haider Ali and others v. Province of Sindh thr. Home Secretary, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed ,Disposed
547) 1957/2018 Const. P. Mst Afsheen (Petitioner) V/S Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Protection to Women, children, vulnerable persons in cases of domestic violence.
Tag Line:Protection, Women, children, vulnerable persons, destitute, domestic violence, welfare of minors, mechanism, safe houses, Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013,
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author)
Order Date: 07-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.387-K/2019 Makhdoom Mehmood Rehman v. Province of Sindh thr. Home Secy: Govt. of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
548) 4970/2017 Const. P. Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Section 5A ITO 2001 struck down.
Citation:2021 PTD 971
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 30-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.926-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Saphire Textile Mills Ltd.,C.A.3387/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Saphire Textile Mills Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted, transfered to Islamabad.,Pending
549) 115/2012 Suit MEDIA MAX (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S MEDIA MAX (PVT) LTD. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2013 PLD Sindh 555
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 26-JUN-13
Approved for Reporting
550) 1154/2022 Cr.Bail ARSHAD ALI S/O ASGHAR ALI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Altaf Hussain(ADVO-9955-SBC-KHI),M/S. SAATHI M. ISHAQUE LAW ASSOCIATES(FIRM-181-SBC-KHI),S. Abdul Rawoof(ADVO-9110-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 30-JAN-23
Approved for Reporting
551) 555/2012 Cr.Bail Hazoor Bux Brohi and another (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 08-FEB-13
Approved for Reporting
552) 966/2008 I.T.R.A M/s. Dewan Farooque Motors (Ltd.) (Applicant) V/S Comm. of Income Tax (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 28-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
553) 5674/2020 Const. P. M/s Spectrum Enterprises (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act, 1969 (147) (section 81)
Tag Line:Sub-section 2 of Section 81 caters for a situation when the goods are
allowed to be cleared or delivered on the basis of provisional
determination, the amount of duty, taxes and charges correctly payable
to those goods shall be determined within six months from the date of
provisional determination. The time is further extendable provided the
officer concerned may in the circumstances of exceptional nature and
after recording such situation extends period of final determination,
which shall in no case exceeds ninety days.2 Proviso to sub-section 2
provides the calculating mechanism of the period prescribed in subsection 2 of Section 81. Sub-section 3 of Section 81 provides the
mechanism on completion of final determination. The amount already
paid or guaranteed shall be adjusted against the amount payable on the
basis of final determination and difference between the two amounts
shall be paid forthwith to or by the importer as the case may be.
--Indeed the Explanation in a statute/enactment does form an
integral part to the extent of explaining and elaborating meaning of the
word in the section3 and the purpose is to explain, clarify, add or subtract
something by clarification 4, however, the word provisional assessment is
neither used in sub-section 1 nor in sub-section 2. It is sub-section 1
which secured differential amount on provisional determination and not
provisional assessment 5.
If the interpretation of respondent is accepted then customs would
never bother to determine it finally and would enjoy benefit of not doing
anything after provisional release. We may observe that the respondent
conceded that the cause of delay in final determination is not attributable
to the importer.
Citation:2022 PTD 732, 2021 SBLR Sindh 2391
Advocates:Dilkhurram Shaheen(ADVO-9087-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Syed Asif Ali (ADVO-10999-SBC-MLR),Muhammad Ishaque(ADVO-7611-SBC-KHI),Muhabbat Hussain Awan(ADVO-13542-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 02-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1606-K/2021 Federal of Pakistan & others v. M/s Spectrum Enterprises Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
554) 2925/2011 Const. P. Sardar Amin Farooqi and ors (Petitioner) V/S Director I & I FBR and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 08-DEC-11
Approved for Reporting
555) 31/2019 M.A. Muhammad Yameen Qureshi (Appellant) V/S Arshad (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial)
Tag Line:In the light of decision rendered by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Ardeshir Cowasjee vs. Karachi Building Control Authority (1999 SCMR 2883) and order passed by the learned Tribunal in the matter, I am of the considered view that the official respondents are under legal obligation to comply the directives of the Honourable Supreme Court passed in the cases of removal of illegal encroachment of amenity plots / public properties from its occupants
Citation:2021 CLC 19
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
556) 985/2013 Const. P. Mst. Roshan Ara Begum (Petitioner) V/S Executive Officer & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 30-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
557) 47/1997 Civil Revision Shabbir Khan & Ors. (Appellant) V/S Haji Abdul Latif Khan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Civil Revision, Case remanded. )
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----Ss. 151, 96, 10 & 11 & O. XLI, R. 27---Appeal---Inherent powers under S.151, C.P.C. exercised by the Appellate Court---Scope---Respondent moved an application under S.151, C.P.C. claiming res judicata against the suit---Appellate Court remanded the case while exercising powers under S.151, C.P.C.---Validity---Respondent raised a factual issue before the Appellate Court through application under S.151, C.P.C. which was not raised before the Trial Court---Powers of civil court under S.151, C.P.C. had certain restrictions in application of the same could not be equated with the powers of a court of original civil jurisdiction---Provisions of Civil Procedure Code which empowered courts of original civil jurisdiction while dealing with civil suits like provisions of Ss.10 & 11, C.P.C. were not available to the appellate court while exercising authority in terms of S.96, C.P.C.---Appellate Court had not given reference to the findings of the Trial Court while deciding the appeal and had exercised the powers of a court of original civil jurisdiction which were not vested in it---Exercise of power under S.151, C.P.C. by the Appellate Court was improper and uncalled for---Trial Court had not discussed the issue of res judicata in its judgment---Issue which was not taken up and decided by the Trial Court was not supposed to be examined by the Appellate Court---Issue of res judicata ought to have been raised first before the Trial Court for its decision and not at the appellate stage for the first time--Question of res judicata was a question of fact and parties had to first allege it and then prove it through evidence---Appellate Court was not supposed to examine a new/fresh defence (plea of res judicata) at appellate stage---If appeal was time barred then Appellate Court had no jurisdiction to entertain the same and remand the suit---Appellate Court had exercised the jurisdiction not vested in it---Impugned judgment and decree were set aside and appeal was remanded for decision afresh---Appellate Court was directed to first examine the question of limitation for filing the appeal before proceeding further in the matter---Revision was disposed of in circumstances.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 11---Res judicata---Power of appellate Court---Scope---Question of res judicata was a question of fact and parties had to first allege it and then prove it through evidence---Appellate Court was not supposed to examine a new/fresh defence (plea of res judicata) at appellate stage.
(c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 151---Inherent power---Scope---Civil court was not supposed to resort to the inherent powers in presence of a specific provision available in C.P.C. to deal with a particular situation.
(d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 115---Revisional jurisdiction of High Court---Scope---High Court had suo motu power to examine the correctness, legality and propriety of an order passed by the subordinate court at any time and if subordinate court had improperly exercised its jurisdiction and/ or exercised jurisdiction not vested in it then High Court could set aside the said order.
Citation:2016 CLC 1790
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 29-MAR-16
Approved for Reporting
558) 2054/2019 Const. P. Natho (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Citation:2021 SBLR Sindh Note 266
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
559) 1546/2021 Const. P. Mst. Bilquees Khalid (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Cantonments Act 1924 (S.68)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
560) 98/2001 Cr.Rev Roshan Ali Dero S/o Ghulam Haider Dero (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 24-DEC-18
Approved for Reporting
561) 44/2010 H.C.A Saeed Qureshi V/S Mrs.Surriya Afzal & Ors. (Appellant) V/S Saeed Qureshi V/S Mrs.Surriya Afzal & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 28-FEB-11
Approved for Reporting
562) 7622/2018 Const. P. Zulfiqar Khushk and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 13-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.5304/2021 Ghulam Murtaza and others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Govt. of Sindh, Karachi and others,C.P.1671-K/2021 The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh & another v. Zulfiqar Khushk & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.all connected CMAs are allowed.CPs be numbered and also leave is Granted,Disposed Leave Granted.all connected CMAs are allowed.CPs be numbered and also leave is Granted
563) 51/2001 Cr.Acctt.A Saeedullah Soomro (Appellant) V/S TheState (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahid Anwar Bajwa
Order Date: 02-SEP-10
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.A.22-K/2011 Saeedullah Soomro v. The State through NAB Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Judgment Reserved Judgment Reserved
564) 234/2009 Cr.Misc. Kamran Ellahi (Applicant) V/S The State & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 18-AUG-10
Approved for Reporting
565) 8/2016 M.A. M/s. EFU General Insurance Ltd. (Appellant) V/S Jahangir Moghul (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, Civil Procedure Code CPC
Tag Line: As per Section 118 of the Insurance Ordinance, 2000, a claim is to be settled within ninety days, subject to certain conditions contained in the above provision. Consequently, finding of learned Tribunal, even on this issue, does not justify any interference.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 09-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.445-K/2021 M/s. EFU General Insurace Ltd. v. Jahangir Moghul Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
566) 1077/2020 Suit Akhlaq Hashmi (Plaintiff) V/S Mst. Bakht Bibi & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Suit and listed applications were dismissed with costs of Rs.50,000.00 (Rupees fifty thousand only) to be paid by the plaintiff to defendants 1 to 31 within thirty (30) days. The amount of Rs.7,000,000.00 (Rupees seven million only) received by the said defendants from the plaintiff shall be returned by them to him within thirty (30) days.
Advocates:M. Umer Farooq Khokhar(ADVO-38951-PBC-LHR),Farooq Hashmat Abbasi(ADVO-4616-SBC-KHC),Qamar Iqbal(ADVO-9999-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Aijaz Khan(ADVO-3564-SBC-KHI),Nasrullah Malik(ADVO-11854-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 08-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
567) -758/2021 Suit MIAN NASSER HYATT MAGGO (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 19-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
568) 4048/2012 Const. P. M/s. Dalda Foods(Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan (Labour Law)
Tag Line:We find that the private respondents were deprived of their due process rights. They were not confronted with the material based on which their services were verbally terminated. Even otherwise, the process followed by the petitioners was sketchy, one-sided, non-transparent, and not supported even by the law. We, therefore, find that both the Learned SLC and SLAT were justified in passing the impugned orders and recorded valid and cogent reasons for doing so, therefore, no ground existed for re-evaluation of the evidence, thus, we maintain the consolidated order dated 22.10.2011 passed by the Sindh Labour Court (SLC) in grievance Applications of the private respondents and common order dated 31.10.2012 passed by the learned Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal (SLAT) in Appeal No. KAR-273/2011, Appeal Nos. KAR-445/2011 to KAR 496/2011 and KAR-498/2011 to KAR-603/2011.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 06-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.6488/2021 M/s Dalda Foods (Pvt) Limited v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi & others,C.P.5640/2021 M/s Haq Engineering & Packing Service (Pvt) Limited, Karachi v. Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending ,Pending
569) 3015/2017 Const. P. Ghulam Haider (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:M/S. ADNAN & CO(FIRM-247-SBC-KHI),Adnan Ahmed(ADVO-3134-SBC-KHI),Additional Attorney General()
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 25-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
570) 25/2014 Execution Saleem Ahmed Mirza (Decree Holder) V/S (Ret) Major Syed Iftikhar Hussain Zaidi & others (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 23-FEB-16
Approved for Reporting
571) 84/2016 Const. P. Mst. Samina Pathan (Petitioner) V/S National Database and Registration Authority [NADRA] (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction.
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan (199)
Tag Line:Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction.
Citation:2018 PLC Lab. 36
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 17-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2857/2016 National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) thr. its Chairman, Islamabad & others v. Samina Pathan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted
572) 6863/2019 Const. P. Taj Muhammad Ansari (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
the petitioner claims pensionary benefits from the Law department on account of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years--petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Assistant Government Pleader on contract basis--In the light of Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rule 8 of Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as he was / is not qualified to retain the aforesaid post in public office due to his conviction in the criminal cases.
Topic: Service matters (Pension)
Tag Line:the petitioner claims pensionary benefits from the Law department on account of his attaining the age of superannuation i.e. 60 years--petitioner was appointed as Assistant Public Prosecutor/Assistant Government Pleader on contract basis--In the light of Section 15 of the Sindh Civil Servants Act, 1973 and Rule 8 of Efficiency & Discipline Rules, 1973, the petitioner is not entitled to the pensionary benefits as he was / is not qualified to retain the aforesaid post in public office due to his conviction in the criminal cases.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
573) 703/2007 Suit MRS. BILQUIS MOHSIN BUTT & OTHERS. (Plaintiff) V/S MUHAMMAD MAHMOOD BUTT & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XX, R. 13---Administration suit---Limitation---Scope---Suit for administration was only a formality to determine the mode of distribution of the estate of the deceased amongst the legal heirs according to the Shariah---Court would act only as an administrator in such suit for a limited purpose---Plaintiff was required to satisfy the court in a suit for administration and partition, his status as legal heir of the deceased and proprietary rights of the deceased in the estate at the time of opening of succession---Question of limitation in case of joint family properties did not arise---In the present case, none of the properties mentioned in the schedule were part of the estate of the deceased---Plaintiff could not seek administration and partition of the disputed properties---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
Pattoki Sugar Mills Limited through Chief Executive v. WAPDA through Chairman and 4 others 2007 CLD 659 and Anjum Rashid and others v. Shahzad and others 2007 CLC 1414 and Ghulam Ali and 2 others v. Mst. Ghulam Sarwar Naqvi PLD 1990 SC 1 rel.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. XX, R. 13---Administration suit---Limitation---Question of limitation in case of joint family properties did not arise.
(c) Company---
----Limited company was a juristic person and a legal entity separate from its share-holder and any change in the shareholding of a company did not mean change in the title of assets of the company or premises occupied thereby---Properties of a company could not be inherited by the legal heirs of one of its Directors or even ordinary shareholders of the company---Legal heirs of a deceased director or shareholder of a company could claim inheritance only to the extent of shareholding of the deceased Director or shareholder in the company and not in the assets of the company as estate of the deceased.
(d) Islamic law---
----Succession---Classes of legal heirs---Classes of legal heirs of deceased (in Sunni Hanfi Law of Succession) were sharer, residuaries and uterine (distant kindred).
(e) Islamic Law---
----Distribution of the estate of deceased---Procedure.
Muhammadan Law paras 61 and 63 quoted.
(f) Islamic law---
----Succession---Succession to the estate of a Muslim would open immediately, he had passed away and title would pass to the legal heirs automatically to the extent of their respective shares ordained by Shariah without any interference by the State functionaries.
(g) Islamic law---
---- Inheritance---Grand-children whose father or mother had survived their grand-father had no locus standi to claim inheritance in the estate of the deceased grand-father---Once father/mother of grand-children had died (true legal heirs of grand-father) they could file a suit for administration of the estate left by their deceased parents and if there was any undistributed property from the estate of their grand-father, continued to be in existence, they could include "share" of their deceased parents in the said estate of their own deceased father or mother but they could not reopen the issue of inheritance from the entire estate of their grand-parents---Grand-children could not claim as matter of their own right any share in the estate of their grand-father.
Citation:2015 CLC 1333
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 30-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
574) 165/2016 H.C.A Dr. Farzana (Appellant) V/S Syed Shahrukh Abbas (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:In Person(INP)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 10-MAY-17
Approved for Reporting
575) 8125/2018 Const. P. Pakistan Minerals Developement Corporation (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Mines and Minerals, CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
Tag Line:Petitioner, Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. In respect of an area of 3818.81 acres at
Lakhra, District Jamshoro, for which a mining-lease was granted to the Petitioner for mining coal for a period of thirty[30] years. These renewal applications remained pending with the Respondent No.2, and though in the meantime both the mining-leases of the Petitioner expired in April 2015, the date of such expiry stood extended .Respondent No.2 had granted mining-permits to SLCMC without waiting for a decision on the Petitioners appeals pending under Rule 71 of the SMC Rules. Mr. Jawad Dero, the learned AAG Sindh, and Mr. Jaffar Raza, learned counsel for SLCMC had objected to the maintainability of these fresh petitions on the ground that the Hyderabad Petitions for the same relief were still pending. we agree with Barrister Zameer Ghumro that these petitions cannot be held to be not-maintainable merely on the ground that the Hyderabad Petitions are also pending. Appellate Authority manifests that the refusal to renew the Petitioner mining-leases was only for the reason that the Petitioner was Federal Government entity and the Government of Sindh had already made up its mind to award a mining concession in the same area to the SLCMC, a company wholly owned by the Government of Sindh. Having found no reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Respondent No.2 The petitions succeed for prayer clause 3 in terms that the impugned Notifications dated 09-07-2018 granting mining permits to SLCMC (Respondent No.3) having been granted in contravention of Rule 68 of the SMC Rules, the same are without lawful authority and are therefore set-aside judgment shall be dispatched by the office to o be placed in C.P. No. D-7643/2018 pending before this Court at Karachi The petitions stand disposed off.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 22-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2795/2019 M/s Sindh Lakhra Coal Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation thr. its Project Director & others,C.P.443-K/2019 Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Energy Department, Govt. of Sindh and another v. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation and another,C.A.1539/2019 M/s Sindh Lakhra Coal Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation thr. its Project Director & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
576) 138/2012 Cr.Appeal Mst Tabish (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 31-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
577) 174/2020 Cr.Bail SAMIULLAH S/O MAHBOOB (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
Order Date: 26-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
578) 2135/2021 Const. P. Noman Ali Bhatti (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Sindh Education Foundation --we conclude that there is no illegality, infirmity, or material irregularity in the impugned letters dated 06.02.2020 & 30.11.2020 issued by the respondent-SEF. Besides, the issue of continue in service, since he is facing the NAB reference based on moral turpitude, thus we cannot order the competent authority to continue his service.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
579) 730/2019 Const. P. Mst. Shakeela (Petitioner) V/S Mohammad Arif Abbasi & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
580) 286/2003 Suit SYED WAQAR HAIDER ZAIDI (Plaintiff) V/S MST.ALAM ARA (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 21-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
581) 7450/2018 Const. P. Imran Ahmed Khanzada & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:I. Whether respondent No.4 can hold the charge for the post of Director I.T. in BPS-18 under the law?
II. Whether respondent No.4s case falls within the ambit of Section 3 of the Sindh (Regularization of Adhoc and Contract Employees) Act, 2013?
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.594-K/2021 Mst.Tabassum Abbasi v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
582) 1892/2018 Const. P. Faheem Ali Gambheer (Petitioner) V/S P.O. Sindh & others. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan
Tag Line: Mst. Faryal Talpur and Giyanoo Mal seek review/recall order of this Court c whereby their Membership was ordered to be suspended on account of their failure to curb the dog bite cases in their Constituencies. The Chief Secretary Sindh and Secretary Local Govt. Department Government of Sindh are directed to pay compensation in the shape of Diyat, Arsh or Daman amount (as the case may be) in terms of amount specified through latest Notification issued by Government of Pakistan to the bereaved families of the deceased of dog bite cases so also to the seriously injured victims and victims of the Dog bite cases within 15 days time after claim of the legal heirs of deceased and injured persons. It is made clear that the deceased and seriously injured of Rato Dero and Jamshoro shall also be compensated at the first instance. petitions stand disposed of.
Citation:2021 SBLR Sindh Note 420
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3707/2020 Noor Hassan and others v. Fahim Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned
583) 557/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Director DG I&I (Customs) (Applicant) V/S M/s. Umer Zahid Malik & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Tampered motor vehicles.
Citation:2022 PTD 1112
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 17-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
584) 6779/2021 Const. P. Muhammad Salman (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Muhammad Umer Soomro(ADVO-8070-SBC-KHI),Altaf Hussain(ADVO-12224-SBC-KHI),Mayhar Kazi(ADVO-14135-SBC-KHS),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 16-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
585) 5913/2018 Const. P. Ghulam Asghar Pathan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 01-MAR-23
Approved for Reporting
586) 1650/2020 Const. P. Gas & Oil PakistanLtd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 PTD 104
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 29-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
587) 1862/2016 Const. P. M/S Dewan Sugar Mills Limited (Petitioner) V/S M/S Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) ltd & (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Ousting the petitioner from availing their remedy which they could have before the executing Court amounts to a denial of fair trial. I am in agreement that such a compromise ought to have been recognized by executing Court, however whether tenant can still make an attempt to have it recognized or otherwise, the jurisdiction vest with the executing Court to be exercised first and I refrain from passing on my observation as it may prejudice the case of parties
Citation:2018 YLR 2337
Advocates:Khalid Jawed(ADVO-8533-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ahmer(ADVO-11937-SBC-KHI),Rafiq Ahmed Kalwar(ADVO-9581-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 04-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.69-K/2018 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others,C.P.60-K/2018 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
588) 56/2015 R.A (Civil Revision) Abdul Wahid (Applicant) V/S Punhoon (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
589) 4287/2020 Const. P. Sahib Khan Lund Baloch (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Promotion (department concerned shall provide the complete set of ACRs of the concerned officer to DPC well in advance cases for promotin)
Tag Line:Petitioner, who is serving at present as Assistant Commissioner in BPS-17, is aggrieved by the purported decision of the Provincial Selection Board-II (`PSB-II`) dated 09.3.2020 and 11.3.2020, whereby his promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary (Equivalent BPS-18) was deferred on the ground that his Annual Confidential Reports (`ACRs`)
Advocates:G.N.Qureshi(ADVO-7228-SBC-KHI),Asif Ali(ADVO-20048-SBC-KHS),Waheed Ali Ghumro(ADVO-18218-SBC-KHS),Ahmed Ali Ghumro(ADVO-793-SBC-SUK),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 20-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
590) 6221/2015 Const. P. Rab Nawaz (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Appointment)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) Note 5
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.675-K/2017 Rab Nawaz v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
591) 5482/2017 Const. P. Nestle Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S The F.B.R & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Role of Customs in recovery of income tax and sales tax post clearance of imports.
Citation:2023 PTD 527, 2023 SBLR Sindh 211
Advocates:Khalid Mehmood Rajpar(ADVO-10488-SBC-KHS),Deputy Attorney General(),Tasawar Ali Hashmi(ADVO-2778-SBC-KHI),Dr. Shah Nawaz(ADVO-2108-SBC-HYD),Shahid Ali(ADVO-12507-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 29-NOV-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.70-K/2023 The Directorate of Post Clearance Audit through its Director General Federal Board of Revenue Islamabad v. Nestle Pakistan Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
592) 920/2015 Suit Party-1 (Plaintiff) V/S Party-2 (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 18-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
593) 31/2012 Const. P. Mst. Rehana Hafeez (Petitioner) V/S Muhammad Ali alias Ehsan (through legal heirs) (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 22-JUL-13
Approved for Reporting
594) 269/2014 H.C.A Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan (Appellant) V/S Mohammad Fahim (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 03-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1440/2016 Muhammad Faheem v. Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan, Karachi,C.M.A.5165/2016 Muhammad Faheem v. Hamdard Laboratories (Waqf) Pakistan, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Allowed and Parent Case Restored but subject to payment of cost of Rs.50000.
595) 6306/2021 Const. P. Iqbal Hussain Channa (Petitioner) V/S NAB and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 (Issuance of notice to Special Prosecutor NAB without passing interim order)
Tag Line:Issuance of notice to the Special Prosecutor NAB, by learned Administrative Judge, in such a way and fixing the hearing of the pre-arrest bail on 26.10.2021, without passing interim orders, ex facie amounts to dismissal of the bail before arrest application.
Advocates:Muhammad Sarfraz Ali Metlo(ADVO-11638-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
Order Date: 21-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
596) 1136/2014 Const. P. Sarfraz (Petitioner) V/S Government of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Maher, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 17-JAN-17
Approved for Reporting
597) 60/2014 First Appeal Against Order Arif Oasman (Appellant) V/S Habib Bnk Limited (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Limitation)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 26-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
598) 1039/2018 Suit Pakistan National Shipping Corporation & others (Plaintiff) V/S M/s. Coniston Limited & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11), Civil Procedure Code CPC (Dismissed)
Tag Line:Specific Relief Act. Section 42 and 56. Anti-Injunction Suit concept - can only be granted in rare exceptional cases- grant of such an Injunction amounts to transgressing norms of Judicial restraint.
Citation:2020 CLC 454
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 25-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
599) 15/2012 H.C.A Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Appellant) V/S Adnan Faisal & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 PLD Sindh 235, 2019 CLD 242
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
600) 3508/2011 Const. P. SHAHID NABI MALIK (Petitioner) V/S PROVINCE OF SINDH AND OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 CLC 1792
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 07-JUL-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1683/2014 Sindh Building Control Authority through the DG Karachi v. Shahid Nabi Malik & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
601) 843/2015 Suit Aroma Travel Services (Pvt) Ltd., & Others. (Plaintiff) V/S Faisal Al Abdullah Al Faisal Al Saud & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2018 PLD Sindh 414
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 30-JAN-17
Approved for Reporting
602) 2695/2017 Const. P. Syed Muhammad S/o Muhammad Anwar (Petitioner) V/S Noorullah & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:-The petitioner while making such statement of alleged purchase has not realized the burden he took over. There is a marked difference in the probative value of entering into possession for the first time as tenant, and continuing in possession with claim of change in its nomenclature. Where occupant claiming his continuous possession as other than original character, it is expected that some trustworthy evidence in furtherance of his subsequently claimed character would be shown, failing whereof his admitted character would concur (Reliance2).
-This PT-1 was then followed by another PT-1, which is claimed by the respondent No.1. This PT-1 then followed by notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. While recovering taxes in terms of the gross annual rental value, as assessed by authority under ibid Act, constructive possession of the respondent No.1 had been identified and regulated. It may not constitute the ownership but it does authorize the one who was found in constructive possession, to regulate his possession as required under the law. This was thus a jura possession recognized by Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act and rules framed thereunder of 1958. Thus having constructive jura possession with reference to property in question, an authoritative recognition in the shape of PT-1 was issued.
-This PT-1 would enable the respondent No.1 to deal with his possession as deem fit and proper under the law. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was and is responsible for payment of annual gross rental value and it is not in dispute that in terms of Section 14 of Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, the tax recoverable from any person on account of any building or land, if found in arrears, it shall be lawful for the proscribed authority to serve upon any person paying rent in respect of that building or land or any part thereof to the person from whom the arrears are due, a notice for the recovery of such taxes may be issued to the tenants or one from whom such taxes are required in terms of PT-1. It also enables the authority that if a person willfully fails or neglects to comply with the notice, the authority may after giving him an opportunity of being heard proceed against him as it could have proceeded under the provisions of this act against the defaulter of the tax.
-Thus, in my view this PT-1 authorizes respondent No.1 to deal with this property as deem fit and proper and a lawful notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was issued to the petitioner to apprise him about the current situation as to the change of PT-1 and authority of new landlord.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 08-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.573-K/2021 Syed Muhammad v. Noorullah & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of [ Four months time granted ]
603) 510/2010 Cr.J.A Rehmatullah & another (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 13-JUN-11
Approved for Reporting
604) 13/2018 I.T.R.A THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Applicant) V/S M/S MSC SWITZERLAND GENEVA (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Implication of double taxation treaties upon super tax.
Citation:2021 PTD 885
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 12-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.672-K/2021 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Legal v. M/s. MSC Switzerland Geneva Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
605) 71/2008 Suit.B SONERI BANK LTD (Plaintiff) V/S CLASSIC DENIM MILLS PVT LTD (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 24-SEP-11
Approved for Reporting
606) 20/2018 Cr.Appeal Nadir Moosani & others (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
Order Date: 25-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
607) 2327/2021 Cr.Bail RIAZ AHMED DAHIRI S/O HAJI NOOR MUHAMMAD (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:From the above discourse, primarily, the pre-arrest bail is extraordinary relief and can be granted only in exceptional circumstances, if there is mala fide of the complainant and police in lodging the FIR. Prima facie, there is no mala fide of the complainant to lodge the FIR of the incident against the applicant. Previous conviction of the applicant in a criminal case as discussed supra, disentitle him for extraordinary relief as provided under Section 498 Cr.P.C. Also, there is nothing placed on record by the applicant, which could show that the applicant has been acquitted from the aforesaid case by the learned appellate Court.
Advocates:Hazoor Bux(ADVO-1899-SBC-SUK),Siraj Ahmed Mangi(ADVO-21906-SBC-KHS),Nadeem Ahmed Mangi(ADVO-11894-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
608) 770/2021 Cr.Bail Mashooque Ali (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Bail Matters (Pre arrest bail dismissed In Section 324, 506/2, 337-A (i), 337-F (ii), 3374- H (ii), 504 & 35 PPC.)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
609) 359/2006 Suit GHULAM MUJTABA PARACHA (Plaintiff) V/S MOHAMMAD SALEEM (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 11-DEC-09
Approved for Reporting
610) 6546/2016 Const. P. Bheru Lal (Petitioner) V/S PTCL and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
611) 88/2011 Cr.Appeal Mitho alias Muhammad Mithal Lakhan (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 22-AUG-11
Approved for Reporting
612) 1847/2017 Const. P. Yasin Ali Baloch and Ors (Petitioner) V/S The Administrative Sect: STEVTA and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 16-APR-18
Approved for Reporting
613) 4377/2012 Const. P. Dr. Itrat Malik (Petitioner) V/S State Life Insurance Co-opration & ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Dismissal-Termination)
Citation:2019 SBLR Sindh 1861
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 29-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2849/2018 State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan thr. its Chairman, Karachi & others v. Dr. Itrat Malik Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
614) 5458/2020 Const. P. Haji Adam Jokhio (Petitioner) V/S NAB and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: National Accountability (Second Amendment) Ordinance XXIII, 2021 (Bail under section 7)
Tag Line: In the view of above legal position, it is observed that superior Court can entertain application for pre-arrest bail and grant relief to the accused in appropriate cases where accused could inter alia establish that he was prevented from approaching the lower Court concerned in the first instance. An accused normally can approach in the first instance the Court of Sessions/NAB Courts (now in view of the National Accountability (Second Amendment) Ordinance XXIII, 2021) for bail before arrest as propriety so demands but depending on the compelling circumstances, an accused can approach the High Court directly by invoking its concurrent jurisdiction. In the present case, no compelling circumstances have been pointed out.
Advocates:Spl. Prosecutor NAB(SpPNAB),Shoaib Ali Khatian(ADVO-17922-SBC-KHS),Rasheed A. Rizvi(ADVO-2131-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Shafi(ADVO-2185-SBC-KHC),Abbas Rasheed Razvi(ADVO-14822-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
Order Date: 27-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
615) 427/2013 Const. P. Shahid Ansari & others (Petitioner) V/S The Chairman NAB & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Sarwar Korai
Order Date: 06-MAR-14
Approved for Reporting
616) 2304/2018 Const. P. Meezan Bank Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Textilers (Pvt) Ltd and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 24-DEC-18
Approved for Reporting
617) 29/2020 Judicial Companies Misc. Amir Bux Channa & Another through Attorney (Applicant) V/S Isra Islamic Foundation (Guarantee) Limited. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Isra University Act, 1997
Tag Line:1. A post to which a person is nominated is
not a tenured post. His nomination can be withdrawn at any time by the
nominating authority, although it has to be seen whether nominating
authority is constituted legally.
2. This principle of reading down is
applied when a provision is capable of more than one interpretation and
one or more of those interpretations would render the other provisions
either redundant or illusory or in conflict with main frame of the
Statute. In such cases, Courts will read down the provision in a manner
that saves the provision .
3.since the
induction of the council members has been successfully disputed by
petitioners; hence I am of the view that the audit of the foundation is
also inevitable.
4. Claim of rent by foundation is neither
illegal nor illogical, however one may argue on the quantum and an
arbitrary way of fixing the rent. This should have been done without any
influence and coercion from either side.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 09-DEC-22
Approved for Reporting
618) 14/2021 I.T.R.A TRI-PACK FILMS LTD. (Applicant) V/S COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE AND ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:s. 221 ITO; ambit of rectification.
Advocates:Ijaz Ahmed Zahid(ADVO-11135-SBC-KHI),Hashmatullah Alim(ADVO-11063-SBC-KHE),Waqar Ahmed Ch:(ADVO-11376-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 20-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1649-K/2021 Tri-Pack Films Limited v. Commissioner Inland Revenue & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
619) 199/2015 S.M.A Sheikh Haroon Buksh S/o Shaikh Buksh Elahi (Plaintiff) V/S Shaikh Tahir Buksh & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Succession Act
Tag Line:Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---
----Ss. 295 & 278---Chief Court (Sindh) Rules (OS), Chap. XXII, R.413---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XX, R.13 & S.114---Succession---Procedure in contentious cases---Decree in administration suit---Nature of order under S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925---Conversion of proceedings under Succession Act, 1925 to a suit of administration under O. XX, R.13, C.P.C.---Petitioner sought review of order passed by High Court under S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925, whereby in view of contentious nature of succession proceedings, application seeking issuance of letters of administration were converted into a civil suit--- Contention of applicant inter alia was that impugned order, which converted proceedings into suit for administration and stated that the preliminary decree be passed was contrary to law; and the suit should be regular suit and not a suit for administration---Validity---Impugned order identified the parties and identified as to who should be the plaintiff and defendant and mentioned that the suit would be in the form of a suit for administration of the properties of the deceased and therefore all ingredients of S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925 and O.XX, C.P.C. were fully adhered to---When parties were legal heirs of the deceased and were contesting with regard to share in property left by the deceased, in such situation any one of the legal heirs could file a suit for administration of properties or file an application under S.278 of the Succession Act, 1925 for grant of "letter of administration" and in terms of S.295 of the Succession Act, 1925 in the case where there was contention, then proceedings were supposed to be converted as nearly as they could be, into a "regular suit" according to provisions of the C.P.C.---Court in the impugned order exercised powers of a court of original civil jurisdiction and once an order was passed, the court also had power to take further steps to minimize delay in disposal of dispute and the court was under a statutory obligation to pass an order for preliminary decree---Use of the word "shall" in O.XX, R.13, C.P.C. was of mandatory nature, and the C.P.C. did not envisage any other form a suit except for a suit for administration of properties under O.XX, C.P.C.---No error on the face of record was found in the impugned order---Review application was rejected, in circumstances.
Citation:2017 PLD 563
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 10-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
620) 119/2006 Suit MRS. SHABEENA FARHAT (Appellant) V/S V/S M/S HIGHWAY HOUSING PROJECT & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: Specific Performance of Contract (Transfer of Property)
Tag Line: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.
Citation:2014 CLC 322
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 02-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
621) 3044/2020 Const. P. M/s Textiles Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Naeem Suleman(ADVO-7422-SBC-KHI),Arshad Hussain(ADVO-12906-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 17-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.449-K/2022 The Province of Sindh & others v. M/s. Kassim Textile (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
622) 85/2022 Suit M/S TAHIR FOODS PRODUCTS (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Power of DG I&I Customs re phytosanitory action under the Pakistan Plant Protection Rules, 2019.
Advocates:Khalid Mehmood Rajpar(ADVO-10488-SBC-KHS),Ahmed Ali Hussain(ADVO-14280-SBC-KHI),Shamail Sikander(ADVO-18733-SBC-KHS),Muhammad Khalil Dogar(ADVO-3544-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 14-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
623) 210/2019 Const. P. Atam Mal (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 06-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
624) 2753/2009 Const. P. M/S Shahbaz Garments Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and others (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab
Order Date: 01-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
625) 5144/2015 Const. P. Dr. Iltaf Hussain and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:they have prayed that their temporary contractual appointments/services be regularized in respondent-Water and Power Development Authority (`WAPDA`) without discrimination, with a further assertion that they have already served in WAPDA for a considerable period and they have the legitimate expectation for appointment on regular basis rather than joining fresh process with other candidates--
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 28-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1519-K/2021 WAPDA through its Director Legal & others v. Dr.Haresh Kumar & others,C.P.1580/2022 Water and Power Development Authority thr. its Chairman, Lahore & others v. Dr. Altaf Hussain & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous,Pending
626) 4538/2016 Const. P. Riaz Ahmed Bhutto and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 31-MAY-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.428-K/2017 Riaz Ahmed and others v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
627) 584/2021 Suit DEEPAK KUMAR & OTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Muhammad Zeeshan Abdullah(ADVO-11819-SBC-KHI),Haider Waheed(ADVO-10131-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author)
Order Date: 02-JUL-21
Approved for Reporting
628) 1/2011 II.A. Mst.Hanifa (Appellant) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: PROPERTY
Tag Line:The appellant has attempted to challenge, by filing Civil Appeal No.44/2007, both the preliminary decree dated 10.10.2000 and final decree dated 28.03.2007. The appellate Court, on consideration of the accounts and the reports of the Mukhtiarkar, did not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Senior Civil Judge while passing final decree. It is also a matter of fact that in her own examination-in-chief, she has stated that at the time of marriage, the age of his father-in-law was about 80 years and that two of her sons Abdul Majeed and Abdul Rahman were jobless. In the pleadings, respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. Mst. Hanifa and her husband Nazeerullah s/o Haji Sultan Muhammad, whose property is under dispute, admitted that his father-in-law / father was an old man and needed care and help in feeding and lodging, which was done by defendant No.3 (appellant), hence when enquired from the counsel Mr. Lawrence that he was on death bed, Mr. Lawrence honestly and categorically conceded. He, however, was of the view that he was in full senses.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 30-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.28-K/2019 Mst: Hanifa v. Province of Sindh thr. Revenue Department Hyderabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
629) 1080/2020 Const. P. M/s U & I Garments Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 03-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
630) 231/2005 I.T.R Major General (R) M. Jalaluddin V/S Asstt:Commissioner of Income Tax (Applicant) V/S Major General (R) M. Jalaluddin V/S Asstt:Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Athar Saeed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 04-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
631) 755/2020 Const. P. Ashfaque Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-AUG-20
Approved for Reporting
632) 488/2006 Const. P. Raza Fecto Tractors (Private) Limited (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 PTD 438
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 06-DEC-14
Approved for Reporting
633) 1026/2017 Const. P. Aurangzeb and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Upgradation)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 09-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
634) 65/2018 Const. P. Ghulam Shabir (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Service matters
Tag Line:The comments filed by respondents No.3 and 4 accompanied with the recommendation of the Government of Sindh, Finance Department with reference to Rule 171 of the Sindh Civil Services Rules that there shall be no change in the date of birth which shall lead to the advantage to the Government servant concerned and unless an application in that behalf is made by the Government servant concerned within two (02) years of the date on which his service book was opened under Rule 167 of the Sindh Civil Services Rules. His service book apparently was opened in the year 1988 by Superintendent District Jail, Dadu, and an attempt has been made to alter it in the year 2017 and that too on the basis of irrelevant factor on account of medical certificate which otherwise, never permit such correction. It may well be added that things, if are done, in deviation to specific law and procedure, shall always be considered as nullity hence no benefit could be claimed in consequence thereof.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 11-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
635) 4452/2013 Const. P. Mir Hassan (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Son Quota (Dismissed))
Tag Line:Son Quota
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 06-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
636) 85/2011 II.A. Gul-e Nasreen (Applicant) V/S Maj. Lala Rukh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Tag Line:(a) Administration of justice---
----Courts to act in accordance with law and decide the cases on the basis of legally admissible evidence on record---Decisions had to be in consonance with entire evidence---Evidence led by the parties should be discussed in support of reasoning in arriving at a particular findings---Judgments passed by the courts below being not in accordance with law and evidence on record by High Court were set aside. [Paras. 14 & 15 of the judgment]
[Case-law referred]
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 100---Second appeal---Scope---Second appeal would be competent if findings on facts were result of mis-reading, non-reading of evidence or same were perverse. [Para. 13 of the judgment]
Citation:2017 CLC Note 211
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 29-JUN-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.2084/2016 Hafiz Muhammad Iqbal v. Gul-e-Nasreen & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Partly Allowed
637) 849/2017 Const. P. Nofil Nawaz Mulkana (Petitioner) V/S Sana Maqbool & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Family matter
Tag Line:The proceeding in the nature of summary trial does not mean that process of effecting service will only be a formality. It is but the initial pillar in the procedure to achieve disposal on merit after effecting service. The trial Court Judge should have made efforts and that should be seen to have been done by trial Court in effecting service though nothing is available on record as far as Bailiffs report of refusal is concerned. There is nothing as far as reasoning is concerned as to why service was not effected at the address of Copenhagen and why address of the attorney Umer Al-Hamidi was considered as lawful. What convinced the trial Court to conclude that summons of the instant suit were to be served upon alleged attorney is mystery.
The process of substituted service is not to be taken lightly by the trial Court. It is to be exercised only in case when it is required i.e. where the Court is satisfied with the reasons to believe that the defendant is keeping out of way for the purpose of avoiding service or that for any other reason summons cannot be served in the ordinary way the Court shall order for service of summons by:
(a) affixing a copy of the summons at some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain; or
(b) any electronic device of communication which may include telegram, telephone, photogram, telex, fax, radio and television or
(c) urgent mail service or public courier services or
(d) beat of drum in the locality where the defendant reside; or
(e) publication in press; or
(f) any other manner or mode as it may think fit;
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 13-JUN-18
Approved for Reporting
638) 308/2021 Suit M/S. FOREL INTERNATIONAL TRADING & OTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S WAQAS AHMED JAT & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Suit barred for staying freezing order passed under section 5(5) of the FIA Act, 1974.
Advocates:Khawaja Shams ul Islam(ADVO-3953-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 25-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
639) 22/2017 F.R.A M/s. Pharmacie Plus (Appellant) V/S Abdul Latif & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 YLR 966
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
Order Date: 07-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.711-K/2018 Abdul Latif and another v. M/s Pharmacie Plus (Pvt) Ltd.,C.M.A.881-K/2018 Abdul Latif and another v. M/s Pharmacie Plus (Pvt) Ltd.,C.A.25-K/2018 Abdul Latif and another v. M/s Pharmacie Plus (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted, Notice in CMA.,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed
640) 74/2022 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD S/O MUHAMMAD RAMZAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Farzana(ADVO-9037-SBC-KHS),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 03-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
641) 4694/2016 Const. P. Dr. Syed Abbas Haider (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 01-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2783/2017 Oil & Gas Development Company (OGDCL) thr. its Managing Director and another v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary M/o Petroleum & Natural Resources, Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of+contempt proceedings suspended.
642) 8830/2018 Const. P. Wahid Khursheed Kunwar (Petitioner) V/S EOBI and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Zafar Imam(ADVO-7019-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Ali Asadullah Bullo(ADVO-12811-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 13-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
643) 4193/2022 Const. P. Mst. Farzana (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Deputy Attorney General(),Qadir Hussain(ADVO-6245-SBC-KHE),Faiz Ahmed(ADVO-15410-SBC-KHI),Moiz Ahmed(ADVO-13395-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-FEB-23
Approved for Reporting
644) 754/2016 Cr.Bail SHERAZ S/O ALI BHAI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan
Order Date: 02-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
645) 82/2018 I. A Mrs. Asma Hassan & another (Appellant) V/S Askari Bank Limited (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Limitation)
Tag Line:As a consequence hereof the Limitation Application has become infructous and is disposed-of.
Citation:2020 CLC 1068, 2019 SBLR Sindh 2030
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 13-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.436-K/2019 Mrs Asma Hassan and another v. Askari Bank Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
646) 1519/2011 Const. P. Abdul Ghafar (Applicant) V/S Govt of Sindh & ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
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.
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan (199)
Tag Line: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.
Citation:2017 PLC CS 625
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 13-APR-16
Approved for Reporting
647) 594/2010 Cr.Misc. M/s. Pirbhulal Goklani and Azizullah Shaikh, Advocates for the Applicant. (Applicant) V/S Syed Meeral Shah, D.P.G for the State. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 16-MAY-11
Approved for Reporting
648) 49/2021 I.T.R.A CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (Applicant) V/S THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE AND ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 (Section 236A)
Tag Line:Section 236A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 requires a person,
making sale by public auction or auction by a tender of any property or
goods (including property or goods confiscated or attached, either
belonging to or not belonging to the Government, local Government, any
authority, a company, a foreign association declared to be a company
under sub-clause (vi) of clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 80, or a
foreign contractor or a consultant or a consortium or Collector of
Customs or Commissioner Inland Revenue or any other authority, shall
collect advance tax, computed on the basis of sale price of such
property and at the rate specified in First Schedule, from the person to
whom such property or goods are being sold. This provision is as clear as
crystal however it is followed by an explanation inserted by Finance Act 2020 for the removal of doubt that the expression of sale of public
auction or auction by tender include renewal of license previously sold
by public auction or auction by a tender and where payment is received
in installments, advance tax is to be collected with each installment. As
we observe that there is no necessity of any explanation or any
clarification as section 236A is clear in its entirety.
Notwithstanding the above, even the explanation of clarificatory
nature operates retrospectively as it only provides an assistance in
interpreting the provisions correctly in terms of intention of the
legislature, subject to however if a contradictory situation is reached by
the Court interpreting the basic provisions as against explanation. We
are, therefore, of the view that the applicant described as an agent
collecting advance tax from the bidders/occupants/lessees/ licensees
etc. to whom the premises/property was given either by way of public
auction or tender or by any other mode and includes renewal of such
document.
Citation:2021 PTD 1867, 2021 PTCL 804
Advocates:Abdul Rahim Lakhani(ADVO-4061-SBC-KHI),Abdul Jabbar(ADVO-13242-SBC-KHS),Atta Mohammad Qureshi(ADVO-584-SBC-SUK)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 07-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
649) 333/2016 H.C.A Delhi Mercantile Muslim Cooperative Housing Society Limited Karachi (Appellant) V/S Alamgir Welfare Trust International and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 YLR 1167
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 10-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
650) 3150/2016 Const. P. M/s Jubilee Life Insurance (Petitioner) V/S V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
Order Date: 22-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.37-K/2018 M/s Jubilee Life Insurance Co. Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
651) 438/2020 Const. P. Dheraj @ Wanio (Petitioner) V/S Sht. Surma & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 05-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
652) 85/2019 Cr.J.A Ahsan Marfani (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Criminal Jail Appeal (Narcotics 9(c) Case Appeal allowed on ground Material Contradiction between witness and delay sending Parcel .)
Tag Line:Against Order of Trial Court(Narcotics Above 7 Years)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 27-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
653) 12/2020 I. A Abdul Ghaffar (Appellant) V/S Muhammad Aalam & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Amenity Plot (Conversion of amenity plot into Residential / commercial)
Tag Line:The encroachment of amenity plot cannot be allowed to sustain under the law, which aspect, the official respondents have to look into and restore its position in accordance with law. The encroachment of an amenity plot to another use is treated as an abuse of discretion and therefore is unlawful for the simple reason that the paramount object of modern city planning is to ensure maximum comforts for the residents of the city by providing maximum facilities and that a public functionary entrusted with the work to achieve the above object cannot act in a manner, which may defeat the above objective and deviation from the planned scheme will naturally result in discomfort and inconvenience to others.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 07-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
654) 669/2009 Suit Premier Financial Services (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) V/S The Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 CLD 1852
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 08-JUL-15
Approved for Reporting
655) 1107/2014 Suit Work Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Plaintiff) V/S Province of Sindh & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 01-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
656) 3408/2013 Const. P. Zafar Iqbal Zahid and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Reinstatement into service)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 882
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 05-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.554-K/2018,C.P.555-K/2018,C.P.559-K/2018,C.P.562-K/2018,C.P.560-K/2018,C.P.553-K/2018,C.P.557-K/2018,C.P.558-K/2018,C.P.556-K/2018,C.P.561-K/2018 SCP Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
657) 76/2015 Civil Revision Fozia Rahat (Applicant) V/S Masood Ahmed & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order 1 Rule 10 CPC)
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. I, R. 10 & O. XLI, R. 20 & S. 96---Suit for declaration---Appeal---Impleadment of party as co-appellant---Amendment of appeal---Effect---Applicants filed application for impleadment in the appeal which application was accepted and they were impleaded as co-appellants---Validity---Party could be impleaded at any stage even in appeal as appeal was continuation of suit---Applicants could be impleaded in appeal if they had bona fide interest in the result of appeal---Applicants were to be allowed to join as respondents in the appeal and not as appellants---If applicants were aggrieved by the order impugned in appeal then they could file an appeal even if they were not party to the suit subject to law of limitation---Applicants, in the present case, were not necessary party in whose absence an effective judgment in appeal could not be delivered by the Appellate Court---Neither there was any order to amend the appeal by the newly added co-appellants nor an appeal could be amended suo motu or at the will of appellants---Amended appeal was to be considered from the date of its presentation---Decree impugned in the appeal was not even binding on the applicants as they were not party to the suit---High Court observed that purpose for filing of application for impleadment was to delay the decision of appeal on merits---Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside---Appellate Court was directed to decide the appeal on merits within one month---Revision was allowed, in circumstances.
Citation:2019 CLC 1323
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 10-JAN-19
Approved for Reporting
658) 513/2019 Const. P. Muhammasd Rashid Bhatti (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.440-K/2019 Muhammad Rashid Bhatti v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secy: M/o Interior and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
659) 52/2009 R.A (Civil Revision) Abdul Hakeem (Applicant) V/S Ameenuddin Since Deceased Through his Legal Heirs (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11), Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C
Tag Line:Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----S. 115 & O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.9---Suit for possession of immovable property---Revision---Competency---Phrase "no appeal lies" in S.115, C.P.C."---Scope---Plaint was rejected by Trial Court but Appellate Court converted the suit for declaration and permanent injunction into a suit for recovery of possession---Validity---Law had specifically barred an appeal against the dismissal of suit under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Revision against the impugned appellate order was not maintainable as appeal had been barred by law---Revisional Court could not find any jurisdictional defect in the order passed by the appellate court when appeal was barred by law---Revision would lie when no appeal lay---Phrase "no appeal lies" in S.115, C. P. C could not be equated with the phrase "no appeal shall lie" used in S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Right and entitlement of the parties could not be determined in the suit under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Lawful claimant could file a civil suit for his title and recovery of possession thereof---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.
Citation:2017 CLC 1406
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 03-NOV-16
Approved for Reporting
660) 972/2005 Suit DR. HASAN FATIMA JAFERY & ORS (Appellant) V/S ROYAL SAUDI CONSULATE KARACHI & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: The State Immunity Ordinance, 1981, Diplomatic and Consular Privileges Act, 1972
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 18-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
661) 162/2012 Const. P. Muhammad Rafiq. (Petitioner) V/S Officer Incharge National Database & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 27-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
662) 68/2012 I.T.R.A Commissioner Inland Revenue (Applicant) V/S Hyderabad Electronic Supply Co. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Ashraf Jehan
Order Date: 04-DEC-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1105/2014 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Hyderabad v. M/s Hyderabad Electric Supply Co. Hyderabad,C.P.46-K/2014 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Hyderabad v. M/s Hyderabad Electric Supply Co. Hyderabad Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending ,Disposed Leave Granted
663) 3852/2018 Const. P. Total Parco Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 30-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4589/2021 Commissioner Inland Revenue, Zone-III, LTU, Lahore v. M/s Total PARCO Pakistan Limited, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
664) 295/2020 Cr.Misc. Mst. Fouzia @ Waziran (Applicant) V/S SSP District Jamshoro & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Criminal Miscellaneous Application . (Mother filed Petition for Custody of her Sons aged 10, 8, years .Petition dismissed with direction to approach G&W Court . )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 28-AUG-20
Approved for Reporting
665) 1414/2014 Const. P. Ahemd Kaleem Usmani and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
666) 644/2005 Suit MUHAMMAD KASHIF (Plaintiff) V/S FURQAN KARIM & OTHER (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 MLD 83
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 30-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
667) 5907/2020 Const. P. Overseas Pakistanis Foundation (Petitioner) V/S NIRC and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 24-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.228/2021 Overseas Pakistanis Foundation thr. its authorized Office, Karachi v. National Industrial Relations Commission(Full Bench) , Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
668) 326/2017 Const. P. Azizullah Khan Afridi (Petitioner) V/S The Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 CLC 170
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
Order Date: 29-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
669) 2/2018 Cr.J.A Bilawal Dasti (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain M. Sheikh(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 17-APR-18
Approved for Reporting
670) 3902/2014 Const. P. Mst. Rukhsana Bano and Ors (Petitioner) V/S KMC and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 10-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.55-K/2022 Haji Jaffer Khan v. KMC (Karachi Muncipal Coorporation) & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
671) 1899/2009 Const. P. Haji Muhammad Iqbal and others (Petitioner) V/S Muhammad Saeed and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 09-MAR-11
Approved for Reporting
672) 20/2017 Const. P. Mrs. Humaira Imran. (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 PLD Sindh 467
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 12-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
673) 5577/2016 Const. P. Agha Fahad Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 27-SEP-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3440/2017 Agha Fahad Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh, thr. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi & others,C.A.1592/2017 Agha Fahad Ahmed Khan v. Province of Sindh, thr. Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed
674) 4789/2020 Const. P. Khizar Hayat (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether the petitioner can challenge the show cause notice issued against him and his suspension order in a Constitution Petition?--We are clear in mind that pendency of the disciplinary proceedings, a final decision against the petitioner has yet to be taken by the respondent- Police Department and he has to overcome the clog of pendency of disciplinary proceedings against him, if not finalized earlier; the said proceedings shall be finalized within two months from the date of the decision of this Court.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
675) 1602/2002 Suit Adnan Abid (Plaintiff) V/S Munaf Attara and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 28-APR-15
Approved for Reporting
676) 10/2012 M.A. M/s. Recorder Television Newwork (Pvt Ltd) (Applicant) V/S The Pakistan Electronis Media Regulatory Authority (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 23-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1594/2013 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad v. M/s Recorder Television Netwrok (Pvt) Ltd,C.A.1413/2013 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, (PEMRA) Islamabad v. M/s Recorder Television Netwrok (Pvt) Ltd. Thr. Chief Secy. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed
677) 5196/2017 Const. P. SESSI United Staff Union sindh (CBA) & ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Sindh Employees Social Security Institution--vacant posts in SESSI were required to be filled through the competitive process--Before parting with this order, we may observe that the appointment in the public office can only be made through the competitive process on merit as provided under the recruitment rules and not otherwise as discussed supra. It is well-settled law that appointments in public office are to be made strictly under applicable rules and regulations without any discrimination and in a transparent manner. Thus, all appointments in the public institution must be based on a process that is substantially and tangibly fair and within the parameters of its applicable rules, regulations, and bylaws. However, if the candidate has applied based on such admissible quota under the law he can be accommodated subject to his qualification for the post under the dicta laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court of Pakistan on the subject issue--
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
678) 1102/2017 Const. P. Vicky Kumar (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 27-SEP-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4380/2017 Vicky Kumar v. The Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary, Karachi & others,C.A.1609/2017 Vicky Kumar v. The Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed
679) 4329/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Tahir Khan Chandio & Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.240-K/2020 Province of Sindh and others v. Muhammad Tahir Khan Chandio and others,C.A.928/2020 Province of Sindh and others v. Muhammad Tahir Khan Chandio and others,C.P.877-K/2021 Muhammad Faisal & others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 3 months.,Pending Adjourned,Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
680) 4612/2018 Const. P. M/S Saiban International (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 07-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
681) 3073/2012 Const. P. Saleem Khokhar (Petitioner) V/S Govt of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 11-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.190-K/2020 Peter Qadir v. Govt. of Sindh thr. Secy: Social Welfare & Women Development Department and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
682) 183/2019 Const. P. Sindh Petroleum & CNG Dealers Association & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Unadjudicated recovery of default surcharge via a third party.
Citation:2021 PTD 713
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 11-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.521-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sindh Petroleum & CNG Dealers Association & others,C.A.742/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, Karachi v. Sindh Petroleum & CNG Dealers Association & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Summons Discharged
683) 201/2012 Const. P. Mr. Abdul Rashid. (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Autority & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 19-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
684) 5842/2022 Const. P. Shell Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2023 SBLR Sindh 393
Advocates:Muhammad Farogh Naseem(ADVO-3459-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ahmed Hussain(ADVO-15940-SBC-KHI),Attorney Gen. Pakistan(),Faisal Siddiqi(ADVO-8504-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 24-FEB-23
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.220-K/2023,C.P.221-K/2023,C.P.222-K/2023,C.P.223-K/2023,C.P.224-K/2023,C.P.227-K/2023,C.P.228-K/2023,C.P.230-K/2023,C.P.126-K/2023,C.P.229-K/2023,C.P.226-K/2023,C.P.225-K/2023 SCP Status:Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi
685) 3982/2013 Const. P. Syed Qadeer Iqbal (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan And Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Munir Ahmed Malik(ADVO-14377-SBC-KHS),Sami Ahsan(ADVO-6815-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 17-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
686) 1929/2018 Suit Akbar Adamjee. (Plaintiff) V/S Performance Automotive (Pvt) L:td., & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Mandatory Injunction granted)
Tag Line:Mandatory Injunction - Order 39 CPC - Specific Performance of an agreement- no settled formula to grant or refuse the same- dependent on facts of the case- mandatory injunction granted.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 16-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
687) 3387/2018 Const. P. Abdul Qayoom Solangi (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 PLC (CS) 50
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 18-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
688) 2386/2011 Const. P. Karachi Property Investment (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh and ros (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 28-JUL-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.578-K/2017 Govt. of Sindh thr. Secy: Culture Deptt: v. Karachi Property Investment Company (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
689) 533/2016 Suit Zain Khan. (Plaintiff) V/S Taj Roshan & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-18
Approved for Reporting
690) 6544/2020 Const. P. M/s Drive Line Motor Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Othes (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Customs Act, 1969 (336) (section 138 of Customs Act, 1969 read with Customs Rules 86 to 89 laid down in SRO 450(I)/2001)
Tag Line:Since section 138 deals with the frustrated cargo and Rule 86 has
defined what frustrated cargo would be. It is thus one which will brought
into customs station by reason of inadvertence or misdirection or where
consignee is untraceable or has dishonoured his commitments and the
consignor wishes to have it re-shipped to him. Since the consignee has
refused or dishonored his commitments, the consignor immediately
acted upon by moving an application for re-export on 17.04.2018 and
that is exercised under Rule 88 of the ibid Rules. There was no occasion
for the Collector of Customs to have avoided or discarded the
application of the consigner for the re-export of the vehicle as it was
and is within the definition of frustrated cargo and permission ought to
have been followed in terms of Rule 89 on Collector being satisfied
which he should under the relevant circumstances of the case as in our
view the vehicle came out as a frustrated cargo.
Citation:2022 PTD 363
Advocates:Deputy Attorney General(),AGA FAQUIR MOHAMMAD & CO.(FIRM-140-SBC-KHI),Shahab Imam(ADVO-19121-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 05-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
691) 2507/2019 Const. P. M/s. Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (Petitioner) V/S Abdul Ghafoor Shaikhson (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Tag Line:the Sindh Consumer Protection Act, 2014
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
692) 416/2019 Const. P. Majid Hussain Khokhar (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:PCSIR
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 17-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.801-K/2021 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Islamabad & another v. Majid Hussain Khokhar,C.P.810-K/2021 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Ministry of Science & Technology, Islamabad & another v. Tariq Mateen Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
693) 758/2020 Suit Danish Elahi & others (Plaintiff) V/S Mariam Kamran & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (O.XXXIX, Rule.1 & 2 Interim Injunction)
Tag Line:This court sees acts of the plaintiffs aimed to throttle livelihood of the deceaseds legal heirs and put them to the caprice of the Plaintiffs, an act offensive to dignity of human thus the Family Agreement sought to upkeep familys honour in fact is nothing but a sophisticated form of honor killing, tossing the widow (alongside her children) to the dust of injustice. For what has been reduced in the foregoing, I do not see any prima facie case of plaintiffs, neither balance of convenience in their favour, nor they would suffer any irreparable losses as their claim is only for money. The application is hence dismissed.
Advocates:Ravi Pinjani(ADVO-11673-SBC-KHI),M/S. MOHSIN TAYEBALY & CO.(FIRM-118-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ahmed Masood(ADVO-14634-SBC-KHE),Haider Waheed(ADVO-10131-SBC-KHE),Hamza Hussain Hidayatallah(ADVO-16940-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 14-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
694) 149/2010 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. The Collector of Customs (Appellant) V/S Water & Power Development Authority (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 PTD 535
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 19-DEC-13
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.70-K/2014 Collector of Customs Karachi v. M/s Water & Power Development Authority, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
695) 327/2012 Cr.Misc. Muhammad Younus (Applicant) V/S Muhammad Zafar Ali Khan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Criminal Procedure Code
Tag Line:The trial Court appears to have passed the order summarily without touching the legal aspect as enshrined in aforesaid two cited cases and as described u/s 179 Cr.P.C.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 30-SEP-13
Approved for Reporting
696) 1068/2003 Suit ASLAM PERVAIZ. (Plaintiff) V/S MST. NASEEM FATIMA (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 09-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
697) 1317/2014 Const. P. Farida Azam Ali (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line: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.
Advocates:Khalid Rahim(ADVO-9042-SBC-KHE),Salahuddin Ahmed(ADVO-9058-SBC-KHS),Rajendar Kumar(ADVO-9912-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 17-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
698) 184/2018 Const. P. Ghulam Qadir Thebo (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Promotion (petitioner has been superseded HPSB in its meeting held , discussed supra on account of a bad reputation. CP dismissed.)
Tag Line:In our view, to qualify for the promotion, the least that is expected of an employee is to have an unblemished record. This is the minimum expectation to ensure a clean and efficient administration and to protect the public interest. An employee found not fit for promotion cannot be placed at par with the other employees, and his / her case has to be treated differently. While considering an employee for promotion his / her entire service record has to be taken into consideration and if a promotion denies him / her promotion, such denial would not be illegal or unjustified under the service jurisprudence.
Advocates:S. Mahmood Alam Rizvi(ADVO-3351-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Zamir Hussain Ghumro(ADVO-10861-SBC-KHI),Obaid -ur- Rehman Khan(ADVO-12008-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 27-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
699) 12/2010 Cr.Acctt.A Peer Deedar Ahmed Sarhandi (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Death of appellant during pendency of appeal, proceedings are abated against him. However, appeal was dismissed on merits and fine was ordered to be recovered as land revenue from assets devolving upon the legal heirs of deceased appellant in accordance with law.
Advocates:Ghulam Sarwar Chandio(ADVO-1145-SBC-HYD),Abdul Mujeeb Pirzada(ADVO-80-SBC-SUK),Ch. Munir Ahmed(ADVO-3697-SBC-KHI),Qurban Ali(ADVO-631-SBC-SUK),Syed Khalid Shah(ADVO-3930-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
Order Date: 29-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
700) 7097/2018 Const. P. Sindh Petroleum & CNG Dealer Assoication and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 CLC 851
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 03-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
701) 183/2017 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. M/s. Silver Surgical Complex (Pvt) Ltd. (Applicant) V/S Commissioner I-R Zone-IV (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sale Tax Rules, 2006 (Rule 25), Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 10), Sale Tax Act 1990 (Section 8(2))
Tag Line:Supplies involving exempt and taxable purchase cannot be treated in a generalized way. Applicant while having input tax adjustment of the above period forgot to apply rule 25(3) of the ibid rules 2006 which does not permit the adjustment of input tax in its entirety when they deal with both taxable and exempt supplies.
--Learned counsel for the applicant has argued to the extent of claiming refund in terms of section 10 of the Sales Tax Act. The scheme of Section 10 caters for an event other than applicants case. In terms of the facts and circumstances of the case where input adjustment is claimed on both exempt and taxable supplies as is the case of applicant before lower forums, we have to apply an unambiguous provision that deals the event and i.e. 8(2) of the ibid Act which directly deals with the input tax in respect of the supplies involving both exempt and taxable supplies.
Citation:2021 PTD 2020
Advocates:Dilkhurram Shaheen(ADVO-9087-SBC-KHI),Aminuddin Ansari(ADVO-3574-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 13-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
702) 154/2008 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S China National Water Resourcess Hydropower Eng. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 03-NOV-09
Approved for Reporting
703) 700/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Director DG I&I (Customs) (Applicant) V/S Aurangzaib & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Release of tampered / smuggled vehicle carrying smuggled items.
Citation:2021 PTD 1026
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 24-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1658-K/2021 Aurangzaib v. Director General Intelligence & Investigation (Customs) & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
704) 357/2012 Cr.Bail Khuda Bukhsh and 4 others (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 18-SEP-13
Approved for Reporting
705) 1000/2014 Suit Mst. Ghazala Ishrat (Plaintiff) V/S Mst. Sarwat Hussain & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 03-MAR-16
Approved for Reporting
706) 237/2018 Cr.Acq.A. GHULAM MUJTABA S/O LATE ABDUL AZIZ (Appellant) V/S SYED HASSAN & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal Procedure Code
Tag Line:(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----S. 182---False information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person---Appeal against acquittal---"Aggrieved person"---Scope---Station House Officer (SHO) requested the trial court for prosecution of respondent under S. 182, P.P.C. on the ground that he had furnished false information for lodgment of first information report (FIR) under Ss. 506 and 34, P.P.C. read with S. 25 of Telegraph Act, 1885---Trial court acquitted the respondent of the charge---Validity---Appellant, nominated accused in earlier FIR, could not be aggrieved by the decision of the Magistrate on the complaint under S. 182, P.P.C. filed by public servant---Section 182, P.P.C. did not refer to any private person and it related "to cause public servant to use his power" and in case such information was found false then such public servant could initiate proceedings---Appellant was not a public servant nor the alleged false information was given to him---Right of appeal on the orders passed by Magistrate did not lie with the nominated accused for the reason that an appeal was continuity of original proceedings and admittedly the proceedings were not initiated by the appellant---Appeal against acquittal was dismissed.
Khuwaja Muhammad Waseem v. Syed Jalees Anjum and others 2018 PCr.LJ 1230 rel.
(b) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
---S. 182---False information with intent to cause public servant to use his lawful power to the injury of another person---Scope--- Proceedings under S. 182, P.P.C. are not a remedy of any humiliation or insult suffered by the accused nominated in the false information given by the complainant to the Incharge Police Station.
Citation:2019 MLD 1994
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 30-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
707) 750/2009 Const. P. M/S Dewan Cement Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan thr Sec Ministry of Finance and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 22-JUN-10
Approved for Reporting
708) 86/2014 II.A. Mst. Nargis Ehsan Malik & Others (Appellant) V/S Arshad Mehmood Mir & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author)
Order Date: 29-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1-K/2019 Mst: Nargis Ehsan Malik thr. her L.Rs and others v. Arshad Mehmood Mir Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Adjourned [ Appeal converted into Civil Petition)
709) 100/2019 R.A (Civil Revision) Mohammad Zaheer (Applicant) V/S District Judge, Tando Allahyar & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 18-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.428-K/2021 Muhammad Zaheer v. Shoukat Ali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
710) 51/2019 Execution First Appeal MENA ENERGY DMCC (Decree Holder) V/S HASCOL PETROLEUM LIMITED (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Execution of Foreign Decree. Judgment when conclusive under section 13 CPC.
Advocates:Ijaz Ahmed Zahid(ADVO-11135-SBC-KHI),M/S. MOHSIN TAYEBALY & CO.(FIRM-118-SBC-KHI),Hashmatullah Alim(ADVO-11063-SBC-KHE),Waqar Ahmed Ch:(ADVO-11376-SBC-KHI),Arshad Mohsin Tayebaly(ADVO-3740-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 12-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
711) 1357/2017 Const. P. Shrimati Aashi (Petitioner) V/S Bhesham Lal & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Family matter
Tag Line:This Proviso is primarily is in consideration of the fact that Muslim
women who file their respective suits for dissolution of marriages and
dower amount shall also be in a position to avail the jurisdiction of local
limits where the (wife) ordinarily resides but that doesnt exclude the
jurisdiction of the above two situations i.e. (a) and (b).
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 25-SEP-17
Approved for Reporting
712) 3580/2014 Const. P. Humair Altaf (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 06-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.221-K/2017 Humair Altaf v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secy: M/o Petroleum & Natural Resources and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
713) 391/2011 Cr.Misc. Syed Jawaid Haider Qazmi (Applicant) V/S S.I. Muhammad Zaffaran and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 12-AUG-13
Approved for Reporting
714) 4291/2015 Const. P. Syeda Sakina Riaz (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Back benefits)
Citation:2018 SCMR 1272
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 13-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1189/2017 Syeda Sakina Riaz v. Federation of Pakistan and another,C.P.343-K/2017 Syeda Sakina Riaz v. Federation of Pakistan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted. Relist after 3 months
715) 2839/2017 Const. P. Muhammad Azeem (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and otehrs (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
716) 1656/2016 Const. P. Arham Khan and Ors (Petitioner) V/S M.D KW & SB and Oters (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
717) 6261/2020 Const. P. SSGC Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Registrar of Trade Union NIRC and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973 (Enforcement of Guideline passed by Supreme Court )
Tag Line:M/s. Sui Southern Gas Company Limited ("SSGC"), has sought enforcement of the guidelines provided by the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in its order dated 11.03.2020 passed in Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.4450/2019 (M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd. Karachi v. The Registrar Trade Unions, C/o National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad, and others), to the Registrar, National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), for conducting the referendum with respect of determination of Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the workmen employed in Petitioner-SSGC as provided under the Industrial Relations Act, 2012--we direct the Deputy Registrar NIRC to announce the result of the referendum for determination of Collective Bargaining Agent (CBA) for the workmen employed in Petitioner-SSGC. However, it is made clear that, if any of the parties in the proceedings is aggrieved by the outcome of the result of the referendum, they are at liberty to avail and exhaust their respective remedies in accordance with law.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 16-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
718) 15/2018 E.P Tahir Hussain Khoso (Petitioner) V/S Sohrab Khan Sarki & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Election Matters
Tag Line: If a history is traced of the judicial pronouncement relating to the question in hand that concerns with the deficiencies in the election petition and deciding its fate, the first judgment that I came across is of S. M. Ayub v. Syed Yusaf Shah and others reported in PLD 1967 Supreme Court 486. It deals with the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act (VII of 1964). Section 59 of the aforesaid law is somehow peri materia to Sections 142, 143 and 144 of the present enactment of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained that Section 67 does not, in terms, say that the petition shall be dismissed even if there be a partial failure to comply with the provisions of Section 59, ex facie Section 67 of the Act would seem to be designed to cover a case where the petition as a whole made allegations of a vague and indefinite character, without being supported by full particulars of the corrupt or illegal practice alleged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless, therefore, the language of the law is intractable and clearly provides for dismissal of a petition for a technical defect, the Courts should not be astute to ascribe to the legislature a desire to be hypertechnical, so as to smother genuine litigation.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 06-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
719) 568/2009 Cr.Bail Anwar Ali (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahid Anwar Bajwa
Order Date: 09-AUG-11
Approved for Reporting
720) 39/2007 Civil Revision Party-1 (Appellant) V/S Party-2 (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 22-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
721) 4778/2021 Const. P. Pakistan Mobile Communication (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Federal Excise Duty, CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973, Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011
Tag Line:The impugned enactment is for area which formed part of
province i.e. Sindh hence for all intent and purposes Article 142(c) is
significant. It emphasized Provincial Assembly to legislate with respect
to any matters not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List. The
impugned Act whereby Serial No.6A was introduced to the First Schedule
forming part of Table-II is introduced through a Money Bill in terms of
Article 73 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No other
Entry of Part I of the Federal Legislative List could then be taken into
account as this was a money bill which is primarily covered from Entry
No.43 to 53 as routed through Article 73 of the Constitution of Islamic
Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The federation has already conceded and we
are not required to deliberate on the point that for a tax to fall under
the said Federal Legislative List it must be covered by Entries No.43 to
53. This, as claimed to be a sales tax/Federal Excise Duty, is apparently
covered in terms of Entry 49 to the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution
of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Thus, the 18th Amendment
excludes the Federation by virtue of the Entry 49 from the competence
to legislate on the subject of services rendered in their province on
account of SSTA, 2011 w.e.f. 01.07.2011.
--It is neither in the competence of the federation to legislate after
18th Amendment nor it relates to federation to invoke Entry No.58 of the
Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan,
1973. Similarly, Entry No.59, as relied upon by the respondents counsel,
that these matters are incidental or ancillary to any matters enumerated
in this part, is also inconsequential as this cannot be invoked
independently unless a reciprocal entry is found within the competence
of federation. One may argue this Entry 59 may have a bridged with
Article 151 but we have already discussed non-application of Article 151.
Citation:2022 PTD 266
Advocates:Muhammad Makhdoom Ali Khan(ADVO-2885-SBC-KHI),Dy Attorney General(DAG),Hyder Ali Khan(ADVO-44631-PBC-LHR),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 18-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.6171/2021 Federal Board of Revenue through the Secretary Revenue, Ex-officio Chairman FBR, Islamabad and others v. Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd, Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted
722) 1535/2019 Const. P. Khaliq-ur-Rehman & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 13-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail: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 Status:Pending
723) 63/2016 Spl.Anti.Ter.J.A. Hafeezullah alias Hafiz Khan (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 04-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
724) 550/2022 Const. P. Mst. Kiran Yazdani D/o Syed Ather Yazdani (Petitioner) V/S The XXth Civil Judge/JM, Khi South and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:When an appeal lies against an order on temporary custody passed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.
Advocates:Shazia Aziz(ADVO-10080-SBC-KHE),Nazia Siddiqui(ADVO-10687-SBC-KHI),Hassaan Sabir(ADVO-6909-SBC-KHI),Sana Abid(ADVO-20018-SBC-KHE),Shafqat Zaman(ADVO-11-3116-KBC-HAZ)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 22-JUN-22
Approved for Reporting
725) 303/2016 Spl.Cr.A.T.A. Manzoor Elahi (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 06-SEP-17
Approved for Reporting
726) 5079/2013 Const. P. Syed Farhat Iqbal and 11 others (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 01-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.411-K/2017 M/s State Oil Company Ltd. v. Syed Farhat Iqbal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
727) 5613/2021 Const. P. Aftab Ahmed Memon (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Ahmed Ali Ghumro(ADVO-793-SBC-SUK),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 14-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
728) 241/2017 S.M.A Barbara Helena Philomina through attorney Debbie (Petitioner) V/S Marina Caroline Bond - Deceased (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 18-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
729) 1409/2001 Suit TRADING CORP. OF PAK. PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S M/S. COX & KING AGENTS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 29-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
730) 733/2017 Const. P. Faqirullah (Petitioner) V/S D.G Pakistan Public and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 SBLR Sindh 720
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 16-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.947-K/2018 Faqirullah v. The Director General Pakistan Public Works Department, Ibd and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
731) 211/2018 Cr.Appeal MUHAMMAD NASIR KHAN S/O MUHAMMAD MUKHTIAR (Appellant) V/S TH STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro(Author)
Order Date: 28-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
732) 1364/2020 Const. P. Yasmeen & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Deputy Attorney General(),Pir Riaz Muhammad Shah(ADVO-4269-SBC-KHI),Dr. Shah Nawaz(ADVO-2108-SBC-HYD),Abdul Nabi(ADVO-13636-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 17-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
733) 47/2009 II.A. Ghazi Naseem & Ors (Appellant) V/S Moulana Muhammad Bilal Somayri & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 15-FEB-10
Approved for Reporting
734) 2013/2015 Suit M/s. A.F Ferguson & Co., & Others. (Plaintiff) V/S Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line: In all these Suits the claim of the Plaintiffs was to the effect that in terms of Section 92 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 there is no compulsion or restriction that it is only the firm which can file its return and pay taxes on the income, as at the same time, the partners of the firm are also qualified to file their return and pay the tax accordingly and in that situation the firm would not be liable to pay any tax on the income on which the partners have already paid the tax. According to the Plaintiffs, Section 92 does not prohibit the partners from paying tax on their income as against the same by the firm. Their further case was that the inverse of what is provided in Section 92 is permitted as not being prohibited or restricted; however, the contention of the Plaintiffs is held to be misconceived as this would defeat the intention of the legislature and would rather amount to do legislation in favour of the Plaintiffs. The law as it stands today provides a clear mechanism and the principle of taxation which has to be applied on the firm, whereas, nothing could be read into the said provision . It is settled law that the function of the Courts is only to expound and not to the legislate. In view of such position, all Suits have been dismissed by holding that the firm i.e. the Plaintiff No. 1 in all these Suits was required to file its return and pay the tax accordingly; and not the partners individually in respect of the income received from the association of persons or the firm; and once the tax is paid by the firm, then the partners are not required to pay any tax on such income.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 09-AUG-19
Approved for Reporting
735) 263/2021 Criminal Miscelleneous ABDUL GHAFFAR S/O MUHAMMAD SHARIF (Applicant) V/S THE STATE & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (The court cannot interfere during investigation.)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 30-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
736) 341/2006 Cr.Appeal Meharban and 2 others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahid Anwar Bajwa
Order Date: 23-AUG-10
Approved for Reporting
737) 97/2007 Cr.J.A Kouro Shar and others (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 18-DEC-12
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:J.P.365/2012 Kouro & others v. The State Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
738) 2951/2018 Const. P. Abdul Latif Brohi (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 13-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3658/2018 Abdul Latif Barohi v. Federation of Pakistan thr. the Secretary M/o Interior, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
739) 121/2013 II.A. MAULANA SHABBIR AHMED (Appellant) V/S MUHAMMAD SHARIF MUGHAL & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author)
Order Date: 13-JUN-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.1453/2018 Mualana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani v. Muhammad Sharif Mughal and another,C.P.981-K/2018 Mualana Shabbir Ahmed Usmani v. Muhammad Sharif Mughal and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Leave Granted
740) 3/2021 M.A. M/s. Jiangsu Dajin Heavy Industry Co. Limited (Appellant) V/S Port Qasim Authority (PQA) and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: General Clauses Act, 1897 (Section 24A), PPRA Rules, 2004 (Rule 36), PPRA Rules, 2004 ( Rule 25, 29, 30 and 31)
Tag Line:- Indeed, it appears that it was more than a month after opening of the bid that the appellant made an attempt to rectify its material inability by furnishing a separate/counter bank guarantee from Bank AlHabib for both the tenders. This deficiency could not have been resurrected as by then the ship sailed. These belated attempts would have amounted to a modification of the tender documents, which is not permissible under Rule 31 of Rules 2004. Eventually only those whose technical bids were found to be in consonance with the terms of the invitation, were liable to be considered for further steps and were considered accordingly.
-Petitioner being aware of the said tender conditions participated and having participated in the tender cannot challenge or dislike prerequisites meant for technical qualification. He could only expect judicious treatment within the playing rules however, it was too late for appellant when it realized that playing conditions were not palatable to it. The situation faced by appellant based on the aforesaid facts is not res integra as a number of judgments are in the filed covering the issue as settled law.
- Even if I have to measure bidding terms on the touchstone of malice and mala fide, I would come out with understanding that these terms are for every one and not to exclude anyone. These are commercial transactions and decisions in this regard should base on strict compliance of terms of tenders whereas equity and fair play based on financial offer is not primary concern. Even if someone intends to impress by showing better financial offer, he has to qualify first on technical grounds. It is the overall impact till completion of job that needs serious consideration by procuring agency. Whether a bidder has the ability to deliver as per terms of tenders and having capacity to ensure projects completion should be the primary concern of procuring agency. There is thus nothing which could lead to conclude that the process ended up in a decision of rejecting technical bid of appellant was flawed.
- Any term within frame of law is also not open for a judicial review even under the hierarchy of procurement laws as Rule 25 enables the procuring agency to require bid security not exceeding five per cent of the bid price to be furnished by every bidder and procuring agency may save its effectiveness for a period as they required in terms of Rule 26.
Citation:2021 CLC 1931
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
741) 1585/2013 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD QAISER S/O MUHAMMAD SHARIF (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 25-MAR-14
Approved for Reporting
742) 13/2013 First Appeal Against Order Hassan Abbass (Appellant) V/S Ist Additional District & Session Judge (Central) at Karachi. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VII, R. 11---West Pakistan (Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Karachi) Ordinance (III of 1962), Ss.27 & 29---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42---Suit for declaration---Correction of father's name was sought by plaintiff---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Name of maternal grandfather was mistakenly mentioned in the school record as name of father of plaintiff and same had been disclosed by him which was also supported by affidavit of his mother---Record maintained by the Education Board was incorrect and father of plaintiff and that of his mother could not be one and the same---Trial Court was bound to reconcile the record of Education Board with that of the correct name of father of plaintiff in view of available record---Education Board had not applied mind to the request made by the plaintiff through a proper application wherein ingredients of plaint and circumstances mentioned in the same had been brought to the notice of Education Board but same had been declined without assigning a cogent reason---Education Board had not mentioned the rules before the Trial Court which restrained them from making correction in the record---Section 27 of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1962 did not mean that Education Board was a final authority and order passed by the same was not subject to review by the courts---Section 29 of Board of Intermediate and Secondary Education Ordinance, 1962 stipulated that no suit for damages or other legal proceedings should be instituted against Government and any member of Education Board or Committee---No decision or order of Education Board was under challenge nor plaintiff had claimed any damages against controlling authority or member of Education Board in the present suit---Present was a suit for correction in the relevant record of Education Board---Education Board was bound to make necessary correction once there was a satisfactory proof of mistake on the record---Refusal of Education Board to rectify the mistake in the certificate issued by Board was without any lawful jurisdiction---Impugned order passed by the Education Board was without reasoning and same was not a speaking order---Trial Court had rejected the plaint without proper trial which was contrary to the requirement of law---Orders passed by the Trial Court and Appellate Court were set aside and case was remanded for decision on merits after recording of evidence in accordance with law.
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)---
----S. 5---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Appeal---Non-disclosure of dismissal of appeal by the counsel to the appellant---Professional misconduct of counsel---Condonation of delay---Scope---Application was supported with a complaint against the counsel who had been representing the appellant before the Trial Court and first Appellate Court---Details of professional misconduct of counsel had been given in the affidavit with regard to the fact that he (counsel) did not disclose about the dismissal of appeal---Circumstances were not within the control of appellant to file present appeal in time who had accounted for the delay---Application for condonation of delay was accepted in circumstances.
Citation:2014 YLR 2042
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 10-MAY-14
Approved for Reporting
743) 2651/2016 Suit Zohaib Shakoor (Plaintiff) V/S Mahwish Pirzada & another. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Injunction Granted. )
Tag Line:With these observations, the third basic ingredient of suffering irreparable loss is not difficult to decide. The forecasting done by Plaintiff while entering into the subject agreement and making investment in relation to that is bound to be frustrated and jeopardized if the injunctive relief is
refused. Hence, Plaintiff cannot be compensated in monetary terms; whereas, the Defendants will not suffer any loss as they will be getting their agreed payments, rather now the enhanced payments as per Plaintiff Statement dated 30.01.2017
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 06-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
744) 232/2014 Cr.Misc. Azhar Ahmed Batla (Applicant) V/S M/s. I.G.I. Finex Securities Limited and another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Ashraf Jehan
Order Date: 28-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
745) 74/2015 S.M.A Mr Afia Baig w/o. Mirza Fawad Baig V/S (Petitioner) V/S Party-2 (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Succession Act
Tag Line:(a) Counsel and client---
----Affidavit by advocate---Scope---Lawyer is not supposed to take place of his client when seeking any substantial relief which the client wanted from the Court---Lawyer cannot swear affidavit of facts relating to circumstances of his client in which need for an order from Court of law was felt for the client even on the advice of lawyer---Such facts and circumstances can only be in the personal knowledge of the client when neither application nor affidavit in support of application is signed by client.
(b) Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---
----Ss. 273 & 372---Chief Court Rules (O.S.), Rr. 340, 376, 377 & 399---Letters of Administration and succession certificate---Amended petition---Seeking of surety---Object---Necessary ingredients---Widow of deceased owner of property in question died during pendency of petition and applicant did not file proper amended petition---Validity---On the death of widow of deceased owner, in amended petition for the share inherited by her, amended petition must disclose her legal heirs---Once all codel formalities were honestly completed and petition of letter of administration was granted, it would be duty of petitioner to administer properties of both deceased parents as per law which could include first mutation in the name of respective legal heirs and then it would be the choice of new owners by way of inheritance to deal with their respective individual shares in joint properties the way they could wish to, but in accordance with law---Grant of letter of Administration was always subject to the Rules---Purpose of obtaining sureties by Court in terms of Rr. 399 & 340 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was to ensure that petitioner would administer properties of deceased in accordance with law and honestly.
Citation:2017 MLD 460
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 14-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
746) 7/2016 Election Appeal Muhammad Ameen and another (Appellant) V/S Jawaid Ali and 5 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 25-MAR-17
Approved for Reporting
747) 4900/2014 Const. P. M/s Ahsan and Co. (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 15-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
748) 1830/2013 Const. P. Muhammad Ikhlaq and another (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 28-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
749) 390/2017 Criminal Appeal REHMATULLAH REHAN S/O LATE ABDUL REHMAN (Appellant) V/S MUHAMMAD ZIAUDDIN & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:(a) Penal Code (XLV of 1860)---
----Ss. 500 & 501---Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss.200 & 201---Appreciation of evidence---Benefit of doubt---Defamation---Private complaint---Accused-appellant was convicted and sentenced to fine on the basis of moving false complaints and publishing pamphlets with defamatory words against the respondents---Complainant produced two witnesses including his brother in support of his claim---Record showed that Trial Court, after recording statement of accused under S. 342, Cr.P.C. and hearing final arguments, without assigning any reason, instead announcing order on merit, restarted the trial and issued process for evidence to the Additional Collector as court witness---Trial Court, after recording statement of court witness, recorded statement of accused under Ss.342 & 340(2), Cr.P.C. second time---Accused, after second statement under S.342, Cr.P.C. had examined himself on oath and had produced documents showing character of the complainant---Record showed that Trial Court failed to appreciate that even complainant's own brother had not supported him---Trial Court misinterpreted the evidence with reference to the burden of proof in criminal cases---Record did not show that the complainant had by way of rejoinder affidavit denied the contents of counter affidavit of officials containing the allegation of blackmailing and harassment by the complainant and, therefore, it ought to have been accepted as admitted document about a truth---Trial court failed to appreciate that the complainant was not aggrieved by derogatory remarks on oath against him---If such remarks did not cause any defamation to the complainant then how a letter written to any government functionary, which had not been conveyed to the complainant, would have caused any injury to the complainant---Trial Court clearly favoured the complainant when he convicted the accused and sentenced him to pay fine of Rs. 100,000/- as punishment and further ordered that fine be paid to the complainant---Trial Court had no authority to handover the amount of fine to the complainant---Amount of fine imposed as punishment had to be deposited by court through its ministerial office in the government treasury---Circumstances established that complainant failed to prove his claim---Appeal was allowed and accused was acquitted by setting aside the conviction and sentence recorded by the Trial Court.
(b) Criminal trial---
----Burden of proof---Scope---Burden is never shifted on accused unless the prosecution evidence is found to have proved the commission of offence beyond a reasonable doubt.
Citation:2020 MLD 905
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 26-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.A.14-K/2019 Muhammad Zia-ud-Din v. Rehmatullah Rehan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
750) 7319/2018 Const. P. Mst. Shamim Naqvi (Petitioner) V/S P.D.O.H.A and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.401-K/2019 Ms. Shamim Naqvi v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority thr. Secy: and others,C.A.21-K/2020 Ms. Shamim Naqvi v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority thr. Secy: and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Adjourned
751) 6344/2019 Const. P. Dr. Jagdesh & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Civil Servant Welfare Fund Ordinance 1979 (Group Insurance)
Tag Line:Group insurance to employees of Government of Sindh, the Sindh Civil Servants Welfare Fund Ordinance 1979 and Sindh Civil Servants Welfare Fund Rules, 1980, Boards for administration of the Funds, State life insurance corporation: Khyber Pukhtunkhwa Civil Servant Retirement Benefits and Death Compensation Act 2014, Khyber Pakhtunkhwa Civil Servants Retirement Benefits and Death Compensation (amendment) Act No.V of 2016, judgment of the Peshawar High Court in case of Fida Muhammad Durrani and judgment of Islamabad High Court in case of Muhammad Rehan Khan; advice by Advocate General Sindh to the Government of Sindh with regard to amendment in existing law/rules.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
752) 493/1993 Suit Shahimah Sayeed (Plaintiff) V/S Base Commander and three others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 26-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
753) 1579/2020 Const. P. Indus Motor Co. (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Primacy of charging section.
Citation:2021 PTD 460
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.410-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s. Indus Motors Company Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
754) 176/2017 Civil Revision Raja Khan (Applicant) V/S Shah Nawaz & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 25-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
755) 2933/2014 Const. P. M/s Lucky Cement Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Doctrine of Election
Citation:2021 PTD 835
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 16-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
756) 2259/2020 Const. P. Nisar Ahmed Tarar & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 19-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
757) 209/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Alman and others (Petitioner) V/S Secretary Revenue & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 14-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
758) 4268/2013 Const. P. Bilal International (Petitioner) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 PTD 465
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 19-DEC-13
Approved for Reporting
759) 1375/2017 Const. P. Muhammad Iqbal Kazi and others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 18-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.410-K/2019 Muhammad Iqbal Kazi and others v. Province of Sindh thr. Secy/Irrigation Deptt: Govt. of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
760) 42/2022 R.A (Civil Revision) Rehmatullah & others (Applicant) V/S Inayatullah Khoso & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arbab Ali Hakro(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAY-23
Approved for Reporting
761) 6309/2018 Const. P. Muhammad Naeem Akhtar Khan (Petitioner) V/S NIRC & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:we queried from the learned counsel for the Petitioner as to how this Petition is maintainable in its form against the National Command Authority (NCA) under the National Command Authority (Amendment) Act, 2016; besides that SUPARCO, comes under the definition of NCA as provided under clause (A) of Section 2 of the NCA Act, 2010.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
762) 104/2019 Criminal Miscelleneous SHOUKAT ALI KHATIAN & OTHERS (Applicant) V/S THE IST ADJ, KARACHI SOUTH & ANOTHER (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal Procedure Code
Tag Line:Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 22-A, 22-B & 154---Order of ex-officio Justice of Peace to register FIR---Scope---Application under S.22-A, Cr.P.C. was allowed by the Justice of Peace and SHO was directed to register the case in accordance with law---Validity---Station House Officer had no authority to refuse to record the statement of complainant in the relevant register irrespective of its authenticity/ correctness or falsity of such statement---High Court was not supposed to comment on the possible outcome of the inquiry and investigation which was to be conducted by SHO after recording statement of respondent---Whatever was the stance of the applicants, it should first be brought to the notice of SHO to falsify the statement of respondent, if any, incorporated in the FIR---If the statement of respondent after inquiry and investigation found to be false, the SHO could prosecute respondent under S. 182, P.P.C.---Criminal miscellaneous application was dismissed accordingly.
Brig. (Retd.) Imtiaz Ahmad v. Government of Pakistan through Secretary, Interior Division, Islamabad and 2 others 1994 SCMR 2142 ref.
Muhammad Bashir v. Station House Officer, Okara Cantt. and others PLD 2007 SC 539 and Younas Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge Chakwal and others PLD 2016 SC 581 rel.
Citation:2020 YLR Note 21
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 13-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
763) 2136/2012 Const. P. Hassan Jameel Ansari (Petitioner) V/S NAB & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 18-JUL-12
Approved for Reporting
764) 2707/2019 Const. P. Shah Muhammad (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:the petitioner is seeking direction to the respondents to award him incentive of timescale i.e. BPS-17 to BPS-19, from the date of his entitlement; and, other ancillary benefits, to bring him at par with the employees of other departments of Government of Sindh--whether the petitioner is entitled to the incentive of the timescale from BPS-17 to BPS-19 under the law or otherwise.
Advocates:Soofia Saeed(ADVO-3712-SBC-KHI),Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Abdul Salam(ADVO-9175-SBC-KHE),Rabya Javed(ADVO-15733-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
765) 764/2018 Const. P. Muhammad Pariyal (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Zahida Parveen & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Tag Line:Family Matter
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author)
Order Date: 13-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
766) 1904/2014 Const. P. Fotile Kitchen & Home Appliances (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 PTD 1580
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 13-NOV-14
Approved for Reporting
767) 5773/2016 Const. P. Muhammad Irfan Khan (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 SCMR 98
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1444-K/2018 House Building Finance Company Ltd. and others v. Muhammad Irfan Khan and others,C.A.86-K/2018 House Building Finance Company Ltd. and others v. Muhammad Irfan Khan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed
768) 4666/2013 Const. P. Afaq A. Qureshi (Petitioner) V/S Chief Secretary and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 29-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
769) 431/2011 Suit PSO (Plaintiff) V/S PROV.OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Property Tax on property of KPT is payable and is not exempt, whereas, the Plaintiff / Tenant pursuant to lease Agreement is liable to pay the same.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 28-FEB-20
Approved for Reporting
770) 4623/2018 Const. P. United Bank Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Muhammad Azher Mehmood(ADVO-9556-SBC-KHI),Abdullah Nizamani(ADVO-14295-SBC-KHI),Abdul Haleem Siddiqui(ADVO-3062-SBC-KHI),Ziaul Haq(ADVO-3966-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 27-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
771) 6008/2017 Const. P. M/s Hascol Petroleum Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 26-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.88-K/2021 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s. Hascol Petroleum Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
772) 6221/2021 Const. P. Asif Ali Memon (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 09-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
773) 1171/2011 Suit ZULFIQAR SHAKOOR (Plaintiff) V/S M/S. QUETTA TOWN CO-OPY (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 31-OCT-12
Approved for Reporting
774) 4920/2016 Const. P. Maqsood Ahmed & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
regularization issue of employees of PSQCA
Topic: Service matters (Regularisation of Employee)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 12-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.3673/2020 Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Science and Technology, Islamabad & others v. Maqsood Ahmed and others,C.A.522/2021 Federation of Pakistan through its Secretary Ministry of Science and Technology, Islamabad & others v. Maqsood Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 3 months.,Disposed Allowed and Remanded
775) 740/2018 Const. P. DR. Mazhar Ali Hisbani (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sind & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Promotion (Deferred on ground not finalized earlier, the disciplinary/departmental proceedings . )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
776) 20/2015 H.C.A Syed Arif Ali & another (Appellant) V/S Zeenat Hanif Siddiqui & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 SBLR Sindh 1227
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed
Order Date: 26-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.366-K/2017 Mrs. Zeenat Hanif Siddiqui v. Syed Arif Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
777) 4967/2018 Const. P. Orix Leasing Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),Assitant Adv.Gen. Sindh(AssAdvGen),Qazi Umair Ali(ADVO-17282-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 20-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
778) 852/2017 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s. Osaka Electronic & Industries Co. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 26-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
779) 1779/2020 Const. P. Pakistan Re-Insurance Co. Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Reasons
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 16-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
780) 1641/2012 Suit SUI SOUTHERN GAS CO. LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S K.E.S.C LTD. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Attachment before Judgment
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 07-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
781) 457/2021 Const. P. M/S Rafique Ahmed & Co (Petitioner) V/S The Registrar of Trade Union Govt Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:Sind Industrial Relations Act, 2013. Maintainability of petition by Employer against order of Registrar Trade Union passed under section 9(10). Held Yes.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
Order Date: 23-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.5602/2021 Fauji Fertilzer Company Mazdoor Union through its President / General Secretary, Ghotki and others v. M/s Rafique Ahmed and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
782) 16/2010 R.A (Civil Revision) Shahnawaz and another (Applicant) V/S Shabbir Ahmed Memon and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 18-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
783) 192/2017 Cr.Rev MOHSIN ABBASS S/O ABDUL REHMAN S (Applicant) V/S QADIR KHAN MANDOKHAIL & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal Procedure Code
Tag Line:Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898)---
----Ss. 200, 203, 435 & 439---Private complaint, dismissal of---Revision against order of Judicial Magistrate---Maintainability---Procedure---Held, order having been passed under S.203, Cr.P.C., whereby direct complaint had been dismissed by the Judicial Magistrate without framing a charge and trial, it could not be treated as acquittal of the accused/respondents---Order under S.203 Cr.P.C, being an order passed by a court inferior to the Court of Session, the propriety demanded that the same should first be examined by the Sessions Judge for the purpose of satisfying itself to the correctness, legality or propriety of the said order passed by the Magistrate who was covered by the explanation given at the bottom of S.435, Cr.P.C.---Revision before the High Court being without exhausting the remedy available to the applicant was not maintainable---Matter was sent to the Sessions Judge for a just and fair decision on the grievance of the applicant---Revision application was thus disposed of accordingly.
Citation:2020 PLD Sindh 94
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 12-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
784) 240/1971 Suit AMIR ALI (Plaintiff) V/S GUL SHAKER & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Administration Suits (Property left by Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Fatima Jinnah and Shireen Jinnah)
Tag Line:Report has been furnished by the Nazir today which shows that a total sum of Rs. 73,32,51,903/- is available with the Nazir. A proposal is made that these sums be used as seed funds by the new Trust for building Girls Medical College/Hospital at the said premises. Learned AAG states that the Government of Sindh would like to participate in such a noble initiative and he has no objection if the property be used solely for the purpose of construction of building and operation of Medical College/Hospital exclusively for girls with residential facilities therein, with regard to the sums deposited by the Provincial Government, learned AAG seeks time to get a nod from the concerned authority as if this fund could be used as token of good gesture or whether Sindh Government wishes these sums to be returned.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 13-OCT-21
Approved for Reporting
785) 5430/2020 Const. P. Imad Samad (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act, 1969 (147) (SRO 833(I)/2018 Section 19), Import Policy , Rules of Business, 1973 (Schedule-II), Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 19), Import Policy Order 2020, Rules of Business, 1973, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950
Tag Line:- Import of vintage cars on the strength of SRO No.833(I)/2018 dated 03.07.2018
followed by a decision in the case of Moin Jamal Abbasi in CP No.D-4124
of 2019 reported as 2020 PTD 660.
--Full Bench was constituted to consider the question arising out of
litigation:-
Whether the subject SRO No.833(I)/2018 issued in terms of
Section 19 of Customs Act, 1969 can also be treated as SRO issued
by the Ministry of Commerce in terms of Section 3 of the Import
& Export Control Act, 1950, permitting import of vintage cars
which are otherwise not importable as being old and used in
terms of the Import Policy Order of both 2016 and 2020.
Advocates:Deputy Attorney General(),Qazi Umair Ali(ADVO-17282-SBC-KHS),Shahab Imam(ADVO-19121-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro
Order Date: 10-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
786) 4292/2021 Const. P. M/s Outdoorsman (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Import Policy Order 2020, Imports and Exports (Control) Act, 1950
Tag Line:We do not find any necessity of an independent license from the federal
government in presence of Import Policy Order, 2016 w.e.f. 14.6.2018 followed
by Import Policy Order, 2020. The Import Policy Order, 2016 in terms of the
subject in hand was amended by virtue of SRO No.772(1)/2018 on 14.6.2018
which provides that the individual license holders or arms dealership license
holders [as issued by Home Department, Province of Sindh] are allowed to
import arms and ammunition. It was clarified by Federal Government, Ministry
of Commerce & Textile vide letter dated 06.09.2019 that the import of arms and
ammunition does not require any import authorization from the Commerce
Division Islamabad after issuance of SRO No.772(I)/2018 dated 14-06-2018.
For convenience and ready reference, text of [i]. Letter dated 06.09.2019, [ii].
Section 6(1) and [iii]. Entry No.62 Part I of Appendix B of IPO, 2020
---Section 4 of ibid Act 2013 is related to the license for the manufacture/sale of arms and
ammunition which is not the case here. Section 5 deals with the import, export
and transportation which for all intent and purposes means import and export
within the province of Sindh and we, while read it down, do not find it to be ultra
vires to the Constitution. It primarily concerns with the person who is brining
into and taking out of Sindh or any of its districts, arms, ammunition or military
stores of a firearm or convert an imitation firearm into a firearm unless a license
has been issued in accordance with the provisions and rules thereunder.
Similarly, in section 9&10 the words import and export are in relation to brining
into and taking out of the province of Sindh and any of its districts and it does
not mean import of any arms and ammunition from outside the country which is
an independent subject of the federal government hence, we read down these
provisions to be within frame of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and are not ultra vires
the Constitution.
Citation:2022 PTD 539
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 06-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.245-K/2022 The Province of Sindh through Home Department Government of Sindh & others v. M/s. Outdoorsman & others,C.P.246-K/2022 Federal Board of Revenue & others v. M/s. Outdoorsman & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending ,Pending
787) 8/2006 Conf.Case The State (Applicant) V/S Dr. Muhammad Saleem (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 16-APR-15
Approved for Reporting
788) 2305/2020 Const. P. Aisha Steel Mills Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Qazi Umair Ali(ADVO-17282-SBC-KHS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 28-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2694/2020 K-Electric Limited thr. its Chief Executive Officer, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary, Ministry of Energy & thr. Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others,C.A.1022/2020 K-Electric Limited thr. its Chief Executive Officer, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary, Ministry of Energy & thr. Ministry of Finance, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted and be fixed on 4.12.2020 (Friday),Disposed Allowed
789) 804/1996 Suit ABDUL KARIM K. KHAN. (Plaintiff) V/S ABDUL MALIK K. LOKHA (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:The plaintiff cannot succeed for the restoration of his suit on the weaknesses of defendant Counsel. He had to show why he was prevented from appearing which was to be measured on the touch stone of the sufficient cause independently and not viz-a-viz defendants Counsel appearance or non-appearance.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 04-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
790) 169/2020 Const. P. Fajjar Din (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:This Constitutional Petition has been filed under Article 199 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, praying this Court to issue a writ of certiorari/ mandamus to call for the records relating to the Compulsory Retirement Order dated 01.11.2012 and Appellate Order dated 30.10.2017 passed by the respondent-Airport Security Force (hereinafter referred to as `ASF'), and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to reinstate services of the petitioner as an Inspector (ASF).
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 01-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.760-K/2021 Mr. Fajjar Din v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
791) 6145/2018 Const. P. M/s Korea Marine Transport Co. Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Custom Act, 1969 (147) (Section 14A)
Tag Line:Custom Act (Section 14A). Vires challenged - Matter already decided by a DB Judgment in the case of Qasim International Container Terminal V/s. Fed. of Pakistan (CP No.D-4867/2013).
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 08-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.563-K/2021 M/s. Korea Marine Transport Co. Ltd. & another v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
792) 3482/2011 Const. P. M/s.Blessed Textile (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Ors. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:KHALID ANWER & CO. ( A. K. BROHI ).(FIRM-157-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 01-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
793) 8265/2017 Const. P. Majid Akhtar (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Seniority)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 771
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 21-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.135/2018 Ali Bux Shaikh v. Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary and others,C.A.636/2019 Ali Bux Shaikh v. Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed
794) 19/2017 Judicial Companies Misc. Total Parco Pakistan Limited & another. (Petitioner) V/S Vs (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 16-JAN-18
Approved for Reporting
795) 88/2017 I. A Mohammad Shahid Murtaza (Appellant) V/S Warid Telcom Pvt Ltd. & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 MLD 433
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 04-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
796) 179/2015 Spl.Anti.Ter.A. Arsalan alias Sohrab (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
Order Date: 25-SEP-17
Approved for Reporting
797) 1386/2012 Suit MS ROHEELA YASMIN (Plaintiff) V/S MS. NEELOFAR HASSAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Family matter
Tag Line:"(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)---
----S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 13-Administration suit- Talaq-e-Bain- Effect--- Contention of plaintiff was that she being wife of deceased was entitled for deferred dower as well as share from his property whereas defendants contended that plaintiff had been divorced by the deceased and she was not legal heir to claim inheritance-Validity-Plaintiff was given Talaq-e-Bain and no question of reconciliation would arise---Such Talaq would become effective the moment same was pronounced-Plaintiff was not entitled for any inheritance however claim of dower amount was debt on the property of deceased which was to be paid first.
(b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)-
--S. 7---Divorce--- Effectiveness of--- Scope---Marriage could abe dissolved by husband at his will without intervention of the court-Man who wished to divorce his wife should as soon as might be after pronouncement of Talaq give the Chairman Union Council a notice in writing of his having done so and should supply a copy thereof to the wife---Talaq would not be effective until the expiry of 90 days unless same was revoked earlier expressly or otherwise.
(c) Islamic Law---
---Talaq, Mubarat and Khula-Meaning-- -""Talaq"" was divorce which was pronounced by the husband whereas ""Mubarat"" was Talaq effected by mutual consent of parties and ""Khula"" was dissolution of marriage through court.
(d) Islamic Law--
----Talaq, kinds of-Scope-Talaq would be of three kinds i.e. Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-Hassan and Talaq-e-Bain-Talaq-e-Ahsan could be pronounced by single pronouncement during ""Tuhrs"" followed by abstinence from going to wife to establish marital relationship till Iddat period-Talaq-e-Hassan was pronounce-ment of divorce through successive three ""Tuhrs"" without establishing physical relationship with wife in any of the three ""Tuhrs""---Talaq-e-Bain was the divorce by husband through pronouncement made through single ""Tuhr"" either in one sentence or in separate sentences---Talaq-e-Bain was irrevocable divorce whereas Talaq-e-Ahsan would become irrevocable on expiry of Iddat period and Talaq-e-Hassan on third pronouncement irrespective of Iddat period-Talaq-e-Bain would become irrevocable immediately on pronouncement of the same either uttered orally or written down on a piece of paper irrespective of Iddat period-Talaq-e-Bain did not provide any room for any reconciliation-Communication was not material ingredients or prerequisite for validity of Talaq."
Citation:2014 YLR 2315
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-14
Approved for Reporting
798) 3228/2020 Const. P. Misri Ladhani (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Promotion (Proforma Promotion after Retirement)
Tag Line:prima-facie the claim of the Petitioner for proforma promotion is tenable under the law for the simple reason that CSB recommended his promotion in BS-21 during his tenure of service, in the meanwhile, he reached the age of superannuation, just after the recommendation made by SCB in his favour, as a consequence, the pay of the petitioner is required to be re-fixed and his post-retirement benefits will be re- calculated by allowing his proforma promotion in BS-21 and arrears shall be paid to him with 6% simple interest per annum--The competent authority of respondents is directed to notify the proforma promotion of the petitioner in BS-21 with effect from 13.02.2014 i.e. the date on which the CSB recommended his case for promotion in BS-21 and other ancillary benefits under the law, without discrimination, within 02 weeks
Advocates:Sagar Ladhani(ADVO-17211-SBC-KHS),Additional Attorney General()
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 24-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.5548/2021,C.A.21/2022,C.A.22/2022,C.P.5779/2021 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted..to be fixed after 3 months,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted..to be fixed after 3 months
799) 111/2005 H.C.A Muhammad Sabir Awan (Appellant) V/S Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Author (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order XLI Rule 27 -Additional Evidence), Civil Procedure Code CPC (Dismissed)
Advocates:Nazar Hussain Dhoon(ADVO-2640-SBC-KHI),H. A. Rahmani(ADVO-1408-SBC-KHI),M/S. MUNEER A. MALIK & CO(FIRM-197-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 29-OCT-15
Approved for Reporting
800) 143/2016 I.T.R.A ALLIED ENGINEERING & SERVICE LTD (Applicant) V/S THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author)
Order Date: 10-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.582-K/2020 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Allied Engineering & Services Ltd Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
801) 2165/2012 Const. P. M/s. Naushero Feroz-I CNG Station (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 YLR 2198, 2019 SBLR 346
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1119-K/2018 M/s Naushehro Feroze-1, CNG Station v. Federation of Pakistan thr Secy: M/o Petroleum and Natural Resoures and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Disposed of
802) 107/2011 Criminal Appeal Lal Bux @ Laloo Bangulani (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Criminal Appeal (Accused acquitted under Section 345(6) Cr.P.C by Way of Compromise, In Murder Case. )
Tag Line:Against Order of Trial Court(Life)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 19-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
803) 877/2007 Suit M/S. NISAR AHMED JAPANWALA (Plaintiff) V/S THE C.D.G.K. & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 06-NOV-17
Approved for Reporting
804) 22/2010 Spl.Anti.T.Acq.A The State (Appellant) V/S Kamran @ Kami & Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto(Author), Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha
Order Date: 29-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
805) 44/2021 M.A. Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Ltd (Appellant) V/S The Court of District Judge, Khi (East) & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Succession Act, Carriage By Air Act, 2012 (Rule 6 of 6th Schedule)
Tag Line:Precisely the gist of law and the succession application provides
that the litigation commenced for issuance of a certificate in terms of
Rule 1, 2 and 6 of Sixth Schedule of the ibid Act 2012. It enabled one of
the legal heirs of the deceased to pursue the proceedings on behalf of
all legal heirs who sustained damages to claim compensation from the
airline.
-Respondent No.2 approached District Judge/ respondent No.1 for
issuance of requisite succession certificate. The District Judge/
Respondent No.1 however in terms of order impugned in these
proceedings treated such compensation as an asset left by the
deceased/victim and by considering it as part of succession application
and has taken action in terms of the impugned order, which action is
being challenged by the appellant/PIA in these proceedings. I disapprove
the observation of the District Judge to the extent whereby recovery
process was initiated.
Advocates:Farrukh Usman(ADVO-12432-SBC-KHI),Hasan Mandviwalla(ADVO-15443-SBC-KHI),Nasir Maqsood(ADVO-3349-SBC-KHI),Mahmood Y. Mandviwala(ADVO-3668-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.813-K/2021 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited v. The Court of District & Sessions Judge East at Karachi. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
806) 3478/2018 Const. P. Bashir Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Storekeeper, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits---In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the respondents are directed to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits. Respondents are further directed to complete the entire exercise and settle the service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment.
Topic: Service matters (Counting of previous service for pension)
Tag Line:the petitioner is seeking addition of the period, served with Civil Aviation Authority (`CAA`) on daily wages, against the substantive post of Storekeeper, with the period served as a regular employee, for the purpose of pensionary benefits---In view of the above discussion, this petition is allowed with no order as to costs and the respondents are directed to include daily wages employment of petitioner as his substantive service in regular for the purpose of service dues and other allied pensionary benefits. Respondents are further directed to complete the entire exercise and settle the service dues of the petitioner within sixty (60) days from the date of this judgment.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1661/2020 Civil Aviation Authority thr. its Chairman, Islamabad and others v. Bashir Ahmed and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned + before 3-JJs
807) 4634/2019 Const. P. Muhammad Idrees and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:1. Extraneous considerations keep officials of SBCA away from illegal construction being raised by the persons.
2. If exemplary punishments are awarded to these officials, issue of illegal construction can be controlled.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 27-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
808) 1169/2021 Const. P. Mazher Ahmed and Others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Dy Attorney General(DAG),M/S. BADAR ALAM & COMPANY(FIRM-261-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 30-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.423-K/2022 Mazhar Ahmed & another v. Province of Sindh Ministry of Law and Parliamentary Affairs through Law Ssecretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
809) 5229/2015 Const. P. Karachi Tax Bar and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether a probationer has the capability and potential to make a satisfactory career in the organization, and whether or not the organization/employer will have any benefit of his services. We are of the view that the period of probation provides equal opportunity to the employer and employee to decide whether they would like to continue with the engagement or not.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 07-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
810) 106/2017 Criminal Miscelleneous Arshad Mehmood and other (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 21-JUL-17
Approved for Reporting
811) 1492/2011 Suit MAHMOODA TAPAL & ANOTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 PLD Sindh Note 28
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 06-MAR-19
Approved for Reporting
812) 53/2013 I. A Meezan Bank Limited (Appellant) V/S Mrs Parveen Sabir & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 CLD 1806
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 13-JAN-15
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.595-K/2015 M/s Meezan Bank Ltd. v. Mrs. Parveen Sabir and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
813) 1126/2013 Cr.Bail ASIM RIZWAN S/O YOUNUS RIZWAN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2015 SBLR Sindh 785
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 10-SEP-14
Approved for Reporting
814) 5058/2021 Const. P. Muhammad Rashid Siddiqui (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2022 PLC CS 1216
Advocates:Muhammad Taha Ali Khan(ADVO-16320-SBC-KHC),Khawaja Shams ul Islam(ADVO-3953-SBC-KHS),Waleed Rehan Khanzada(ADVO-14977-SBC-KHI),Ashfaq Rafiq Janjua(ADVO-4858-SBC-KHW),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 15-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
815) 317/2010 Civil Revision Esso (Applicant) V/S Zahid Hussain (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
816) 1767/2014 Suit Abdul Sattar Shaikh. (Plaintiff) V/S Adeel Zahoor Malik & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line: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
Order Date: 30-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
817) 2/2018 Adm. Suit HAYS TRADING & SHIPPING (Plaintiff) V/S M.V. MISKI (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Admiralty
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 23-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
818) 527/2018 Const. P. Agha Shoaib Abbas and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1421-K/2018 Agha Shoaib Abbas and others v. The Province of Sindh and others,C.P.140-K/2021 Agha Shohaib Abbas & others v. The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed,Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
819) 1258/2010 Suit DR. ISHAQUE MUHAMMAD SHAH (Plaintiff) V/S NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 06-JUL-20
Approved for Reporting
820) 1217/2020 Const. P. D.G Khan Cement Co. Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Regulation of Generation, Transmission and Distribution of Electric Power Act, 1997 (Section 31 (7))
Tag Line:In light of the foregoing, we reach to an irresistible conclusion that the exercise of passing monthly FCA on to the petitioners on the basis of NEPRAs determination dated 27.12.2019 is in accordance with law and the timeline provided under Section 31(7) of the Act, 1997 be adhered to, unless any party is restricted for a reason beyond its control, which is a case at hand. The Petitioners clearly failed to avail statutory remedies under the law while the impugned determination was being made and even thereafter, nonetheless there is no cavil that the petitioners owe FCA component to K-Electric and liable to satisfy this debt. These instant Petitions being devoid of merit are accordingly dismissed.
Advocates:Khalid Jawed(ADVO-8533-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ahmer(ADVO-11937-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
821) 1264/2007 Suit MUHAMMAD AYUB GABOL (Plaintiff) V/S THE PROV OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 09-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
822) 459/2006 I.T.R.A First Women Bank Ltd (Applicant) V/S Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Judge Mr. Justice Gulzar Ahmed, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan
Order Date: 10-MAR-10
Approved for Reporting
823) 1089/2016 Const. P. MAL Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S PAKISTAN through secretary revnue Division (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
Order Date: 27-FEB-17
Approved for Reporting
824) 3662/2011 Const. P. Ali Raza (Petitioner) V/S M. Shoaib and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 21-APR-14
Approved for Reporting
825) 282/2017 Criminal Miscelleneous Mst. Nazi (Applicant) V/S The State & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
Order Date: 02-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
826) 425/2016 H.C.A Asif Seemab Sindhu (Appellant) V/S Administrator, DHA and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 MLD 1295
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 10-SEP-18
Approved for Reporting
827) 304/2010 I.T.R.A Commissioner (Legal) (Applicant) V/S M/s E.N, I Pakistan (M) Ltd (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sadiq Hussain Bhatti, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 20-NOV-12
Approved for Reporting
828) 727/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s. Zahid Ali Company (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 04-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
829) 2719/2011 Const. P. Dilip Kumar & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Prov of Sindh (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar
Order Date: 18-JUL-12
Approved for Reporting
830) 649/2013 Const. P. Mst. Sahib Khatoon (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Service matters (Contempt )
Tag Line:Petitioner being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the non -action by the alleged Contemnors, filed an Application (CMA 14152/2015)under Article 204 of the Constitution, praying therein to initiate the Contempt Proceedings against the alleged Contemnors. The alleged Contemnors have filed statements showing compliance of the order dated 10.9.2015, passed by this Court with the assertion that they offered the post of Balder in BS-1 to the son of the Petitioner, Contempt Proceedings is always between the Court and the alleged Contemnor, thus its scope cannot be enlarged. the post of Field Assistant under Rule-10-A & 11-A of Sindh Civil Servant , for the simple reason that the aforesaid post can only be filled as per recruitment Rules. The explanation offered by the Respondents vide (CMA 14152/2015),prima facie, is tenable under the law as the Petitioners son was offered the post of Beldar in BS-1 by the Respondents in compliance of order dated 10.9.2015 passed by this Court; but the same was refused by the Petitioners son. we are satisfied with the explanation offered by the alleged Contemnors that substantial compliance of the order dated10.9.2015 passed by this
Court has been made in its letter and spirit, therefore at this juncture, no case for initiating Contempt Proceedings is made out against the alleged Contemnors. Thus, we are not minded to proceed with any further on the listed application searing , having no merits, are accordingly dismissed.
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 1408
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 22-JAN-19
Approved for Reporting
831) 993/2016 Cr.Bail DR. ASIM HUSSAIN S/O TAJAMUL HUSSAIN (Appellant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 PCr.LJ 631
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 11-NOV-16
Approved for Reporting
832) 219/2019 Criminal Appeal ANANTKUMAR PARSHOTAM (Appellant) V/S MEM. OF MANAGING COMT. NARAYAN TEMPLE TRUST & ORS (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:1. Under section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, an order that is appealable to the High Court does not include an order dismissing the complaint. However, the appeal can be converted to a criminal revision.
2. In order to constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, the complaint must disclose actus reas and mens rea, and if the facts that constitute an offence under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act are not disclosed through the complaint or documents with it, then the Court can dismiss the complaint straight away. Rel: Waqar Ali v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 181).
Citation:2021 PCr.LJ Note 38
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 17-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
833) 276/2018 I.T.R.A DR. ZAFAR SAJJAD (Applicant) V/S THE COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 19-APR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1281-K/2021,C.P.1487-K/2021,C.A.3928/2022,C.A.3789/2022,C.A.3622/2022 SCP Status:Disposed Leave Granted, Fix in Islamabad.,Disposed Leave Granted, Fix in Islamabad.,Pending ,Pending ,Pending
834) 43/2016 M.A. M/s. Idara-e-Noor-e-Haq through Sec. (Appellant) V/S Public at Large (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Succession Act (XXXIX of 1925)---
----Ss. 272, 269, 299, 300 & 384---Appeal---Probate, grant of---Ownerless property---Application for grant of probate under S.272 Succession Act, 1925, was filed by appellant but Trial Court dismissed the application---Validity---Once it was found that none was available to claim ownership of immovable property in question in his own right or by way of inheritance, such property should be treated as an ownerless property---Once Court was satisfied that the property was rendered ownerless, it was the duty of Court to protect it from being misappropriated or wasted or damaged---Court could appoint Curator under S.195 of Succession Act, 1925, to takeover possession of the property pending final determination of fate of proceedings---Court could have also taken prompt action under S.269 of Succession Act, 1925, for protection of such property---Jurisdiction of High Court under S.300 of Succession Act, 1925, was concurrent with District Judge in exercise of power under Succession Act, 1925---High Court appointed its official as a Curator to protect the property in question and directed him to take over the possession immediately---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
1993 CLC 1552 ref.
Citation:2020 PLD Sindh Note 563
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
835) 4965/2020 Const. P. Muhammad Hassan Nadeem & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Model Custom Collectorate and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Search and seizure.
Citation:2021 PTD 764
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
836) 762/1995 Suit SHAHZAB GOTH RESIDENTS (Plaintiff) V/S GOVT. OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 21-MAY-19
Approved for Reporting
837) 62/2006 Const. P. General Tyre & Rubber Co. Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Shah Zareen & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 11-FEB-16
Approved for Reporting
838) 3502/2021 Const. P. Syed Babar Hashmi (Petitioner) V/S Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:We do not agree with the statement of the learned counsel for the Petitioner on the aforesaid assertions for the simple reason that compulsory retirement from service is a major penalty under service jurisprudence and falls within the ambit of expression terms and condition of service of the civil servant, therefore, the jurisdiction of all other courts is barred by the provision of Sindh Service Tribunals Act, 1973 read with Article 212(2) of the Constitution. On the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified with the decision rendered by the Honble Supreme court in the case of Ali Azhar Khan Baloch vs. Province of Sindh [2015 SCMR 456]
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 03-JUN-21
Approved for Reporting
839) 8756/2018 Const. P. Jawed Qureshi (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:the petitioner has assailed the vires of the office order No.42/2018 issued by respondent-Employees Old-age Benefits Institution (`EOBI`), whereby he was declared as Dead wood, consequently, he was forcibly sent on Early Retirement from the service of EOBI on the ground that his further retention in service would be of no benefit for the institution.
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 04-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4249/2021 The Chairman Employees Old Age Benefits Institution (EOBI), Karachi v. Jawed Qureshi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
840) 443/2007 Suit HUMAIR ASSOCIATES BUILDERS PVT. LTD (Plaintiff) V/S M/S. CHAPPAL BUILDERS & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Order Vii, Rule 11 C.P.C (Dismissed.)
Tag Line:Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)---
----R.14---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151---Inherent powers of High Court---Miscellaneous applications---Maintainability---High Court directed the office to be cautious while receiving applications under 5.151, C.P.C., in pending cases; it was also imperative for court to be vigilant and very careful in exercising inherent jurisdiction under S.151., lest it should not be "advancing" instead of "preventing" abuse of process of court---Office while referring miscellaneous applications to Judges in terms of second proviso to R.14 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.) was directed to ensure scrutiny of each and every application under S.151, C.P.C. filed in any civil suit before placing the same in court for order/hearing---High Court directed the office to examine/scrutinize such applications bearing in mind amongst. other at the queries to the effect that as to whether applicant who had involved provision of S.151, C. P. C. was already a party in proceedings or not; that whether prayer in application was relevant to issues between parties and was directed against adverse party in the lis or not and that whether inherent powers sought to be invoked were with respect to the procedural matters or it would affected substantive rights of either party.
Citation:2014 PLD 327
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 06-NOV-13
Approved for Reporting
841) 49/2021 Const. P. Manzoor Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Ganj Bibi & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
842) 3550/2013 Const. P. Akhter Billoo (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan Industrial Development Corporation and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 11-APR-14
Approved for Reporting
843) 1317/2021 Cr.Bail INTEKHAB ALAM QURESHI S/O MUHAMMAD YOUNUS QURESHI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:seeking pre-arrest bail in F.I.R No. 432 of 2021, for an offense under section 489-F P.P.C at Liaquatabad Police Station, Karachi
Advocates:Zulfiqar Ali Khan Jalbani(ADVO-17147-SBC-KHI),Mohammad Sharif Buriro(ADVO-17608-SBC-KHE),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 30-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
844) 8233/2019 Const. P. Sapphire Textile Mills Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Tax credit - A challenge to the vires of section 65B of the Income Tax Ordinance 2001, post amendment vide the Finance Act 2019.
Citation:2023 SBLR Sindh 1007
Advocates:KHALID ANWER & CO. ( A. K. BROHI ).(FIRM-157-SBC-KHI),Ameer Bakhsh Metlo(ADVO-13549-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 27-FEB-23
Approved for Reporting
845) 2820/2014 Const. P. Syed Mansoor Ali (Petitioner) V/S Chairman NAB and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2016 PLD Sindh 41
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shahnawaz Tariq, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 25-JUL-14
Approved for Reporting
846) 1928/2020 Const. P. Shahzad Sher Ali (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Maintainability of Petition)
Tag Line:Where employment rules are non-statutory, the relationship of an employee and his employer is to be governed by the principle of master and servant.
Advocates:Syed Khurram Nizam(ADVO-6426-SBC-KHI),Hasan Khurshid Hashmi(ADVO-11313-SBC-KHI),Altamash Arab(ADVO-14079-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 11-AUG-22
Approved for Reporting
847) 104/2001 Cr.Rev Muhammad Akram S/o Muhammad Salim (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 15-JAN-18
Approved for Reporting
848) 3/2017 Election Appeal Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dehar (Appellant) V/S Haji Muhammad Akbar and 14 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 13-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
849) 201/2017 Criminal Appeal Muhammad Yaseen (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
Order Date: 16-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
850) 635/2000 Suit Muhammad Aqil (Plaintiff) V/S Abdul Khaliq (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 24-DEC-16
Approved for Reporting
851) 1447/2006 Suit Syed Amjad Mahboob (Plaintiff) V/S Raja Mumtaz Hussain Arif & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 15-APR-14
Approved for Reporting
852) 6555/2016 Const. P. Maj (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Contract employee)
Citation:2019 SCMR 984
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 12-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.514-K/2018 Maj. (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan and another,C.A.26-K/2018 Maj. (R) Syed Muhammad Tanveer Abbas v. Federation of Pakistan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted [ Relist after summer vacation before a 3 Member Bench at Islamabad ],Disposed Dismissed
853) 86/2019 I. A Sheikh Kashif Imtiaz (Appellant) V/S Faysal Bank Limited & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 21-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1909/2020 Sheikh Kashif Imtiaz v. Faysal Bank Limited, Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed
854) 3993/2011 Const. P. M/S Akhter Textile Industries Ltd. (Petitioner) V/S Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal at Karachi (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 PLC Lab. 319
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Rasool Memon
Order Date: 13-FEB-14
Approved for Reporting
855) 1511/2019 Const. P. Jam Mitha Khan (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Petitioner is seeking direction to the Respondents to issue notification of his post-retirement benefits, on the premise that he was appointed as Junior Engineer (Civil) BPS-17 in Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority (WAPDA) ---the petitioner???s Counsel was directed to assist this Court more particularly regarding Article 187(2) of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 that whether this Court can examine and or modify the Judgment of the Hon???ble Supreme Court or only to enforce it in accordance with the law--We in the circumstances are constrained to direct Sindh Government to pay all his perks and privileges to which he was entitled to on issuance of notification of his repatriation, inclusive of his entire pensionary benefits within [02] months and report compliance through MIT-II of this court.
Topic: Service matters (post retirement benefits)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 23-SEP-19
Approved for Reporting
856) 13/2020 R.A (Civil Revision) Sohail Ahmed Ansari (Applicant) V/S Irfan Ahmed Ansari and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 10-AUG-20
Approved for Reporting
857) 33/2007 Judicial Companies Misc. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan. (Applicant) V/S Beema Pakistan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Winding up petition
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 21-JUN-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.2486/2019 Beema Pakistan Company Ltd, Karachi v. The Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan, Islamabad Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
858) 735/2001 Suit KPT Officers Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Government of Sindh & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 08-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
859) 3804/2020 Const. P. Dr. Abdul Karim Channa (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:7. The question involved in the present proceedings is whether Temporary and officiating service rendered by the petitioner on retenairship as Medical Officer with effect from 1992 till his purported regularization firstly in 2008 and secondly in 2012 shall count for pension.
Advocates:Ali Asadullah Bullo(ADVO-12811-SBC-KHI),Deputy Attorney General(),Dr. Shah Nawaz(ADVO-2108-SBC-HYD)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 31-JAN-22
Approved for Reporting
860) 1027/2015 Suit Shapes (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) V/S Cantonment Board Clifton and another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 12-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
861) 1/2017 M.A. (HESCO) Hyderabad (Applicant) V/S Muhammad Tanveer & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 18-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
862) 2546/2020 Const. P. Aftab Ahmed Mahar (Petitioner) V/S The Speaker Provincial Assembly and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Petitioner has questioned his repatriation from the Secretariat of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh to his parent department i.e. Education Department, Government of Sindh --In view of the above, petitioner is liable to return the entire amount received by him during the entire said period towards differential in the pay scale of BPS-9 to BPS-19 and respondents are duty-bound to recover such amount from him and deposit the same in the Government exchequer. The Secretary Education & Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, respondent No.2 / Secretary Provincial Assembly of Sindh and Accountant General Sindh, are jointly and severally directed to calculate the differential amount recoverable from the petitioner and to submit a statement in this behalf through MIT-II of this Court, without fail within eight (08) weeks from today.
Topic: Service matters (Repatriation)
Tag Line:Petitioner has questioned his repatriation from the Secretariat of the Provincial Assembly of Sindh to his parent department i.e. Education Department, Government of Sindh --In view of the above, petitioner is liable to return the entire amount received by him during the entire said period towards differential in the pay scale of BPS-9 to BPS-19 and respondents are duty-bound to recover such amount from him and deposit the same in the Government exchequer. The Secretary Education & Literacy Department, Government of Sindh, respondent No.2 / Secretary Provincial Assembly of Sindh and Accountant General Sindh, are jointly and severally directed to calculate the differential amount recoverable from the petitioner and to submit a statement in this behalf through MIT-II of this Court, without fail within eight (08) weeks from today.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 20-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1879/2020 Aftab Ahmed Mahar v. Speaker Provincial Assembly of Sindh, Karachi & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
863) 1661/2015 Suit Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Anti Dumping Law
Tag Line: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.
Citation:2018 PTD 668
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
Order Date: 02-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
864) 3299/2016 Const. P. Bacho Leghari (Petitioner) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
Order Date: 24-FEB-17
Approved for Reporting
865) 304/2015 Cr.Appeal MUHAMMAD ASIM S/O MUHAMMAD RIAZ (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Muhammad Farooq Shah
Order Date: 06-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
866) 1574/2020 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD FAISAL @ CHITTA (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 (Bail rejected)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad(Author)
Order Date: 08-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
867) 2308/2020 Const. P. Zubair Javed (Petitioner) V/S Speaker Sindh Assembly & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Sindh Provincial Assembly Secretariat (Appointment, Promotion, and Transfer) Rules, 1975)
Tag Line:A person may be in the service of the Federation/province but for that reason, he cannot be classed as a 'Civil Servant' as defined in the Civil Servants Act 1973, except the employees whose terms and conditions of service are protected under the constitutional protection.
Advocates:M. M. Aqil Awan(ADVO-10438-SBC-KHI),Ghulam Sarwar Chandio(ADVO-1145-SBC-HYD),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 15-APR-22
Approved for Reporting
868) 51/2012 I.T.R.A Commissioner Inland Revenue (Applicant) V/S MCR (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar
Order Date: 13-JUN-16
Approved for Reporting
869) 5/2005 Execution Mrs. Meher Rohinton Minwalla (Decree Holder) V/S S Darayus Cyrus Minwalla & Ors. (Judgment Debtor)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC
Tag Line:(a) Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)---
----R. 50---Withdrawal of power of attorney by advocate of party---Effect---Applicant sought restoration of her execution petition which was dismissed after withdrawal of power of attorney by her advocate---Validity---Grievance of applicant was that intimation notice was issued to previous attorney after withdrawal of Vakalatnama---Issuance of notice to the attorney of applicant was not even required after compliance of notice under R.50 of Sindh Chief Court Rules (O.S.)---Court had shown grace by issuing notice, in the given facts and circumstances of the case, the Court could not ignore deliberate and wilful negligence of applicant herself in pursuing the case---Applicant failed to show bona fide in prosecuting her case with due diligence---High Court declined to restore execution petition---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
Messrs United Bank Limited v. Messrs. Plastic Pack (Pvt.) Limited 2012 CLD 239; United Bank Limited v. The Chairman, Banking Tribunal-I, Lahore 1999 MLD 3267; Alamgir v. The State 1988 SCMR 642 distinguished.
Bashir Ahmed v. Settlement of Rehabilitation Commissioner 1982 SCMR 188; Rafiq Ahmed v. Abdul Haleem 1982 SCMR 1229; Muhammad Rahim v. Mst. Begum Kaniz Fatima Hayat 1986 CLC 178 and Zulfiqar Ali v. Lal Din and others 1974 SCMR162 ref.
(b) Constitution of Pakistan---
----Art. 10-A---Right to fair trial---Scope---Provisions of Art.10-A of the Constitution are not for prosecutor to claim "fair trial and due process"---Protection of Art.10-A of the Constitution is available only to defendant and / or accused facing civil or criminal trial, as the case may be so that they may not be condemned unheard or treated unfairly in the process of adjudication.
Citation:2014 CLC 1312, 2014 SBLR 1021
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 29-JAN-14
Approved for Reporting
870) 1315/2006 Suit MUHAMMAD IQBAL (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ORS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 23-AUG-19
Approved for Reporting
871) 5048/2016 Const. P. Azher Jawaid (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 SBLR Sindh 229
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 13-JAN-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.A.6-K/2017 Azhar Jawaid v. Federation of Pakistan and others,C.P.19-K/2017 Azhar Jawaid v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted with Notice to Respondents.
872) 33/2019 Judicial Companies Misc. MUHAMMAD YOUSUF AHMED & OTHERS (Applicant) V/S ARTISTIC DENIM MILLS LIMITED (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:The Petitioners hold 14.45% shares in respondent Company and are aggrieved by the notice as well as the proceedings of the impugned Meeting dated 19.10.2019 and the resolutions passed thereon, whereby, related party transactions were approved in respect of 2 Companies, which have certain common Directorship. It is their case that they hold more than 10% of the shareholding and are, therefore, qualified to institute present proceedings, under s.136 of the Companies Act, 2017 which according to them has seriously prejudiced their interests. According to them statement of material facts under Section 134(3) of the Act, annexed with the impugned notice of meeting, failed to include the minimum information required under Regulation-5 of the Company (Related Parties Transactions and Maintenance of Related Records) Regulations, 2018, whereas, the meeting was also conducted without following proper procedure and has deprived the Petitioners from exercising their rights. However, the Petitioners have failed to make out a case for indulgence; hence, this petition fails and is accordingly dismissed with pending applications.
Citation:2021 CLD 134
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author)
Order Date: 16-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
873) 1672/2014 Cr.Bail Abdul Ghaffar (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 07-SEP-15
Approved for Reporting
874) 183/2020 Const. P. Ali Bux Chohan & Another (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan
Tag Line: Petitions seek execution and/or implementation of orders passed by the Anti-Encroachment
Tribunal, Sukkur. we have noticed with concern that the Anti-Encroachment Tribunal is passing orders and is disposing of the complaints apparently in a slipshod manner inasmuch as on the one hand, certain directions are given to carry out demarcation and survey of the property, only then an order for removal of the encroachment has to be passed. Both directions at the same time and final disposal of a complaint are unwarranted as it creates further complications. The above provision clearly provides that the Tribunal is the final authority to determine all disputes, whereas, it has to conclusively determine the rights of the parties to a dispute. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of this case, both these Petitions are dismissed as not maintainable.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
Order Date: 04-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
875) 1111/2017 Suit Dr. Sulleman and another (Plaintiff) V/S Higher Education of Commission of Pakistan and others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
Order Date: 14-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
876) 5895/2017 Const. P. Uzma Naz and Ors (Petitioner) V/S The D.G Rangers & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 09-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail: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 Status:Pending Adjourned after summer vacation,Pending Adjourned after summer vacation
877) 646/2021 Const. P. M/s Al-Kousar Drinking Water (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:to direct the Karachi Water and Sewerage Board (KW&SB) to grant him license to continue his business for supplying Brackish water via Pipe Line from Subsoil/boring to National Refinery and other industries in Karachi--we are not inclined to subscribe to the request of the petitioner because no right of the petitioner to extract minerals/brackish water has been established and prima-facie under the garb of this petition he has attempted to continue such an activity illegally
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 28-JAN-21
Approved for Reporting
878) 1803/2020 Suit KARAM CERAMICS LTD & OTHERS (Plaintiff) V/S FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Challenge to the gas tariff issued under the OGRA Ordinance, the definition of Captive Power Plants and the Moratorium on the supply of gas to Captive Power Plants.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 21-FEB-23
Approved for Reporting
879) 1461/1998 Suit A. QUBUBUDDIN KHAN (Plaintiff) V/S CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Arbitration Law (Arbitration Act,1940 Section 15)
Tag Line: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
Order Date: 24-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
880) 230/1993 Const. P. Faiz Mohammad Palari (Petitioner) V/S Member (L.U.) B.O.R. & ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 19-SEP-11
Approved for Reporting
881) 21/2012 Judicial Companies Misc. King?s Food (Pvt.) Ltd. and Hilal Confectionery (Pvt.) Ltd.a (Applicant) V/S Nonw (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 07-MAR-14
Approved for Reporting
882) 5839/2015 Const. P. Arshad Noor Khan (Petitioner) V/S Government of Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 PLC (CS) 360
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-APR-18
Approved for Reporting
883) 5503/2019 Const. P. Abdul Ahad Shaikh and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:M.S. Bukhari(ADVO-17093-SBC-KHI),Zamir Hussain Ghumro(ADVO-10861-SBC-KHI),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.793-K/2022 Abdul Ahad Shaikh & others v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
884) 389/2012 Const. P. Sabir Hussain (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 23-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.673-K/2018 Asif Hassan and others v. Sabir Hussain and others,C.A.49-K/2019 Asif Hassan and others v. Sabir Hussain and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed
885) 8152/2017 Const. P. Muhammad Shahzad (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
886) 667/2020 Const. P. Prof. Dr. Jan Muhammad Memon & another (Petitioner) V/S P. O Sindh & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:Service Matter; Quo Warranto
1. Appointment of an ad hoc appointee / Professor as Principal of a Medical College challenged; Held No
2. Exercise of Discretion in such matter; guidelines
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
Order Date: 08-FEB-22
Approved for Reporting
887) 792/2013 Const. P. Party-1 (Appellant) V/S Party-2 (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:contract employees
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 11-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
888) 133/2014 R.A (Civil Revision) Shaikh Muhammad Sajid & Another (Applicant) V/S Roohullah & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Civil Revision Application was dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000.00 ; the applicants were directed to deposit the said amount with the Nazir of this Court within thirty (30) days ; and, the Nazir was directed to utilize the same towards the benevolent fund of the employees of this Court.
Advocates:Sameer Ghazanfar(ADVO-11222-SBC-KHI),Abdul Karim Khan Faheem(ADVO-3829-SBC-KHI),M/S. TABASUM GHAZANFAR & COMPANY (LAW FIRM).(FIRM-147-SBC-KHI),Tabasum Ghazanfar(ADVO-2492-SBC-KHI),Javed Haleem(ADVO-9588-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 24-AUG-16
Approved for Reporting
889) 4/2012 H.C.A Mirza Afzal Baig (Appellant) V/S Mudabbir Ali Khan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2014 CLC 261
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 11-OCT-13
Approved for Reporting
890) 2987/2018 Const. P. TCS (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan Post & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2019 PLD SC 69
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author)
Order Date: 03-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4990/2018 Skynet Worldwide Express, Karachi & others v. Pakistan Post having their place of business at Director General, Pakistan Post Office, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
891) 6/2019 Cr.Acctt.A Faisal (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi
Order Date: 19-JUL-19
Approved for Reporting
892) 27/2016 F.R.A Nazimuddin (Applicant) V/S Mrs.Shahida and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan
Order Date: 07-SEP-16
Approved for Reporting
893) 85/2019 II.A. Mst. Naz Bibi (since died) through her LRs (Appellant) V/S Wahid Bux (since died) through his LRs and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Tag Line:The impugned judgment and decree of the learned appellate Court are maintained to the extent of entitlement of respondent No.1 in respect of the amount of the National Savings Certificates left by the deceased along with profit thereon, however, according to his share as per Shariah ; and, the impugned judgment and decree are set aside to the extent of grant of 50% share to respondent No.1 in the severance grant, gratuity and benevolent fund of the deceased, which shall be paid expeditiously to the legal heirs of the appellant / widow as per the service rules and regulations of the respondent No.2-bank. Needless to say the above payments shall be in addition to the donation by the respondent No.2-bank and the death compensation of the deceased granted to the appellant / widow by the learned appellate Court which, having not been challenged by respondent No.1, has attained finality. This appeal is partly allowed in the above terms with no order as to costs.
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 02-AUG-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1520-K/2021 Wahid Bux & others v. Mst.Naz Bibi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
894) 4422/2017 Const. P. Syed Irtaza Raza Naqvi (Petitioner) V/S Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-JAN-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.68-K/2018 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
895) 2863/2014 Const. P. Pir Kaleemullah and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 11-MAY-18
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.643-K/2018 Pir Kalimullah and another v. Province of Sindh thr. Cheif Secy: Govt. of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
896) 41/2020 Criminal Appeal Zaheer s/o Haji Qasim Lakho (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana
Topic: Appeal (Control of Narcotic 9(C) Appeal allowed On Ground contradictions in the evidence of complainant and mashir, )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 05-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.1082/2020 Zaffarullah v. The State thr. Special Prosecutor A.N.F. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
897) 834/2016 Cr.Bail ABDUL GHAFFAR S/O SHAMSUDDIN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan
Order Date: 04-JUL-16
Approved for Reporting
898) 4546/2012 Const. P. Ayaz Ahmed Memon (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan Railways & ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 PLC CS 226
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi
Order Date: 18-OCT-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.7-K/2017 Pakistan Railways thr. Chairman and others v. Ayaz Ahmed Memon and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time
899) 31/2021 Const. P. Irfan Ali Khan (Petitioner) V/S Full Bench of N.I.R.C & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Javed Asghar(ADVO-4324-SBC-KHS),Nadeem Ahmed Farooqi(ADVO-6272-SBC-KHI),Advocate General Sindh(ADVO-GEN-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 02-MAR-22
Approved for Reporting
900) 727/2008 Suit BAYER AG and Bayer Health Care AG (Plaintiff) V/S Bayhealth Care (Private) Limited & another (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 27-MAY-13
Approved for Reporting
901) 3803/2020 Const. P. Suhaila Hussain (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:whether the petitioner was entitled to the benefit of her previous service rendered with effect from 1971 till her reinstatement/re-employment in the year 1990 or not?
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 28-MAY-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.4282/2021 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation thr. its Chief Human Resource Officer, Karachi and others v. Sohaila Hussain and another,C.A.1423/2021 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation thr. its Chief Human Resource Officer, Karachi and others v. Sohaila Hussain and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 3 months.,Disposed Allowed
902) 4445/2013 Const. P. Aftab Ali (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Reinstatement into service)
Citation:2018 PLC (CS) Note 64
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 13-APR-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1906/2017 Aftab Ali v. Federation of Pakistan, thr. Secretary, Ministry of Petroleum & Natural Resources and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed
903) 40/2001 Civil Revision Shamsuddin and others (Applicant) V/S Abdul Jabbar & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Tag Line:Islamic law---
----Pre-emption suit--- Talbs, performance of--- Requirements---Plaintiffs had failed to produce two witnesses of the occasion/event when they came to know that defendants had sold or they were about to sell their property and plaintiffs raised their right of pre-emption against the defendants---Plaintiffs were required to produce two witnesses of Talb-i-Ishhad but they had not produced the second witness nor had mentioned second witness in their claim of pre-emption---Plaintiffs had failed to prove their right of pre-emption, in circumstances---Revision was dismissed accordingly. [Paras. 7, 8, 9 & 10 of the judgment]
Citation:2020 CLC Note 25
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar(Author)
Order Date: 03-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
904) 12/2012 Conf.Case The State (Applicant) V/S Rashid Aslam & Arshad Nabi (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Qadir Leghari, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 25-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
905) 1518/2007 Suit ANSAR ALI (Plaintiff) V/S ALTAF AHMED MEMON & ANOTHER. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 09-AUG-18
Approved for Reporting
906) 850/2019 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs MCC (Preventive) (Applicant) V/S Falak Jan & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 506(I)/88), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 403(I)/96), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 507(I)/88), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 577(I)/2006), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 53(I)/70), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 878(I)/85), Customs Act, 1969 (336) (SRO 447(I)/2004)
Tag Line:Exemption is a privilege being enjoyed by diplomats and other
dignitaries. If we trace history of last 50 years (though there were
earlier SROs also), we come across initial SRO 53(I)/70 issued in exercise
of powers available under Section 19 of Customs Act for all articles of
household and personal effects including motor vehicles for the personal
use by the ruler of any of the Gulf Sheikhdoms including vehicles
imported by the UAE dignitaries which includes use and donations to
welfare projects in Pakistan with conditions, such as articles will not be
sold without prior consent of Central Board of Revenue, as it then was.
It was persons specified SRO as it contained list of all such dignitaries
with a table attached.
Vehicle was imported in 2002 when SRO 506(I)/88 was active. It
restricted the sale without prior permission of Federal Government,
Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to be routed through a formal application. In
other event, no such vehicle could have been sold within two years of its
importation to anyone other than Department of Investment Promotion
or diplomatic representatives or mission of foreign government, except
when the diplomatic representative by whom it was imported is
transferred within two years of its importation and it has been used by
him for not less than one year. So nothing beneficial could be achieved
by respondent through said SRO
Citation:2022 PTD 512
Advocates:Zakir Hussain Khaskhali(ADVO-419-SBC-KHP),Shahid Ali(ADVO-12507-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
Order Date: 06-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.273/2022 Falak Jan v. The Collector of Customs Model Collectorate of Customs (Preventive) Custom House Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
907) 866/2017 Suit Hajj Organizaers Association of Pakistan & Others (Plaintiff) V/S Federation of Pakistan & Others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2017 MLD 1616
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 16-JUN-17
Approved for Reporting
908) 1094/2020 Const. P. Suresh Kumar Hindu (Petitioner) V/S P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Topic: Constitution of Pakistan (199)
Tag Line:Precise facts are that Petitioners have challenged the Wheat Release Policy 2020-21 dated 14th October 2020 (said Policy), on the ground that Clause (xii) whereof is violative of the Food Stuffs (Control) Act, 1958, and the Food-grains (Licensing Control) Order, 1957, and consequently, be set aside and Flour Mills of Petitioners be given wheat as per the uniform Policy. The legal team of Respondents has stated that it is purely an executive matter regarding which no petition of the nature is maintainable. Crux of the rule laid down in these decisions is that ordinarily under Article 199 of the Constitution, High Court cannot interfere in the policy matters of the Executive, except if it is violative of law or is product of mala fide; whereas, the mala fide is also explained, inter alia, that unless an un rebuttable material is on record with regard to a specific plea of mala fide and not a vague one, the decision or action complained of, cannot be annulled or declared illegal This principle has been evolved through judicial pronouncements and opinions of jurists, the crux of which is that punishment must fit the crime. When on the record there is no evidence that Petitioners / Flour Mills have entered into plea bargain with NAB, then Clause (xii) cannot be stretched to include Petitioners / Flour Mills, and such an action of Respondents is hit by this doctrine of proportionality also and is unreasonable and discriminatory. Petitions are accepted only to the extent, that the Clause (xii) of the Wheat Policy is not applicable to the present Petitioners / Flour Mills and they are entitled to get their respective share / quota of wheat in accordance with the present Wheat Policy 202021 like other Flour Mills established and operating in the Province of Sindh.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 17-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
909) 575/2009 Const. P. Mrs. Samina Zaheer Abbas (Petitioner) V/S Mr. Hassan S. Akhtar & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sind Rented Premises Act - Eviction---15
Tag Line:Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)---
----Ss. 16, 21 & 15---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts.199 & 4---Constitutional petition---Scope---Ejectment of tenant---Tentative rent order, non-compliance of---Effect---Landlords filed an ejectment petition wherein they moved an application under S. 16(1) of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979---Application for payment of arrears of rent was accepted and tenant was directed to deposit the same who failed and her defence was struck off---Eviction petition was accepted concurrently---Validity---Tenant had failed to comply with the tentative rent order and she was guilty of non-compliance of the direction to deposit monthly rent---Said findings were findings of facts and no evidence was required to come to such conclusion---Order passed by the Appellate Authority was final and same could not be challenged through constitutional petition on the ground that "no other adequate remedy" had been provided by law or said finality attached to the order had violated the constitutional guarantees provided under Art. 4 of the Constitution to the tenant---Constitutional petition was dismissed and tenant was directed to vacate the premises within specified period.
Citation:2014 YLR 2331
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 04-AUG-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.265-K/2014 Samina Zaheer Abbas v. Hasan S. Akhtar and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
910) 612/2013 Cr.Bail Muhammad Aslam (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Bail Matters (dishonor of cheque section 489F)
Tag Line:The contents under Section 489-F for the perusal as reproduced as also the contents of the FIR clearly manifest the dishonesty. For reaching the conclusion as to whether offence under Section 489-F is bail out or not the applicants attitude towards the cheques need not to be further established as he has failed to inform the concerned Manager of the Bank regarding the alleged misappropriation of cheque which was allegedly stolen. The applicant has not been able to this fact satisfactorily as to why this information was not given to the Manager. It also creates an impression that before issuing cheque to the complainant he might have managed to lodge this non-cognizance report to save his skin from future dispute. With these reasons I am clear in my mind that the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail and this bail application is dismissed.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
Order Date: 02-JUL-13
Approved for Reporting
911) 74/2008 M.A. Smith Kline Beecham PLC (Appellant) V/S Registrar of Trade Mark (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:IRFAN & IRFAN ADVOCATES.(FIRM-125-SBC-KHI),VELLANI & VELLANI & CO.(FIRM-133-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain(Author)
Order Date: 01-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
912) 432/2015 Suit Muhammad Arif. (Plaintiff) V/S Mrs. Uzma Jawaid & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Specific Performance of Contract (Transfer of Property)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 30-DEC-19
Approved for Reporting
913) 1406/2022 Const. P. Moula Bux Sahito & Ors (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Mohsin Kadir Shahwani(ADVO-12570-SBC-KHS),Naeem Iqbal(ADVO-11353-SBC-KHI),Shahzeb Akhtar Khan(ADVO-13473-SBC-KHI),Haider Waheed(ADVO-10131-SBC-KHE)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAY-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.1932/2022 Azeem Qadir and others v. Maula Bux Sahito and others,C.M.A.4046/2022 Farzana Perveen v. Maula Bux Sahito and others,C.M.A.4047/2022 Humaira Qayum v. Maula Bux Sahito and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed
914) 318/2002 Cr.Misc. Ali Zahir Jafari (Applicant) V/S The State (Appellant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 04-AUG-11
Approved for Reporting
915) 842/2020 Const. P. Adeela Saeed Sheikh D/o Hafiz Muhammad Saeed Sheik (Petitioner) V/S Saad Mahmood Sherani and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Guardian and Ward Act, 1890 (Mother filed 491 CRPC dismissed By ADJ ,High Court Sat aside and Ordered to hand over custody to mother .)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author)
Order Date: 15-DEC-20
Approved for Reporting
916) 823/2008 Suit Abdul Karim (Plaintiff) V/S Bilal Atiq & others (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Declaration and Permanent Injunction)
Tag Line:(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)---
----O. VII, R. 2---Money suit---Plaintiff filed suit claiming his charge on the suit property---All the transactions with regard to the suit property by and on behalf of defendant were dubious, mala fide, illegal and contrary to law---Buyer could not have better title than the seller---Plaintiff was entitled of decree to the tune of amount as equivalent to market value of the property on the date of filing of suit---Suit was decreed with specific directions.
(b) Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882)---
----S. 54---"Sale"---Scope---Mere sale agreement was not enough for transfer of title of immovable property---Transfer of title of immovable property must be through "registered instrument" and not merely by registered power of attorney to act on behalf of owner---"Sale" had to be proved independently by payment of full and final sale consideration---Sale would be incomplete until and unless a full and final sale consideration was paid and receipt thereof was issued separately by the seller.
Sarfraz Ahmed and 36 others v. Mst. Sakina Ahmed and 36 others PLD 1985 Journal 121 and Mst. Hussain and 5 others v. Mst. Channo Bi 1990 CLC 1591 rel.
(c) Stamp Act (II of 1899)---
----S. 3---Registration Act (XVI of 1908), S.17(b)---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.54---Sale of immovable property through power of attorney---Requirements---Power of attorney was liable to be "duly stamped" with stamp duty to confer power to "sell" on attorney with whom seller had also entered into an agreement of sale---Amount of stamp duty on such power of attorney should be equal to the stamp duty required for registration of "conveyance deed".
(d) Stamp Act (II of 1899)---
----Preamble---Scope---Stamp Act, 1899 was purely fiscal statute and violation of the provisions of Stamp Act, 1899 would entail penal consequence---Compliance of the Act was must for protection of revenue.
Citation:2015 CLC 1451
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Nazar Akbar
Order Date: 15-APR-15
Approved for Reporting
917) 2157/2019 Const. P. Kashmir Ahmed (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 26-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
918) 2465/2017 Const. P. Abdul Majeed Sohail (Petitioner) V/S Muhammad Mahboob-uz-Zaman Khan & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance,1979 (Judgment of Rent Controller& Order Appellate Court is maintained . C P dismissed .)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 25-FEB-19
Approved for Reporting
919) 3183/2018 Const. P. Dr. Fateh Muhammad Burfat (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Maalik Gaddi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio(Author)
Order Date: 10-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
920) 600/2011 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Saima Packaging (Pvt) Ltd (Applicant) V/S Additional Collector of Customs & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi
Order Date: 02-APR-12
Approved for Reporting
921) 394/1997 Suit MUHAMMAD KHAN (Plaintiff) V/S PAK. STEEL MILLS CORP. LTD. & ORS. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: Fatal Accident (Compensation and Damages)
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 02-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
922) 1847/2016 Suit M/s. EFU General Insurance Ltd (Plaintiff) V/S M/s. Emirates Airline / Emirates Sky Cargo & other (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
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.
Topic: International Law
Tag Line: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)
Order Date: 06-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
923) 53/2017 J.M Province of Sindh & others (Applicant) V/S M/s. Pakrock Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author)
Order Date: 19-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
924) 404/2020 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. Collector of Customs (Applicant) V/S M/s. Euro Tiles & Granites (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 19-OCT-20
Approved for Reporting
925) 7380/2018 Const. P. Karamuddin Panhyar (Petitioner) V/S The NAB (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
We have decided the main appeal of the appellant therefore the Constitution Petition No: 7380 of 2018 filed by the appellant for suspension of his sentence during the pendency of the appeal has become infructuous and is also dismissed.
Topic: NAB (misused his authority and with malafide intention made illegal fifteen (15) entries in Record . appeal dismissed.)
Hon'be Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 01-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
926) 4389/2016 Const. P. Lutfullah Kalhoro and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 01-NOV-18
Approved for Reporting
927) 756/2017 Const. P. S.M Kaleem Makki (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service
Tag Line:It is the general principle of jurisprudence that the law takes its effect from the date of promulgation and interpretation of the said law cannot be subjected to the doctrine of retrospective effects unless expressed specifically in the judgment, therefore, Mustafa Impexs case is to be applied prospectively, in general. It is the existence of law at the relevant time that counts, which may have been interpreted at a later date. Since the deficiency in the appointment notification as far as Provincial Cabinet is concerned, is not questioned no challenge could be thrown.
The principle we derive from the conclusion of the aforesaid three judgments is that Mustafa Impex only invalidates those actions retrospectively which were impugned in that lis and not all others, so by virtue of aforesaid principle the notification for the appointment of the petitioner is saved whereas it set a mechanism for future course i.e. issuance of impugned notification.
Citation:2021 PLC (CS) Note 11
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
Order Date: 28-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.724-K/2019 Province of Sindh and others v. S.M Kaleem Makki,C.P.41-K/2020 S.M Kaleem Makki v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
928) 3/2012 Conf.Case The State (Appellant) V/S Danial alias Dani (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Order Date: 17-FEB-16
Approved for Reporting
929) 7004/2015 Const. P. Syed Umer Baqi and Ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 19-DEC-17
Approved for Reporting
930) 1702/2020 Const. P. Hameedullah (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Enquiries and Anti-corruption Establishment Sindh (`E&ACE`) for issuance of his retirement notification and releasing his salaries up to 21.7.2013, wherein he has served for 10 years--In the light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, the competent authority of respondents/Home Secretary, Government of Sindh is directed to issue his retirement notification within two weeks and release his pensionary benefits under the law within a month from the date of receipt of this order and submit compliance report through MIT-II of this court
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-FEB-21
Approved for Reporting
931) 1244/2006 Const. P. Mustafa F. Ansari (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan and others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Humayon Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 04-AUG-17
Approved for Reporting
932) 306/2011 Const. P. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (Petitioner) V/S Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 31-OCT-18
Approved for Reporting
933) 713/2021 Cr.Bail JAHANZAIB QAZI S/O JAWED AKHTAR QAZI (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:In view of the above, the interim bail granted to the applicant / accused vide order dated 26.04.2021 is hereby confirmed on the same terms and conditions. However, if the concession of bail is misused by the applicant in any manner whatsoever or he violates his undertaking to attend the case before the trial Court on every date of hearing, the learned trial Court will be at liberty to take action against him in accordance with law, including cancellation of bail.
This bail application stands disposed of in the above terms.
Advocates:Muhammad Nadeem Khan(ADVO-8525-SBC-KHI),Saqib Ali(ADVO-13757-SBC-KHI),Prosecutor General Sindh(PGS)
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 15-SEP-21
Approved for Reporting
934) 2/2010 I. A Khadim Hussain & others (Appellant) V/S Gul Hassan Tiwano & others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 07-JAN-13
Approved for Reporting
935) 5842/2022 Const. P. Shell Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Pakistan & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Section 4C Income Tax Ordinance 2001
Advocates:Muhammad Farogh Naseem(ADVO-3459-SBC-KHI),Muhammad Ahmed Hussain(ADVO-15940-SBC-KHI),Attorney Gen. Pakistan(),Faisal Siddiqi(ADVO-8504-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)
Order Date: 22-DEC-22
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.220-K/2023,C.P.221-K/2023,C.P.222-K/2023,C.P.223-K/2023,C.P.224-K/2023,C.P.227-K/2023,C.P.228-K/2023,C.P.230-K/2023,C.P.126-K/2023,C.P.229-K/2023,C.P.226-K/2023,C.P.225-K/2023 SCP Status:Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi,Pending Adjourned. Only in Islambad cases next date is 28-03-2023. Remaining cases simply adjourned. Repeat notices. (-) Mr Justice Yahya Afridi
936) 99/2018 I. A Ayub Raza (Appellant) V/S M/S. Bank Al-Falah Limited & another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar
Order Date: 06-DEC-18
Approved for Reporting
937) 2/2015 J.M Province of Sindh & Others (Applicant) V/S Bilqees & Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2018 SBLR Sindh 1920
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
Order Date: 09-JUN-16
Approved for Reporting
938) 1010/2007 Const. P. Muhammas Aslam (Petitioner) V/S P.I.A.C. & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Advocates:Muhammad Arshad Khan Tanoli(ADVO-8709-SBC-KHI),M. M. Aqil Awan(ADVO-10438-SBC-KHI),Danish Rashid(ADVO-13031-SBC-KHI),Khalid Javed(ADVO-2417-SBC-KHI)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 01-APR-22
Approved for Reporting
939) 52/2017 II.A. Ali Asghar (Appellant) V/S Additional District Judge, Sehwan & 07 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Civil Procedure Code CPC (Order VII R.11)
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 08-NOV-19
Approved for Reporting
940) 279/2015 Const. P. Kamran Bhutto (Petitioner) V/S Mst Farsa Manzoor & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Topic: Family matter (Khulla Granted, Dower articles is right of wife to back . Judgment upheld . CP dismissed. )
Citation:2018 CLC 84
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
Order Date: 20-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
941) 1202/2021 Const. P. Aftab Alam (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:SESSI
Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 24-MAR-21
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.586-K/2021 Sindh Employees Social Security Institution v. Aftab Alam & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending
942) 269/2012 Criminal Appeal Asad Khan (Appellant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Appellant Asad Khan dissatisfied with the judgment passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Karachi whereby the appellant Asad Khan was convicted for committing Qatl-e-Amd of his wife Mst. Aneela an offence under section 302 PPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment and fine of Rs.50,000/- Complainant stating therein that about two years back, his daughter Aneela married with Asad . Since the beginning of the marriage, the attitude of in-laws of his daughter was not good Aneela informed him on the telephone that she is coming to him at Qasim Town but till 08:30 P.M, she did not come at Qasim Town and her father made a telephonic call to her maternal Aunt Mst. Bano, who is residing in the neighbor of Aneela and informed her about the arrival of Aneela at Qasim Town .Complainant came to know that his daughter Aneela has been killed by causing her knife and dagger injuries at her house. the strong circumstantial evidence is available to connect the appellant with the commission of offence; that the appellant has admitted his guilt before the Cameraman, which was recorded in CD/USB flashed on TV. e. The admission of the appellant came in media and newspaper. In order to support his contention, the prosecution examined Mst. Aqeela Bano, who has also supported the version of the complainant and further deposed that she went to the house of Anila but was locked. Resultantly, she died in his house and after committing the murder, the appellant locked the door of the house from outside and ran away . All the circumstances, consisting on unnatural death of deceased inside the house with dagger; finding the house locked from outside as well leaving away the house are also making a chain of circumstances against the appellant and in such like eventuality the defence was required to prove otherwise. instant appeal filed by the appellant merits no consideration, which is dismissed
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Amjad Ali Sahito(Author)
Order Date: 19-APR-19
Approved for Reporting
943) 1494/2008 Suit M/S.CENTURY INSURANCE CO.LTD (Plaintiff) V/S THE ASSITANT COLELCTOR (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005.
Tag Line:Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 30-NOV-20
Approved for Reporting
944) 291/2014 Const. P. Syed Mujahid Rasool & 2 others (Petitioner) V/S Province of Sindh & 4 others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Ghulam Sarwar Korai
Order Date: 26-FEB-14
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:C.P.123-K/2014 Syed Mujahid Rasool and others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
945) 1347/2006 Suit ASADULLAH KHAWAJA (Appellant) V/S INVESTMENT CORP. OF PAKISTAN (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
Order Date: 20-APR-20
Approved for Reporting
946) 197/2020 Cr.Bail SHEERAZ S/O IMAM BUX (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Bail Matters (Post arrest bail Granted u/s 353/324/302/34 PPC. How Complainant Knew the name of accused . )
Citation:2021 MLD 292
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi(Author)
Order Date: 04-MAY-20
Approved for Reporting
947) 329/2020 Suit Danish Akhtar & others. (Plaintiff) V/S Directorate of Estate Projects & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 YLR 64
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 11-JUN-20
Approved for Reporting
948) 1918/2015 Suit Mrs. Gulnar & Others. (Plaintiff) V/S K.M.C., & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author)
Order Date: 20-MAY-16
Approved for Reporting
949) 1357/2021 Cr.Bail MUHAMMAD HUMAYUN QADRI S/O GHULAM HUSSAIN (Applicant) V/S THE STATE (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:Applicant Muhammad Humayun Qadri has earlier been admitted to ad-interim pre-arrest bail by this Court vide order dated 14.7.2021. Now the matter is fixed for confirmation of pre-arrest bail or otherwise
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 31-DEC-21
Approved for Reporting
950) 272/2013 Cr.J.A Muh (Appellant) V/S Party-2 (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Aftab Ahmed Gorar
Order Date: 30-MAR-16
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:J.P.485/2016 Muhammad Ishaq v. The State,Crl.A.489/2020 Muhammad Ishaq v. The State Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Adjourned
951) 1327/2017 Const. P. Irfan Victor (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Khalida (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 25-OCT-19
Approved for Reporting
952) 4387/2014 Const. P. Pakistan Tibbi Pharmaceuticals Manufacturers (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: DRAP ACT, Sindh Food Authority Act, 2016, CONSTITUTION OF PAKISTAN, 1973
Tag Line:The petitions arise under and in relation to the Drug Regulatory Authority of Pakistan Act, 2012 (DRAP Act). petitioners contend, the DRAP Act cannot, does not and should not apply to various products as manufactured, sold, used or imported by them, including Unani medicines, prescriptions and preparations, We start with the first set of questions, which relate to the constitutionality of the DRAP Act as enacted under Article 144. This Article originally had two clauses, of which the second was omitted by the 8th Amendment in 1985. two changes made by the 18th Amendment, one was necessitated by the omission of the Concurrent List, and need not detain us. The other, which will require some comment, was that originally Article 144 applied only if two or more Provincial Assemblies passed the necessary resolutions. The present Constitution of course had two Legislative Lists on its commencement. The competences listed in the Federal List were exclusive to the Federation, those on the Concurrent List were common, and those which were not enumerated were exclusive to the Provinces. VThat ability of course is one of the defining characteristics of federal legislative power, since in respect of matters that lie in the Federal domain by right Parliament can make laws for the whole of Pakistan or any part thereof. It would be unduly restrictive of the purpose and intent behind Article 144 if Parliament, while making the law for which it has been given power cannot include therein provisions that relate to matters in the Federal domain as of right. Secondly, a provincial law made subsequent to the law made by the Federation under Article 144 may override or impliedly repeal the latter. This follows directly from the express provision that the Provincial Assemblies may amend or repeal the law made by Parliament. The 1976 Act, in like manner, fractured and receded. It became provincial legislation and hence territorially bound. It now so operates in this and all other Provinces. It must be kept in mind that this position has remained unaltered, and is unaffected by the enactment of the DRAP Act under Article 144. Whatever may be the relationship of, and interaction between, the two laws, the 1976 Act does not now transcend or cross provincial boundaries in the manner of the DRAP Act. It is therefore our conclusion that in the present case, the scope of the legislative competence entrusted to Parliament in terms of Article 144 is governed by the terms of the resolution passed by the Punjab Assembly. Within 30 days of announcement of judgment the Authority under the DRAP Act shall issue proper guidelines, Simultaneously with posting the guidelines on its website, the Authority shall issue notice to each petitioner in the petitions to which this para applies. Interim orders made in any petition to which this para applies shall continue but will lapse 30 days from the date on which the guidelines are posted as above or the date on which the determination is made, whichever is later. following petitions are dismissed: CP D-4387/2014 and CP D-1684/2017. e following petitions are disposed off in terms of para 50
herein above: CP Nos. D- 6532/2014, 2623/2016, 6262/2016, 6263/2016, 6264/2016, 6265/2016, 6310/2016, 6820/2016, 7134/2016, 7135/2016, 1135/2017, 1921/2017, 2329/2017, 424/2017,
4421/2017, 5237/2017 and 5892/2017.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar(Author)
Order Date: 26-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
953) 47/2021 Cr.Bail Muhammad Siddique & others (Applicant) V/S The State (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar(Author)
Order Date: 19-NOV-21
Approved for Reporting
954) 3/2018 Insolvency Abdul Ahad Ansari (Petitioner) V/S Mst. Lubna Qaiser (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Insolvency petition dismissed
Citation:2021 CLC 297
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput(Author)
Order Date: 29-SEP-20
Approved for Reporting
955) 49/2013 Cr.Rev Ahsan Mian (Applicant) V/S The Statte (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 23-APR-13
Approved for Reporting
956) 977/2014 Suit Asim Jofa. (Plaintiff) V/S K.M.C. & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2021 MLD 207
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
Order Date: 01-JUN-20
Approved for Reporting
957) 304/2020 Suit Husein Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) V/S Sui Southern Gas Company Limited & others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Tag Line:1. A bank guarantee is an independent contract between the surety (bank) and the creditor (beneficiary of the guarantee), and as such the bank guarantee is to be construed on its own terms independent of the underlying contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, and irrespective of claims pending interse the creditor and principal debtor. Rel: National Construction Ltd. v. Aiwan-e-Iqbal Authority (PLD 1994 SC 311); and Shipyard K. Damen International v. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. (PLD 2003 SC 191).
2. Mobilization Guarantees are generally not subject to a restraining order even if there is a dispute between the parties to the underlying contract. However, in cases of guarantees other than Mobilization Guarantees, the Court have granted or refused injunction to restrain encashment depending upon the literal words used in the guarantee. Rel: National Grid Company v. Government of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 2367); and Shipyard K. Damen International ibid.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 09-MAR-20
Approved for Reporting
958) 253/2015 Const. P. Faraz Sherwani and ors (Petitioner) V/S Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Promotion)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 1084
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 24-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
Apex Court Detail:Crl.P.70-K/2019 Ali Muhammad Joyo v. Asif and another,C.A.1000/2020 Chairman National Accountability Bureau thr. Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Faraz Sherwani and others,C.P.2215/2020 Chairman National Accountability Bureau thr. Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarter, Islamabad v. Faraz Sherwani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Status:Pending Adjourned,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted.impugned judgement is suspended.to be heard a/w C.A.816/2020 out of C.P.1771/20 after 3 months.
959) 5798/2014 Const. P. Anwery Begum (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Pension matters)
Citation:2019 PLC (CS) 572
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author)
Order Date: 02-OCT-17
Approved for Reporting
960) 562/2012 Const. P. Nabeela Ashfaq (Petitioner) V/S Federation of Pakistan (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Citation:2020 PLC (CS) 24
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 07-MAR-18
Approved for Reporting
961) -52/2016 Suit Allahdino & Others.. (Plaintiff) V/S H.H Shaikh Zaid Bin ultan Al-Nahyan & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
Order Date: 09-JUL-18
Approved for Reporting
962) 5262/2013 Const. P. M/s Inland Textile Mills Ltd (Petitioner) V/S Mehdi Khan and Ors (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Service matters (Salary)
Citation:2019 PLC Lab. 182
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
Order Date: 16-FEB-18
Approved for Reporting
963) 34/2012 Cr.Rev Muhammad Sharif (Applicant) V/S Sageer Ahmed and Another (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Criminal Revision (acquitted the appellants from all the charges therefore the same is dismissed being infructuous. )
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sajjad Ali Shah, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Naimatullah Phulpoto
Order Date: 08-MAR-13
Approved for Reporting
964) 558/2018 Suit Abdul Majid & Others. (Plaintiff) V/S Mrs. Nida Irfan & Others. (Defendant)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar
Order Date: 05-APR-18
Approved for Reporting
965) 1817/2019 Const. P. Marie Stopes Society (Petitioner) V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)
Sindh High Court, Karachi
Topic: Signing of MoU by NGO
Tag Line:The application of an organization for signing MoU cannot be rejected merely on the account of dubious activities.
Every Citizen / person has an inalienable right to enjoy the protection of law and be treated as such.
The acquiescence is specie of estoppel but there can be no estoppel against the law. Every decision / order / judgment passed by any forum, department or Court should be passed after application of mind with reasoning.
Advocates:Dr. Atif ud Din(ADVO-12716-SBC-KHE),Deputy Att