Report-002 AFR

Search Result on selected Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam

High Court of Sindh, Principal Seat Karachi, Bench at Sukkur, Circuit Courts at Hyderabad and Larkana
A.F.R (Judgments / Orders )

Note: The figures in the following table only show the number of important Judgments/Orders uploaded on this site. It does not reflect total disposal of the Hon'ble Judges.

Apex Court: Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan:
Code S.No. Citation Case No. Case Year Parties Bench Order_Date A.F.R Head Notes Judgement/Order Apex Court Apex Status
106735 1 2018 PLC Lab. 36 Const. P. 84/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mst. Samina Pathan (Petitioner) VS National Database and Registration Authority [NADRA] (Respondent) D.B. 17-MAY-16 Yes Dismissal from service in undue haste and in violation of statutory service rules, can be assailed in a writ jurisdiction. C.P.2857/2016 National Database and Registration Authority (NADRA) thr. its Chairman, Islamabad & others v. Samina Pathan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted
106727 2 2017 YLR 242, 2017 YLR 424 Const. P. 846/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Abdul Haq and Others (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. 26-APR-16 Yes Constitutional petition---Claim of petitioner was disputed by respondents and Revenue Authorities---Due process of law---Applicability---Due process of law was of wide import and its applicability varied from case to case in accordance with the set of facts and circumstances---Due process of law was also directly related to the rights, interest and entitlement of a person as recognized by law---Petitioners could not make out a prime facie case of their legal entitlement of possession of suit property---Entries in the revenue record about their alleged claim were under scrutiny before the concerned authorities---Term "due process of law" was not applicable in circumstances---Constitutional petition was dismissed accordingly. C.P.10-K/2017 Tariq Javed v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
139407 3 Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. 02-JUN-17 Yes Nil.
115794 4 Suit 74/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Mohammad Sarwar (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh and others (Defendant) S.B. 23-JUN-17 Yes Suit for recovery of compensation amount--Deceased died in the custody of police officials---Contention of the police was that deceased died due to cardiac arrest---Validity---None of the police officials entered the witness box to defend the claim against them---Written statement filed by the police officials had lost its evidentiary value as contents whereof were never proved in the evidence---Deceased died while he was in the custody of police officials---Plaintiff was to prove the factum of incident only---Burden would shift on the police officials to disprove the causation if they wanted to succeed in the claim against the plaintiff---Present case did fall within the purview of Fatal Accidents Act, 1855---Prosecution in a criminal case was to prove beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of accused but in civil proceedings the matter had to be decided on the basis of preponderance of probabilities---Acquittal of (private) defendants in the criminal case did not have any adverse bearing on the present lis---Police official were liable to compensate the plaintiff by applying the rule of vicarious liability--- Claim of plaintiff with regard to quantum of damages was also unchallenged---Life expectancy of seventy five years in plaintiff's family had been proved---Deceased might also have lived for another fifty years approximately---Claim of awarding damages of Rs.50,00,000/- was justified---Master/employer in the claims with regard to tortuous liabilities would be liable for the wrongful acts of his employees/servants---Provincial Government and Inspector General of Police were liable to compensate the plaintiff besides other defendants---Defendants (Police officials) were liable to pay the damages/compensation of Rs.50,00,000/- together with 10% markup from the date of institution of suit till realization of the amount to the plaintiff and his wife i.e. parent of the deceased jointly and severally. Suit decreed.
116570 5 2017 CLD 1737 Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. 21-JUL-17 Yes Nil.
133873 6 Const. P. 2149/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur; attached cases: Const. P D 4729/2015 2015 Abdul Hameed and another (Petitioner) VS Provicne of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. 30-MAY-18 Yes Nil.
138156 7 Suit 1461/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 A. QUBUBUDDIN KHAN (Plaintiff) VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (Defendant) S.B. 24-APR-19 Yes Nil.
138871 8 Const. P. 2105/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2016 Mst. Bhalan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. 11-MAY-16 Yes Nil.
138873 9 2016 SBLR Sindh 1651 Adm. Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1990 Jugolinifa (Plaintiff) VS Sayeed A.Tayyab (Defendant) S.B. 28-MAR-16 Yes Rule of 'best evidence' explained; according to which, if a best piece of evidence is not produced by a party or is withheld, then an adverse inference would be drawn against such party, that it deliberately not produced the evidence coupled with some ulterior motive. Objection can be taken during pendency of case that the Suit has been instituted by a person who was not duly authorized or competent to file the proceeding, as envisaged under Order XXIX, Rule 1 of Civil Procedure Code, even though no specific Issue was framed in this regard, but, in the evidence the Plaintiff witness was cross-examined on this particular fact and was given an opportunity to produce relevant authorization, under which the suit was instituted, but, he failed to do so. Since defect in filing proceeding was incurable, hence, suit was dismissed.
139035 10 Civil Revision 144/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2014 Mst. Parveen Raza Jadun through her legal heirs (Applicant) VS Bashir Ahmed Chandio and others (Respondent) S.B. 12-JUL-19 Yes (i). In direct benami claim requires a higher standard of proof; (ii) every transaction between family members cannot be recognized as benami; (iii). Claimant not challenged the purchase of property by father in favour of his son, during the life time of the father, then claim of Plaintiff (sister) is meritless.
81226 11 2016 YLR 2008, 2017 SBLR Sindh 202 Suit 871/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 MUHAMMAD HABIB (Plaintiff) VS HUMAYOON LTD. (Defendant) S.B. 24-OCT-13 Yes Nil.
112776 12 Suit 2651/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Zohaib Shakoor (Plaintiff) VS Mahwish Pirzada & another. (Defendant) S.B. 06-APR-17 Yes Nil.
114511 13 2018 PTD 668 Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. 02-JUN-17 Yes Nil.
114787 14 2019 PLD Sindh 130, 2017 SBLR Sindh 2034 S.M.A 230/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 In the matter of Letter of Administration of deceased Tahir Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Nil (Defendant) S.B. 02-JUN-17 Yes Nil.
114896 15 2018 YLR 1319 Suit 1367/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Muhammad Iqbal Dawood and another (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Qayoom Hot and another (Defendant) S.B. 11-MAY-17 Yes Suit for possession of immovable property and mesne profits---Defendant was inducted by the plaintiffs as care taker to look after the suit land---Defendant/care taker had committed default in payment of money earned from the cultivation to the plaintiffs---Defendant had kept the plaintiffs out of possession of suit property---Plaintiffs were deprived of use and enjoyment of their land---Suit land was leased out to the plaintiffs and period/term of lease had been consumed by the care taker, mesne profits was to be granted to the plaintiffs in circumstances---Care taker was directed to hand over vacant possession of suit land to the plaintiffs free from all encumbrances and claims---Defendant/care-taker should pay mesne profits and contract money to the plaintiffs---Suit was decreed accordingly.
116569 16 Suit 358/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1985 Ghazanfar Ali and another (Plaintiff) VS Cherat Cement Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. 28-JUL-17 Yes NIL
121453 17 Suit 1482/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) VS Deedar Ali Issran (Defendant) S.B. 29-DEC-17 Yes Nil.
134576 18 Civil Revision 42/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Pir Ghulam Kareem Shah (Applicant) VS Ali Ahmed & Others (Respondent) S.B. 21-DEC-18 Yes Nil.
134577 19 Const. P. 2732/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Hayat Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. 12-NOV-18 Yes Nil. C.P.1438-K/2018 Hayat Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan thr.Secy: M/o Defence and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
137305 20 Suit 160/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 FAHIM ZAFAR LARI (Plaintiff) VS M/S. SANDAL DYESTUFF IND. LTD. (Defendant) S.B. 04-FEB-19 Yes Nil.
138951 21 2016 SBLR Sindh 594 J.M 62/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 M/s. Shahtaj Textile Lmited. (Applicant) VS Standard Chartered Bank (Pakistan) Ltd., & Others. (Respondent) S.B. 07-DEC-15 Yes If triable issues are not involved, which required leading and recording of evidence, then it is not mandatory to frame issues and an application under Section 12(2) of C.P.C. can be decided on the basis of available case record and undisputed facts. Ratable distribution under Section 73 read with Order XXXIV Rule 13 of Civil procedure Code; Bank having a mortgage decree in its favour has a preferential status over a money decree, which is in favour of Plaintiff. Analysis of the discussion brings forth the conclusion that neither Judgment Debtors nor Bank have actively concealed a fact, or, misrepresented certain facts in such a fraudulent way, which, if not made or committed, would have not resulted in passing of the impugned Compromise Decree. Consequently, element of fraud is not present in instant cases. By analogy a cardinal principle of administrative law, which, time and again has been enunciated by the courts and later enacted as Section 24A of the General Clauses Act, 1897, inter alia, that an authority should act reasonably, fairly and justly, is also applicable to the financial institutions.
139157 22 Cr.Bail 275/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2019 Roshan Cholyani (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. 28-JUN-19 Yes Mere absondence of Applicant cannot be made ground for rejection of bail, if he is otherwise entitled to the concession of bail. Co-accused was already admitted to bail, hence, Applicant is also entitled to the concession of bail on the ground of rule of consistency. Case calls for further inquiry. Bail granted.
138875 23 Const. P. 4725/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2015 Mansoor Ashraf (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. 30-AUG-16 Yes Nil. C.P.662-K/2016 Mst. Fareeda Zafar and others v. Mansoor Ashraf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
132632 24 Suit 1107/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Work Co-operative Housing Society Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 01-SEP-18 Yes Nil.
137304 25 Suit 1763/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Mrs. Farha Zafar. (Plaintiff) VS Major (R) Wasim Pasha Tajammal & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 15-JAN-19 Yes Nil.
137309 26 Suit 786/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 MUHAMMAD MANSOOR (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD RASHID (Defendant) S.B. 20-FEB-19 Yes Nil.
138874 27 Execution First Appeal 25/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 M/s. S.K. Enterprises (Decree Holder) VS Dadabhoy Multi-purpose Coperative Housing Soceity (Judgment Debtor) S.B. 15-JUN-16 Yes Nil.
139057 28 Const. P. 428/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2019 Khuda Bux (Petitioner) VS SHO P.S K.N.Shah and others (Respondent) S.B. 27-JUN-19 Yes Parties recklessly invoking the constitutional jurisdiction of Court, which act on their part consumes valuable time of Court and litigants should be dealt with strictly and such type of petition is to be dismissed with heavy costs.
139156 29 Cr.Bail 286/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2019 Cr. Muzafar Ghanghro (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. 20-JUN-19 Yes Case falling within the ambit of sick person as mentioned in the first proviso of Section 497 Cr.P.C., Applicant is entitled to the concession of bail. Challan submitted. Applicant was not required for further investigation. In order to prove the guilt of the Applicant and to connect him with the commission of the offense, matter requires further inquiry, which can only be done after conclusion of trial. Bail granted.
139158 30 Cr.Rev 73/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2018 Muhammad Bux Chandio (Applicant) VS Zulfiqar Ali and others (Respondent) S.B. 24-JUN-19 Yes Investigation under Section 5 of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, was not properly done by the Trial Court and the case was decided merely on the reports of Officials without conducting further probe into the veracity of such reports. Impugned order set aside, case remanded.
139352 31 Suit 1271/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 HAJI SULEMAN. (Plaintiff) VS HAJI ADAM ALI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 18-MAR-18 Yes Nil.
106094 32 2016 CLC 1063 Suit 456/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1988 MUHAMMAD WAJID KHAN. (Plaintiff) VS M/S. ATTOCK CEMENT FAC. PAK. LTD. (Defendant) S.B. 11-MAR-16 Yes A remedy available to a person under the Workmen Compensation Act, 1923, cannot operate as an absolute bar for seeking a remedy under an ordinary civil jurisdiction by filing a suit. Article 22 and 24 of the Limitation Act, 1908, where under an action to seek compensation for an injury should be instituted within one year, is not applicable in the instant case, for the reason that Plaintiff was made to run from pillar to post for redressal of his grievance but without any success. Plaintiff was lastly operated upon on 15.10.1987 and the suit was filed on 17.11.1987, hence the cause of action and so is the grievance is of continuous nature. Well entrenched principle that if a person has a right to claim compensation for a wrong done to him, he should also have a remedy, has been attracted in the instant case. The Defendants, who are Employer [Client], Contractor and sub-contractors, respectively, were jointly and severally held liable to pay damages for the negligent acts, which caused the Plaintiff serious injury and partial disability of permanent nature. Damages have been awarded by invoking the principle of composite negligence.
103304 33 2016 SBLR Sindh 162 Const. P. 4404/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Syed Dost Ali (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. 13-NOV-15 Yes * In exceptional circumstances the writ jurisdiction under article 199 of the Constitution can be invoked, despite availability of an alternate remedy.---- * Excessive use of unlawful powers is itself unlawful.---- * Under grab of a pending civil suit, in which even no restraining order is operating and which is ex facie being not pursued, a bona fide purchaser of a property cannot be deprived of its use and enjoyment, as this violates the fundamental rights of a citizen relating to proprietary rights and guaranteed under article 23 and 24 of the Constitution. Caution note attached by the respondent-DHA to the property in question merely on the ground that some civil suit is pending as stated above, is not a proper exercise of discretion vested in Respondent-DHA, in the circumstances, as admittedly Respondent-DHA refused to even process the application for approval of the completion plan issuance of completion certificate of the Subject property on the basis of the impugned caution note it has put in its record. * A Genuine claimant can invoke section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act, by notifying the concerned registrar/ responsible for registration of sale/ conveyance deed (under Registration Act, 1908) about the pendency of litigation in competent Court of Law, inter alia, to protect one
112137 34 Const. P. 4570/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2015 Munir Ahmed (Applicant) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) D.B. 06-APR-16 Yes Mere fact that petitioner opted for plea bargain, which was not even recommended by the NAB Authorities, or duly approved by the Accountability Court, cannot operate as a bar for withholding the bail, if the accused otherwise makes out a case for grant of bail on merits.
114894 35 Suit 1090/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Sunray Corporation (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Total Parco Marketing Ltd (Defendant) S.B. 14-OCT-16 Yes Nil.
116906 36 2019 CLC 583 Const. P. 1802/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Premier Battery Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Water and Sewerage Board and another (Respondent) D.B. 15-AUG-17 Yes Petitioner had not participated in bidding process and assailed Public Notice and bidding process without fulfilling any of the conditions mentioned in the Public Notice---Validity---Petitioner had commercial motive that entire process should be started afresh--- Once the procuring authorities started bidding/ tendering process, provisions of Rr. 17(3) & 18 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, would be applicable and such stage was a subsequent one and had not reached---Petitioner did not have any locus standi to assail procurement process, as it did not even participate in first stage of the process by submitting Expression of Interest---Public Notice in question did not violate any of the provisions of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010---Basic information according to R. 73 of Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority Rules, 2010, contained about subject project, eligibility of participants, date of purchase of Expression of Interest document and the same could also be down loaded from Sindh Public Procurement Regulatory Authority website and last date of submission also---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances. C.P.481-K/2017 Premier Barrtery Industries (Pvt) Ltd v. Karachi Water & Seawerage Board and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
130736 37 2019 CLD 185 Suit 1625/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s. Fine Enterprises Traders.. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Constellation Co-Op. H.S. Ltd., & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 15-AUG-18 Yes Suit by a partner on behalf of firm---Maintainability---Partner was not required to have an authority from other partners before initiating any action by way of a suit---No adverse consequence had been mentioned in the provision of O. XXX, R. 1, C.P.C. if compliance was not made---Partner could neither relinquish a claim of the firm nor withdraw a suit or proceeding without the authorization or endorsement of the other partners of a firm.
132704 38 Election Appeal 39/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2016 Mohib Ali (Appellant) VS Returning Officer and others (Respondent) S.B. 28-OCT-18 Yes Nil.
134572 39 Const. P. 222/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2018 Abdullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. 14-NOV-18 Yes Nil.
134641 40 Civil Revision 111/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 1999 Muhammad Sharif (Applicant) VS Mian Sajjad Ahmed (Respondent) S.B. 30-NOV-18 Yes Nil.
137997 41 J.M 7/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: J. M. No. 81 of 2015 2016 Muhammad Iqbal Pirani. (Applicant) VS Khurram Ashraf & Others. (Respondent) S.B. 25-APR-19 Yes Nil.
138015 42 Suit 421/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Rahim Ali Palari & ors. (Plaintiff) VS Govt. of Sindh & ors.. (Defendant) S.B. 14-MAR-19 Yes Nil.
138572 43 Suit 1713/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 Sharif Ahmed Qureshi (Plaintiff) VS Wing Cdr.(R) Mazhar Mirza and others (Defendant) S.B. 03-MAY-19 Yes Nil.
112297 44 2017 PLC CS 625 Const. P. 1519/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2011 Abdul Ghafar (Applicant) VS Govt of Sindh & ors (Respondent) D.B. 13-APR-16 Yes Group Insurance being not part of inheritance (Tarka) and the same is payable to the nominee mentioned therein. Since, it is an admitted position as also supported by all documentary evidence, the present petitioner has been mentioned as nominee in the Nomination Form of State life Insurance Corporation, therefore, petitioner is entitled to amount of group insurance.---Rules 4.8, 4.9 and 4.10 of the West Pakistan Civil Services Pension Rules, 1963 are interpreted and pensionary benefits were allowed to the petitioner being a nominee.
112908 45 2018 CLC Note 39 Suit 566/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Tariq Rafi. (Plaintiff) VS Topgen Health Care/T.G. Pharma & Ors. (Defendant) S.B. 27-APR-17 Yes Nil.
115648 46 Suit 1663/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 Clariant Pakistan Limited (Plaintiff) VS Deputy Commssioner Inland Revenue Service (AEC) and others (Defendant) S.B. 19-JUN-17 Yes Nil.
117028 47 Const. P. 4843/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Maj. Rtd. Tariq Lodhi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Khalida Jilajni and others (Respondent) D.B. 21-AUG-17 Yes Nil. C.P.528-K/2017 Maj.(Retd) Tariq Lodhi v. Mst: Khalida Jilani and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
135717 48 Suit 1682/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MAZHAR SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS ATIF MAZHAR & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. 23-JAN-19 Yes Nil.
137303 49 Suit 315/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 S.M.INAMUL HAQ. (Plaintiff) VS MIRZA AMJAD BAIG & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 28-JAN-19 Yes Nil.
137307 50 Suit 515/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 M/S SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SYED (Defendant) S.B. 06-FEB-19 Yes Nil.
137460 51 Suit 1408/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mirza Naseem Baig.. (Plaintiff) VS K.E.S.C. Employees Co-Op.H.S. Ltd., & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 01-APR-19 Yes Nil.
138000 52 Suit 1417/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 MRS. ZAIBA KABLY (Plaintiff) VS TARIQ NAZIR BUKHARI (Defendant) S.B. 02-APR-19 Yes Nil.
138471 53 Suit 1767/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Abdul Sattar Shaikh. (Plaintiff) VS Adeel Zahoor Malik & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 30-MAY-19 Yes Nil.
139291 54 Suit 5/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 NOMAN ABID CO (Plaintiff) VS NAVEED HAIDER (Defendant) S.B. 19-JUL-19 Yes The Plaintiff has already received the amount of disputed cheque, therefore, the present suit was filed with mala fide intention and is not maintainable. Not only this, the overall conduct of the Plaintiff Company, from the time of granting Leave to Defend Application was not of a bona fide litigant. Hence, the present suit is dismissed with costs.
138578 55 Suit 762/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1995 SHAHZAB GOTH RESIDENTS (Plaintiff) VS GOVT. OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 21-MAY-19 Yes Nil.
112438 56 Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 20-APR-17 Yes Judgment debtor raised the plea that entire sale proceeds were received beyond statutory period of two weeks which was in violation of O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.---Validity---Time that was consumed in remitting amount from two accounts; one maintained by auction purchaser and other by the Court official on which neither court official nor auction purchaser had control---Such transaction and proceeds were governed by regulations of State Bank of Pakistan---Judicial sale had a sanctity and once sale was confirmed, auction purchaser had interest in proceedings---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
112926 57 Suit 595/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 INAM HAFIZ SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. 19-JUL-17 Yes Nil.
116568 58 Suit 752/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1984 Cherat Cement Company Limited (Plaintiff) VS Ghazanfar Ali & two others (Defendant) S.B. 28-JUL-17 Yes Nil.
118616 59 Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. 05-OCT-17 Yes Nil.
120052 60 2018 YLR 1557 H.C.A 47/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Haroon Zia Malik (Appellant) VS Mst. Fariha Razzak and others (Respondent) D.B. 21-NOV-17 Yes Plaintiff was owner of suit property who voluntarily gifted the same to the donee-wife---Trial Court had correctly appraised the evidence while recording his findings---Impugned gift deed was not a forged and fabricated document but same had been signed by the donor---Suit property had been gifted in favour of defendant who was wife of donor at the relevant time---Ingredients of gift were offer, acceptance and delivery of possession which were present in the case---Possession of suit property was already with the donee which till date continued to be with her---If husband had made a gift of anything to his wife or vice-versa then it could not be retracted---Transaction in question was not a financial one but it was gift of which a reciprocal financial obligation was not a consideration---Provisions of Arts. 17 & 79 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 were not applicable in the matter of gift---Gift did not require a compulsory registration---Donor did not suffer any mental distress at the hand of donee---Impugned judgment did not suffer from any infirmity or illegality---Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. C.P.96/2018 Haroon Zia Malik v. Mst. Fariha Razzak and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
122573 61 2018 PLD SC 483 Suit 139/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Diamond Weld Rods (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Messrs Stal Co GmbH and others (Defendant) S.B. 29-JAN-18 Yes Suit for recovery of money and injunction---Freight, payment of---Grievance of plaintiff company against shipping company was that due to local shipping agent, a delay was caused in unloading product from vessel and it resulted in incurring of demurrage and other avoidable expenses/charges---Validity---Document produced by plaintiff as Bill of Lading was though not forged but it did not fulfil requirement of Bill of Lading and same could be considered as such--- Bill of Lading produced by shipping company was genuine as it fulfilled its statutory requirements---Plaintiff was required to pay freight to shipping company as Bill of Lading clearly mentioned that
137297 62 Suit 112/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS MOHSIN ALI (Defendant) S.B. 29-MAR-19 Yes Nil.
137306 63 Suit 357/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Muhammad Junaid Makhdumi. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Iqbal & Others (Defendant) S.B. 19-FEB-19 Yes Nil.
137999 64 Suit 1724/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MST.ZAIBUNISA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS IQBAL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 28-JAN-19 Yes Nil.
139312 65 Suit 862/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 PERVAIZ HUSSAIN & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS MIAN KHURRAM RASOOL (Defendant) S.B. 19-JUL-19 Yes The Defendant issues / has issued the cheques in favour of Plaintiffs, but the same upon presentation could not be encashed because of closure of account, then this conduct on the part of Defendant is a mala fide one and is done with a dishonest intention to defraud the Plaintiffs. Hence, suit is decreed.
139391 66 Suit 727/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 IQBAL RASHEED (Plaintiff) VS BABAR MIRZA CHUGTAI & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. 19-JAN-17 Yes Nil.
106766 67 Suit 1410/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Toyoshima & Co. limited (Plaintiff) VS Shadman Cotton mills limited (Defendant) S.B. 30-MAR-16 Yes Territorial jurisdiction of Sindh High Court was questioned by Defendant, primarily on the ground that Defendant-Company has been shifted from Karachi to Lahore, therefore, a foreign company / Plaintiff cannot enforce an International Arbitral Award by filing a suit in Sindh High Court. The crucial documentary evidence shows that when the suit proceeding was filed for enforcement of the Award under Section 6 of the Recognition and Enforcement (Arbitration Agreements and Foreign Arbitral Awards) Act, 2011, the Defendant had its registered office in Karachi and even Annual Report of the Company also shows that the Management notice for convening the Annual General Meeting was also to be held at Karachi. Consequently, it has been held, that Sindh High Court has jurisdiction in the matter.
116012 68 2018 CLC Note 24 Suit 611/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Qadir and another (Plaintiff) VS Laeeq Ahmed and others (Defendant) S.B. 07-JUL-17 Yes Defendant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had concealed material facts---Validity---Object and principle of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was that a frivolous litigation should be laid to rest at the earliest and bona fide parties should be saved from rigors of such a litigation---Subject matter of litigation in question, i.e. the house property was not in dispute and sale consideration was admitted---Communication of offer and acceptance by parties to each other with regard to subject matter and total sale consideration was acknowledged by both the parties---All ingredients of a valid agreement enforceable as a contract existed---Defendants failed to make a case for grant of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
116992 69 2018 YLR 1053 Suit 327/1966 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1966 Raza Hussain and others (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Khan and others (Defendant) S.B. 15-AUG-17 Yes Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise on behalf of defendants---Scope---Transferee of property could not confer upon a transferor a better title than he himself possessed---Defendants had no lawful authority, right or interest at the relevant time in the subject property when they entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs---Neither any appeal was preferred against the partition order nor authenticity or validity of the same was challenged by any of the parties---Possession of suit property was wrongly handed over to the plaintiffs by the Nazir of the Court---Nazir of the Court was directed to take appropriate measures to hand over the possession of suit land to its claimants.
118611 70 Const. P. 703/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Abdul Qadir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. 26-SEP-17 Yes Nil.
123152 71 Election Appeal 3/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Jam Javed Ahmed Khan Dehar (Appellant) VS Haji Muhammad Akbar and 14 others (Respondent) S.B. 13-FEB-18 Yes Nil.
123493 72 Suit 665/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 Umar Islam Khan (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Basit and others (Defendant) S.B. 23-FEB-18 Yes Nil.
124173 73 Suit 1689/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Mst. Saira Khatoon (Appellant) VS Syed Muhammad Ashraf and others (Respondent) S.B. 27-FEB-18 Yes Nil.
124138 74 Suit 1755/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Ahmed Saeed and others (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Education Department and two others (Defendant) S.B. 06-MAR-18 Yes Nil.
132707 75 Election Appeal 1/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2018 Allah Bux Khan (Appellant) VS Mukhtiar Ahmed Sahto (Respondent) S.B. 05-OCT-18 Yes Nil.
137294 76 Suit 209/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 MOHSIN ALI (Plaintiff) VS SAFDAR HUSSAIN BIRLAS (Defendant) S.B. 29-MAR-19 Yes Nil.
138182 77 Const. P. 1007/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2018 Muhammad Mehboob (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & ors (Respondent) D.B. 28-MAY-18 Yes Nil.
139353 78 Suit 504/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1985 TEWFIQ FIKREE & ORS (Plaintiff) VS V/S USMANI FIKREE & ORS (Defendant) S.B. 18-JAN-18 Yes Nil.
139427 79 Cr.Appeal 20/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana 2018 Muhammad Sharif and another (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) D.B. 24-JUL-19 Yes Nil.
112662 80 2018 PLD Sindh 327 Suit 750/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Syed Farukh Mazhar (Plaintiff) VS SGS Headquarters and others (Defendant) S.B. 17-APR-17 Yes Nil.
116246 81 Adm. Suit 539/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 Al-Riaz (Pvt.) Limited and another (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Ismail and others (Defendant) S.B. 14-JUL-17 Yes Nil.
116227 82 S.M.A 58/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Mrs. Atteeya Mahmood (Petitioner) (Petitioner) VS Nighat Muzaffar and another (Respondent) S.B. 12-JUL-17 Yes Nil.
117306 83 Const. P. 2378/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Shahzad Qamer Abbas (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. 29-AUG-17 Yes Nil.
117609 84 Const. P. 7101/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Anwar Ahmed and others (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and another (Respondent) D.B. 12-SEP-17 Yes Nil. C.P.634-K/2017 Anwar Ahmed and others v. Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others,C.P.4383/2017 Clifton Cantonment Board, Karachi v. Anwar Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
122432 85 Suit 1546/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Trustees of the Port of Karachi (Plaintiff) VS Syed Fazal Mahmood Shah (Defendant) S.B. 25-JAN-18 Yes Nil.
127801 86 Suit 1311/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2004 Shaikh Abdul Jabbar through his Legal Heirs (Plaintiff) VS Irfan Jami Rafique and another (Defendant) S.B. 08-JUN-18 Yes Nil.
132709 87 Election Appeal 41/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2016 Tariq Hussain (Appellant) VS Subhan Ali (Respondent) S.B. 17-SEP-18 Yes Nil.
132873 88 Const. P. 1407/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2013 Dr. Moiinuddin Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Federal Secretary, Water and Power, Govt. of Pakistan (Respondent) D.B. 23-OCT-18 Yes Nil.
137203 89 Const. P. 1913/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur 2017 Gulzar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. 31-MAY-18 Yes Nil.
137995 90 Suit 2322/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Dr. Arifa Farid and others (Plaintiff) VS Mitha Khan and others (Defendant) S.B. 24-APR-19 Yes Nil.
138212 91 Suit 620/1994 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1994 ISMAIL MEMORIAL TRUST (Plaintiff) VS KARACH COOP H.S. UNION LTD. & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 06-MAY-19 Yes Nil.
139390 92 Election Appeal 7/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Muhammad Ameen and another (Appellant) VS Jawaid Ali and 5 others (Respondent) S.B. 25-MAR-17 Yes Nil.