Report-001 Current Status of Caselaw (Judgments / Orders ) of the sitting Hon'ble Judges

Search Result on selected Judge

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam

Sindh High Court, Karachi
Current Status of Caselaw (Judgments / Orders )
Total Records :
Code S.No. Citation Case No. Case Year Parties Bench Order_Date A.F.R Head Notes Judgement/Order Apex Court Apex Status
106157 1 2016 YLR Note 133 Suit 241/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 MRS. ZAREENA (Plaintiff) VS ISLAM UDDIN & OTHERS. (Defendant) S.B. 24-NOV-15 No Principle of res judicata as envisaged under Section 11 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, can in appropriate cases be made applicable to the interlocutory orders as well, particularly to forestall the abuse of process of Court, which is apparent from the conduct of the parties.
106497 2 2017 CLC 1783 Suit 378/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 Habib Jute Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. 26-FEB-16 No Nil.
106161 3 2017 MLD 200 Const. P. 424/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Kamran Khan V/S Full Bench of NIRC and Ors (Petitioner) VS V/S Full Bench of NIRC and Ors (Respondent) D.B. 03-JUN-16 No Nil.
106727 4 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
106974 5 2017 CLC 1387 Suit 1052/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1988 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd., (TCP) (Plaintiff) VS Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umar (Pvt) Ltd (Defendant) S.B. 16-SEP-16 No Nil.
106735 6 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
124273 7 Suit 1318/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Mrs. Almas Farooqi and another (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Battery Manufacturing Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and others (Defendant) S.B. 09-MAR-18 No Nil.
139407 8 Suit 1661/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Dewan Steel Mills and others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. 02-JUN-17 Yes Nil.
138156 9 Suit 1461/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 A. QUBUBUDDIN KHAN (Plaintiff) VS CHEC MILLWALA DREDGING CO. (Defendant) S.B. 24-APR-19 Yes Nil.
115794 10 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.
118550 11 Execution 153/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 Party-1 (Decree Holder) VS Party-2 (Judgment Debtor) S.B. 13-OCT-17 No Nil.
116570 12 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.
118390 13 Const. P. 6915/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent) D.B. 26-SEP-17 No Nil.
127649 14 Suit 1526/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Creek Marina Private Limited (Plaintiff) VS Guangdong Overseas Construction Group Company Limited and another (Defendant) S.B. 08-JUN-18 No Nil.
138873 15 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.
138574 16 Suit 1306/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 DARUS SALAM C.H.S (Plaintiff) VS KBCA & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. 07-MAY-19 No Nil.
102319 17 2016 CLD 2106 Suit 268/1980 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1980 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Appellant) VS V/S Muhammad ASLAM SIDDIQUI & ORS (Respondent) S.B. 29-JAN-16 No It is proved that Defendant No.3 was the sole beneficiary of embezzled amount, which landed in her bank account. Therefore, the stance of Defendant No.3 has been rejected that the amount was embezzled by her husband (Defendant No.1) who has since disappeared and the said Defendant No.3 is not a beneficiary. In the circumstances, Article 129 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 squarely applies to the facts of the present case. Defendant Bank has been also held liable to compensate the Plaintiff for the losses it suffered, as admittedly relationship between Defendant No.2-Bank and Plaintiff is of a fiduciary nature and thus former (Defendant No.2) owed a duty of care to the latter (Plaintiff) that its bank account had to be maintained in a professional and diligent manner. Nature of duty of Defendant No.2 implies exercise of due diligence and by making payment of such a substantial amount on the basis of a Request Letter containing some alternations and that too in the name of Defendant No.3 (the beneficiary of said amount) with which the Plaintiff-the customer of Defendant No.2 had no business relationship, latter (said Defendant No.2) had acted negligently.
81226 18 2016 YLR 2008, 2017 SBLR Sindh 202 Suit 871/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 MUHAMMAD HABIB (Plaintiff) VS HUMAYOON LTD. (Defendant) S.B. 24-OCT-13 Yes Nil.
106076 19 Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1990 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 28-MAR-16 No Nil.
103218 20 2016 CLC 1326, 2016 CLD 2106 Suit 749/1989 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1989 Rice Export Corporation of Pakistan (Plaintiff) VS Mohammad Alam (Defendant) S.B. 01-APR-16 No In absence of a counter claim, the Defendant being a handling agent of Plaintiff was held liable to render report of the outstanding balance of unaccounted for rice stock lying in go-down, which was in custody of Defendant. Latter status is of bailee of the goods, who is clothe with the same obligations. Import and applicability of Sections 151 and 161 of the Contract Act [1872] has been discussed vis-??-vis res ipsa loquitur [things speak for themselves]. Defendant has been held liable to compensate Plaintiff for the losses it suffered.
103219 21 Suit 750/1989 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1989 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 01-APR-16 No Nil.
121453 22 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.
128513 23 2019 YLR 380 Suit 1007/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2000 Mrs. Uzma Moinuddin (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority (Defendant) S.B. 03-JUL-18 No When a Government functionary or statutory body was vested with discretionary powers then same were to be exercised in a structured manner---Discretion was to be exercised in a fair, just and reasonable manner. Suit of Plaintiff was decreed except the claim of damages.
114511 24 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.
137305 25 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.
137312 26 Suit 1078/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2002 INAMULLAH SHAIKH. (Plaintiff) VS M/S.CITY SECURITIES & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. 20-FEB-19 No Nil.
137313 27 Suit 1203/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Ehtisham Zubair. (Plaintiff) VS Ashraf Hussain & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 25-JAN-19 No Nil.
118373 28 Suit 1511/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1999 Pakistan Railwasy Cooperative Housing Society Limited (Plaintiff) VS Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig and others (Defendant) S.B. 18-SEP-17 No Nil.
114787 29 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.
115010 30 Civil Revision 285/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Muhammad Aabid (Appellant) VS Shamshad Ahmed and Others (Respondent) S.B. 01-NOV-16 No Nil.
116569 31 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
118531 32 S.M.A 202/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 13-OCT-17 No Nil.
112776 33 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.
138951 34 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.
138575 35 Suit 425/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 RIZWAN AHMED (Plaintiff) VS JAMEEL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 29-JAN-19 No Nil.
124146 36 Suit 1744/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Hanif Ahmed and another (Plaintiff) VS Sindh Building Control Authority and others (Defendant) S.B. 15-FEB-18 No Nil.
114896 37 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.
102318 38 2016 PLD Pesh. 367 Suit 1030/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 07-MAR-16 No Nil.
106487 39 2016 YLR 1436 Execution 25/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 Askari Bank Ltd. (Decree Holder) VS A.H. International (Pvt) Ltd. & OTHERS (Judgment Debtor) S.B. 15-JAN-16 No From facts of the case, when it is obvious that subject property though was transferred in favour of a creditor Bank through a registered deed of conveyance, on the basis of which said Bank filed Objection and resisted Execution proceeding, which is the outcome of a compromise decree between another Bank and the judgment debtor. Admittedly, the above transfer of property took place after passing of the above Decree in favour of another Bank [Decree Holder] that too on the basis of a settlement agreement in which the property in question was also part of subject matter. It is held, that the impugned transfer of property was made in clear violation of Section 23 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, therefore, the transfer/conveyance of property in favour of the creditor bank is void and it is not necessary that the registered conveyance deed should first be adjudged as cancelled in terms of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877, but, in the Execution proceeding of the nature this determination can be made. Financial Institutions have to streamline their working and banking transactions should have transparency as they [Financial Institutions] have a fiduciary relationship with their customers.
106152 40 2017 PLC CS 80 Const. P. 2105/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mst. Bhalan (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. 11-MAY-16 No The petition is completely silent about the fact that what steps the petitioner took to get her official service record corrected, while she was in service. This apparent contradiction about date of birth is a pure question of factual controversy and cannot be resolved in a writ jurisdiction under Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Even otherwise, issue at hand does not fall within the ambit of writ jurisdiction as it is barred under Article 212 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, as, inter alia, the subject dispute is about an order of retirement from service passed by the departmental authority, as envisaged in Section 2(a) of the Sindh Service Tribunal Act, 1973, and can be otherwise assailed before Service Tribunal in accordance with law.
106494 41 2017 YLR 1174 Const. P. 3379/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Abdul Latif Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. 13-JUL-16 No An election for the reserved seat in a Municipal Committee without first filling up the vacant general seat in one of its Wards, will be an exercise in futility, as it will adversely affect the subsequent election of Chairman and Vice Chairman of that Municipal Committee. Consequently, in terms of Rule 47 of the Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2015, relating to electoral college should be complied with. Thus propriety also demands that a political party which enjoys a majority in a Municipal Committee should at least be given a fair opportunity to elect a chairman and vice chairman of that Municipal Committee C.P.2292/2016 Sheikh Khalid Hussain v. Abdul Latif Sheikh & others,C.P.1823/2016 Shaikh Khalid Hussain v. The Province of Sindh thr. Chief Secretary, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
117426 42 Suit 622/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Habib Ismail (Plaintiff) VS Mrs. Syeda Fiza Hashmi & others (Defendant) S.B. 31-AUG-17 No Nil.
119866 43 2018 YLR 713 Suit 627/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Mr. Hamood Mehmood (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Shabana Ishaque and others (Defendant) S.B. 10-NOV-17 No Suit for specific performance of contract---Ad-interim injunction subject to deposit of balance sale consideration---Object---Non-deposit of balance sale consideration---Effect---Object for giving direction to deposit the balance sale consideration in the Court was to see the bona fides of a purchaser---Injunction in such case was granted so that the corpus of dispute remained intact and ultimately could be transferred to a successful party in litigation---Balance sale consideration was to be invested in some profit bearing scheme enabling the vendor/defendant to get an increased amount as sale consideration---If purchaser/plaintiff was unsuccessful then deposited amount was to be returned back to him with accruals in order to safeguard his interest---Non-deposit of sale consideration would raise adverse presumption against plaintiff that he was not serious in performing his agreed part of contract disentitling him to decree for specific performance---Party seeking remedy of specific performance was to apply to the Court for depositing the balance amount---Any contumacious/ omission in that regard would entail in dismissal of suit or decretal of the same if it was filed by the other side---Plaintiff, in the present case, enjoyed the ad-interim injunctive relief but despite giving ample opportunities and chances to comply with the orders of Court he kept on defying all such directions/orders---One who sought equity must also do equity---Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
119255 44 Suit 1560/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Syed Masood Hussain Jafri (Plaintiff) VS Registrar Cooperative Societies, Sindh. (Defendant) S.B. 27-OCT-17 No Nil.
120053 45 2018 YLR 1557 H.C.A 48/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Haroon Zia Malik (Appellant) VS Mst. Fariha Razzak (Respondent) D.B. 21-NOV-17 No Nil. C.P.95/2018 Haroon Zia Malik v. Mst. Fariha Razzak Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
137304 46 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.
118351 47 Suit 1059/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Ali (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh & others (Defendant) S.B. 18-SEP-17 No Nil.
137314 48 Suit 1232/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 RIZWAN RASOOL JAN (Plaintiff) VS P.I.A.C (Defendant) S.B. 18-FEB-19 No Nil.
137309 49 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 50 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.
132632 51 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.
132909 52 Suit 1774/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Asad Zaheer. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Ismail & another. (Defendant) S.B. 03-OCT-18 No Nil.
132933 53 2019 SBLR Sindh 395 Suit 534/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 M/s Mehran Associates (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant) S.B. 07-MAR-18 No Nil.
139352 54 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.
89736 55 2017 CLC 155 Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 11-DEC-14 No Nil.
103224 56 Suit 67/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1988 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 22-FEB-16 No Nil.
103304 57 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
106094 58 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.
103297 59 2016 SBLR Sindh 594 Execution 39/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Party-1 (Decree Holder) VS Party-2 (Judgment Debtor) S.B. 23-DEC-15 No Nil.
119865 60 Suit 1151/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Mrs. Hailey Vincent D'Abreo (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and another (Defendant) S.B. 27-OCT-17 No Rent arrears of School building. S.R.P.O does not apply to the Government buildings. Relief of rent arrears and possession of school building was allowed.
112439 61 2018 MLD 1099 Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant) S.B. 17-APR-17 No Nil.
138015 62 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.
137997 63 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.
115028 64 Suit 101/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1984 Karachi Properties Investment Company (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Properties Investment Company (1974) (Private) Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. 12-JUN-17 No Nil.
116906 65 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
119257 66 Suit 601/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 24-OCT-17 No Nil.
123072 67 2019 PLC CS 178 Suit 754/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 Mrs. Rukhsana Yahya (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan (Defendant) S.B. 06-FEB-18 No Nil.
137310 68 Suit 1037/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 M/S SIDDIQUI FUND TRUST (Plaintiff) VS NATIONAL HIGHWAY AUTHORITY & ORS (Defendant) S.B. 07-FEB-19 No Nil.
114892 69 Suit 2531/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 01-JUN-17 No Nil.
138573 70 Suit 1079/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 MAKRAN COMM. &ORS (Plaintiff) VS CHINA MOBILE PAK (Defendant) S.B. 08-MAY-19 No Nil.
128512 71 Suit 886/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1999 Syed Raza Haider Rizvi (Plaintiff) VS Gordon Shipping Company Ltd. and another (Defendant) S.B. 02-JUL-18 No Plaintiff was employee of defendants (employers) who were bound to provide him proper medical treatment---Plea raised by plaintiff was that due to failure of defendants to provide medical treatment, he had suffered permanent physical disability due to injury sustained by him during duty---Validity---Defendants neither produced any document about complete recovery of plaintiff nor had questioned authenticity of documents produced by plaintiff---Expert opinion of doctors further substantiated the fact that till March-1999 plaintiff was not fully recovered from injury which inhibited his pursuit of career---Testimony of plaintiff (employee) and undisputed documentary evidence produced by him weighed in favour of plaintiff as against oral evidence of defendant that complete medical treatment was given to plaintiff---To extent of negligence shown by defendants (employers) in providing incomplete medical treatment of plaintiff stood proved---Suit for damages and compensation was decreed accordingly.
114894 72 Suit 1090/1991 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1991 Sunray Corporation (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Total Parco Marketing Ltd (Defendant) S.B. 14-OCT-16 Yes Nil.
118372 73 Suit 889/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 Mirza Abdul Sattar Baig (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Railways and others (Defendant) S.B. 18-SEP-17 No Nil.
124156 74 Suit 1650/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Mrs. Shamima Alam (Plaintiff) VS Syed Abu Obedah and others (Defendant) S.B. 01-MAR-18 No Nil.
138572 75 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.
130235 76 Const. P. 1464/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Punhal Khan (Petitioner) VS Prov. of Sindh and ors (Respondent) D.B. 17-NOV-15 No Nil. C.P.22-K/2016 Punhal Khan v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
132916 77 Suit 127/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 SURRIYA ZAHEER (Plaintiff) VS MRS.RUQAYA & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 04-OCT-18 No Nil.
130736 78 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.
138872 79 2017 YLR 1551 Suit 13/1972 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1972 PREMIER INSURANCE CO. V/S KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING (Plaintiff) VS M/S. FAROOQI & CO., Surridge & Beecheano, ARFIN & CO., Abdul Rauf, Samiuddin Sami, H. A. Rahmani (Defendant) S.B. 02-MAY-16 No Marine Insurance Policy is assignable and consequently an Insurance Company after being subrogated, can sue the tortfeasor in its own name, in terms of Sections 130A read with 135A, of the Transfer of Property Act, 1882. Foreseeability Causation and but for is that if any reasonable person by applying his ordinary prudence can foresee a loss that can arise from his act(s) then he owes a duty of care to others [claimant] and is liable for the negligent act that has caused damaged to the other person (claimant). Similarly, causation is the linkage between the negligent act [breach of duty of care] that has resulted in causing injury and the but for test if simply put means, that the injury would not have occurred without the defendant is negligence. Subject Marine Insurance Policy being a 'time policy' had covered the risk, while the Vessel in question was dry-docked and subsequently damaged.
103220 80 2016 CLC 1326, 2016 SBLR Sindh 967 Suit 796/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 18-MAR-16 No No party is allowed to set up a new case in evidence, which is beyond his pleadings. Defendant was appointed as handling agent of Plaintiff in respect of one of latter's go-downs, inter alia, with an express obligation to submit periodical Reserve Stock Account (RSA), which Defendant failed to submit. Defendant being bailee in terms of Section 161 of Contract Act, 1872, was responsible for delivery of goods as well as keeping a proper account for the same. Defendant held liable for the reported short fall in the rice stock and bardanas (wheat / gunny bags). Concept of the Best Evidence Rule' vis-??-vis Article 129, Illustration (g) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 has also been discussed; that if a party relying upon a best piece of evidence but withholds it while leading evidence, then it will be presumed that under some sinister motive the best piece of evidence was not produced.
103303 81 Const. P. 2293/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent) S.B. 26-NOV-15 No The Petitioner being the landlady has complained that the Lessee/tenant PSO [Respondent] in violation of Building & Town Planning Regulations, 2002, particularly 25-12.3, has set up a CNG facility at the existing petrol / service station. Since area of the plot was admittedly more than 1000 square yards, hence the applicable regulation is 25-11.12, where under a CNG facility can be added at an existing petrol station / retail outlet, subject to fulfillment of other requisite formalities, which were complied with. When an Oil Marketing Company appoints a Franchise in respect of a retail outlet / service station, the status of the said Franchise is that of a dealer, that is, a licensee, as envisaged in the Storage, Distribution and Marketing of Petroleum Rules, 1971. Franchisee is a term in vogue in the international Oil and Gas Industry. Different agreements entered into between an Oil Marketing Company as a lessee / tenant of a property, with its Franchisee or other person(s), in particular, for NFR [non-fuel retail] business, is subservient to the main lease agreement being a registered document, entered into between an Oil Marketing Company and owner / lessor of a property. Therefore, for such agreements a written no objection is not necessarily required from landlord / lessor, but only from the concerned government functionary.
106275 82 Suit 826/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 M/S. MUSTAFA SONS PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY. (Defendant) S.B. 15-AUG-16 No There is a distinction between a routine board resolution that authorizes a person / Officer of a Company to do certain acts, including instituting a legal proceeding and a non-routine resolution as contemplated under Section 164 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984 (the Ordinance 1984). Similarly, a special resolution passed under Section 172 of the Companies Ordinance 1984, which has been defined in Section 2 sub-section (36) of the Ordinance 1984, is also of distinct nature and different import. For a routine and a procedural resolution as mentioned hereinabove, there is no requirement that the same should be filed with the SECP (Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan). If a board resolution is passed without giving prior notice to the Directors of the Board then the meeting convened and the resolution passed there at, both are held to be invalid and not in accordance with the Ordinance 1984. Even otherwise, if a Board Meeting is allowed to be held without prior notice to other directors, then it would lead to a chaotic situation and it will be against the basic principle of good corporate governance, which cannot be permitted. A suit instituted on behalf of a Plaintiff-Company without a valid authorization simply means that the plaint is not existing for all intents and purposes.
112908 83 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.
137460 84 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 85 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.
137303 86 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 87 Suit 515/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 M/S SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SYED (Defendant) S.B. 06-FEB-19 Yes Nil.
115648 88 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.
118371 89 Const. P. 3488/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent) D.B. 21-SEP-17 No Nil. C.P.3309/2017 Iqbal Ahmed v. Province of Sindh thr. Secretary, Local Government , Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
135717 90 Suit 1682/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MAZHAR SAYEED (Plaintiff) VS ATIF MAZHAR & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. 23-JAN-19 Yes Nil.
135933 91 Suit 2501/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Umer Sharif & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Saeed Bakhsh (Pvt) Limited. (Defendant) S.B. 02-JAN-19 No Nil.
117028 92 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
138471 93 Suit 1767/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Abdul Sattar Shaikh. (Plaintiff) VS Adeel Zahoor Malik & Others. (Defendant) S.B. 30-MAY-19 Yes Nil.
124293 94 Suit 1142/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 Pakistan Battery Mfg. Co. (Pvt.) Ltd. and another (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Fahad Farooqi and others (Defendant) S.B. 09-MAR-18 No Nil.
138976 95 Suit 771/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MASJID E ABDEEN TRUST (Plaintiff) VS DUBAI SHOPING MALL (Defendant) S.B. 23-MAY-19 No Nil.
139291 96 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 97 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 98 Suit 541/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 MST. AMTUL FATIMA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS SYED TAHIR ALI JAFRI & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 20-APR-17 Yes Judgment debtor raised the plea that entire sale proceeds were received beyond statutory period of two weeks which was in violation of O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.---Validity---Time that was consumed in remitting amount from two accounts; one maintained by auction purchaser and other by the Court official on which neither court official nor auction purchaser had control---Such transaction and proceeds were governed by regulations of State Bank of Pakistan---Judicial sale had a sanctity and once sale was confirmed, auction purchaser had interest in proceedings---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
106077 99 Suit 287/1990 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1990 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 26-FEB-16 No Nil.
102308 100 2016 CLC 878, 2017 CLC 1387 Suit 176/1985 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1985 Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd (Plaintiff) VS Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umer ltd (Defendant) S.B. 21-JAN-16 No ??? Any shortcoming in compliance of Order 29 Rule 1 is curable, for instance, if a formal Board Resolution is not there, then the Articles of Association and / or internal record [un-rebutted one] like Note Sheets, can be taken into account to determine about the authority of a person instituting a legal proceeding / suit. Articles of Association empower the Board of Directors to institute and defend legal proceedings; Articles 106 and 113, deal with quorum and at least two Directors can pass an effective and valid Board resolution. Since Noting sheet produced in the evidence confirms that Directors of the Plaintiff Corporation had discussed the issue and authorized the filing of instant suit, which was subsequently filed by the person authorized in the above document, the conclusion is that the suit was properly and competently filed. Noting sheet can be taken as Board Resolution by Circulation. ??? If the very suit has been unauthorizedly and incompetently filed, that is, neither any authorization from the Board of Directors exists, nor the Articles of Association provide such authority, then such a defect remains incurable, even by a subsequent ratification.
106760 101 2017 SBLR Sindh 105 Const. P. 4725/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Ubedullah Siddiqi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. 30-AUG-16 No Nil.
122573 102 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
118370 103 Const. P. 714/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Javed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. 21-SEP-17 No Nil.
120052 104 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
112440 105 Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant) S.B. 12-APR-17 No Nil.
137999 106 Suit 1724/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 MST.ZAIBUNISA & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS IQBAL AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 28-JAN-19 Yes Nil.
116568 107 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 108 Suit 1042/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Khalid Mehmood and others (Plaintiff) VS M/s Multi Plus Corporation Private Limited and others (Defendant) S.B. 05-OCT-17 Yes Nil.
137297 109 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 110 Suit 357/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Muhammad Junaid Makhdumi. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Iqbal & Others (Defendant) S.B. 19-FEB-19 Yes Nil.
135932 111 Suit 1022/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 ABID & ORS (Plaintiff) VS K.B.C.A (Defendant) S.B. 25-JAN-19 No Nil.
124274 112 Const. P. 1853/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Ahmed Ali Manzoor (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Railways and others (Respondent) D.B. 06-DEC-17 No Nil.
114898 113 Adm. Suit 628/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Marhaba Aviation Services Private Limited (Plaintiff) VS Real Air Travel (Defendant) S.B. 07-FEB-17 No Nil.
132635 114 Judicial Companies Misc. 47/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Aisha Steel Mills Limited & Others (Applicant) VS Nil (Respondent) S.B. 25-JUN-18 No Nil.
112926 115 Suit 595/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 INAM HAFIZ SIDDIQUI (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN TELECOMMUNICATION LTD. & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. 19-JUL-17 Yes Nil.
139312 116 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 117 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.
102320 118 2016 CLC 1326 Suit 67/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1988 Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant) S.B. 22-FEB-16 No Nil.
106766 119 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.
107334 120 Suit 646/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1999 KHAN JAMAL (Plaintiff) VS M/S. LONG LIFE BUILDERS & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. 03-OCT-16 No Nil.
106724 121 Const. P. 2524/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Ali Muhammad & another (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) D.B. 22-AUG-16 No Registered sub-leases in respect of two apartment / units which were non-existent at the time of registration and even till the decision of the instant petition, have been directed to be cancelled by Nazir of Sindh High Court. It is an admitted position that these apartments are to be located at the third floor / story of the building which is not even constructed by the Builder. Section 17 of the Registration Act, 1908, cannot be construed so as to include an immoveable property, which is not even existing at the time of registration. Property sought to be registered should be of ascertainable description. Similarly, Section 2, subsection (6) of the Registration Act, 1908, wherein an immoveable property is defined, inter alia, means that an immoveable property should be a tangible one and physically exists. Different orders passed by this Court in various constitutional petitions, crux of which is that no registration of a residential or a commercial unit of a multistoried building should be done without a completion plan / occupancy certificate, are the decisions in rem, and thus applicable to the present case as well. One of the main objectives, that can be achieved by looking at the completion plan / occupancy certificate is that it can help in identifying the property sought to be registered and also verify the fact that a multistoried building is Regulations compliant, particularly having structural stability. Rule 135 of the West Pakistan Registration Rules, 1929, is not applicable to the facts of subject constitutional petition as the illegality of sub-leases in question were floating on surface and no further inquiry was required for ascertaining the validity of these sub-leases in question. Even otherwise a rule cannot be interpreted in such a manner that results in perpetuating illegality rather preventing it.
114606 122 2018 CLC 883 Suit 2489/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s. Al Naseeb Welfare Foundation International (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Latif Memorial Hospital & others (Defendant) S.B. 30-MAY-17 No O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42---Suit for declaration---Rejection of plaint---Cause of action, absence of---Defendant, a Welfare Association was dissolved and plaintiff, a Welfare Foundation, wanted to takeover the assets of the Association---Plea raised by plaintiff was that objectives contained in Memorandum of Association of both the organisations were similar, therefore after dissolution, Association was bound to donate its assets to any such organization---Validity---Held, in absence of any clause under the Memorandum and Articles of Association of defendant Association, that assets would be given/handed over or donated to any specific entity or any agreement between the organizations that was plaintiff and defendant, plaintiff could not as a matter of right claim the assets of dissolved entity should be handed over to plaintiff---Such was an undisputed factual position and in absence of any such document or undertaking by defendant Association, neither any right nor any interest had accrued in favour of plaintiff for bringing an action of such nature---Plaintiff did not have any legal character for instituting suit as no cause of action had accrued for filing the same and it was hit by S.42 of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Basic features to attract O.VII, R.11, C.P.C. were present---Plaint was rejected in circumstances.
112681 123 Suit 2702/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Ibrahim (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh and others (Defendant) S.B. 08-FEB-17 No Nil.
114522 124 Suit 1353/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Iqbal Umer (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Gymkhana and others (Defendant) S.B. 21-SEP-16 No Nil.
122209 125 Suit 504/1984 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1984 Tewfiq Fikree and others (Plaintiff) VS Umahani Fikree and others (Defendant) S.B. 18-JAN-18 No Nil.
123152 126 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.
137294 127 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.
118611 128 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.
124173 129 Suit 1689/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Mst. Saira Khatoon (Appellant) VS Syed Muhammad Ashraf and others (Respondent) S.B. 27-FEB-18 Yes Nil.
116012 130 2018 CLC Note 24 Suit 611/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Abu Bakar Bin Abdul Qadir and another (Plaintiff) VS Laeeq Ahmed and others (Defendant) S.B. 07-JUL-17 Yes Defendant sought rejection of plaint on the ground that plaintiff had concealed material facts---Validity---Object and principle of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. was that a frivolous litigation should be laid to rest at the earliest and bona fide parties should be saved from rigors of such a litigation---Subject matter of litigation in question, i.e. the house property was not in dispute and sale consideration was admitted---Communication of offer and acceptance by parties to each other with regard to subject matter and total sale consideration was acknowledged by both the parties---All ingredients of a valid agreement enforceable as a contract existed---Defendants failed to make a case for grant of application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Application was dismissed in circumstances.
124138 131 Suit 1755/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Ahmed Saeed and others (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Education Department and two others (Defendant) S.B. 06-MAR-18 Yes Nil.
116992 132 2018 YLR 1053 Suit 327/1966 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1966 Raza Hussain and others (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Khan and others (Defendant) S.B. 15-AUG-17 Yes Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Compromise on behalf of defendants---Scope---Transferee of property could not confer upon a transferor a better title than he himself possessed---Defendants had no lawful authority, right or interest at the relevant time in the subject property when they entered into a compromise with the plaintiffs---Neither any appeal was preferred against the partition order nor authenticity or validity of the same was challenged by any of the parties---Possession of suit property was wrongly handed over to the plaintiffs by the Nazir of the Court---Nazir of the Court was directed to take appropriate measures to hand over the possession of suit land to its claimants.
123493 133 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.
139353 134 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.
106762 135 2017 CLC 1783 Suit 378/1987 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1987 Habib Jute Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS The Islamic Republic of Pakistan and another (Defendant) S.B. 26-FEB-16 No ??? Claim under Risk Sale is only tenable when there is an enforceable agreement, that is, a contract as defined in subsection (h) of Section 2 of the Contract Act, 1872, exists between the parties, which is subsequently breached by Defendant. ??? In order to succeed in his claim, the Plaintiff has to show that what measures it took to mitigate its losses before arranging or manufacturing the requisite goods / gunny bags for Defendants, if at all, the Plaintiff was under an impression or understanding that it had been actually awarded the contract. Any prudent businessman or a corporate entity like Plaintiff would have addressed a notice or any other type of communication to the Defendants about the fact that the Plaintiff was about to make preparation or commence production of subject goods / jute bags for supplying them to Defendants within the given time frame. ??? In response to Plaintiff bid, the Defendant by its correspondence reduced the price of gunny bags with an explicit condition that the communication is without any commitment. It is also an admitted position that other requisite formalities in such type of tender were never completed. For instance, Plaintiff was never issued a letter of intent nor the latter submitted any performance bond, which fact has been acknowledged by Plaintiff
106147 136 Const. P. 2199/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Party-1 (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Respondent) D.B. 03-JUN-16 No
117609 137 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
117306 138 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.
127801 139 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.
112662 140 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 141 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.
137995 142 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 143 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.
122792 144 2018 YLR 2210 Suit 622/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 Major Ret. Sheikh Abdul Naeem (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Authority and others (Defendant) S.B. 23-JAN-18 No Nil.
116227 145 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.
137356 146 Const. P. 6274/2017 (F.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Bushra Jabeen and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) F.B. 08-APR-19 No Nil. C.P.3854/2018,C.P.4573/2018,C.A.1486/2018,C.A.1487/2018,C.P.4475/2018,C.P.4476/2018 SCP Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed ,Pending ,Pending ,Pending ,Pending
122432 147 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.
130879 148 Suit 1118/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MRS. BILQUIS MOHSIN BUTT & ORS (Plaintiff) VS GHULAM RASOOL UMER & ORS (Defendant) S.B. 13-JUL-18 No Nil.