Export
Report-002 AFR

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

Apex Court: Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan, Federal Shariat Court of Pakistan:

Show Only Authored Judgements/Orders

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan

High Court of Sindh, Principal Seat Karachi, Bench at Sukkur, Circuit Courts at Hyderabad and Larkana
S.No. Citation Case No. Case Year Parties Bench Type Order/Judgment Order_Date A.F.R Head Notes/ Tag Line Bench Apex Court Apex Status
1 Suit 1342/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 MUHAMMAD SHAFI (Appellant) VS SYED CHAN PIR SHAH & ORS (Appellant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
2 2017 MLD 937 Const. P. 3232/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Adil Khan (Petitioner) VS Secretary to Govt. of Pakistan and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 29-NOV-16 Yes Scope of Review under Order XLVII Rule 1 of CPC and Section 114 of CPC has been discussed. It was observed that the case cannot be reopened on merits on the review application as scope of review is very limited by its very nature. It is not an appeal or rehearing merely on the ground that one party or the other conceived himself to be dissatisfied with the decision of Court. It was observed that where a court had applied its mind to a particular fact or law and then passed the order, it could never be contended that error was one apparent on the face of the record and could be corrected by it under the provision of Review. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
3 2017 YLR 2262, 2018 SBLR Sindh 281 Const. P. 52/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 Israrul Haq (Petitioner) VS Nooruddin (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-FEB-17 Yes The petitioners through instant constitutional petition has challenged the concurrent finding of facts recoded by the learned courts below, whereby the Rent Controller allowed the ejectment application of the respondent, which order was subsequently upheld by the Rent Appellate Court. It was considered that whenever any document / instrument is disputed /challenged then burden heavily lies on the shoulders of beneficiary of the transaction to prove the document as well as the original transaction. It was observed that execution of a document would mean series of acts, which would complete the execution and mere signing or putting thumb mark would not amount to execution in terms of Article 78 of Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. And a document, which is not proved, is inadmissible in evidence unless strict proof is waived in the light of Syed Shabbir Hussain Shah and others v. Asghar Hussain Shah and others (2007 SCMR 1884). It was viewed that in rent matters where there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below against the petitioner, this Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the entire evidence in the matter, as such jurisdiction besides being discretionary in nature is very limited and not plenary in nature. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
4 Cr.Rev 34/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Imam Ali (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) D.B. Order 31-JAN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
5 II.A. 20/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Muhammad Azam (Appellant) VS Honourary General Secretary, Jamiat Dehli Punjabi Saudagran (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 23-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
6 Const. P. 940/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s Al-Zarina Glass (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-JUL-17 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.A.920/2018 The Chief Commissioner (IR) Region, Hyderabad v. M/s Al-Zarina Glass Industries and others,C.P.472-K/2017 The Chief Commissioner (IR) Region, Hyderabad v. M/s Al-Zarina Glass Industries and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted
7 Const. P. 5396/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Naeem Akhtar Chang (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
8 Const. P. 5879/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s Tuwairqi Steel Mills (Petitioner) VS 3rd SCJ kARACHI SOUTH (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
9 2017 PTD 2191 Const. P. 6696/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Khayaban-e-Iqbal (Pvt) Limited (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 28-JAN-17 Yes Through instant petition the petitioner, inter alia, has sought refund of amount Rs.7183168/- which was collected by the respondents from the petitioner on its electricity bills for the month of August 2013 on account of 5% extra GST and 1% further GST. Sales Tax Act and Article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan, Pakistan were discussed in the case. In this case, it was observed that absence of any order from competent forum regarding illegality of suspension of Sales Tax Registration of petitioner, it cannot be presumed that such suspension of the petitioner was patently illegal or amounted to abuse of authority by respondent, which could be treated as nullity in the eyes of law. That any consequential payment of tax, extra GST on account of delayed filing of return and tax, would also be treated as illegal and would not eventually give right to the petitioner to seek refund of such payments by filing a Constitution Petition at this belated stage of proceedings. Petition was dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
10 H.C.A 213/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Ali Sufyan (Appellant) VS Waheeda Aslam (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 12-APR-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
11 Const. P. 1480/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2011 Muhammad Saleh & Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 12-SEP-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
12 H.C.A 395/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Jamshoro Joint Venture Limited (Appellant) VS Sui Southern Gas Company Limited (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-JUN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
13 Suit.B 114/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 AL-BARAKA BANK (PAKISTAN) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS ENSHAA HOLDING LTD. & AN OTHER. (Defendant) S.B. Order 06-AUG-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
14 Suit 733/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 COL. (RETD) MUHAMMAD SHARIF (Plaintiff) VS SQ. LDR. NOW LT. COL. (RETD) GHULAM FARI (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-MAY-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
15 Const. P. 1361/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Ssakrand Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed.of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
16 2017 PCr.LJ Note 93, 2017 SBLR Sindh 1651, 2018 SBLR Sindh 340 Criminal Appeal 314/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 MUHAMMAD ASIF S/O HAJI KHUDA BUX (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 07-DEC-16 Yes This criminal appeal is directed against the Judgment passed by learned VIIIth Assistant Session Judge, Karachi (East) in Sessions Case U/s 23-i-A Sindh Arms Act, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo R.I. for six years with fine of Rs.40, 000/- and in case of non-payment of fine to further undergo SI one (1) month. In this case, since, the appellant has already served major portion of sentence, i.e., more than (3) years (10) months as per jail roll dated 15.09.2016. The rule of ratio decidendi, has been taken into consideration as has been laid down in the cases of Amir Zeb Vs. The State (PLD 2012 SC 380), Fareedullah Vs. The State (2013 SCMR 302) and Nasreen Bibi's case (2014 SCMR 1603). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
17 Const. P. 1424/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Dr Abdul Qadir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 11-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
18 Const. P. 5205/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Prof: Dr. Muhammad Zahid (Petitioner) VS Chancellor of Fed: Urdu University & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 28-APR-21 Yes Judgment passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P. No.D-5205 of 2020 challenging the appointment of Search Committee and its members for the appointment of Vice Chancellor of Federal Urdu University of Arts, Sciences and Technology (FUUAST). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
19 Const. P. 1761/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Abu Hashim & another (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-APR-21 Yes Judgment in NADRA case passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan whereby the show cause notices issued under Section 18 of NADRA Ordinance, 2000 are quashed. The blocking of CNICs of the petitioners was declared illegal. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
20 R.A (Civil Revision) 71/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Sodho Khan thr: L.Rs (Applicant) VS Raja Imtiaz Ali & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
21 Civil Revision 109/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Orangi Charitable Trust (OCT) (Applicant) VS Abid Hussain (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
22 R.A (Civil Revision) 177/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Muhammad Yousuf Memon (Applicant) VS Syed Mujeeb Alam Shah (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
23 Const. P. 229/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Punhoon (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) D.B. Order 03-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
24 Const. P. 1819/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Khairpur Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
25 Const. P. 1906/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Faran Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
26 I. A 45/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Muhammad Sohail (Appellant) VS M/s. Zari Taraqiati Bank Ltd. & another (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 08-FEB-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
27 Suit 826/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Mrs. Samina Yaqub (Plaintiff) VS Jalil Ahmed Kapoor & others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 11-MAY-22 Yes Under Order 39 Rules 1 & 2, ad-interim order is recalled/ vacated. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
28 S.M.A 34/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Fehmila Akhtar D/o. Muhammad Rafiq (Petitioner) VS legal heirs (Respondent) S.B. Order 16-SEP-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
29 Const. P. 1511/2005 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 K.E.S.C Labour Union and others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and ors. (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-JAN-21 Yes WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 199 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN, 1973 1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - "62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also." 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.482-K/2021 KESC Labour Union through its Chairman & another v. Federation of Pakistan Through the Cabinet Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending Adjourned
30 Const. P. 1697/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 Mubarak Maseh (Petitioner) VS V/S Muhammad Yaqoob & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 25-APR-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.889-K/2018 Mubarak Masih v. Muhammad Yaqoob and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
31 2017 YLR 633 Suit 1305/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 Crescent Greenwood Limited (Plaintiff) VS Sea Land Service (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-SEP-16 Yes Suit filed by unauthorized person, it is mandatory that an authorized person, by the board of directors in duly convened meeting, may proceed the legal affairs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
32 2017 YLR 994 Const. P. 1014/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Faraz Alamgir (Petitioner) VS ADJ-VIII Karachi South & Ors (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 21-DEC-16 Yes The petitioner through the instant constitutional petition has challenged the order passed by the learned Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) while dismissing the family Appeal filed by petitioner upheld the order passed by learned Family Judge Karachi (South) in G & W Application; returned the application under Section 25 of the Guardian and Wards Act 1980, under order VII Rule 10, CPC. Order VII Rule 10 CPC & Provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, West Pakistan Family Courts Act, 1964 and The West Pakistan Family Court Rules, 1965, in the light of guide lines set by the Honble Supreme Court in the case of Anne Zahra vs. Tahir Ali Khilji and 2 others(2001 SCMR 2000). And Major Muhammad Khalid Karim Vs. Mst. Saadia Yaqub and others (PLD 2012 SC 66) were discussed. This Constitutional Petition was disposed of directing the learned Family Judge Karachi (South) to rehear the case of the petitioner and decide the question of territorial jurisdiction afresh, inter alia, in the light of Rules framed under the Family Courts Act, 1964. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
33 H.C.A 165/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Dr. Farzana (Appellant) VS Syed Shahrukh Abbas (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 10-MAY-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
34 H.C.A 363/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Sharafat Ali (Appellant) VS Abdul Majeed (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-MAY-17 Yes This High Court Appeal was filed by the appellant against the order dated 06.10.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Suit No.527 of 2009. Scope of administration of justice is discussed in the case. It was observed that the principal object of legal formalities and procedural provision is to safeguard the interest of justice, and the procedural provisions, unless insurmountable, should not be allowed to defeat the ends of justice; the prescribed procedure, which is used always for the purpose of doing justice between the parties, should not come in the way of doing substantial justice; the most important duty of the Court of law is to do justice between the parties and in the absence of any express power, normally relief to a party should not be refused on technical grounds; and, civil courts, being courts of both law and equity, should dispose of cases on merits rather than on technical considerations Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
35 Const. P. 219/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 M/s Combined Ind. (Petitioner) VS Sabir Hussain & another (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 22-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
36 2017 CLC 1322 Const. P. 5879/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s Tuwairqi Steel Mills (Petitioner) VS 3rd SCJ kARACHI SOUTH (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-JAN-17 Yes The petitioner through the petition has challenged the order passed by learned IIIrd Senior Civil Judge Karachi (South) whereby the application under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC of respondent No.2 was allowed. Provision of Order XXXVIII Rule 5 of CPC and Article 199 of constitution were discussed in the case. It was observed that the court should be satisfied that there is reasonable chance of a decree being passed in the suit against the defendant. And that the plaintiff has a prima facie case. If averments in the plaint and documents produced in support of it, do not satisfy the court about the existence of a prima facie case, the court will not go to the next stage of examining whether the interest of the plaintiff should be protected by exercising power under Order 38 Rule 5 of CPC. As has been viewed in the case of Mohiuddin Molla Vs. The Province of East Pakistan and others (PLD 1962 SC 119). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
37 Const. P. 6561/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Muhammad Arif (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 15-DEC-16 Yes Through this petition the petitioner sought declaration and direction against the respondents and also claim damages against them. It was taken into consideration that Article 199 of the Constitution casts an obligation on the High Court to act in the aid of law and protects the rights within the framework of Constitution and this extra ordinary jurisdiction of High Court may be invoked to encounter and collide with extraordinary situation and non-availability of any alternate remedy under the law where the illegality of the impugned action of an executive or other authority can be established without any elaborate enquiry into complicated or disputed facts. Controverted questions of fact, adjudication on which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of parties can be determined only by the courts having plenary jurisdiction in matter. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
38 1965 PLD Sindh 3746, 1983 PLD SC 693, 1985 PLD Sindh 274, 2008 PLD SC 42, 1995 SCMR 1431, 2004 SCMR Sindh 834, 1990 CLC 1649, 2001 CLC 1686, 2007 CLC 1814, 2005 YLR 1905, 2007 YLR 2333, 2016 YLR 2528, 1999 MLD 3345 Suit 540/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MANSOOR AHMED & ORS (Plaintiff) VS MST. SAEEDA BEGUM & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 10-JAN-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
39 I. A 23/2001 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2001 Rano son of Loung (Appellant) VS Land Acquisition Officer & SDM Kotri (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-SEP-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.628-K/2017 Military Estate Officer, Hyderabad and another v. Rano and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
40 Const. P. 2562/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Tasawar Abbas Tanveer (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.64-K/2017 Tasawar Abbas Tanveer v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
41 2019 CLC 1253 Suit 640/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 PSO LTD (Plaintiff) VS CANTONMENT BAORD CLIFTON & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 26-OCT-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
42 2018 CLC 1824 Suit 57/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1995 AZIZ UR REHMAN (Plaintiff) VS RASHID AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes Suit was filed on 23.01.1995 against the defendants for Declaration, Permanent Injunction, Damages and Removal of encroachment It is well-established principle of law that a written statement contains averments of a party, which are to be proved through cogent evidence. If a party does not produce any evidence to support the contents of its written statement, in absence of any admission on the part of a plaintiff, the averments contained in the written statement cannot be treated as evidence. As regards the encroachment, on the common street between the properties of the plaintiff and defendants, is concerned, defendant No.1 is directed to take appropriate measures to remove the encroachments as mentioned in the report of the engineer of Defedant No.10, strictly in accordance with law. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
43 Const. P. 732/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2014 Qalandar Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 09-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
44 Const. P. 3818/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Moulvi Iqbal Haider (Petitioner) VS Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-JAN-21 Yes 1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - 62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also. 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
45 Const. P. 3494/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Ghulam Sarwar and Others (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 11-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
46 Const. P. 52/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Muhammad Ibrahim & anothers (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 19-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
47 Const. P. 134/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 10-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
48 Const. P. 837/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2013 Qurat-ul-Ain Laghari & Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 03-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
49 Const. P. 215/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Ellahi Bux (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 18-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
50 Const. P. 963/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2012 Moula Bux (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 17-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author) C.P.433-K/2021 Moula Bux Baloch v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
51 Const. P. 1243/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Patient Welfare Society (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-APR-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.925-K/2021 Patient Welfare Society v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Health Department & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
52 Const. P. 5689/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Abdul Qayoom Solangi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 04-JUN-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.1113-K/2021 Abdul Qayoom Solangi v. The Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
53 Const. P. 1486/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Matiari Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
54 Const. P. 1485/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Matiari Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
55 Const. P. 4302/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Habib Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
56 Const. P. 1944/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Ranipur Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
57 Const. P. 1616/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Khairpur Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
58 Const. P. 1552/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sanghar Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
59 Const. P. 1484/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Matiari Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
60 R.A (Civil Revision) 229/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Ovais Akhter & Ors (Applicant) VS Abdullah & Ors (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 21-FEB-23 Yes provisions of 42 of the Specific Relief Act The provisions of Section 115, C.P.C Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
61 Const. P. 6359/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Syed Abdul Rehman (Petitioner) VS Mst. Naheed Hussain & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 26-SEP-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
62 I. A 77/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Ghulam Bahauddin Khan & another (Appellant) VS Muhammad Islamuddin & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 06-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
63 H.C.A 276/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Province of Sindh (Appellant) VS Rahim Ali Palari & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 07-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.728-K/2023 The Province of Sindh through its Secretary Transport Department Govt. of Sindh v. Rahim Ali Palari & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
64 First Appeal Against Order 63/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Asif Munawwar S/o Munawwar Ahmed (Appellant) VS Bank Islami Pakistan & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-APR-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
65 Criminal Miscelleneous 78/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2024 HINA ASIF W/O JAMAL & D/O MUNIR AHMED (Appellant) VS THE STATE & ORS (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
66 Cr.Bail 2934/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 Arshad Ali S/o Moj Khan (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 14-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
67 Cr.Appeal 578/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 ASHIR @ WASEEM S/O BOOTA MASIH (Appellant) VS LEARNED XTH ADJ KHI WEST (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 21-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
68 Suit 1055/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 BHAWAL KHAN (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 23-NOV-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
69 Const. P. 109/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Abdul Sattar through L.Rs Abdul Hameed (Petitioner) VS Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affaris and othrs (Respondent) D.B. Order 11-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
70 Const. P. 395/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 Israr Ul Haq & Ors (Appellant) VS Mst. Zohra Jabeen & Ors (Appellant) S.B. Judgement 27-FEB-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
71 Const. P. 5812/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Shahrukh Shakeel Khan and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 05-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Munib Akhtar(Author) C.A.7-K/2017,C.P.950-K/2016,C.P.865-K/2016,C.A.13-K/2017 SCP Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed
72 2017 PLD Sindh 1497 Const. P. 2358/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 ORI-TECH, OILS PRIVATE LIMITED (Petitioner) VS The Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office-I, Karachi (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 08-MAY-17 Yes The petitioner through the present constitutional petition sought declaration that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing process through Toll Manufacturer and thus eligible to be registered as Manufacturer with the Tax Authorities. It was considered that the petitioner being manufacturer of its products owns the proprietary rights over its brand name and fixes the retail price and sell the finished product, hence the petitioner is engaged in the taxable supply being manufacturer. Provisions and definition clauses of the Sales Tax Act 1990, Federal Excise Act 2005 & Sales Tax Registration Rules 2006 were examined. Section 2 (17) was examined and it was considered that manufacturer is a person who engages, whether exclusively or not, in the production or manufacture of goods whether or not the raw material of which the goods are produced or manufactured are owned by him and shall include a person any person, firm or company which owns, holds, claims or uses any patent, proprietary, or other right to goods being manufactured, whether in his or its name, or on his or its behalf, as the case may be, whether or not such person, firm or company sells, distributes, consigns or otherwise disposes of the goods. It was also observed that there appears no provision in sales tax act, which could exclude a person who does not possess its own facility of manufacturing and get his products manufactured from toll manufacturing from claiming himself as manufacturer. The Federal Excise General Order No.2 of 2008 dated 06.10.2008, was taken into consideration and it was observed that both vendor and the principal fall in purview of the definition of manufacturer. Hence, it was decided that the petitioner is engaged in the manufacturing of its products through Toll manufacturing arrangement and thus eligible to be registered as Manufacturer with Tax authority. The Petition was allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.407-K/2017 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s ORI Tech Oil (Pvt) Ltd.,C.P.572-K/2015 Muhammad Mashooque v. Faiz Muhammad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous
73 H.C.A 165/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Dr. Farzana (Appellant) VS Syed Shahrukh Abbas (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 10-MAY-17 Yes This High Court Appeal was filed by the appellant against the two orders passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in the civil suit; (i) order dated 11.01.2016, whereby application under Order VI Rule 17 CPC filed by present appellant seeking amendment in the pleadings was dismissed and the said suit was ordered to be transferred to the Court of Senior Civil Judge having pecuniary jurisdiction in the matter and (ii) order dated 07.05.2016, whereby application under Section 152 CPC, filed by present appellant seeking review of the order dated 11.01.2016 was also dismissed. Provisions of Order VI Rule 17,CPC and Section 152, CPC have been discussed in the case. There is no cavil to the legal proposition that the court always has the jurisdiction under Order VI, Rule 17 C.P.C. and enjoys vast discretionary powers to allow amendments in a plaint at any stage of the proceedings, which in the opinion of the court, are just and necessary for final disposal of case between the parties in accordance with law. However, at the same time, the court is bound to exercise such discretion in accordance with settled judicial principles, firstly, while allowing request for amendment in the plaint, no prejudice shall be caused to other side, and secondly, amendment shall be necessary for accurate determination of the dispute between the parties. It needs no reiteration that while allowing amendment in the plaint, the defendant's right should also be kept in view and no amendment should be allowed, which is aimed to change complexion of the case altogether or to introduce a new case based on new cause of action. It was observed that Section 152 has some limitations, which have been provided therein. The scope is limited to clerical, arithmetical mistakes or errors" arising from any "accidental slip" or omission. Where the order or judgment is deliberate, having been passed after application of mind, it will be outside the scope of Section 152, as an error or omission in such an order would not be construed as an accidental slip or omission. Not every mistake by a court can be termed as an error resulting from an accidental slip or omission. Contentious issues cannot be considered or corrected under Section 152 of C.P.C. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
74 Adm. Suit 101/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Muhammad Saeed (Appellant) VS Muhammad Baqir Bukhari (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 24-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
75 2017 CLC 800 Suit 1176/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1997 S.M. YOUSUF (Plaintiff) VS THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-DEC-16 Yes Declaration and permanent injunction. Provisions of Section 11 of CPC and scope of Section 70 and 54 of co-operative housing Society Act. Doctrine of Res judicata. every Single issue framed is not a matter. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
76 Suit 1176/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1997 S.M. YOUSUF (Plaintiff) VS THE SECRETARY GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN & ORS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 23-DEC-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
77 2017 SBLR Sindh 489, 2018 SBLR Sindh 508, 2017 MLD 806 Const. P. 3503/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Syeda Imammah Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Yaqoob and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 20-OCT-16 Yes This petition was directed against the order passed by Additional District & Sessions Judge, Karachi (South), acting as Ex.Offcio of justice of peace on the application under Section 22-A (6)(i), Cr.P.C. Scope of Article 199 of the constitution, Scope of Section 22-A, Cr.P.C. (Powers of Justice of Peace), Section 22-B, Cr.P.C. (Duties of Justice of Peace) and Section 25, Cr.P.C. (Ex.Offcio of justice of peace) in the light of Larger Bench Judgment in the case of Younus Abbas and others v. Additional Sessions Judge, Chakwal and others (PLD 2016 S.C. 581) have been discussed. It was observed that par Article 199 of the Constitution, the High Court to act in the aid of law and protects the rights within the frame work of Constitution, and if there is any error on the point of law committed by the courts below or the tribunal or their decision takes no notice of any pertinent provision of law, then obviously High Court may exercise Constitutional jurisdiction subject to the non-availability of any alternate remedy under the law. The jurisdiction conferred under Article 199 of the Constitution is discretionary with the objects to foster justice in aid of justice and not to perpetuate injustice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
78 Cr.Appeal 314/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Muhammad Asif (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 07-DEC-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
79 2018 PLC CS Note 89 Const. P. 1945/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Ehsanullah Khan, Addl. Director FIA (Retired) (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes The petitioner through the instant petition has challenged recommendation/decision dated 13.02.2013 of CSB regarding supersession of the petitioners promotion. Provisions of Services Tribunal Act 1973, Civil servants Act 197 Article 199 and 212(2) of Constitution of Pakistan and Fundamental Rules 17(1) were discussed in the case. It was observed that the Petitioner was entitled to get the benefit of Office Memorandum No. F.No.4 (6)imp/FR-17/2013-277 dated 18.09.2015. The respondents were directed to consider his case of promotion in the light of revised guidelines issued by Finance Division (Regulation Wing), Government of Pakistan vide its Office Memorandum No. F.No.4 (6)imp/FR-17/2013-277 dated 18.09.2015, without being influenced by the decision by CSB, strictly in accordance with law. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.680/2017 Secretary Establishment Division and others v. Ehsanullah Khan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed
80 Const. P. 3806/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Syed Shoaib Hassan (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 31-JAN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
81 Criminal Miscelleneous 282/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Mst. Nazi (Applicant) VS The State & Others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 02-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
82 2018 MLD 802 Suit 1768/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 H. Nizam Diin & Sons (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Defence Officers HOusing Authority & Ors. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes CMA filed by defendant No.1 under Order VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. for rejection of the plaint Sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act , the Easement Act, 1882 and Transfer of Property Act are discussed. Plain is rejected. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
83 Suit 876/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 Mustafa H. Jivanjee (Plaintiff) VS The Director General Karachi Development Authority (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
84 I.T.C 229/2003 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 Habib Insurance Company Ltd (Appellant) VS Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 23-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.59-K/2018 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Habib Insurance Company Ltd.,C.A.633/2019 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Habib Insurance Company Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted [ Appeal to be heard on 11-04-2019 ],Disposed Allowed
85 2021 SBLR Sindh Note 245 Const. P. 5496/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Imkaan Welfare Organization (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 02-DEC-20 Yes Order passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P. No.D-5496/2020 for the implementation of Sections 9 and 10 of the Juvenile Justice System Act, 2018 with regard to Juvenile Justice Committee. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
86 Const. P. 1779/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Pakistan Re-Insurance Co. Ltd (Petitioner) VS Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 16-JAN-21 Yes Reasons Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
87 Const. P. 1471/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Nadeem (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & OtherS (Respondent) D.B. Order 12-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
88 Const. P. 853/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Adil Raheem (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 20-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
89 Const. P. 542/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Parvez Masih (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 09-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
90 Criminal Miscelleneous 263/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 ABDUL GHAFFAR S/O MUHAMMAD SHARIF (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ANOTHER (Respondent) S.B. Order 30-APR-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
91 Const. P. 3194/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Popular Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
92 Const. P. 1549/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
93 Const. P. 1845/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Digiri Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
94 Const. P. 1947/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Ranipur Sugar Mills (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
95 Cr.Bail 1154/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 ARSHAD ALI S/O ASGHAR ALI (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Order 30-JAN-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
96 Suit 855/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 ISHRAT SWALEH (Plaintiff) VS MST. FARZANA SHAIKH & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Order 10-JUN-22 Yes under Order VII Rule 11 read with Section of 151 CPC Defendant No. 2, seeks rejection of the Plaint. suit for Specific Performance and Permanent Injunction. Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth Edition, an agreement between two or more persons which creates an obligation to do or not to do a particular thing. The Contract Act, 1872 [the Act] defines the term Contract under its section 2 (h) as An agreement enforceable by law. it cannot be revoked/terminated, yet it may be observed that merely the use of the word irrevocable in a power of attorney will not make it so, unless it is clear from the terms that it is an agency coupled with interest of the agent without which it will be only an independent authority lacking the interest as envisaged in Section 202 of the Contract Act, 1872. Insofar as the question of limitation is concerned, Article 113 of the Limitation Act, 1908, provides period of limitation of three years for filing of a suit for specific performance of contract. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
97 Spl.H.C.A 210/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Syed Wajahat Hussain Zaidi & another (Appellant) VS United Bank Limited (Respondent) D.B. Order 06-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
98 H.C.A 178/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 M/s. Democrat Construction Co. Pvt Ltd. (Appellant) VS Abdul Hameed (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 22-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.873-K/2023 M/s. Democrat Construction Company (Pvt) Ltd. v. Abdul Hameed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
99 I. A 26/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2011 Abdul Jabbar Soomro (Appellant) VS The Manager SMS Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 16-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
100 Election Appeal 63/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2024 Dr. Fahmida Mirza W/o Dr. Zulfiqar Mirza (Appellant) VS The RO NA-223 Badin-II and Others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 08-JAN-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
101 Criminal Miscelleneous 918/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 BABAR ZULIFQAR NIZAMI & ORS (Appellant) VS KHURSHEED ALI SHAH & ANOTHER (Respondent) S.B. Order 06-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
102 2017 YLR 501 Suit 1392/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 M/s Gul Construction (Plaintiff) VS V/S Province of Sindh & others V/S Province of Sindh & others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 15-AUG-16 Yes Rule 31,37, 39, 42 and 43 of Sindh Public Procurement Rules (SPPR) 2010, Section 37 AND 282-A of State Bank of Pakistan Act 1956 relating to Scheduled Bank and Non- Banking Financial Company (NBFC) and provision of Order XXXIX Rule 1 and 2 of CPC. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
103 2017 CLC 495, 2017 SBLR Sindh 725 Suit 45/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1998 MUHAMMAD AKRAM QURESHI & ORS. V/S (Plaintiff) VS l PAK DEFENCE HOUSING AUTHORITY. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-AUG-16 Yes Declaration of ownership, injunction and compensation sanctity of Registered Documents The Sindh Government Land Ordinance 2000, Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC and section 42 of Specific Relief Act 1877 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
104 Const. P. 6662/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Moulvi Iqbal Haider (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-FEB-17 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
105 Const. P. 1406/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 Muhammad Irfan (Petitioner) VS City District Government & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-DEC-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
106 2017 CLC Note 151 II.A. 20/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Muhammad Azam (Appellant) VS Honourary General Secretary, Jamiat Dehli Punjabi Saudagran (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 23-JAN-17 Yes Through the instant second appeal Appellants/Plaintiffs challenged the concurrent findings of fact of the courts below. Section 100 of CPC has been discussed in the case. It was observed that concurrent findings of facts by the Courts below cannot be disturbed by the High Court in second appeal, unless the Courts below while recording the findings of fact have either misread the evidence or have ignored the material piece of evidence on record from the findings recorded by the two Courts below is perverse. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
107 2017 YLR Note 99, 2017 SBLR Sindh 1433, 2016 SLJ 1559 Cr.Bail 1463-S/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Siraj Muhammad (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 14-DEC-16 Yes The applicant/accused through the above bail application has sought post arrest bail in a case registered under Section 6/9-C C.N.S Act 1997, at Police Station Shah Faisal Colony, Karachi. The matter was considered in the light of Zafar Iqbal v. Muhammad Anwar and others (2009 SCMR 1488), a larger Bench of the Honourable Supreme Court has elucidated the principles for considering the grant of bail, where offences fall within the non-prohibitory clause. The issue of violation of Sections 21 and 22 of the Control of Narcotic Substance Act 1997, was considered in the light of Muhammad Younas and others Vs. Mst. Parveen alias Mano and others (2007 SCMR 393). It was discussed that the guilt or innocence of an accused does not depend on the question of competent or otherwise of a Police Officer to investigate the offence. A trial of an accused is not vitiated merely on the ground that the case has been investigated by an officer who is not authorized to do so unless a contrary intention appears from the language of a statute. And the Court has to determine the guilt or innocence of an accused on the basis of the evidence produced before it irrespective of the manner in which he is brought before it. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
108 Const. P. 5801/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Aslam Khan (Petitioner) VS Director General SBCA (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 15-DEC-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
109 Const. P. 2109/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Muhammad Ramzan (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.63-K/2017 Muhammad Ramazan v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
110 H.C.A 262/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Gulshan Weaving Mills Limited (Appellant) VS Al Baraka Bank (Pakistan) Limited & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.1008/2018 Bank of Punjab, Karachi v. Gulshan Weaving Mills Ltd, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
111 Suit 1324/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes Suit for Partition It is by now a settled principle of law that any deposition made in the examination-in-chief, if not subjected to cross-examination, shall be deemed to have been admitted. Reliance can be placed on M/s. Akbar Brothers v. M Khalil Dar(PLD 2007 Lahore 385). it is also well-established principle of law that a written statement contains averments of a party, which are to be proved through cogent evidence. If a party does not produce any evidence to support the contents of its written statement, in absence of any admission on the part of a plaintiff, the averments contained in the written statement cannot be treated as evidence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the cases of FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence and anotherV. JAFFAR KHAN and others(PLD 2010 Supreme Court 604) and MUHAMMAD NOOR ALAMv.ZAIR HUSSAIN and 3 others (1988 MLD 1122) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
112 2017 PLC CS Note 97 Const. P. 2562/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Tasawar Abbas Tanveer (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes The moot question involved in this petition is that whether petitioner is entitled to be reinstated under provisions of the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 (Ordinance) and the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 (Act). The Provisions of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 and the Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 (Act) were thoroughly examined and discussed. It was observed that the Provisions of aforesaid Ordinance and the Act is applicable only to employees who fall within the very limited category i.e. recruited during November 1993 to November 1996 and removed during November, 1996 to December, 1998. It may be noticed that the word used between the two described periods, is And. Therefore unless an employee of a corporation concurrently meets both these conditions he is not entitled to the benefit of the Ordinance and Act. Petition was dismissed with no order as to costs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.64-K/2017 Tasawar Abbas Tanveer v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
113 2018 YLR Note 258 Suit 642/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 M/S.SILVER FLOUR MIOLLS. (Plaintiff) VS K.E.S.C (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 01-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
114 Const. P. 4859/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Naeem Adil Shaikh (Petitioner) VS R.O & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-JUL-18 Yes Instant petition challenging the orders, passed by Returning Officer and learned Election Appellate Tribunal, whereby the nomination papers of the petitioner for contesting the forthcoming general election-2018 was rejected. sub-section (9) and (10) of Section 62 of the Election Act 2017 are discussed. So far as the exercise of the discretionary powers in upsetting the order passed by the forum below is concerned, this court has to comprehend what illegality or irregularity and or violation of law has been committed by the courts below which caused miscarriage of justice. Reference may be placed to the case of Muslim Commercial Bank Ltd. through Attorney v. Abdul Waheed Abro and 2 others (2015 PLC 259). The instant petition is devoid of merit, thus, constrained to dismiss the petition with no order as to costs. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
115 Cr.Rev 171/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Nazeer Ahmed Chandio (Applicant) VS The State & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 19-JAN-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
116 Adm. Suit 23/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A and another (Defendant) S.B. Order 30-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
117 Civil Revision 177/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Muhammad Yousuf Memon (Applicant) VS Syed Mujeeb Alam Shah (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
118 Civil Tran 5/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Niaz Hussain & others (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 08-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
119 Cr.J.A 117/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Muhammad Imran (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) D.B. Order 16-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
120 Const. P. 1363/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sakrand Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
121 Const. P. 4371/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-JUN-21 Yes Judgment passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P. No.D-4371 of 2020 filed by Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin against Government of Sindh (vehicle number plats petition). The petition has been dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.1464-K/2021 Syed Ghulam Mohiuddin & another v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
122 Suit 1711/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Fazal Mehmood (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh & others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 15-DEC-21 Yes stay application Application under Order XXXIX Rules 1 & 2 Application under Section 39 Rule 4 R/w section 151 CPC filed by Defendant No. 9 and 10 Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
123 Const. P. 1908/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Faran Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
124 Const. P. 1561/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Daryan Khan Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
125 Const. P. 1844/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Digri Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
126 Const. P. 1945/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Ranipur Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
127 Const. P. 1551/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sanghar Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
128 Const. P. 1564/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Darya Khan Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
129 R.A (Civil Revision) 229/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 Ovais Akhter & Ors (Applicant) VS Abdullah & Ors (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 21-FEB-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
130 S.M.A 202/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Ghazal Asif & another thr. attorney Tariq Aslam (Petitioner) VS . (Respondent) S.B. Order 07-OCT-20 Yes Intellectual property, Immovable and immovable Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
131 H.C.A 272/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 Muhammad Anwar (Appellant) VS Pakistan through Secretary & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 02-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.476-K/2023 Mohammad Anwar v. Pakistan through the Secretary to the Government of Pakistan, Ministry of Finance & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
132 Civil Revision 65/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Samina Nooruddin & Ors. (Applicant) VS Mst. Jameela Begum & Ors. (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
133 Criminal Miscelleneous 13/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2024 DR. MAMOONA KHATOON WD/O MUSHTAQ ALI (Appellant) VS THE STATE & ORS (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
134 Const. P. 1531/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Platinum Petroleum Service (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 23-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.3421/2023 Platinum Petroleum Service, Hyderabad v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation department Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
135 Const. P. 216/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Amanullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) D.B. Order 31-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
136 Const. P. 1157/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Muhammad Asif and Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & and Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 15-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
137 2018 CLC 866 Suit 1342/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 MUHAMMAD SHAFI (Appellant) VS SYED CHAN PIR SHAH & ORS (Appellant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes suit for declaration, permanent injunction, cancellation of forged documents, possession, damages and for the recovery of mesne profit. there can be no denial to the legally established principle of law that legal character is mandatory requirement for one to maintain a civil suit and in absence thereof a suit shall not be maintainable. Section 42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 deals with the suit for declaration. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
138 2017 YLR 1769, 2018 SBLR Sindh 104 Const. P. 395/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 Israr Ul Haq & Ors (Appellant) VS Mst. Zohra Jabeen & Ors (Appellant) S.B. Judgement 27-FEB-17 Yes The petitioners through instant constitutional petition has challenged the concurrent finding of facts by the learned courts below, whereby the Rent Controller allowed the fair rent case of the respondent, which order was subsequently upheld by the Rent Appellate Court. Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was discussed. It was taken into consideration that law requires that while deciding such application the Rent Controller shall take into consideration the four factors as stated in clause (a) to (d) of subsection (1) of Section 8 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, including the rent of similar premises situated in the similar circumstances, in the same adjoining locality, the rise in cost of construction and repair charges, the imposition of new taxes, if any, after commencement of the tenancy and the annual value of the premises, if any, on which property tax is levied. If a party succeeds in establishing through evidence the aforesaid factors, the Rent Controller is required to examine cumulative effect of all four factors as enumerated in section 8(1) for fixation of fair rent. It was discussed that where there are concurrent findings of facts recorded by the Courts below, this Court under its Constitutional jurisdiction cannot reappraise the entire evidence in the matter, as such jurisdiction besides being discretionary in nature is very limited and not plenary in nature. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
139 Const. P. 1324/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 SSGC-LPG (PVT) LTD (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 28-MAR-17 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.525-K/2017 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sui Southern Gas Company and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time
140 Const. P. 1362/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Muhammad Sultan (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Yousuf (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 28-FEB-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
141 Const. P. 6306/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Zahid Khan and Ors (Petitioner) VS KMC and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-DEC-16 Yes Through this constitutional petition the petitioner challenged the order passed by 1st ADJ, Karachi (East) in Civil Revision upholding the judgment and decree passed by Senior Civil Judge Karachi (East). In this case Section 115 CPC was examined and it was observed that the revisional Court under section 115 of the C.P.C. are confined to the conditions and eventualities where it appears that the subordinate court has exercised jurisdiction not vested in it or has failed to exercise the jurisdiction so vested or has acted in exercise of its jurisdiction illegally or with material irregularity. And erroneous conclusion of law and fact can be corrected in appeal, but direct revision in civil suit will not be competent. It was also taken into consideration that the Revision lies against the decision or order of subordinate court in which no appeal lies. Revision is competent only in non-appealable orders or decisions, however where appeal has been provided under the law, Revision is not competent. Furthermore, decree or order passed by the trial court is appealable, Revision without availing of remedy by way of such appeal was not competent. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
142 2017 CLC Note 153 Civil Revision 101/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Muhammad Saeed (Appellant) VS Muhammad Baqir Bukhari (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 24-JAN-17 Yes The Applicant through the instant revision Application has challenged the order passed by VIIth Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (East) in Civil Appeal, upholding the order dated passed by VIth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (East) in Suit whereby the plaint of the applicant (plaintiff) was rejected. Section 115, Order VII Rule 11, Order XXXIX of Civil Procedure Code & Article 78 of Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 were discussed. It was observed that the High Court exercises its supervisory jurisdiction to satisfy itself as to whether the jurisdiction by the courts below has been exercised properly and whether the proceedings of the subordinate Court do suffer or not from any illegality or irregularity. It was further observed that while rejecting the plaint only contents of the plaint are to be looked into. It was commented that the order for rejection of plaint while hearing arguments on an application under Order 39 Rules 1 and 2 CPC cannot be passed. It was also observed that the Learned courts below passed the impugned orders / judgments in complete oblivion of the law on the point. The difference between Order XXXIX Rules 1 and 2 CPC and Order VII Rule 11 CPC was taken into consideration in the light of Jewan and 7 others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Revenue, Islamabad and 2 others (1994 SCMR 826). It was commented that oral agreement would be a valid and enforceable as a written agreement provided it fulfills all the requirements of a valid contract. However, whether or not the contract in question can be enforceable or not, it is to be decided by the Trial Court after a full dress trial, as, inter alia, relief of specific performance is a discretionary one. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
143 Const. P. 201/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 Mr. Abdul Rashid. (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Defence Officers Housing Autority & Ors. (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 19-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
144 2017 CLC Note 90 Const. P. 5406/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Periz (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-DEC-16 Yes The claim of the petitioner is that he being old resident of village in question has the right over the property. However, he did not place on record any documentary evidence, which could substantiate title of the petitioner over the land in question. It was observed that the petitioner to show his locus standi and to establish his legal right over the land in question by placing on record title documents but despite clear directions the petitioner has placed no such document to strengthen his alleged claim over the land and the allegations emphasized in instant petition. Furthermore, the petitioner raised disputed question of fact, which cannot be decided in the constitutional jurisdiction of this court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
145 Const. P. 3685/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Shamsuddin Dal (Petitioner) VS Director General NAB (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 01-FEB-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
146 Const. P. 6562/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Adeel Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 15-DEC-16 Yes Through this petition the petitioner sought declaration and direction against the respondents and also claimed damages against them. In this case, it was observed that the relief sought in the petition can be sought in a suit for declaration, injunction and damages and not in the constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court. Further that the Article 199 of the Constitution casts an obligation on the High Court to act in the aid of law and protects the rights within the framework of Constitution. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
147 2017 MLD 596 Cr.Bail 1446/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mehboob son of Muhammad Soomar (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 28-NOV-16 Yes The applicant/accused through the present bail application has sought post arrest bail in case registered under Section 324/353/186/34 PPC, at Police Station SITE-A, Karachi. In this case, the applicant/accused remained fugitive from the law for about four years and then he was apprehended in another crime. It was discussed that fugitive from law and absconder from justice is not entitled for the concession of bail in the light of Awal Gul v. Zawar Khan & Others (PLD 1985 SC 402). Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
148 Suit 1494/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2001 AZAM AHMED KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD YAQOOB KHOKHAR & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 24-OCT-17 Yes Instant suit is for Specific Performance of Contract, Declaration, Possession & Permanent Injunction. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
149 I.T.C 228/2003 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2003 M/s.Habib Insurance Co.Ltd., (Appellant) VS Commissioner of Income Tax (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 23-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.58-K/2018 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Habib Insurance Company Ltd.,C.A.632/2019 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s Habib Insurance Company Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted [ Appeal to be heard on 11-04-2019 ],Disposed Allowed
150 Const. P. 5220/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Works Cooperative Housing Society (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 03-MAY-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.707-K/2018 Works Cooperative Housing Society Ltd. v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
151 Const. P. 1658/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2012 Mehmood Ali Qaimkhani (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 16-AUG-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.115-K/2014 Farhan Amin v. The Learned Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
152 Const. P. 1049/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Niaz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh And Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 09-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
153 Const. P. 1369/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Mst. Asia and another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 09-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
154 Suit 1713/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 MUHAMMAD AYAZ S/O MUHAMMAD HANEEF (Plaintiff) VS MILITARY ESTATE OFFICE (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-MAR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
155 Adm. Suit 23/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Abdul Wahid (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Mediterranean Shipping Co. S.A and another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 07-FEB-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
156 2018 YLR Note 228 Criminal Appeal 136/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 BASAR, MOOSA, BABU ALL S/O QASIM OTHO (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-FEB-17 Yes Present criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge Thatta, whereby the appellants were convicted under Section 3(2) of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 to suffer R.I. for two years each with directions to pay Rs.25,000/- each as compensation to the complainant. The matter was taken into consideration in the light of the provisions of Illegal Dispossession Act 2005, and the main ingredients of Section 3 of Act (ibid) viz. Dispossess, Grab, Control, Occupy, without lawful authority and Intention to dispossess, grab, control or occupy property from owner were also considered. It was observed that the application of said provision can only be justified when there is clear Intention to do such act of dispossession, hence the question of Mens rea is to be proved by the complainant on all counts and it is basic principle of law of evidence that he who alleges a fact has to prove the same and especially in criminal cases the proof must be beyond any reasonable doubt. In this respect case of Waqar Ali and others v. The state and others (PLD 2011 SC 181) was considered. It was also observed that an accused has only to show a dent having occurred/created in the evidence/care of the prosecution, and that he is entitled to the benefit of even a single doubt, found in the evidence of the prosecution, and that he has not to show that its case suffers from more than one doubt. It was also taken into consideration that the quality of the evidence and not the quantity of the evidence has a bearing on the fate of the case of the prosecution; such is the guideline given by Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Haq Nawaz and others v. The State and others (2000 SCMR 785). It was discussed that in the present case it was the duty of complainant to link all the chain of evidence in a manner that it should form such a continuous chain which link to one end of appellants/accused persons and the other to act of dispossession, when one chain link is missing, the same loses its validity. It was opined that the impugned judgment did not qualify the parameters of Section 3 of illegal Dispossession Act, 2005 as the complainant and the entire chain of evidence had not proved the ingredients of illegal Dispossession in any manner. Appeal was allowed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) Crl.P.28-K/2017 Fakhar-ul-Jamil v. Basar and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed [Crl.M.A.106-K/2017Allowed]
157 Const. P. 5547/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Ghulam Tariq (Petitioner) VS The State and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 23-NOV-16 Yes In this case the petitioner sought protection against the demolition action of Anti encroachment Cell KMC in respect of community hall/marriage garden wherein the petitioner was inducted as administrator/tenant by Town Municipal Administrator. Transfer of Property Act and Section 11 of Contract Act were examined and it was observed that no doubt, the law protects bonafide transactions but this benefit/protection is not available to one who acquires a right and title from an unauthorized and incompetent person. Furthermore, to make an agreement a contract it should be made by parties competent to contract. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
158 Civil Revision 276/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Shah Nawaz (Applicant) VS Muhammad Azam & others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 01-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.A.6-K/2021 Muhammad Azam & others v. Dr.Shahnawaz & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending Adjourned
159 Const. P. 1359/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sakrand Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
160 M.A. 12/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Awais Aziz (Appellant) VS Learned Presiding Officer Hyderabad & another (Respondent) S.B. Order 01-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
161 Const. P. 73/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Sher Ali (Petitioner) VS Syed Hamid Ali and another (Respondent) D.B. Order 16-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
162 Const. P. 516/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Muhammad Azeem (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 12-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
163 Const. P. 438/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Saddam Hussain (Petitioner) VS V.C University Of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 12-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
164 Const. P. 3193/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Popular Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
165 Const. P. 1843/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Digri Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
166 Cr.Bail 2182/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 MUHAMMAD AMMAR SIDDIQUI (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Order 23-JAN-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
167 Const. P. 349/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Mst. Mumtaz Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Faisal Ali Shaikh and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 17-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.1187-K/2023 Mst.Mumtaz Shaikh v. Faisal Ali Shaikh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
168 2021 PLD Sindh Note 28 Suit 1492/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 MAHMOODA TAPAL & ANOTHERS (Plaintiff) VS STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
169 Const. P. 52/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2006 Israrul Haq (Petitioner) VS Nooruddin (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 27-FEB-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
170 Const. P. 2358/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 ORI-TECH, OILS PRIVATE LIMITED (Petitioner) VS The Chief Commissioner Inland Revenue, Regional Tax Office-I, Karachi (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 08-MAY-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.407-K/2017 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s ORI Tech Oil (Pvt) Ltd.,C.P.572-K/2015 Muhammad Mashooque v. Faiz Muhammad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous
171 2017 CLD 1428 Spl.H.C.A 282/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Bank Alfalah Limited (Appellant) VS Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 07-MAR-17 Yes Through instant Special High Court Appeal, the appellant has challenged Order dated 24.08.2015, passed by Learned Single Judge of this Court, dismissing the application of the appellant (plaintiff) for attachment before judgment in respect of the Subject Property belonging to the respondent No.1. Provisions of Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 [FIO2001] were examined. Subsection (6) of Section 22 of FIO 2001 was examined and it was observed that filing of any appeal, review or revision against an order accepting or rejecting an application for leave to defend, or any interlocutory order of the Banking Court, which does not dispose of the entire case before the Banking Court, other than an order passed under sub-section (11) of Section 15 or sub-section (7) of section 19 is barred and the appellate power conferred on the High Court under FIO 2001 in terms of Section 22 is restricted only to the extent of entertaining an appeal against the final order and judgment of the special Court. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.406-K/2017 Bank Al-Falah Ltd. v. Integlobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
172 Const. P. 1406/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 Muhammad Irfan (Petitioner) VS City District Government & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-DEC-16 Yes The petitioners through instant petition sought direction to respondent to issue 99-years lease in their favour on the basis of their possession. In this case, it was observed that question of title and possession cannot be resolved except through proper trial and evidence, which exercise cannot be gone into writ jurisdiction of this Court. Furthermore controverted question of fact, adjudication on which is possible only after obtaining all types of evidence in power and possession of the parties can be determined only by the Courts having plenary jurisdiction in the matter. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
173 2017 CLC 966 Const. P. 6849/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Saad Aslam Kareemi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 15-DEC-16 Yes The petitioner being licensee/dealer of Respondent-PSO sought direction against the respondents including PSO not to dispossess him from the property in question. It was taken into consideration that license is a personal privilege to do some particular act or series of acts on the land without possessing any estate or interest therein, and is ordinarily revocable at the will of the licensor and is not assignable. Thus a license is not a contract between the licensor and licensee but a mere personal permit therefore a license is distinguishable from an easement, which implies an interest in the land and a "lease" or right to take the profits of land. Whereas a legal right in its strict sense is one which is an ascertainable claim, enforceable before Courts and administrative agencies. In its widest sense, a legal right has to be understood as any advantage or benefit conferred upon the person by a rule of law. Thus license with respect to property is a privilege to go on premises for a certain purpose, but does not operate to confer on, or vest in, licensee any title, interest, or estate in such property. It was opined that the petitioner being a licensee did not have any locus standi to maintain the petition and as such the same was not maintainable. Petition was dismissed in limine with no order as to cost. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
174 Const. P. 8620/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 M/s Pakistan International Container Terminal Ltd (Petitioner) VS SLAT and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 22-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
175 Const. P. 5406/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Periz (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-DEC-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
176 Const. P. 1945/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Ehsanullah Khan, Addl. Director FIA (Retired) (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.680/2017 Secretary Establishment Division and others v. Ehsanullah Khan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed
177 Const. P. 1089/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 MAL Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) VS PAKISTAN through secretary revnue Division (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 27-FEB-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
178 1990 PLD 504, 2000 SCMR 506, 2001 SCMR 683, 2006 SCMR 178, 2007 SCMR 287, 2008 SCMR 105, 2010 SCMR 1925, 2011 SCMR 279, 2015 SCMR 456, 1994 CLC 2214, 2006 CLC 342, 2008 CLC 573, 2014 CLC 965, 2015 PLC 719, 2005 YLR 2423, 1917 OTHER 56, 1957 OTHER 97, 1957 OTHER 311, 2010 OTHER 373 Const. P. 2025/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Syed Jarrar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Prov. of Sindh &Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 04-SEP-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.4266/2018 City Schools (Pvt) Ltd, Karachi v. Province of Sindh, thr. Secretary, Cooperation Department, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
179 Const. P. 974/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Haji Gul Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 07-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
180 Suit 877/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2007 M/S. NISAR AHMED JAPANWALA (Plaintiff) VS THE C.D.G.K. & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 06-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
181 Suit.B 89/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Bank Al-Falah Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Gulistan Spinning Mills Limited and others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 26-AUG-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
182 Suit 90/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2004 MRS.ANJUM ARA (Plaintiff) VS SHABBIR A.HALAI (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-MAR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
183 Const. P. 3776/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 K.E.S.C. Labour Union & Others (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-JAN-21 Yes 1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - 62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also. 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
184 Suit 719/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Malik Zulfiqar Hussain. (Plaintiff) VS Anees Parekh & Others. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 26-FEB-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
185 Const. P. 3767/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 United Human Right Commission (Petitioner) VS Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-JAN-21 Yes 1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - 62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also. 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
186 Suit 603/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MST.RASHEEDAN BIBI (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD HANIF & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-MAR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
187 Suit 443/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2004 SHABBIR A.HALAI (Plaintiff) VS MRS.ANJUM ARA (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 20-MAR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
188 2017 YLR 851 R.A (Civil Revision) 32/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 SHAMIM AKHTER & OTHERS (Applicant) VS THE CHAIRMAN EVACUEE TRUST PROPERTY & OTHERS (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes Through this Civil Revision Application the applicants have challenged the order passed by Vth Additional District and Session Judge Karachi (South) in Civil Appeal, upholding the Judgment and Decree passed by VIIIth Senior Civil Judge Karachi (South) in Civil Suit; dismissing the suit of the Applicants. Provisions of Pakistan Administration of Evacuee Property Act 1957, Evacuee Trust Properties (Management and Disposal) Act, 1975 in the light of the judgments pronounced by the Honble Supreme Court in the cases of Evacuee Trust Property Board v Mst. Zakia Begum and others (1992 SCMR 1313), Evacuee Trust Property Board v. Mst. Sakina Bibi and others (2007 SCMR 262) and Evacuee Trust Property Board, through Deputy/Assistant Administrator, Evacuee Trust Property, Peshawar v. Ali Bahadur (2011 PSC 22), were discussed. No infirmity or material irregularity was found in the impugned judgments of the courts below, which could warrant interference in the revisional jurisdiction of this Court, Revision Application was dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
189 Const. P. 725/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2018 ALLAH Warayo (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 11-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah C.P.551-K/2021 Allah Warayo v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending Adjourned
190 Const. P. 1499/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Ali Muhammad Thr Gul Shar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Order 17-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
191 Const. P. 437/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Muhammad Waqas Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Vth. Rent Cotrollar Hyd & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 22-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
192 Const. P. 374/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Samina Ambreen & Others (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 19-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
193 Const. P. 197/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Irshad Ahmed (Petitioner) VS P.O sindh & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Order 16-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
194 Const. P. 421/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Sohail Abbasi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Khusboo & Others (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 15-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
195 Const. P. 1362/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sakrand Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed.of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
196 Const. P. 255/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 M/s Al Raheem & Co (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 03-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
197 Const. P. 1560/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Darya Khan Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
198 Const. P. 1615/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Khairpur Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
199 Const. P. 1946/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Ranipur Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
200 Const. P. 1562/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Darya Khan Sugar Mill (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
201 Const. P. 1550/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sanghar Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
202 Const. P. 1563/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Darya Khan Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
203 Criminal Appeal 678/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 MUHAMMAD IRSHAD S/O AMANAT KHAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-DEC-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan J.P.651/2022 Muhammad Irshad Khan v. The State Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
204 R.A (Civil Revision) 114/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2019 Mst. Rizwana Khatoon and others (Applicant) VS IInd ADJ Khi East & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 16-JAN-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
205 Suit 262/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Deedar Ali Isran (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Wahid & others (Defendant) S.B. Order 19-MAY-22 Yes Under Order 07 Rule 2 CPC read with Section 151 of CPC, issues involved and discussed in order are; 1) Specific Performance, 2) Time Bar and 3) Doctrine of res judicata Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
206 Civil Revision 307/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Mohammad Iqbal thr: LRs (Applicant) VS Mohammad Zafar & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 02-OCT-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
207 Criminal Miscelleneous 180/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2024 UMAIR TARIQ BIJRANI (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ORS (Respondent) S.B. Order 06-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
208 Const. P. 40/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Munawar Ali Sagar & Others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 16-OCT-23 Yes A) The site "Karoonjhar Hills" is not available for excavation of any nature whatsoever except excavation for discovering historical monuments and that too after following international guidelines and archeological department B) Mines & Mineral Department do not enjoy the jurisdiction over it since it is protected heritage and not available as a site for mining/excavation; C) Entire range Karoonjhar Hills in ???one monument??? under the law and cannot be divided into pieces and portions and to make some part of it (range) available for any prohibited excavation. Its importance lies in preserving the entire range and not permitting mineral excavation in between as it would not only destroy the beauty but at the conclusion of mining process would destroy the existing topography Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.3964/2023 Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh Secretariat, Karachi v. Munawar Ali Sagar and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending Notice
209 Const. P. 652/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Aftab Sattar Khan (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 21-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
210 Suit 665/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 DR.ABID MEHMOOD (Plaintiff) VS MUBASSHIR IQBLA KHAN (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 21-FEB-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
211 2017 CLD 1428 Spl.H.C.A 282/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 Bank Alfalah Limited (Appellant) VS Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 07-MAR-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.406-K/2017 Bank Al-Falah Ltd. v. Integlobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
212 Cr.Misc. 485/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Javed Iqbal (Applicant) VS Muhammad Imran (Respondent) S.B. Order 23-FEB-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) Crl.P.30-K/2018 Muhammad Imran Shaikh v. The State thr. P.G.Sindh Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
213 2017 YLR 99, 2016 OTHER 1559, 2017 SBLR 1433 Cr.Bail 1463-S/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Siraj Muhammad (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Order 14-NOV-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
214 Const. P. 6849/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Saad Aslam Kareemi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 09-NOV-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
215 2017 PLC Lab. Note 100 Const. P. 5396/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Naeem Akhtar Chang (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes The petitioners were employees of NADRA in their respective petition they have challenged order imposition of Major Penalty of reduction to a lower stage (two stages). Provisions of Government Servants (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules 1973, Fundamental Rules and Constitution of Pakistan were discussed. It was decided in the case that the impugned order and imposition of Major Penalty of reduction to a lower post, passed against the petitioners were not sustainable in law. Consequently, these petitions were allowed the impugned orders were set-aside with the directions to pay the back benefits to the petitioners curtailed due to imposition of major penalty. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
216 2017 YLR 2197 Suit 1376/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1997 Syed Sajid Raza (Plaintiff) VS City District Government & others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-JAN-17 Yes Nil.Declaration, cancellation, damages, mandatory/ permanent injunction. Order 1 Rule 9 of CPC, Section 39,42 of Specific Relief Act. Necessary and non-necessary parties have to be distinguished. Registered Document can only be cancelled in terms of Section 39 of the Specific Relief Act. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
217 Const. P. 1770/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 M. Nadeem Ahmed Khan (Petitioner) VS Director Geneal NLC and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 22-MAR-19 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
218 Const. P. 6696/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Khayaban-e-Iqbal (Pvt) Limited (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 28-JAN-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
219 2017 CLC 1204, 2017 SBLR Sindh 1052 Const. P. 1089/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 MAL Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) VS PAKISTAN through secretary revnue Division (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 27-FEB-17 Yes Through this common order the applications under Order VI Rule 17 read with Section 151, CPC filed in C.P.No.1089/2016 and filed in C.P.No.D-1720/2016 respectively were disposed of. In this case, it was discussed and observed that there is no cavil to the legal proposition that Court always has the jurisdiction under Order VI, Rule 17, C.P.C. and enjoys vast discretionary powers to allow amendments in a plaint at any stage of the proceedings, which in the opinion of the Court, are just and necessary for final disposal of case between the parties in accordance with law. However, at the same time, the Court is bound to exercise such discretion in accordance with settled judicial principles, It needs no reiteration that while allowing amendment in the plaint, the defendant's right should also be kept in view and no amendment should be allowed, which is aimed to change complexion of the case altogether or to introduce a new case based on new cause of action. It was further observed that keeping in view of the legal position, the proposed amendments if allowed to be incorporated in the existing pleadings of the petitioners, the same shall not either change the nature or complexion of the case, as the proposed amendments sought to be incorporated are legal questions, which even otherwise do not require any factual investigation. Conversely, since the present cases are constitutional petitions therefore, in order to avoid multiplicity of the proceedings, all constitutional points relating to subject issue can be dealt with comprehensively in the present constitutional petitions. Furthermore, since the respondent will have the right to amend their pleadings as well, in the event, the proposed amendments if allowed to be incorporated, therefore, we are of the view that no prejudice will be caused to the respondents. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
220 2018 CLC Note 77 Suit 1324/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 MUHAMMAD SHAFIQ & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD RAFIQ (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes Suit for Partition It is by now a settled principle of law that any deposition made in the examination-in-chief, if not subjected to cross-examination, shall be deemed to have been admitted. Reliance can be placed on M/s. Akbar Brothers v. M Khalil Dar(PLD 2007 Lahore 385). it is also well-established principle of law that a written statement contains averments of a party, which are to be proved through cogent evidence. If a party does not produce any evidence to support the contents of its written statement, in absence of any admission on the part of a plaintiff, the averments contained in the written statement cannot be treated as evidence. Reliance in this regard can be placed on the cases of FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence and anotherV. JAFFAR KHAN and others(PLD 2010 Supreme Court 604) and MUHAMMAD NOOR ALAMv.ZAIR HUSSAIN and 3 others (1988 MLD 1122) Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
221 2018 CLC 155 Execution 71/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2010 ARK GARMENT INDUSTRY (Decree Holder) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ANOTHER (Judgment Debtor) S.B. Order 20-SEP-17 Yes the Applicant/ Decree Holder under Order IX Rules 9 of C.P.C read with Section of 151 C.P.C the applicant has clearly demonstrated sufficient cause for non-appearance on 27.10.2015 and 18.11.2015. Accordingly, present application is allowed and the order dated 18.11.2015 passed by this Court is recalled and Execution Application is restored to its original position. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
222 2017 PTD 1803, 2017 YLR 2155 Const. P. 6377/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Continental Biscuit Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 23-FEB-17 Yes The case of the petitioner precisely is that respondent No.2 (Cantonment Board Hyderabad) under the Cantonment Act, 1924, does not have the authority or power to charge any advertisement fee. Provisions of Cantonment Act 1924, Constitution of Pakistan 1973 were discussed. Sections 60 to 63 of the Cantonment Act 1924, were examined and it was observed that Cantonment may levy tax but such a power has a precondition, however in the said provisions the word fee is not appearing. It was remarked that when a parent statue [the Governing Law] does not empower the levy of fee, then levy of such a fee through a delegated legislation in the shape of Bye laws is not permissible. Moreover, Section 282(23) of the Cantonment Act, 1924 only empowers the Board to frame bye-laws to regulate the items mentioned in the relevant statutory provision/enabling enactment and does not empower them to levy a fee. It was further observed that the terms 'fee' and 'tax' are two distinct terms. Tax is a compulsory exaction of money by public authority for public purposes enforceable by law and is not payment for services rendered whereas fee may be generally defined to be a charge for a special service rendered to individuals by some governmental agency or a Local Council under the principle of quid pro quo. It was opined that the imposition of advertisement fee by the respondents without adhering to the preconditions and without providing any corresponding service or facility and issuance of the recovery notices by the contractors were illegal and without jurisdiction. And the proceeding pending before the learned Cantonment Magistrate was quashed. The petition was accepted. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.279-K/2017 Cantonment Board Hyderabad, Sindh v. Continental Biscuits Ltd. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
223 Cr.Appeal 136/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Basar & others (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-FEB-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
224 Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 424/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Sindh Revenue Board (Applicant) VS M/s Meesam Construction Company (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 20-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
225 H.C.A 213/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Ali Sufyan (Appellant) VS Waheeda Aslam (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 12-APR-17 Yes Through this High Court Appeal the appellant challenged the order dated 27.02.2017 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Execution Application No.38 of 2014, whereby the application under Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC filed by the appellants seeking to aside the sale of the immovable property. Provisions of Order XXI Rule 89 of CPC have been examined and it was observed that the Executing Court has no jurisdiction to entertain an application as contemplated under Order XXI, Rule 89, C.P.C., without deposit of the required amounts along with the application, within the date of sale by auction. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
226 Suit 57/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1995 AZIZ UR REHMAN (Plaintiff) VS RASHID AHMED & ORS. (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 31-OCT-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
227 H.C.A 235/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Saeeduddin Qureshi & others (Appellant) VS Mrs. Bushra Qureshi & another (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 30-MAY-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.867-K/2018 Saeeduddin Qureshi and others v. Mrs. Bushra Qureshi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Disposed of
228 Const. P. 363/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2016 Orangzeb Samo (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 15-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
229 Suit 85/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Touqeer Ahmed (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Younus Lakhani & others. (Defendant) S.B. Order 09-OCT-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
230 2021 MLD 83 Suit 644/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2005 MUHAMMAD KASHIF (Plaintiff) VS FURQAN KARIM & OTHER (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 30-APR-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
231 Suit 1409/2001 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2001 TRADING CORP. OF PAK. PVT. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS M/S. COX & KING AGENTS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 29-MAY-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
232 Const. P. 3775/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2012 K.E.S.C. Labour Union & Others (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 21-JAN-21 Yes 1. A Divisional Bench of this Court comprising of Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan has pronounced the judgment today i.e. on 21st January 2021 in the case of K.E.S.C. Labour Union and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others (alongwith other connected Petitions), whereby, the petitioners have challenged the privatization process adopted by the Respondents Nos.2 and 3 i.e. Privatization Commission through its Secretary and Karachi Electric Supply Corporation Ltd. through its Managing Director in respect of sale/transfer of the shares of KESC for being illegal, irrational and without lawful authority. Whereas, further declaration has been sought to the effect that purported sale and transfer of shareholding and management control in KESC to M/s.Hassan Associates consortium, is void, malafide and opposed to law and public policy. Various other Constitutional and legal grounds were agitated during the course of hearing of above Petitions and after hearing all the learned counsel for the parties, in detail, learned Divisional Bench of this Court through an exhaustive judgment pronounced today has been pleased to dismiss the above Petitions in the following terms: - 62. In view of hereinabove facts and circumstances of the case, the aforesaid petitions are disposed of in the following terms:- a) The privatization process adopted by the respondents No.2 & 3 in respect of sale/transfer of the share of KESC does not violate the constitutional mandate, whereas, substantial compliance of the provisions of Privatization Commission Ordinance, 2000 read with Privatization Commission (Modes and Procedures) Rules, 2001, has also been made, therefore, no interference is required by this Court. Accordingly, aforesaid Constitutional Petitions being devoid of any merit, are hereby dismissed along with listed applications. b) That without prejudice to above finding, we hereby declare that the petitioners have failed to establish the malafide on the part of respondents in respect of sale/transfer of the share to KESC through negotiated sale to a private company, which is otherwise permissible in law and as per rules referred to hereinabove, therefore, the allegation of malafide by the petitioners on the part of the respondents stands rebutted, hence petitions are dismissed on this ground also. c) Nothing has been produced by the learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their submission that electricity being an essential service cannot be privatized, therefore, such plea of the petitioners also stands rebutted and the petitions are hereby dismissed on this account also. 2. Before parting with the aforesaid judgment, learned Divisional Bench of this Court has been further pleased to observe that plea of the learned counsel for the petitioners requiring the Court to take cognizance of subsequent events of privatization, issue directions to the Auditor General of Pakistan for conducting scrutiny and audit of the accounts of the K-Electric (KESC), cannot be acceded in these Petitions, as it would amount to granting a relief to the petitioners beyond the pleadings, while changing the complexion of the proceedings, to the disadvantage of the respondents, which is not permissible in law. However, it has been observed that this aspect of the matter can be agitated as a separate cause before the relevant forum/authority/Court of law, by filing appropriate proceedings, however, subject to all just exceptions and in accordance with law. Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
233 Const. P. 118/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Sajid Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 17-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
234 Const. P. 1233/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Inayat Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent) D.B. Order 03-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
235 2018 CLD 116 I. A 10/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2009 Syed Itrat Hussain Rizvi (Appellant) VS M/s. Tameer Micro Finance & Ors (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 03-MAR-17 Yes The appellant through present first appeal has challenged the Judgment and decree passed by the learned District Judge, Karachi (Central), in a summary chapter suit filed by respondent No.1 for recovery its amount against the appellant. In this case Section 3(2) of Microfinance Institution Ordinance 2001 and Order XXXVII of CPC were discussed. It was considered that in a summary suit under Order XXXVII of CPC, in which summons have been issued in Form No.4 Appendix B, the defendant is not entitled to appear or defend the suit as a matter of course unless he obtains leave from the Court so to appear and defend. In default of his obtaining such leave for his appearance and defence in pursuance thereof the allegations in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the plaintiff shall be entitled to a decree. Section 3(2) of Microfinance Institution Ordinance 2001, was examined and it was observed that the Banking Companies Ordinance and any law for the time being in force relating to banking companies or financial institutions shall not apply to microfinance institutions licensed under the Ordinance. And microfinance institutions shall not be deemed to be a banking company for the purposes of the said ordinance Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
236 Const. P. 1943/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2012 M/S Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Murtaza & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 03-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
237 R.A (Civil Revision) 100/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2019 Mohammad Zaheer (Applicant) VS District Judge, Tando Allahyar & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.428-K/2021 Muhammad Zaheer v. Shoukat Ali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
238 R.A (Civil Revision) 276/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Shah Nawaz (Applicant) VS Muhammad Azam & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 01-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
239 Const. P. 38/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Hamid Baig (Petitioner) VS Mst. Saba Khan & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 26-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
240 Const. P. 180/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Muhammad Hanif & others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 11-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah C.P.472-K/2021 Baghroo v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Public Health Engineering & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
241 Const. P. 1470/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Ghulam Shabbir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 12-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
242 Const. P. 1360/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sakrand Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
243 Suit 1331/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Mst. Sufia Nasim & others (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Hasan Khan & another (Defendant) S.B. Order 10-JAN-22 Yes specific performance Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
244 Const. P. 1907/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Faran Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
245 Const. P. 3192/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Popular Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
246 Const. P. 1909/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Faran Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
247 Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 491/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Urooj Autos (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 27-JAN-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.530-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Urooj Autos & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
248 Criminal Appeal 527/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 ZARDULLAH KHAN S/O SHUJA ALAM KHAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 08-DEC-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
249 Civil Revision 105/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2003 Ch Ghulam Rasool & Ors (Applicant) VS Mistri Ghulam Rasool (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 13-SEP-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.666-K/2017 Ch. Ghulam Rasool thr. his L.Rs and others v. Mistri Ghulam Rasool,C.A.18-K/2018 Ch. Ghulam Rasool thr. his L.Rs and others v. Mistri Ghulam Rasool Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Disposed of
250 Cr.Bail 2378/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 MUHAMMAD ISMAIL S/O AKRAM (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Order 18-JAN-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
251 Spl.Anti.Ter.J.A. 39/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD & ANOTHER (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 15-DEC-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
252 I. A 46/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2017 Mohammad Iftikhar (Appellant) VS M/s. First Dawood Investment Bank Ltd & others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-MAR-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.738-K/2023 Mohammad Iftikhar v. M/s. First Dawood investment Bank Ltd. & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
253 I. A 79/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: I.A D 78/2021 2021 M/S Qalandri Filling & CNG Station & others (Appellant) VS SME Leasing Limited (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 28-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.1291-K/2023 M/s. Qalandri Filling & CNG Station & others v. The Manager S.M.E. Leasing Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
254 Const. P. 1493/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Altaf Hussain Tunio (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Waseem Ghori & Other (Respondent) D.B. Order 10-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
255 Civil Revision 305/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Mohammad Iqbal thr: LRs (Applicant) VS Mohammad Zafar & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 02-OCT-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
256 Const. P. 3232/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Adil Khan (Petitioner) VS Secretary to Govt. of Pakistan and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 29-NOV-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
257 2017 PLD Sindh 276, 2017 SBLR Sindh 1860 Suit 571/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 1997 TRADING CORP OF PAKISTAN. (Plaintiff) VS V/S M/S. PUNJAB TRADING AGENCY (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 28-SEP-16 Yes suit for recovery and damages Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
258 H.C.A 363/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Sharafat Ali (Appellant) VS Abdul Majeed (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 25-APR-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
259 2017 CLC Note 79, 2017 SBLR Sindh 501 II.A. 89/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Naseem Akhtar (Appellant) VS Abdur Rehman (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 14-NOV-16 Yes Section 100 of CPC is discussed The Appellant through the instant second appeal has challenged the concurrent findings of the lower court. Section 100 CPC was examined and it was observed that in order to succeed in second appeal on ground (b) of subsection (1) of Section l00, C.P.C., an appellant would have to show that the court of first appeal would have reached a different conclusion, had it not failed to decide the issue of law or usage specified in ground (b) above. The Ground (c) of subsection (i) of Section l00, C.P.C., requires an appellant to show firstly that there has been a substantial error or defect in procedure and secondly that such substantial error could have resulted in an erroneous or defective decision of the case. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
260 2017 PLC Lab. Note 71 Const. P. 2109/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2008 Muhammad Ramzan (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes The case of the petitioner precisely is that though pursuant to the internal vacancy circular, he had applied for the post of Script Producer (Pay Group V) under the re-designated policy, however, respondent No.3, despite not having eligibility for the post, on the basis of nepotism and favoritism was appointed Script Producer vide order dated 11.03.2008, thus, the petitioner has been discriminated upon and resultantly impugned the said order in the present proceedings. Article 199 of the constitution of Pakistan, Pakistan Television Corporation Ltd. Service Rules 1978 were discussed in the case. It was observed that the petitioner had not approached the court for violation of any service rules but the entire focus was on re-designation policy and re-designation of respondent No.3 from the post of light-man to script writer who claims to be M.A. LLB at the same time there is no dispute that the petitioner applied for re-designation in terms of re-designation policy but after the cutoff date hence, his application was not considered by the competent authority. It was also held that case was also not purely a writ of quo warranto but substantial relief was claimed by the petitioner for his own. Petition dismissed with no order as to cost. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.63-K/2017 Muhammad Ramazan v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
261 2017 PLC Lab. 176 Const. P. 4973/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2014 Maersk Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Pakistn through Secretary Ministry of Overseas Pakistanis (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 11-JAN-17 Yes The questions, which require determination in the present case, were that whether the law expressly empowers the Commission to pass such an interim order in proceedings of unfair labour practice. If not, whether such a power necessarily follows, or is implicit in the powers expressly conferred, being incidental or ancillary to it or consequential to the power to find an employer guilty under the Industrial Relation laws. Provisions of National Industrial Relation Commissions (Procedure & Functions) Regulations, 1973, and Article 199 of constitution were discussed. It was observed that Learned Member NIRC failed to advert the grounds taken in the termination letter and other issues relating to the jurisdiction to pass ante status quo have also not dealt with in a proper manner. The impugned order was set aside and the case was remanded with the direction to decide the application of respondent No. 3 to 12 afresh. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author) C.P.153-K/2017 Safdar Yousuf and others v. Federation of Pakistan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed
262 H.C.A 220/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 Muhammad Farooque vs Aman Elahi (Appellant) VS Aman elahi (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-NOV-17 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
263 Suit 1253/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2011 ABDUL AZIZ (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL WAHAB & OTHERS (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 11-OCT-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
264 Suit 882/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2002 Nazeer Ahmed & Other. (Plaintiff) VS K.P.T & Others (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 11-OCT-18 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
265 Cr.Bail 1446/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Mehboob son of Muhammad Soomar (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent) S.B. Judgement 28-NOV-16 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
266 I.T.R.A 80/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2015 The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appellant) VS Tianshi International Pakistan Co (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 07-MAR-18 Yes Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Aqeel Ahmed Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
267 Suit 1065/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Advocate General Sindh (Plaintiff) VS Rt. Rev. Sadiq Daniel & another (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 16-NOV-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
268 Suit 133/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2018 Mrs. Wieb Rosemarie Dakhan & another (Plaintiff) VS Shahnawaz Dakhan (Defendant) S.B. Order 17-DEC-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
269 Suit 2527/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Asif Majeed & others(ISSUES) (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (Defendant) S.B. Judgement 04-MAY-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
270 Suit 941/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2013 Ms. Rehana Ahson & Another (Plaintiff) VS Mr. Zulfiqar Mohammad (Defendant) S.B. Order 11-FEB-20 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
271 Const. P. 70/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Dhani Bux (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 17-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
272 Const. P. 265/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Muhammad Salman Khan Baloch (Adv) (Petitioner) VS Syed Mustafa Kamal & Ors (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 04-JUN-21 Yes Judgment passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P. No.D-265 of 2020 (writ of quo warranto) filed by Mohammad Salman Khan Baloch against Syed Mustafa Kamal, Ex City Nazim (Mayor) of Karachi for his disqualification. The petition has been dismissed. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
273 Const. P. 233/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Muhammad Ramzan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 24-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
274 Const. P. 1307/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Sindh Agriculture University Tando Jam (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 07-JUL-21 Yes We have examined the layout plan, drawings and Google map of the project available on record, wherein the actual path of the project and the bigger curve proposed by the University have been distinctly shown. It is clear from the above that if the impugned alignment is altered by including the bigger curve proposed by the University, the overall length of the project will be increased by several kilometers, and a portion of the said proposed bigger curve will pass through the oil and gas fields of OGDC. In such an event, the cost of the project and the time required for its completion will be increased substantially, and the said oil and gas fields will be exposed to the public / commuters and heavy construction machinery which may result into a disaster. Therefore, in addition to the legal position discussed above, prima facie, the proposal made by the University does not appear to be practical and safe for the commuters, public at large and the people working at the said oil and gas fields. In view of the object, purpose and urgent need of the project, it shall be in the public interest that the same is completed expeditiously. As a result of the above discussion, C.P. No.1307/2020 and all the applications pending therein are dismissed ; and C.P. No.05/2021 is disposed of by directing the Government and the acquiring agency to complete the project and the land acquisition proceedings in respect thereof expeditiously and strictly in terms of the Act. There will be no order as to costs in any of the subject petitions. Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
275 Const. P. 2885/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2017 Mohammad Iqbal (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 10-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
276 Civil Revision 288/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2018 Ghulam Hussain (Applicant) VS Mst. Sibyani & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 01-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
277 Const. P. 23/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Muhammad Hassan Tanveer (Petitioner) VS Mst. Ambreen & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 08-MAR-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
278 Const. P. 2680/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2020 Pakistan Broadcaster Association (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 13-AUG-21 Yes Judgment passed by Division Bench comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan in C.P.No.D-2680 of 2020 whereby the Court declare that the powers of the PEMRA vested in Section 30 of the PEMRA Ordinance 2002 could not be delegated to the Chairman or any other official of PEMRA by dint of Section 13 of PEMRA Ordinance, 2002 for suspension of Broadcast Media Licenses without framing of Rules. The decision of the Authority conveyed vide minutes of meeting dated 24.04.2020 is also declared null and void. All actions taken by the Chairman pursuant to the delegated powers for suspension of Broadcast Media Licenses are strike down. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.A.11/2022 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad v. Pakistan Broadcasters Association Karachi and another,C.P.5303/2021 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad v. Pakistan Broadcasters Association Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed Dismissed,Disposed
279 Const. P. 100/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2020 Muhammad Moosa (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 12-JAN-21 Yes Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
280 Const. P. 931/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Bashir Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent) D.B. Order 11-FEB-21 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
281 Const. P. 1548/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Sanghar Sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
282 Const. P. 4301/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Habib Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
283 Const. P. 1617/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Khairpur Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
284 Const. P. 3190/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Popular Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
285 Const. P. 4300/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 M/s Habib Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
286 Const. P. 1487/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 Matiari Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 14-FEB-22 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
287 H.C.A 331/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2016 Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt) Ltd. (Appellant) VS Trading Corporation of Pakistan & another (Respondent) D.B. Order 09-FEB-23 Yes Hon'ble Acting Chief Justice Mr. Justice Irfan Saadat Khan(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
288 Cr.Bail 319/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2022 NADEEM S/O SHER MUHAMMAD (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Order 16-JAN-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
289 Criminal Appeal 463/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 HAJI KHAN S/O SHAH WALI KHAN & ORS (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 02-DEC-22 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
290 Civil Revision 184/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Chatro & another (Applicant) VS Anchalising & Others (Respondent) S.B. Order 06-OCT-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
291 Civil Revision 306/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2021 Mohammad Iqbal thr: LRs (Applicant) VS Mohammad Zafar & others (Respondent) S.B. Order 02-OCT-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
292 Cr.Bail 2652/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 MUHAMMAD JAVED MEMON (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Order 22-FEB-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
293 I. A 15/1995 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 1995 Govt. of Sindh & Others (Appellant) VS Haji Muhammad (Respondent) D.B. Order 13-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.A.92-K/2023 Govt. of Sindh through Secretary Land Utilization Department and others v. Haji Muhammad Deceased through L.Rs. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
294 Const. P. 663/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2023 Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel (Petitioner) VS LUMHS thr: Registrar & Others (Respondent) D.B. Order 28-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.A.1938/2023 Liaqat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS), Jamshoro through its Registrar and another v. Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel and others,C.P.3933/2023 Liaqat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS), Jamshoro through its Registrar and another v. Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed.also a short CO
295 Cr.Rev 219/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2021 NIAZ AHMED S/O SHER JANG & ORS (Applicant) VS MUHAMMAD AIJAZ & ORS (Respondent) S.B. Order 23-FEB-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
296 Cr.Bail 2710/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi 2023 MUHAMMAD YASEEN S/O MATEEN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent) S.B. Order 04-MAR-24 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan(Author)
297 I. A 78/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: I.A D 79/2021 2021 M/S Qalandri Filling & CNG Station (Appellant) VS The Manager SME Leasing Ltd (Respondent) D.B. Judgement 28-SEP-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan C.P.1277-K/2023 M/s. Qalandri Filling & CNG Station v. The Manager S.M.E. Leasing Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan Pending
298 Const. P. 435/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad 2022 Ashique Husain Gorchani (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent) D.B. Order 31-AUG-23 Yes Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan