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 Filter

Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry 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 533/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Zain Khan. (Plaintiff) VS Taj Roshan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	16-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
2		Suit 1593/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	NAZAR GUL (Plaintiff) VS MAYMAR HOUSING SERVICE (PVT) LTD. & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
3		H.C.A 85/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	SAGA Shipping & Trading Corporation Ltd. & others (Appellant) VS WALIA Steel Industries PLC & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-MAY-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.2407/2019 SAGA Shipping & Trading Corporation Ltd & others v. WALIA Steel Industries & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
4		Const. P. 8125/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Pakistan Minerals Developement Corporation (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-MAY-19	Yes	Petitioner, Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd administrative control of the Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources. In respect of an area of 3818.81 acres at Lakhra, District Jamshoro, for which a mining-lease was granted to the Petitioner for mining coal for a period of thirty[30] years. These renewal applications remained pending with the Respondent No.2, and though in the meantime both the mining-leases of the Petitioner expired in April 2015, the date of such expiry stood extended .Respondent No.2 had granted mining-permits to SLCMC without waiting for a decision on the Petitioners appeals pending under Rule 71 of the SMC Rules. Mr. Jawad Dero, the learned AAG Sindh, and Mr. Jaffar Raza, learned counsel for SLCMC had objected to the maintainability of these fresh petitions on the ground that the Hyderabad Petitions for the same relief were still pending. we agree with Barrister Zameer Ghumro that these petitions cannot be held to be not-maintainable merely on the ground that the Hyderabad Petitions are also pending. Appellate Authority manifests that the refusal to renew the Petitioner mining-leases was only for the reason that the Petitioner was Federal Government entity and the Government of Sindh had already made up its mind to award a mining concession in the same area to the SLCMC, a company wholly owned by the Government of Sindh. Having found no reason to interfere in the discretion exercised by the Respondent No.2 The petitions succeed for prayer clause 3 in terms that the impugned Notifications dated 09-07-2018 granting mining permits to SLCMC (Respondent No.3) having been granted in contravention of Rule 68 of the SMC Rules, the same are without lawful authority and are therefore set-aside judgment shall be dispatched by the office to o be placed in C.P. No. D-7643/2018 pending before this Court at Karachi The petitions stand disposed off.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.2795/2019 M/s Sindh Lakhra Coal Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation thr. its Project Director & others,C.P.443-K/2019 Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Energy Department, Govt. of Sindh and another v. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation and another,C.A.1539/2019 M/s Sindh Lakhra Coal Mining Company (Pvt) Ltd v. Pakistan Mineral Development Corporation thr. its Project Director & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
5		Const. P. 2847/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Sajjad Ahmed (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-JUL-19	Yes	Declare that naming, renaming any street, road, government institute, town, or city after the name of any individual having no positive social, role, courage or exceptional dedication to service in ways that bring special credit to an area, city town is illegal, unlawful against the basic rights of citizens of particular areas, towns, cities and public at large.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
6		H.C.A 448/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ahsanuddin (Appellant) VS Shahid Hussain Malik & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
7		S.M.A 141/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Iqbal S/o Abdul Wahab (Petitioner) VS Noor Muhammad Chutani - Deceased (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
8		S.M.A 46/1998 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Mohammad Abdul Bashir - DECEASED	1998	Mst. Jamila Naheed...........(Petitioner (Petitioner) VS Mrs. SaminaQasim (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
9		Const. P. 64/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2011	Syed Akbar Ali Shah (Petitioner) VS Mst Mehar-U-Nisa and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-JUL-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
10		Civil Revision 27/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2018	Haji Ghano Khan Jatoi and others (Applicant) VS District Forest Officer a Forestation Division Larkana and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-AUG-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
11		Cr.Bail 1083/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	ARIF BALOCH S/O YAR MUHAMMAD (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-NOV-19	Yes	Plea of alibi can be considered at the stage of bail. Rel: Zaigham Ashraf v. The State (2016 SCMR 18).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
12		Const. P. 6439/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Javeria (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-NOV-19	Yes	(a) The repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was by virtue of Article 89(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, i.e., by a resolution of the Senate disapproving the same and not by way of any repealing enactment. Therefore, the effect of repeal contained in sections 6, 6-A and section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which otherwise apply only when a repeal is by way of a repealing enactment, were neither triggered nor would those serve as an aid in construing the effect of repeal under a Constitutional provision such as Article 89. In other words, on the repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 by the effect of Article 89 of the Constitution, nothing contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897 would come to save the Amending Admission Regulations that had been made under the repealed Ordinance. In view of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik (supra), Article 264 of the Constitution also did not have the effect of saving or giving permanency to the Amended Admission Regulations when the effect of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was only temporary as it was never accorded approval by the Parliament. Therefore, on 29-08-2019, when the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was repealed by the effect of Article 89 of the Constitution, the Amended Admission Regulations also stood repealed and the Original Admission Regulations were revived. (b) It will be seen that while the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 50 of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 repeals all previous Regulations, but that is subject to sub-section (7) which provides that the previous Regulations will continue to apply to the on-going admission process. The repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 1962 by the PMC Ordinance, 2019, the former being a permanent statute under the 1973 Constitution, is not a repeal by virtue of Article 89 of the Constitution, but a repeal by a repealing statute, albeit a temporary one, and one which has been expressly made subject to section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which in turn provides that the repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect. We have already discussed above that on 29-08-2019 the Amended Admission Regulations had ceased and the Original Admission Regulations had revived. Therefore, when sub-section (7) of section 50 of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 provides that the previous Regulations will continue to apply to the on-going admission process, those can only be the Original Admission Regulations.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.4396/2019 Pakistan Medical and Dental Council thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Javeria & others,C.A.611/2020 Pakistan Medical and Dental Council now Pakistan Medical Commission thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Javeria & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
13		Cr.Bail 1507/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	FAHEEMUDDIN S/O ALEEMUDDIN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-NOV-19	Yes	In section 395 PPC, while the alternative to life imprisonment is rigorous punishment which shall not be less than four years nor more than ten years, that alternative punishment still provides for a maximum of 10 years, keeping the offence within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C. Thus, at the stage of bail when the Court looks at the alternate punishment provided under section 395 PPC, that is for the purposes of considering whether the case is one of further inquiry within the ambit of sub-section (2) of section 497 Cr.P.C., and it is not to say that the case does not fall within the prohibitory clause of section 497 Cr.P.C.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
14		Const. P. 178/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Muhammad Sajid (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
15		Suit 42/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Syed Zain Ul Abideen (Plaintiff) VS Federal Board of Revenue & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	16-APR-20	Yes	Ouster of jurisdiction to try a civil suit in respect of matters arising under the Benami Transactions (Prohibition) Act, 2017 and exceptions to such ouster.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
16		Const. P. 838/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Imran Ahmed Ansari (Petitioner) VS Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-JAN-20	Yes	1. Since the Petitioners service was terminated under Rule 8(b)(1) of the DHA Service Rules, which rule has since been declared un-constitutional by the Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Itrat Sajjad (2017 SCMR 2010), the only point left for our consideration is whether the effect of the declaration in Itrat Sajjad on the case of the Petitioner can be addressed by us in writ jurisdiction. 2. It had been settled by a 5 member Bench of the Supreme Court in DHA v. Jawaid Ahmed (2013 SCMR 1707) that applying the function test, the DHA is a person to whom a writ can issue under Article 199(1)(a)(ii) of the Constitution of Pakistan. But then, moving to a question distinct, viz. whether the employee of a statutory authority can invoke the writ jurisdiction of the High Court to enforce service rules of the statutory authority, it was held that where service rules were non-statutory, those cannot normally be enforced in writ jurisdiction for such rules attract the principle of master and servant; but at the same time it was also held that where action of a statutory authority in a service matter is in violation of principles of natural justice, such action can be interfered with in writ jurisdiction. Itrat Sajjad reiterates the same principles, and while it was concluded that the DHA Service Rules are non-statutory and thus not enforceable ordinarily by way of a writ petition, the judgment went on to hold that since Rule 8(b)(1) of the DHA Service Rules violated the principle of natural justice, the case fell within the recognized exception that a writ can issue where the action of a statutory authority in a service matter is violative of the principle of natural justice. For the same reason, this petition, to the extent it assails termination issued under the same Rule 8(b)(1) of the DHA Service Rules, is also maintainable.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
17		R.A (Civil Revision) 120/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Shabbir Ahmed Memon and others (Applicant) VS Shahnawaz and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-JAN-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.548-K/2021 Shabbir Ahmed & others v. Shahnawaz & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
18		J.M 49/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Iftikhar Ahmed Qureshi (Applicant) VS Mr. Muhammad Abrar Ahmed Qureshi & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-MAR-20	Yes	1. Substituted service by way of publication is only presumed to be personal service by virtue of Rule 20(2) of Order V CPC. Such presumption is rebuttable. Therefore, where service by publication is challenged, the first test is to see whether the conditions of Order V Rule 20 CPC had been met, viz., that the publication was resorted to after the Court was satisfied that the defendant was avoiding service, or there was some other reason to believe that summons could not be served in the ordinary manner; in other words, whether the ordinary modes of service available had been exhausted. Rel: Muhammad Anwar v. Abdul Haq (1985 SCMR 1228); Haji Akbar v. Gul Baran (1996 SCMR 1703); and Nargis Latif v. Feroz Afaq Ahmed Khan (2001 SCMR 99). 2. While a couriers receipt was filed to show that summons had been dispatched, there was no report of delivery by the courier to show that summons so dispatched were delivered or tendered within the meaning of Order V Rule 10 CPC. So far there is no statute that attaches a presumption of service to summons sent by a private courier service (as opposed to a public courier service). Rel: Inayatullah v. Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah (2014 SCMR 1477). Thus, it can be safely said that prior to publication neither the available modes of service were exhausted nor was there a verification that the modes of service so used had failed. In any case, the publication made was at best publication of the notice of the pending CMAs and there was no publication made of the summons of the suit. 3. Had it not been a case attracting section 12(2) CPC, the exparte judgment and decree could nonetheless be set-aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
19		R.A (Civil Revision) 16/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Shahnawaz and another (Applicant) VS Shabbir Ahmed Memon and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-JAN-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
20		Suit 1479/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	M/S.ADAMJEE INSURANCE CO.LTD (Plaintiff) VS THE ASSISTANT COLLECTOR & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-20	Yes	Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005. Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
21	2022 PLC CS 197	H.C.A 163/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	National Refinery Ltd. & another (Appellant) VS Syed Niaz Ahmed (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-NOV-19	Yes	The terms of the service were ensured at the time of his (respondent's) transfer, which cannot be lifted unilaterally depriving an employee of his post-retirement benefits or any of the terms of transfer, to which he was entitled at the time when he was inducted/transferred. The transfer confirmation letter dated 08.03.1992 does suggest variance in Scheme for employees but the boards decision has prospective application as far as lifting of any beneficial arrangements are concerned. Wisdom should have prevailed at the time when employees were being transferred and not at the twilight of their career when they (employees) only hoped to get their retirement benefits..	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.711-K/2019 National Refinery Ltd another v. Syed Niaz Ahmed Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
22		Civil Revision 170/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Raja Abdul Hameed,thr:L.Rs. (Applicant) VS Muhammad Ahsan Nawaz & anor (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-SEP-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
23		Const. P. 3100/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ms. Surriya Kanwal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-APR-21	Yes	whether the resignation once tendered by the civil servant voluntarily and accepted by the competent authority and communicated to him/her could be considered to be final and cannot be revoked afterwards?	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.3922/2021 Managing Director Pakistan Bait ul Mal, Islamabad v. Surriya Kanwal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
24		Execution First Appeal 51/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	MENA ENERGY DMCC (Decree Holder) VS HASCOL PETROLEUM LIMITED (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Order	12-OCT-21	Yes	Execution of Foreign Decree. Judgment when conclusive under section 13 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
25		Suit 2415/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Saleem Butt (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan and Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	31-MAY-21	Yes	Given the mechanism in-built in section 177 of the Income Tax Ordinance, which includes the providing of reasons in writing to the taxpayer, the power conferred on the Commissioner to call for record under section 177(1) of the Ordinance, does not by itself offend Article 25 of the Constitution. The question then, whether such power has been used unlawfully, is different, and one that may vary with the circumstances of each case. While making such challenge, the Plaintiff had also to demonstrate infringement of a Fundamental Right. The invoking of section 177(1) does not militate against the concept of deemed assessment under section 122 of the Ordinance. Malafides had to be pleaded with particulars.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
26		Const. P. 8331/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mehboob Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-OCT-19	Yes	Regularization Act 2013 does not suggest that all those contractual employees for whom the basic requirements of transparency is not fulfilled, are also entitled to be regularized. Regularization of Ad-hoc or contract employees under Act of 2013 is not open for all those contractual and ad-hoc employees for whom the codel formalities have not been fulfilled thus a competition should have been made available amongst all those who were interested in the appointments on subject posts. We would not approve the process involved in the appointment of petitioners, which could ultimately deprive the eligible and entitled persons of a fair competition and a precedent could be made to cater the system where the appointment of selected persons, can be legitimized.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.614-K/2019 Mehboob Ali and others v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
27		Const. P. 6300/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Bashir Ahmed Abbasi Kalhoro (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-APR-21	Yes	Prima facie under the Sindh Rules of Business, 1986, the Chief Minister is the Chief Executive of the Province; and, has no direct role whatsoever in the matter of a Junior School Teacher, about his appointment, posting, transfer, promotion, and disciplinary issues. On the aforesaid proposition, the Honble Supreme Court in the case of The STATE v. ANWAR SAIF ULLAH KHAN (PLD 2016 Supreme Court 276)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.572-K/2021 Bashir Ahmed v. Government of Sindh Chief Secretary of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
28		Const. P. 4112/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Imran (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-APR-21	Yes	Petitioner seeks appointment in the Karachi University as Adhoc Teacher, based on differently-abled quota on the premise that he was/is a qualified and fit person to be considered for the subject post.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
29		Suit 2019/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Along with other connected Suits.	2015	A&Z Agro Industries (Pvt) Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others.. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	13-SEP-21	Yes	Search of premises under section 38 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, and section 175 of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
30		Const. P. 1761/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Syed Imam Ali (Petitioner) VS The Appellate Authority Board of Trustee EOBI, & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	01-DEC-21	Yes	CP No. D- 1761 of 2011 CP No. D- 1763 of 2011 CP No. D- 614 of 2012	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
31		Const. P. 614/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Mst:Akbaro (Petitioner) VS Appellate Authority Board Of Trustee E.O.B.I, & Or (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	01-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
32		Const. P. 770/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Salman Qureshi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.1712-K/2021 Salman Qureshi v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Home Department Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
33		Const. P. 974/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Dr Ghulam Sarwar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
34	2023 SBLR Sindh 1604	Const. P. 2358/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: CP No. D- 2358 & 2622 of 2019	2019	Faisal Shah Muhammad & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
35		Const. P. 1028/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Kashif Hussain (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
36		Const. P. 1720/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abdul Razzaque (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
37		Const. P. 656/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Rao Abdur Razik & Others (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
38		Const. P. 632/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Altaf Hussain (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.918-K/2022 Faheem Ahmed v. Province of Sindh Chief Minister, through Principal Secretary to Chief Minister Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
39		Suit 85/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/S TAHIR FOODS PRODUCTS (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	14-FEB-22	Yes	Power of DG I&I Customs re phytosanitory action under the Pakistan Plant Protection Rules, 2019.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
40		Suit 1634/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Mst. Humera Jabeen & Ors (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Arshad & Ors (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	30-MAR-22	Yes	Principles of recusals of a Judge.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
41		Const. P. 764/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2015	Inayatullah Lashari (Petitioner) VS Commissioner Larkana and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-FEB-23	Yes	Employee engaged on adhoc or under a time-bound contract has no vested right to regularization	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi	C.P.688-K/2023 Inayatullah v. The Commissioner Larkana & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
42		Cr.Acq.A. 32/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Nisar Ahmed Shaikh (Appellant) VS PC Umed Ali Jakhrani & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-MAY-23	Yes	Scope of Referee Judge in Cr. Appeals. Death in police custody. Appraisal of evidence should not be unrealistic. Applicability of section 302(c) PPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	Crl.M.Appeal.1-K/2023 Umed Ali & others v. The Deputy Registrar Supreme Court Pakistan Karachi. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
43		Suit 1161/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	MUHAMMAD FEROZE AKHTAR (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD NASIM AKHTAR (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-FEB-24	Yes	Effect of Article 79 Qanun-e-Shahadat Order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
44		Suit 1344/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Aviserv Limited (Plaintiff) VS Civil Aviation Authority (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-NOV-23	Yes	Specific performance of un-registered agreement to lease. The Plaintiff failed to demonstrate that it was ready and willing to perform the same. Stay application dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
45		Spl.Cr.Bail 34/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	MUZAMIL AKBAR MOTEN (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-APR-24	Yes	Sales tax fraud in refund claims. Section 33 of the Sales Tax Act, 1990. Bail granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
46		Const. P. 3387/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: C.P. No. D ??? 3388/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3389/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3390/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3397/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3399/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3417/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3430/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3431/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3432/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3433/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3434/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3435/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3459/2023, C.P. No. D ??? 3477/2023	2023	Mst. Sumera Amir (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	01-AUG-23	Yes	Preventive detention under the MPO Ordinance, 1960.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
47		Suit 1397/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Suit No. 800 of 2009	2008	IQBAL & ORS. (Plaintiff) VS MST. AZIZA BAI (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-SEP-24	Yes	Scope of Order XVI Rule 1 CPC for summoning a Defendant.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
48		H.C.A 185/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Khair Mohammad (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
49		Judicial Companies Misc. 8/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	EFG HERMES PAKISTAN LTD AND ANOTHER (Applicant) VS Court Notice - PSX & SECP (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-OCT-24	Yes	Sanction of scheme of merger.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
50		Suit 553/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Party-1 (Plaintiff) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
51		Civil Revision 49/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Mumtaz Ali Hulio (Applicant) VS Azhar Ali and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-MAR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
52		Const. P. 190/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	A-One Laboratories and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	15-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
53		Const. P. 1702/2007 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Federation of Pakistan & another. (Petitioner) VS Official Assignee & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-JUN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
54		Cr.Bail 293/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Ali Murad (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
55		Const. P. 2102/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s Textilers (Pvt) Ltd and Ors (Petitioner) VS Meezan Bank Ltd and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
56		Suit 203/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2002	ADVOCATE GENERAL SINDH (Plaintiff) VS ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	07-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
57		Suit 1808/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	CPLC-Neighborhood Care & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	24-JUL-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
58		Const. P. 6554/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Ms. Urooj Fatima (Petitioner) VS PM & DC and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-NOV-19	Yes	(a) The repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was by virtue of Article 89(2)(a)(ii) of the Constitution, i.e., by a resolution of the Senate disapproving the same and not by way of any repealing enactment. Therefore, the effect of repeal contained in sections 6, 6-A and section 24 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which otherwise apply only when a repeal is by way of a repealing enactment, were neither triggered nor would those serve as an aid in construing the effect of repeal under a Constitutional provision such as Article 89. In other words, on the repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 by the effect of Article 89 of the Constitution, nothing contained in the General Clauses Act, 1897 would come to save the Amending Admission Regulations that had been made under the repealed Ordinance. In view of Pakistan Medical and Dental Council v. Muhammad Fahad Malik (supra), Article 264 of the Constitution also did not have the effect of saving or giving permanency to the Amended Admission Regulations when the effect of the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was only temporary as it was never accorded approval by the Parliament. Therefore, on 29-08-2019, when the PMDC Ordinance, 2019 was repealed by the effect of Article 89 of the Constitution, the Amended Admission Regulations also stood repealed and the Original Admission Regulations were revived. (b) It will be seen that while the proviso to sub-section (2) of section 50 of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 repeals all previous Regulations, but that is subject to sub-section (7) which provides that the previous Regulations will continue to apply to the on-going admission process. The repeal of the PMDC Ordinance, 1962 by the PMC Ordinance, 2019, the former being a permanent statute under the 1973 Constitution, is not a repeal by virtue of Article 89 of the Constitution, but a repeal by a repealing statute, albeit a temporary one, and one which has been expressly made subject to section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897, which in turn provides that the repeal shall not revive anything not in force or existing at the time at which the repeal takes effect. We have already discussed above that on 29-08-2019 the Amended Admission Regulations had ceased and the Original Admission Regulations had revived. Therefore, when sub-section (7) of section 50 of the PMC Ordinance, 2019 provides that the previous Regulations will continue to apply to the on-going admission process, those can only be the Original Admission Regulations.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.4221/2019 Pakistan Medical & Dental Council thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Ms. Urooj Fatima & others,C.A.610/2020 Pakistan Medical & Dental Council now Pakistan Medical Commission thr. its Secretary, Islamabad v. Ms. Urooj Fatima & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
59		Civil Revision 4/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2005	United Bank Limited (Applicant) VS Shoaib Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-AUG-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
60		J.M 74/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Maula Bakhsh. (Applicant) VS Muhammad Abrar Ahmed & Others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-MAR-20	Yes	1. Substituted service by way of publication is only presumed to be personal service by virtue of Rule 20(2) of Order V CPC. Such presumption is rebuttable. Therefore, where service by publication is challenged, the first test is to see whether the conditions of Order V Rule 20 CPC had been met, viz., that the publication was resorted to after the Court was satisfied that the defendant was avoiding service, or there was some other reason to believe that summons could not be served in the ordinary manner; in other words, whether the ordinary modes of service available had been exhausted. Rel: Muhammad Anwar v. Abdul Haq (1985 SCMR 1228); Haji Akbar v. Gul Baran (1996 SCMR 1703); and Nargis Latif v. Feroz Afaq Ahmed Khan (2001 SCMR 99). 2. While a couriers receipt was filed to show that summons had been dispatched, there was no report of delivery by the courier to show that summons so dispatched were delivered or tendered within the meaning of Order V Rule 10 CPC. So far there is no statute that attaches a presumption of service to summons sent by a private courier service (as opposed to a public courier service). Rel: Inayatullah v. Syed Khursheed Ahmed Shah (2014 SCMR 1477). Thus, it can be safely said that prior to publication neither the available modes of service were exhausted nor was there a verification that the modes of service so used had failed. In any case, the publication made was at best publication of the notice of the pending CMAs and there was no publication made of the summons of the suit. 3. Had it not been a case attracting section 12(2) CPC, the exparte judgment and decree could nonetheless be set-aside under Order IX Rule 13 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
61		Const. P. 6339/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Habeen Fatani (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-DEC-20	Yes	ECL Matter.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
62		Const. P. 585/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Inayatullah & anothers (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.1717-K/2021 Inayatullah & ohters v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
63	2021 PLD Sindh Note 57	Suit 1740/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Sadan General Trading LLC. (Plaintiff) VS Trading Corporation of Pakistan & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	25-JUN-20	Yes	Measure of damages under section 73 of the Contract Act. Assessment of reasonable compensation under section 74 of the Contract Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
64		Const. P. 5124/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s Farkhunda Yasmeen (Petitioner) VS Secretary, M/o Interior & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-20	Yes	It is well-settled law that the service of temporary employees can be terminated on 14 days??? notice or pay in lieu thereof, whereas in the present case petitioner claims revival of the contract through reinstatement in service, which factum cannot be thrashed out in writ jurisdiction.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
65		Const. P. 4287/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Sahib Khan Lund Baloch (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-APR-21	Yes	Petitioner, who is serving at present as Assistant Commissioner in BPS-17, is aggrieved by the purported decision of the Provincial Selection Board-II (`PSB-II`) dated 09.3.2020 and 11.3.2020, whereby his promotion to the post of Deputy Secretary (Equivalent BPS-18) was deferred on the ground that his Annual Confidential Reports (`ACRs`)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
66		Const. P. 2805/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Dr. Shamim Qureshi (Petitioner) VS J.S.M.U and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-APR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
67		Suit 2316/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MUHAMMAD FARHAN WAZIR & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-APR-24	Yes	Plaint can be rejected if it is bad for multifariousness.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
68		Const. P. 4896/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Muzaffar Hussain Katpar (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-APR-21	Yes	suspension order	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
69		Const. P. 3449/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	M/s IFFCO Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Hanif Ahmed Siddiqui and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.731-K/2019 Haneef Ahmed Siddiqui v. Chief Executive/Factory Manager M/s IFCO Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd.,C.A.27-K/2020 Haneef Ahmed Siddiqui v. Chief Executive/Factory Manager M/s IFCO Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted in all cases and appeals in the fixed for hearing with 3 wekks.,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
70		Const. P. 6462/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Najam (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-APR-21	Yes	deceased quota	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
71	2021 PTD 2063	Const. P. 5430/2020 (F.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Imad Samad (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	F.B.	Judgement	10-SEP-21	Yes	- Import of vintage cars on the strength of SRO No.833(I)/2018 dated 03.07.2018 followed by a decision in the case of Moin Jamal Abbasi in CP No.D-4124 of 2019 reported as 2020 PTD 660. --Full Bench was constituted to consider the question arising out of litigation:- Whether the subject SRO No.833(I)/2018 issued in terms of Section 19 of Customs Act, 1969 can also be treated as SRO issued by the Ministry of Commerce in terms of Section 3 of the Import & Export Control Act, 1950, permitting import of vintage cars which are otherwise not importable as being old and used in terms of the Import Policy Order of both 2016 and 2020.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro
72		Const. P. 1059/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Zaheer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.635-K/2019 Zaheer Ahmed v. Province of Sindh thr. Education & Literacy Govt. of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
73		Const. P. 503/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Vishandas (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
74		Const. P. 673/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Ali Nawaz (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
75		Const. P. 262/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Muhammad Juman (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
76		Civil Revision 107/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: RA. sec 92 CPC not applicable to waqf	2000	Misri @ Shamsuddin (Applicant) VS Tharparkar Dist Devolopment (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-NOV-21	Yes	Civil Revision section 92 CPC not applicable to waqf	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
77		Const. P. 1757/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Herlal and others (Petitioner) VS Govt of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
78		Const. P. 1763/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Imam Ali (Petitioner) VS The Appellate Authority Board of Trustee EOBI, & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	01-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
79		Const. P. 441/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Saleem Akhtar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
80		Const. P. 2382/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Attaullah & Ors (Petitioner) VS Federal Secretary Ministry of Water and Power dev.... (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
81		Const. P. 3157/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Sh. Nenoo Bheel (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes	we may observe that pensionary benefits cannot be stopped on account of criminal charges; prima-facie there was/is no conviction in his credit, and pensionary benefits cannot be stopped on that score. In our view pensionary benefits cannot be stopped on account of any charges; and, is violative to the law laid down by the Honorable Supreme Court in the case of Haji Muhammad Ismail Memon (PLD 2007 SC 35)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
82		I. A 1/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Intra Court Appeal No.01 of 2019 [Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited versus Saleem Ahmed Memon]	2019	Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited (Appellant) VS Saleem Ahmed Memon (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
83		Const. P. 437/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Hawa & Ors (Petitioner) VS National Highway Authority & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
84		Const. P. 2134/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Abdul Wahid and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.101-K/2022 Abdul Wahid & others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Livestock, Fisheries Department & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned
85		Const. P. 1416/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Zulfiqar Ali Solangi (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.153-K/2022 Zulfiqar Ali Solangi v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
86		Const. P. 202/2003 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2003	Ghulam Mustafa Shah and anothers (Petitioner) VS Land Acquisition Officer (B&R) & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
87		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 22/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Along with Constitution Petition No. D ??? 7423 of 2021	2022	Collector of Customs (Enforcement) (Applicant) VS M/s. Ara Detergents & Chemicals FZE & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-APR-22	Yes	Scope of Tribunals power under section 194A Customs Act, 1969.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.2051/2022 The Collector of Customs (Enforcement), Karachi v. M/s Ara Detergents & Chemicals FZE, Sharjah, UAE Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Adjourned (Stay). Next week
88		Const. P. 816/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2015	Imran Ali Kalhoro (Petitioner) VS Commissioner Larkana and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-FEB-23	Yes	Employee engaged on adhoc or under a time-bound contract has no vested right to regularization	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.689-K/2023 Imran Ali Kalhoro v. The Commissioner Larkana & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
89		Suit 1803/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Alongwith 181 connected suits.	2020	KARAM CERAMICS LTD & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-FEB-23	Yes	Challenge to the gas tariff issued under the OGRA Ordinance, the definition of Captive Power Plants and the Moratorium on the supply of gas to Captive Power Plants.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
90		Spl.Cr.Rev. 297/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Spl.Cr.Rev. (S) 298/2021, 299/2021, 300/2021 and 301/2021	2021	HANIF MOOSA S/O MOOSA & ANOTHER (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-23	Yes	Intent of section 540 CrPC is to ensure a just decision. If that leads to filling of lacuna in evidence, such consequence does not come in the way of exercising the power.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
91		Spl.Cr.Bail 17/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Spl. Cr. Bail No.18/2024 and Spl. Cr. Bail No.19/2024	2024	ATTAULLAH S/O ALLAH DIWAYO KHUSHIK & ANOTHER (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-MAR-24	Yes	Bail. Smuggling by way of en-route pilferage of transit goods.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
92		Const. P. 3727/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Asif Ahmed and Others (Petitioner) VS Mst. Razia Begum and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	06-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
93		Cr.Bail 782/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	MUHAMMAD RAFIQ S/O GUL RAUF (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-APR-24	Yes	Statutory ground of delay. Bail granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
94		E.P 2/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Khurram Sher Zaman (Petitioner) VS Mirza Ikhtiar Baig & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-SEP-24	Yes	Where the Petitioner deposited costs in the old treasury account instead of the prevailing account, consequence of rejection in Section 145(1) of the Election Act is not attracted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
95		H.C.A 181/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Abdul Rasheed Malano (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Nil.Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
96		Const. P. 905/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s MCB (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-APR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.2612/2019 MCB Bank Ltd, Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Zulfiqar Hussain Awan, Director (Legal-II), Office of Consultant Legal Affairs to the President of Pakistan, Islamabad & others,C.A.533/2020 MCB Bank Ltd, Lahore v. Federation of Pakistan thr. Zulfiqar Hussain Awan, Director (Legal-II), Office of Consultant Legal Affairs to the President of Pakistan, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after 4 weeks a/w C.As.1386/2018 etc,Pending
97		S.M.A 312/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Sobia Jasim (Petitioner) VS Jasim Rasool - Deceased (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
98		H.C.A 104/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Port Qasim Authority (Appellant) VS Industrial Management & Investment Co. Ltd. & ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.A.577/2019 Aromatic Foods Limited v. Port Qasim Authority & others,C.A.578/2019 Industrial Management & investment Company Ltd. v. Port Qasim Authority & others,C.A.579/2019 Project Development Corporation LTD v. Port Qasim Authority & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending ,Pending ,Pending
99		Criminal Miscelleneous 154/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	MRS. FARHEEN W/O AURANGZEB MUHAMMAD KHAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-DEC-19	Yes	1. The ratio of the said judgments of the Supreme Court is that where the remedy under section 249-A Cr.P.C. is available before the trial Court, the High Court should not exercise inherent jurisdiction under section 561-A Cr.P.C except in extraordinary circumstances which warrant such an action. In other words, the question is not to the jurisdiction of the High Court, but the manner in which such jurisdiction is to be regulated by the High Court. Ref. Muhammad Farooq v. Ahmed Nawaz Jagirani (PLD 2016 SC 55); Maqbool Rehman v. State (2002 SCMR 1076); Bashir Ahmed v. Zafar-ul-Islam (PLD 2004 SC 298); Mian Munir Ahmad v. State (1985 SCMR 257). 2. It is a misconception to state that in all cases where it is being contended that a civil dispute has been converted into a criminal case, an applicant need not approach the trial Court under section 249-A Cr.P.C. or 265-K Cr.P.C. 3. The argument that section 249-A Cr.P.C. cannot be invoked until a formal charge is framed under section 242 Cr.P.C., is misconceived. Section 249-A Cr.P.C. categorically states that the power thereunder can be exercised at any stage of the case. Rel. State v. Ashiq Ali Bhutto, 1993 SCMR 523.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
100	2021 CLC 54	Suit 362/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Wakeel Akhtar (Plaintiff) VS Shahzad Alam (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-19	Yes	While Article 84 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order provides a mode for proving execution of a document by comparison of signature or hand-writing, that is an additional mode and not a substitute of or an alternate to the mandatory provision of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order. The mode of proof by way of Article 84 is not the most desirable of modes in that, the signature and hand-writing of a person may vary with time and age; or a person called upon under sub-Article (2) of Article 84 to give a specimen of his signature or hand-writing may feign the same to defeat the comparison.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
101	2021 CLD 362	Suit 94/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Jazaa Foods (Pvt.) Limited & another. (Plaintiff) VS Junaid Jamshed (Pvt.) Limited & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-APR-20	Yes	1. Effect of disclaimer made under section 21 of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 from exclusive use of a name. 2. The principle that registration of a trade mark gives rise to a prima facie case, balance of convenience and likelihood of irreparable loss, that principle would be applicable where the trade mark was registered without a disclaimer. 3. In view of section 42(3) of the Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001, the use of the disclaimed feature of the mark in question would not constitute trade mark infringement. 4. An action for passing-off is essentially to protect property in goods based on the reputation of those goods, as distinct from an action to protect a trade mark which is a property in itself.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
102		Criminal Appeal 486/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	MUHAMMAD KASHIF S/O SHER MUHAMMAD & ANOTHER (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-FEB-20	Yes	The test for weighing the evidence of identification proceedings is to first assess the system variables, i.e. the precautions taken at the test identification parade, and then to assess the estimator variables i.e. the capacity and ability of the eye-witness to identify the accused in the circumstance of the case. Rel. Mian Sohail Ahmed v. The State (2019 SCMR 956) and The matter of Kanwar Anwaar Ali (PLD 2019 SC 488).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
103		Suit 172/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Furqan & others. (Plaintiff) VS Mst. Roshan Ara & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-JUN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
104		Const. P. 162/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Rashid Ali Khan (Petitioner) VS IBA and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.654-K/2019 Rashid Ali Khan v. Institute of Business Administration (IBA) and anotehr,C.A.45-K/2020 Rashid Ali Khan v. Institute of Business Administration (IBA), Karachi thr. its Registrar and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted/ to be fixed at Islamabad after 3 months,Pending Adjourned
105		Const. P. 2191/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Saeed Akhter (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-APR-21	Yes	Primarily, this petition has served its purpose, which is disposed of in the terms, whereby the competent authority of the respondent-department is directed to issue posting and transfer orders of the petitioner and the private respondent, if no disciplinary proceedings are pending against them, strictly under the schedule of the establishment of law department KMC, with correct description/designation of their respective posts as per their entitlement under the law. The said exercise shall be undertaken within two weeks from the date of this order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
106		Suit 1872/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Saleem Butt.. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	31-MAY-21	Yes	Challenge to the vires of section 230(2) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 on the ground of delegation of excessive legislative power not successful. While making such challenge, the Plaintiff had also to demonstrate infringement of a Fundamental Right. SRO 115(I)/2015 re the conferring of powers and functions on the DG I&I, was within the jurisdiction of the FBR. Effect of striking-down of same SRO by another High Court discussed. The invoking of section 176 does not militate against the concept of deemed assessment under section 122 of the Ordinance. Malafides had to be pleaded with particulars.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
107		Const. P. 639/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Muhammad Ismail & Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
108		Conf.Case 23/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Hassan @ Ali Hassan (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-DEC-21	Yes	The murder of two persons at the hands of appellant has although been proved beyond a shadow of doubt but the motive alleged has not been established. All these factors point out to circumstances overwhelmingly mitigating in nature and justify conversion of death sentence. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed and conviction of the appellant is maintained but his death sentence is converted into life imprisonment each against each murder.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
109		Const. P. 1655/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Junaid Ahmed & another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.6282/2021 Junaid Ahmed v. Province of Sindh, through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh, Sindh Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
110		Const. P. 217/2001 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2001	Agha Nisar Ahmed and others (Petitioner) VS Zeal Pak Cement Factory and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
111		Const. P. 1518/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Asif Raza &another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
112		Const. P. 2155/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Syed Imdad Ali Shah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
113		Const. P. 517/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Abid Hussain & another (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.103/2022 Federation of Pakistan thr. Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others v. Abid Hussain Yousafzai and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
114		Const. P. 3787/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s Rajby Industries (Petitioner) VS Rahim Dad And ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.684-K/2019 M/s Rajby Industries v. Rahim Dad Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
115		Const. P. 1160/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Ghous Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
116		Const. P. 1523/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abdul Haq (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
117		Const. P. 477/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Fareed Ahmed & Other (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.105/2022 Federation of Pakistan thr. Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others v. Fareed Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
118		Const. P. 1348/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
119		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 5/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Shahzad & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-FEB-22	Yes	Confiscation of vehicle under Section 157(2) of the Customs Act, 1969.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.690-K/2022 Shahzad v. The Collector of Customs & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Notice to Respondents
120		Suit 1529/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mohammad Ahmed Ansari (Plaintiff) VS Interglobe Commerce Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	13-JUN-22	Yes	Lifting the veil of incorporation	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
121		Spl.Cr.A.A 7/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	THE STATE THOROUGH COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS KHI (Appellant) VS TALIB HUSSAIN & ANOHTER (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	31-JAN-24	Yes	Sufficient cause to condone limitation in Criminal Acquittal Appeal under Customs Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
122		Const. P. 4247/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Abid Ali and another (Petitioner) VS Mst. Mareena Soomro & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
123		H.C.A 28/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: High Court Appeal No. 29 of 2021	2021	SPEC Energy DMCC (Appellant) VS Pakistan Petroleum Ltd & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	20-SEP-23	Yes	Works contract running into minute details, not specifically enforceable, hence temporary injunction cannot be granted.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
124		Spl. Cr. A. 13/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2002	Mohammad Siddique Pechuho (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-JAN-24	Yes	Officer of Customs can be charged for offence u/s 32(1) of the Customs Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
125		H.C.A 183/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Lubna Ejaz (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
126		Cr.Rev 68/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Cr. Rev. 69/2015	2015	SULEMAN LALANI & 02 OTHERS (Applicant) VS AQEEL KARIM DEDHI S/O HAJI KARIM DEDHI & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-MAY-24	Yes	Test for issuing process under section 204 CrPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
127		E.P 7/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Khalid Mehmood Ali (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-MAY-24	Yes	Power of Election Tribunal to order recount.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
128		Spl. Cr. A. 6/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Spl. Cr. Appeals No. 8 & 9 of 2004	2004	Tariq Irshad (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-JUL-24	Yes	Forfeiture of assets for smuggling narcotics. Jurisdiction lies with Court under CNS Act, not under Sections 30 & 31 of PSA. Appeal by ANF under Section 43 PSA, not maintainable.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
129		E.P 52/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	ZAIN PERVEZ (Petitioner) VS ECP AND OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-OCT-24	Yes	Interpretation of section 144(2)(a) of the Election Act, 2017. Consequence of defective affidavits by witnesses.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
130		Const. P. 946/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: aa	2013	Astro Plastic (Pvt.) Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-DEC-22	Yes	ADR under Customs Act, 1969.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
131		I. A 45/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Ali Rashid (Appellant) VS M/S Unuted Bank Ltd & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-OCT-19	Yes	The appellant cannot be made to suffer on these facts and circumstances when he had deposited the bid amount at the relevant time. The bid amount was in fact more than forced sale value evaluated by the consultant and declared in the sale proclamation to which no objections were raised. Thus there are enough material and reasons available to interfere with order passed by the Banking Court, which has no reason or logic.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
132		Suit 983/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mrs. Hina Mumtaz Somroo (Plaintiff) VS Abdul Sami Soomro (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-JUL-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
133		Const. P. 4190/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Askari Bank Ltd (Petitioner) VS President of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-APR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
134		Suit 1572/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Zahid Hussain (Plaintiff) VS United Bank Limited & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	16-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
135		Const. P. 4506/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mst. Shabana Noor (Petitioner) VS D.G Immigration & Passport & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
136		I. A 74/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Abu Bakar (Appellant) VS First Women Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.1120-K/2018 Abu Bakar v. First Women Bank Limited and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
137		Suit 1264/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	MUHAMMAD AYUB GABOL (Plaintiff) VS THE PROV OF SINDH & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-JUL-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
138		Suit 2215/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Muhammad Kashif Vohra. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Ismail & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-NOV-19	Yes	1. A suit for specific performance of contract of immovable property brought by the vendee can be dismissed without going through a trial where the plaintiff, when put on terms to deposit the sale consideration in Court, fails to do so. That has been the consistent approach on the Original side of this Court. The wisdom behind that of course is that when called upon by the Court, if the plaintiff/vendee cannot demonstrate that he is ready and willing to make payment to perform his part of the contract, which is the primary test for grant of equitable discretionary relief in a suit for specific performance, then that is sufficient reason for the Court to decline the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction. Rel: Allah Ditta v. Bashir Ahmed (1997 SCMR 181); Abdul Hameed Khan v. Ghulam Rabbani (2003 SCMR 953); and Hamood Mehmood v. Shabana Ishaque (2017 SCMR 2022); 2. It is not in every case that the Court may require the plaintiff of a suit for specific performance of contract to deposit the sale consideration in Court. Rel: Bin Bak Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Friends Associates (2003 SCMR 238).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
139		Suit 304/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Husein Industries Ltd (Plaintiff) VS Sui Southern Gas Company Limited & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-MAR-20	Yes	1. A bank guarantee is an independent contract between the surety (bank) and the creditor (beneficiary of the guarantee), and as such the bank guarantee is to be construed on its own terms independent of the underlying contract between the creditor and the principal debtor, and irrespective of claims pending interse the creditor and principal debtor. Rel: National Construction Ltd. v. Aiwan-e-Iqbal Authority (PLD 1994 SC 311); and Shipyard K. Damen International v. Karachi Shipyard & Engineering Works Ltd. (PLD 2003 SC 191). 2. Mobilization Guarantees are generally not subject to a restraining order even if there is a dispute between the parties to the underlying contract. However, in cases of guarantees other than Mobilization Guarantees, the Court have granted or refused injunction to restrain encashment depending upon the literal words used in the guarantee. Rel: National Grid Company v. Government of Pakistan (1999 SCMR 2367); and Shipyard K. Damen International ibid.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
140		Civil Revision 198/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Abdul Majeed Kalhoro (Applicant) VS Amjad Ali Arain (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
141		Cr.Bail 558/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	MUHAMMAD YOUSUF S/O JAN MUHAMMAD (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-MAY-20	Yes	Effect of the prohibition in section 51(1) of the CNS Act, 1997.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
142		Civil Revision 22/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2012	Ghulam Mustafa Malak (Applicant) VS Divisional Forest Officer & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
143		Const. P. 427/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Ghulam Farooq (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-APR-21	Yes	In our view, no candidate shall be appointed to a post unless after such medical examination as Government may prescribe such candidate is found medically fit to discharge the duties of the post. In the present case, the petitioner was relieved from the duties on medical grounds and his appeal was rejected on the same analogy. Besides above, the assertion of the petitioner is misconceived on the premise that he obtained a medical examination fitness test certificate on 02.12.2019 after the rejection of his appeal, on 14.5.2019, thus this document could not be taken into consideration, besides the respondents have relied upon the documents which prima facie show adverse inference against him. Thus, at this stage, we cannot declare him medically fit or otherwise for the subject post, which was a contractual position and by efflux of time expired.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
144		Spl.Anti.Ter.A. 103/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	MUHAMMAD ASAD QURESHI S/O MASOOD AHMED (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	25-SEP-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
145		Suit 308/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/S. FOREL INTERNATIONAL TRADING & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS WAQAS AHMED JAT & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	25-MAY-21	Yes	Suit barred for staying freezing order passed under section 5(5) of the FIA Act, 1974.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
146		Const. P. 1914/2020 (F.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Along with other connected Petitions	2020	Amir Akbar Khan (Petitioner) VS NAB & Ors (Respondent)	F.B.	Order	26-APR-21	Yes	Applicability of the regime of sections 204 and 91 Cr.P.C. to a Reference under the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shamsuddin Abbasi	C.P.5188/2021 Chairman National Accountability Bureau through Prosecutor General Accountability, NAB Headquarters, Islamabad v. Amir Akbar Khan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
147		Suit 989/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Reliance Petrochemical Industries Pvt. Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS F.B.R., & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-MAR-21	Yes	After repeal of proviso to section 40B of the Sales Tax Act, 1990, the posting order passed thereunder by the Commissioner is not saved under section 6 of the General Clauses Act, 1897.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
148		Const. P. 2410/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Abdul Basit (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-APR-21	Yes	promotion issue	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
149		Const. P. 5232/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Danish Khan (Petitioner) VS NBP and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
150		Suit 1682/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Pakistan Petroleum Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-FEB-21	Yes	Ouster clause in Section 227(1) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 Suit against show cause notice Plaint rejected.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
151		Const. P. 6604/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Nasim Ahmed Memon (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-APR-21	Yes	the petitioner is an educationist and has been serving in the Public Education Sector in Sindh since 1987. Per learned counsel the Universities and Boards Department, the Government of Sindh, Karachi invited application for the position of Chairman-Board and petitioner was one of the candidates for the aforesaid post--	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
152	2023 SBLR Sindh 1117	Const. P. 6192/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Imtiaz Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-APR-21	Yes	quo warranto	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.562-K/2021 Roshan Ali Kanasro v. Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
153		Const. P. 3585/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Misri (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-APR-21	Yes	termination--Sindh Madressatul Islam University	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
154		Const. P. 201/2003 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2003	Nabi Bux and Others (Petitioner) VS Land Acquisition Officer (B&R) and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
155		Const. P. 1174/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Sikandar Ali & Other (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
156		Const. P. 68/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Gulshan and others (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
157		Const. P. 1102/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	MS Beenish Naqvi (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh And Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
158		Const. P. 1393/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Asif Raza &another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
159		Const. P. 427/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Arsalan Khan (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
160		Const. P. 1913/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Sindh High Court Employees C.Operative (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
161		Const. P. 2380/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Abdul Khaliq (Petitioner) VS Prov of Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
162		Const. P. 583/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Lakhmir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
163		Const. P. 1471/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Shahid Ahmed Khan Qaboolio (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
164		Const. P. 203/2003 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2003	Saifal Shah and Others (Petitioner) VS Land Acquisition Officer (B&R) and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
165		Const. P. 1442/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Muzaffar Hussain and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
166		Const. P. 1167/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Jalaluddin Khawaja (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
167	2023 SBLR Sindh 94	Const. P. 1430/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Mst Touqeer Fatima Shah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
168		Suit 1074/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Ever Shine Constructors (Plaintiff) VS Khairpur Special Economic Zone (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-MAY-22	Yes	Court having jurisdiction under section 20 Arbitration Act, 1940.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
169		Suit 1497/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	TOTAL PARCO PAKISTAN LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-22	Yes	Doctrine of indoor management.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
170		Suit 2580/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Suit No.2719 of 2021, Suit No.2720 of 2021, Suit No.2721 of 2021 & Suit No.2897 of 2021	2021	AL-KARAM TOWEL INDUSTRIES PRIVATE LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	14-MAR-23	Yes	Re: Concessionary Tariff of RLNG.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
171		R.A (Civil Revision) 73/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2018	Ghulam Safdar Brohi (Applicant) VS Mukhtiar Ali Chandio & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-MAR-23	Yes	Suit for malicious prosecution where acquittal on benefit of doubt.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
172		Const. P. 2489/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: C.P. No. D. 2202 of 2023	2023	Tanveer Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-AUG-23	Yes	KBTPR prohibits regularization of additional floors.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi	C.P.1089-K/2023 Muhammad Mohsin Waheed v. Tanveer Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned
173		Suit 141/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	M/S.HABIB SUGAR MILLS LTD (Plaintiff) VS PROV.OF SINDH & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-MAR-24	Yes	Under section 20(c) CPC, notification of statute is not place of cause of action.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
174		Suit 1660/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Askari Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS Hafiz Ghulam Murtaza (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-MAR-24	Yes	???Factory??? let without machinery, eviction lies before Rent Controller. Suit entertained for recovery of arrears of rent.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
175		Judicial Companies Misc. 28/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	N.P Spinning Mills Limited (Applicant) VS Muhammad Siddique (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-SEP-24	Yes	Company Bench is not the Court designated to try offences under Companies Act, 2017.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
176		E.P 13/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	FAHEEM KHAN (Petitioner) VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAK & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-OCT-24	Yes	Sections 143(3) & 144(2)(c) Election Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
177		H.C.A 184/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Behzad Amir Memon (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
178		Suit 717/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	M/S CENTURY ROLLER & STONE FLOUR MILLS PVT LTD&ORS (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD ASIF & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	15-JUL-24	Yes	Suit barred by section 69(2) of the Partnership Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
179		Suit 1552/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	ABDUL QADIR MOSANI (Plaintiff) VS MIAN AFTAB IQBAL & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JUL-24	Yes	Decision under Order XXI Rule 58 CPC is res judicata.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
180		Suit 2418/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Muhammad Raza & others (Plaintiff) VS Nasir Khan (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	27-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
181		Suit.B 58/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	National Bank of Pakistan. (Plaintiff) VS Tuwairqi Steel Mills Ltd., & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	31-MAY-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
182		I. A 15/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Pak Leather Crafts Limited & others (Appellant) VS Al-Barak Bank Limited (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.1422-K/2018 Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others v. Al-Baraka Bank Limited,C.A.24-K/2019 Pak Leather Crafts Limited and others v. Al-Baraka Bank Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed
183		H.C.A 285/2007 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Mst. Nafeesa Siddiqui & others (Appellant) VS Danish Rafiq & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.1178-K/2018 Mst: Nafeesa Siddiqui and others v. Danish Rafique and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
184		Suit -52/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Allahdino & Others.. (Plaintiff) VS H.H Shaikh Zaid Bin ultan Al-Nahyan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-JUL-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
185		Suit 370/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	MANZOOR AHMED SHAHZAD (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD SHAKIR SHAN (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	15-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
186		Const. P. 5570/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muneem Khan & Ors (Petitioner) VS Registrar Pakistan Nursing Council & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	15-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
187		Cr.Bail 519/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Ali Sher (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-JUL-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
188		Const. P. 3508/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Riasat Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-19	Yes	1. Pursuant to Article 129 of the Constitution, the executive authority of the Provincial Government is to be exercised by the Provincial Cabinet as a collective entity albeit in the name of the Governor. When a Provincial statute, such as the Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977, provides for the exercise of executive authority by the Provincial Government, that is to be done and the decision for that has to be taken by the Provincial Cabinet and not by the Chief Minister alone. Rel: Mustafa Impex v. Government of Pakistan (PLD 2016 SC 808); Karamat Ali v. Federation of Pakistan (PLD 2018 Sindh 8); Mirpurkhas Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Province of Sindh, C.P. No.D-8591/2018. 2. Having seen that the word Government in section 27(1) of the Sindh Agriculture University Act, 1977, as it stood amended at the relevant time by the Sindh Universities and Institutes Laws (Amendment) Act, 2014, could only mean the Provincial Cabinet, the decision to extend the tenure of the Respondent No.5 as Vice Chancellor for another term, and the terms and conditions of such extension, had to be taken by the Provincial Cabinet and not by the Chief Minister in isolation of the Provincial Cabinet.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
189		Suit 1461/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mohsin Abbas. (Plaintiff) VS Air Waves Media (Pvt) Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	16-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
190	2021 PCr.LJ Note 38	Criminal Appeal 219/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	ANANTKUMAR PARSHOTAM (Appellant) VS MEM. OF MANAGING COMT. NARAYAN TEMPLE TRUST & ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	17-MAR-20	Yes	1. Under section 8-A of the Illegal Dispossession Act, 2005, an order that is appealable to the High Court does not include an order dismissing the complaint. However, the appeal can be converted to a criminal revision. 2. In order to constitute an offence under the Illegal Dispossession Act, the complaint must disclose actus reas and mens rea, and if the facts that constitute an offence under section 3 of the Illegal Dispossession Act are not disclosed through the complaint or documents with it, then the Court can dismiss the complaint straight away. Rel: Waqar Ali v. The State (PLD 2011 SC 181).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
191		Suit.B 15/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	NIB BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS M/S.VENUS CHEMICALS PVT LTD. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	01-JUN-20	Yes	Statement of account filed by the bank did not bear the name and official title of the persons certifying the same as required by section 9(2) of the FIO, 2001 read with section 2(8) of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891. Such was not a certified copy and did not attract a presumption of correctness. The bank will have to prove the same as any other document.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
192		Suit 2206/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s. Chhipa Corporation (Plaintiff) VS Sui Southern Gas Company Limited & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-MAR-21	Yes	Explanation clause to Order II Rule 2 CPC	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
193		Const. P. 4035/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Bashir Ahmed Kalwar (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-MAY-21	Yes	Declare the supersession of the petitioner made by the Respondent No.02 / CSB and the competent authority through impugned order dated 06.06.2018 as illegal--Direct the respondents to consider the case of promotion of petitioner in BPS-20, in terms of original reference of December, 2016--when a civil/public servant is recommended for supersession by the Central Selection Board (CSB) and the recommendation of the CSB is approved by the competent authority, what is its effect, and whether supersession is punishment?	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.3921/2021 The Federation of Pakistan through Secretary, Establishment Division, Govt of Pakistan, Islamabad and another v. Bashir Ahmed Kalwar and another,C.P.757-K/2021 The Chairman (FBR) v. Bashir Ahmed Kalwar & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous,Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous
194		Suit 1608/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Seamax Marine Services (Plaintiff) VS The Ministry of Maritime Affairs & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	14-JUL-21	Yes	Rule 48 of Public Procurement Rules, 2004.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
195		Const. P. 4003/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Munaza Yasmeen and Ors (Petitioner) VS Learned / Hon (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-APR-21	Yes	the petitioners have assailed the findings of the learned Single Bench of National Industrial Relations Commission (NIRC), Karachi whereby their Grievance Petitions were dismissed with direction to the respondent-Pakistan International Airline Company to allow joining period to them till 13.06.2019.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
196		Const. P. 4172/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Sami Iqbal (Petitioner) VS Pakistan Post and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-APR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
197		Const. P. 532/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Muhammad Arif & Others (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.104/2022 Federation of Pakistan thr. Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Islamabad and others v. Nadeem Arif and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
198		Const. P. 446/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Mst Irfana &another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
199		Const. P. 894/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Muhammad Rafique and Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
200		Const. P. 1478/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Mst Hanifa Karim (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.158-K/2022 Mst. Hanifa Karim & others v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Revenue Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
201		Const. P. 1931/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Vishandas (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
202		Const. P. 51/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Mst Shahnaz Bibi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.1713-K/2021 Mst. Shahnaz Bibi v. Ali Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
203		Const. P. 2623/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Gul Hassan (Petitioner) VS Federation Of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
204		Const. P. 944/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Mst. Bano (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
205		Const. P. 96/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C. P. No. D- 06 of 2020 [Muhammad Asif & another vs. Province of Sindh & others] C. P. No. D- 96 of 2020 [Abdul Rasheed & another vs. Province of Sindh & others] C.P. No. D-111 of 2020 [Muhammad Anwar vs. Province of Sindh & others] C.P. No. D-126 of 2020 [Nizamuddin & others vs. Province of Sindh & others] C.P. No. D-244 of 2020 [Wali Muhammad & others vs. Province of Sindh & others]	2020	Abdul Rasheed & Others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.4725/2021 Shahi Khan Jagirani v. Province of Sindh thr. Secretary Health Department, Larkana and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
206		Const. P. 1328/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Mehboob Ali & Others (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
207		Const. P. 594/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Muhammad Urs (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
208		Const. P. 1523/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abdul Haq (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
209		Const. P. 3207/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Sardar Ali & Others (Petitioner) VS Govt. Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.65-K/2022 Syed Sardar Ali Shah & others v. Government of Sindh through chief Secretary & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
210		Const. P. 1197/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Dr. Ali Murad Lajwani & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
211		Const. P. 2296/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Mohammad Siddique (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
212		Criminal Miscelleneous 19/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Ghulam Nabi (Applicant) VS Senior Superintendent of Police (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
213		Const. P. 1564/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Ghulam Mujtaba Dayo (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
214		Const. P. 1291/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Habib ur Rehman (Petitioner) VS NIRC & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-OCT-19	Yes	we have straightaway enquired from the Counsel as to what reason was provided in support of the application for condonation of delay, he relied upon the affidavit in support of the application available at page-99. In para-2, para-12 of the memo of petition was adopted in support of the application for codonation of delay. He claimed to have fallen sick due to sudden shock of his removal from service and claimed to have remained in constant supervision of a doctor with effect from 02.2.2012 to 30.4.2012. In support of such contention he attached two certificates of doctors available on record. First certificate is of 29.4.2012 and the other is of 01.5.2012. Both these certificates only demonstrate that the petitioner remained under treatment of a doctor and not that he was bedridden or unable to engage in daily activities	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
215		Suit 474/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	All Pakistan Solvent Extractors Association & ors (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	11-MAY-22	Yes	Quarantine pests. Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules, 2019.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
216		II.A. 7/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2015	Mohammad Rafique Aghani (Appellant) VS Mohammad Ali Aghani and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-JAN-23	Yes	The requirement of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses at least have been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be two attesting witnesses alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. There is a proviso for a registered document, but that is not relevant for the present purposes.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
217		Const. P. 1202/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2015	Hameer Ali (Petitioner) VS Commissioner Larkana and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-FEB-23	Yes	Employee on engaged adhoc or under a time-bound contract has no vested right to regularization	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.690-K/2023 Hameer Ali Abbasi v. The Commissioner Larkana & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
218		Suit 360/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	GHULAM ALI ALLANA (Plaintiff) VS LOUIS DREYFUS COMMODITIES SUISSEE SA & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-MAR-23	Yes	Test for attachment before judgment under Order XXXVIII Rule 5 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
219		Criminal Miscelleneous 12/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2022	Sajid Hussain and Another (Applicant) VS The State and Another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-MAR-23	Yes	Transfer application under section 23 ATA, 1997. Jurisdiction of ATC under third schedule of the ATA, 1997	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ali Sangi
220		Const. P. 1233/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Major (Rtd) Raja Mohammad Basharat Ahmed & others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	04-DEC-23	Yes	Re-grant of land under Colonization Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
221		Spl.Cr.Tran 100/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	MILLAT INDUSTRIAL PRODUCTS LTD (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-OCT-24	Yes	Test of transfer under section 526 (1)(a) Cr.P.C.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
222		Suit 971/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/S INSAF & BROTHERS (Plaintiff) VS PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	13-MAY-24	Yes	Rules 31, 32 SPPRA, 2010. Section 10 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
223		E.P 36/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	SAEED AHMED S/O SAID GHAFOOR (Petitioner) VS ECP AND OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-24	Yes	Affidavit of service not filed within time. Election Petition rejected.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
224		H.C.A 182/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Zeeshan Alvi (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
225		E.P 4/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	IRFANULLAH KHAN MARWAT (Petitioner) VS ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAK & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-JUN-24	Yes	Verification and oath on election petition. Section 144(4) Election Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
226		Cr.Bail 1002/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	MUNSIF KHAN S/O NARAS ALI (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-SEP-24	Yes	Bail on ground of statutory delay, not available under CNS Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
227		Const. P. 3525/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Abdul Latif Narejo and Ors (Petitioner) VS E.O.B.I and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-17	Yes	Board of Trustees were required to convene a meeting and the petitioners agreed. The petition was disposed off accordingly. It perhaps on an interpretation of order dated 18.12.2017 that the Board of Trustees resolved to approve the upgradation of the petitioner as Executive Director as if it was an order of this Court, which Board of Trustees decision was subsequently withdrawn. The alleged contemnor may have stated that the upgradation was allowed but it was only the statement of the Counsel that was recorded. Neither the withdrawal nor review of earlier decision taken in 118th Meeting could constitute contempt as there was no straightaway direction for up-gradation of the post from Assistant Director to Executive Director. The issue was to be resolved by the Board of Trustees of EOBI	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.431/2018 Employees Old Age Benefits Institution thr. its Chairman, Karachi & others v. Abdul Latif Narejo & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
228		Const. P. 601/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2017	Kashif Hussain Gaad (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Saleem Jessar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
229		Cr.Bail 486/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Wahid Bux @ wahidoo Shaikh (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
230		Const. P. 858/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Irshad Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	15-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
231		Suit 1518/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	ANSAR ALI (Plaintiff) VS ALTAF AHMED MEMON & ANOTHER. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
232		Suit 1646/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Arshad Mahmood & Others (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-DEC-19	Yes	Since the Hindu Gymkhana is a Government-owned protected heritage and the Subject Agreement is not with any private-owner of protected heritage under sections 7(3) to 7(5) or section 8 of the Sindh Cultural Heritage (Preservation) Act, 1994 [the Heritage Act], the role of the Advisory Committee envisaged under the said provisions is also not attracted. For the same reason the power of the Advisory Committee to pass a prohibitory order under section 10 of the Heritage Act, which is dependent on an agreement with the private owner under section 8 of the Act, is also not attracted. The record does not show that the Government sanctioned custodianship of the Hindu Gymkhana to the Advisory Committee under section 7(1) of the Heritage Act; nor does the criteria of section 13 of the Heritage Act seems to be met by the Hindu Gymkhana. Thus, having seen that the provisions of sections 7, 8, 10 and 13 of the Heritage Act are not attracted to the circumstances of the case, prima facie it cannot be said that construction of a theatre by NAPA on the land granted to it was prohibited by the Heritage Act, or that the said Act required NAPA to obtain the approval of the Advisory Committee before raising such construction. Impugned notice to remain suspended pending suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
233		Const. P. 451/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Ghulam Ali (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	01-OCT-19	Yes	Sindh Tenancy Act, 1950	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Salahuddin Panhwar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.652-K/2019 Province of Sindh thr. Senior Member Board of Revenue and others v. Ghulam Ali Leghari,C.A.7-K/2022 Province of Sindh thr. Senior Member Board of Revenue and others v. Ghulam Ali Leghari Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Notice be repeated
234		Civil Revision 109/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Shafi Muhammad Khan (Applicant) VS Abdul Rehman & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-SEP-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
235		Const. P. 1400/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Lt. Commander (R) Engr: Abdul Aziz Narejo (Petitioner) VS K.P.T and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-OCT-19	Yes	Though he was appointed in the year 1996 on ad-hoc and the appointment apparently was not regular one yet the petitioner has spent more than two decades with a hope that no later, the post would fallen vacant, he will be considered. The record reflects that he is still being considered as ad-hoc. This status throughout his career has not earned him anything except that he has faced certain charges which he defended and that he being deprived of further promotion on account of such status. The period of ad-hoc appointment should not have prevailed for such a long period. In case the authority had no complaints as far as the conduct and working of the petitioner is concerned, steps should have been taken by the authority to regularize the services of the petitioner. The authority remained indolent and petitioner continued as ad-hoc. The record shows that the only ground whereby he was deprived of any such promotion is that he was an ad-hoc employee. Thus, while we consider that his very appointment was not made on regular basis in BPS-18, we are also conscious of the fact that the petitioner has served more than two decades without any prospects of promotion	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
236		Civil Revision 88/2002 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2002	Syed Shahan Shah @ Syed Nasrullah Shah (Applicant) VS Syed Amanullah Shah and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
237		Const. P. 1158/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Rehan Khalid (Petitioner) VS Chairman FBR and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
238		Cr.Bail 508/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	ABDUL RASHEED S/O GHULAM RASOOL (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-JUL-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
239		Civil Revision 6/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2000	Executive Engineer Highways and others (Applicant) VS Nazir Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-AUG-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
240		Suit 1494/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	M/S.CENTURY INSURANCE CO.LTD (Plaintiff) VS THE ASSITANT COLELCTOR (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-20	Yes	Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005. Maintainability of suit to challenge an action taken without issuing the prescribed show-cause notice. Rate of Federal Excise Duty applicable to insurance services under section 10 of the Federal Excise Act, 2005 and the effect of Rule 40 of the Federal Excise Rules, 2005.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
241		Const. P. 5025/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Imdad Ali Abro & Ors (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-APR-21	Yes	the petitioners are seeking the up-gradation of the post of Computer Operator/Assistant Computer Programmer BS-16 to 17--we are clear that petitioners proceeded on erroneous premises. On the issue of up-gradation, we seek guidance from the decisions of the Honorable Supreme Court rendered in the cases of the Government of Pakistan M/o. Railways v. Jamshed Hussain Cheema and others, 2016 SCMR 442, Regional Commissioner Income Tax, Northern Region, Islamabad, and another Vs. Syed Munawar Ali and others (2017 PLC (C.S.) 1030) and Federal Public Service Commission v. Anwar-ul-Haq (2017 SCMR 890). Therefore, in our view, the petitioners have been unable to make out a case for the up-gradation/re-designation of their posts in BPS-17 with retrospective effect, based on discrimination under Article 25 of the Constitution.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
242		Suit 2581/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Mohsin Ahmad. (Plaintiff) VS Nasreen Irfan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	01-JUL-21	Yes	Stipulation in mortgage deed that mortgagee would become owner or vendee of the property if mortgage money is not paid, is a clog on the right/equity of redemption, repugnant to law and void.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
243		Const. P. 2593/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Rao Talib Hussain & anothers (Petitioner) VS Fed: of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.6489/2021 Sui Southern Gas Company Limited through its M.D. Karachi and others v. Rao Muhammad Asif and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
244		Const. P. 907/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Roshan Ali (Petitioner) VS Nazim Taluka Municipal Administration Samaro & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
245		Const. P. 1491/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Akhlaue Hussain Memon (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
246		Const. P. 2648/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Neno (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
247	2022 SBLR Sindh 505	Const. P. 974/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Isra village Housing Scheme (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
248		Const. P. 1769/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Dr Arshad Ali Lodhi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.282-K/2022 Dr.Khalid Iqbal Talpur v. Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary, Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
249		Const. P. 133/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Ghulam Parwar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
250		Const. P. 344/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abbas Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
251		Const. P. 1619/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Mst Shumaila & Other (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
252		Const. P. 6/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Muhammad Asif & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes	"Shifting of SABZI MANDI - MARKET COMMITTEE"	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
253		Suit 2970/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	SHUJABAD AGRO INDUSTRIES (PT.) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	04-MAR-22	Yes	Policy-making by the CCI under Article 154(1) is in a different sphere than policy-making by the Federal Government in the exercise of its executive authority under Article 97. The Natural Gas Allocation & Management Policy, 2005 was within the legal competence of the Federal Government and not the CCI. Under the GSAs between the Plaintiffs and the SSGC, the Plaintiffs cannot assert a right to receive gas for industrial use during the months of December, January and February. Article 158 of the Constitution exists as a prerogative of a Provincial Government, and therefore it does not give actionable cause to a person other than the concerned Provincial Government to invoke the same.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
254		Const. P. 837/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Mir Munawar Ali Talpur (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
255		Const. P. 1163/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Altaf Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
256		Const. P. 1216/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Martha Bibi (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
257		Const. P. 1261/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Shamshad Ali and another (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-DEC-21	Yes	It is well-settled that conversion of an amenity plot into any other purpose is illegal and encroachment thereon cannot be allowed under any circumstances. This view is fortified by the following authorities of Honble Supreme Court and cases decided by learned Division Benches of this Court, laying down the principles regarding illegal conversion and use of amenity plots/public properties for other purposes, rights of public in respect of amenity plots/public properties and duties of authorities concerned for maintaining the status of amenity plots/public properties	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
258		I. A 46/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Ali Rashid (Appellant) VS M/s. United Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-OCT-19	Yes	Article 166 of the Limitation Act requires such application under Order 21 Rule 89 CPC as well as deposit thereunder to be made within 30 days from the date of sale. Such deposit is a condition precedent to entertain the application and the Court cannot extend the time for depositing the amount under section 148 CPC too. The date of sale in the ibid rules relates to situation on which the sale was knocked out to the highest bidder and not the date of confirmation. The date of confirmation of sale under Rule 92 CPC relates to the issuance of sale certificate.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
259		Spl. Cr. A. 47/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	THE STATE / ANF (Applicant) VS AGHA MEHMOOD UL HASSAN HARAVI & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-OCT-22	Yes	Control of Narcotic Substances Act, 1997, overrides Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
260		Execution First Appeal 68/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	JAWAID SARWAR (Decree Holder) VS RANA MUNIR & ANOTHER (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Order	07-APR-23	Yes	Decree for specific performance entails possession. Privity of contract. Compromise decree when executable.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
261		Suit 1237/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Alhaushabi Stevedores (Pvt.) Ltd. & others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-JUL-23	Yes	Suit for abuse of dominant position. Exclusive jurisdiction with Competition Commission. Suit barred.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
262		Spl. Cr. A. 1/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	THE STATE / ANF (Applicant) VS B.R.R GUARDIAN MODARABE & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-24	Yes	Appeal of ANF under section 43 of the Prevention of Smuggling Act, 1977 not maintainable.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
263		Spl.Cr.Misc 612/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	USMAN BAJWA S/O JAWED A. BAJWA (Applicant) VS THE STATE &ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-OCT-24	Yes	Separate trials of special offences by Special Courts does not attract bar of double jeopardy.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
264		H.C.A 180/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Rahim Buksh Baloch (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
265		Suit 1808/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mst. Bilqis Bano & another. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Defence Housing Authority & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	17-JUL-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
266		Suit 344/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	MUHAMMAD SHAHID AKRAM. (Plaintiff) VS GHULAM QADIR JUMANI & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
267		S.M.A 241/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Barbara Helena Philomina through attorney Debbie (Petitioner) VS Marina Caroline Bond - Deceased (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
268		Cr.J.A 39/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Muhammad Mithal (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
269		H.C.A 219/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Karachi Metropolitan Corporationi & another (Appellant) VS M/s. Zafar Memorial Education Society (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
270		Suit -9/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Afzal (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
271		H.C.A 6/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Faiz Muhammad (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.286-K/2019 Shahid Hussain Malik v. Faiz Muhammad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
272		Const. P. 4047/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Ali Javed and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-OCT-19	Yes	The general principles of up-gradation that to our mind emerge from the enunciations of the Supreme Court can be elucidated as follows: (i) Up-gradation is not the same as promotion, the latter being a term specifically defined in civil service statutes; (ii) Up-gradation is essentially an upgrade of the post to a higher pay-scale and not a promotion to a higher grade. Thus, the incumbent of the upgraded post retains his substantive grade; (iii) Up-gradation is meant for isolated posts, where the service structure does not provide avenues for promotion to a higher pay-scale thus putting the incumbent at a disadvantage as compared to other employees, its purpose being to address the stagnation and frustration of the employee of such post so that he/she remains productive; (iv) To justify up-gradation, the Government will have to demonstrate that it is required for restructuring or reforming the department or to meet exigencies of service in the public interest. In other words, up-gradation should be pursuant to a scheme or a policy; (v) Up-gradation should not be to the prejudice of other employees and should not be used to by-pass prescribed rules of promotion. Rel. Ali Azhar Khan Baloch v. Province of Sindh (2015 SCMR 456); Regional Commissioner Income Tax v. Munawar Ali (2017 PLC (C.S.) 1030); and Federal Public Service Commission v. Anwar-ul-Haq (2017 SCMR 890).	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
273		Civil Revision 30/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2015	Mst. Hijab Akhtar (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
274	2021 YLR Note 37	Criminal Appeal 245/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	KARMAT HUSSAIN S/O MUBARAK HUSSAIN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	31-MAR-20	Yes	1. Even in a case involving capital punishment, conviction can follow on circumstantial evidence, but that such circumstantial evidence should provide all links in an unbroken chain where one end of the chain touches the dead body and the other the neck of the accused. 2. Though evidence implicating an accused cannot be used to convict him if he was not confronted with it under section 342 Cr.P.C., but that does not mean to say that every inadequate examination under section 342 Cr.P.C. results in vitiating the trial, nor does it mean to say that the other independent evidence standing against the accused stands diminished. Rel. S.A.K. Rehmani v. The State (2005 SCMR 364). Even discarding the evidence not confronted to the accused under section 342 Cr.P.C., the chain of circumstantial evidence against him is complete and uninterrupted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
275	2021 YLR 141	J.M 45/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Al-Habib Coop: Housing Society Ltd (Applicant) VS Mrs. Shamim Barlas & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	05-MAY-20	Yes	Where the plaintiff/applicant establishes fraud, the defendant benefitting from the fraud and opposing the application of section 18, Limitation Act, must show that the plaintiff had clear and definite prior knowledge of the facts constituting the particular fraud and not merely clues or hints of the fraud, failing which limitation will run only from the date of actual knowledge of the fraud.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
276		Const. P. 2328/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Tanveer (Petitioner) VS M/s Pakistan Steel Mills Corp Ltd and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-APR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
277		Const. P. 875/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Muhammad Arif and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-APR-24	Yes	Three thousand three hundred and fifty nine petitioners collectively filed these forty eight petitions, requiring this court, in its writ jurisdiction, to judge their individual claims for regularization in Suit Southern Gas Company Limited; premised upon their averment of having rendered contingent / contractual services thereto, though third party companies or otherwise. Petitions dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.A.1376/2021,C.P.5119/2021,C.P.1092-K/2022,C.P.3914/2022,C.A.3991/2022,C.A.4009/2022 SCP	Disposed Allowed and Remanded,Disposed Leave Granted.impugned judgement is suspended.to be fixed after 3 months,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed ,Disposed
278	2021 PLC (CS) Note 11	Const. P. 756/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	S.M Kaleem Makki (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-OCT-19	Yes	It is the general principle of jurisprudence that the law takes its effect from the date of promulgation and interpretation of the said law cannot be subjected to the doctrine of retrospective effects unless expressed specifically in the judgment, therefore, Mustafa Impexs case is to be applied prospectively, in general. It is the existence of law at the relevant time that counts, which may have been interpreted at a later date. Since the deficiency in the appointment notification as far as Provincial Cabinet is concerned, is not questioned no challenge could be thrown. The principle we derive from the conclusion of the aforesaid three judgments is that Mustafa Impex only invalidates those actions retrospectively which were impugned in that lis and not all others, so by virtue of aforesaid principle the notification for the appointment of the petitioner is saved whereas it set a mechanism for future course i.e. issuance of impugned notification.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.724-K/2019 Province of Sindh and others v. S.M Kaleem Makki,C.P.41-K/2020 S.M Kaleem Makki v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
279		Suit 3/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Amsons Textile Mills (Pvt) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	05-MAY-21	Yes	res judicata in suit after decision in constitution petition.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
280		Suit 717/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	AGAH ASAD ABBAS (Plaintiff) VS MST.NASEEM IRFAN (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	01-JUL-21	Yes	Limitation for an application for restoration of a suit dismissed for non-prosecution, is governed by Article 163 of the Limitation Act, not by Article 181.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
281		Const. P. 1901/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ikram Ali (Petitioner) VS M/s PTCL and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	06-NOV-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
282		Const. P. 7700/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Husnain Ali and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-APR-21	Yes	Health Department, Government of Sindh, whereby the petitioners may be allowed to pursue their academic medical career subject to extraordinary leave (without pay) for the required period--At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioners in substance has pleaded discrimination as they were not sent for training within time, however, he has seriously submitted that their other batch mates on the same consideration were considered and were sent for training and the petitioners were left out except petitioners No.6, 9, 10, and 14.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
283		Const. P. 2395/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Abdul Basit (Petitioner) VS The Secretary SWWB & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-APR-21	Yes	The aforesaid petition is virtually against the transfer and posting order of the private respondent on Own Pay Scale basis.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
284		Criminal Appeal 565/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	WAKEEL S/O ABDUL GHAFOOR (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	15-SEP-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
285		Const. P. 640/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Gulji & Others (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
286		Const. P. 2608/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Deepak (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
287		Const. P. 344/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abbas Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
288		Const. P. 344/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abbas Ali (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
289		Const. P. 38/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Administrator Evacuee Trust property & Others (Petitioner) VS Pardeep Kumar & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
290		Const. P. 943/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	S & Sons Contractor (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
291		Const. P. 745/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Asma Hameed (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
292		Const. P. 526/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Muhammad Juman (Petitioner) VS HESCO Hyderabad and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
293		Const. P. 361/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abdul Rasheed (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
294	2022 SBLR Sindh 1061	Const. P. 1170/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Haroon Sohail (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	01-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
295		Const. P. 3310/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Imamdin and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
296		Civil Revision 116/2002 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2002	Govt Of Pakistan & Others (Applicant) VS Noor Muhammad (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
297		Const. P. 356/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Syed Sharafat Ali (Petitioner) VS National Bank of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
298		Const. P. 646/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Engro Foods Ltd (Petitioner) VS Registrar of Trade Union and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-AUG-22	Yes	"Industrial Relations. Challenge to registration of trade union re trans-provincial establishment".	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
299		Const. P. 550/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mst. Kiran Yazdani D/o Syed Ather Yazdani (Petitioner) VS The XXth Civil Judge/JM, Khi South and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-JUN-22	Yes	When an appeal lies against an order on temporary custody passed under section 12 of the Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
300		R.A (Civil Revision) 137/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2019	Muhammad Alam and Others. (Applicant) VS District officer community and others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-23	Yes	Order XXI Rule 103 CPC	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
301		Suit.B 30/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Suit No. B ??? 24 of 2003	2003	MIRZA SUGAR MILLS LTD. (Plaintiff) VS P.I.C.I.C (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	17-OCT-23	Yes	Banking suit. Effect of Restructuring Agreement.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
302		Suit 1192/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	ZIAUDDIN AHMED & CO. (PVT.) LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS KARACHI SHIPYARD & ENGINEERING WORKS LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	31-AUG-23	Yes	Bank guarantee. Rule of non-interference and the rule of strict compliance.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
303		Suit 1290/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	SYED HABIB HAIDER ZAIDI (Plaintiff) VS SYED HUSSAIN KHURSHEED BILGRAMI & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-MAR-24	Yes	Proof of possession of gifted property. Elements of Benami.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
304		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 213/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Director, Directorat Gen., Int.& Inv (Custom) Hyd. (Applicant) VS Muhammad Sabir S/o Muhammad Yousaf & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-NOV-24	Yes	Burden of proof under section 187 Customs Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho
305		H.C.A 177/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Nazar Mohammad Bozdar (Appellant) VS Muhammad Ishrat & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Section 5(3) of the Contempt of Court Ordinance, 2003 also states that ???In the case of a contempt having been committed, or alleged to have been committed, by a company, the responsibility thereof shall extend to the persons in the company, directly or indirectly, responsible for the same, who shall also be liable to be punished accordingly.??? Therefore, in our view, before the matter could be fixed for framing charge, there had to be some discussion as to which of the alleged contemnors was prima facie responsible. It is the case of some of the Appellants that they were posted to SITE for brief periods and could not be held responsible for acts committed before or after their posting, which aspect has not been considered in the impugned order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Abdul Mobeen Lakho(Author)
306		H.C.A 185/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Dr. Obaid ur Rehman & Others (Appellant) VS Mrs. Neelofer Khalid & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-APR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Syed Hasan Azhar Rizvi, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.A.31-K/2019 Mrs. Neelofer Khalid and others v. Dr.Obaid-ur-Rehman and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned
307		H.C.A 217/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Dawlance Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. & another (Appellant) VS G-Force Communicaton & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-APR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.385-K/2019 G.Force Communications and others v. Dawlance Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. and another,C.A.12-K/2020 G.Force Communications and others v. Dawlance Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Pending Adjourned
308		S.M.A 68/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Dr.Mohammad Sharif (Petitioner) VS Party-2 (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
309		Const. P. 536/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Jangi Mahar & another (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh (Appellant)	S.B.	Order	22-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
310		Suit 1710/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Syed Shafaat Ali.(ISSUES) (Plaintiff) VS Syed Feroz Ali. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	26-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
311		Const. P. 2304/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Meezan Bank Ltd (Petitioner) VS Textilers (Pvt) Ltd and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
312		H.C.A 171/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mst. Sajeda Mushtaq (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	15-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)	C.P.4612/2018 Mst. Sajeda Mushtaq v. Federation of Pakistan thr. the Secretary M/o Interior, Islamabad & others,C.P.518-K/2019 Mst: Sajida Mushtaq v. Federation of Pakistan and others,C.P.883/2020 Mst. Sajeda Mushtaq v. Federation of Pakistan thr. the Secretary M/o Interior, Islambad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
313		H.C.A 404/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	MCB Bank Ltd. (Appellant) VS Sajida Naqi Riaz & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-OCT-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
314		Spl.Anti.Ter.A. 66/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	SHAKEEL S/O DODO KHAN (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
315		Suit 1254/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Mrs Naveen Irfan (Plaintiff) VS Mst Shama Parveen (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
316		Suit 1762/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mrs. Zarina Iqbal (Plaintiff) VS Haji Jaffar & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-JUL-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
317		Cr.Rev 201/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	MST. NAGHMA IMJRAN WD/O IMRAN KHAN (Applicant) VS THE STATE & ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-DEC-19	Yes	The Explanation clause of section 435 Cr.P.C. entails that while the High Court can call for and examine the record of proceeding before a Magistrate, either suo moto or in Revision arising from an order of a Sessions Judge, a Revision application against the order of a Magistrate is to filed by the litigant to the Sessions Judge to whom the Magistrate is a Court inferior within the meaning of the Explanation clause of section 435 Cr.P.C.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
318		Const. P. 2375/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Muhammad Essa Bhutto and ors (Petitioner) VS Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.722-K/2019 Ali Akbar Ujjan and others v. The Chairman Port Qasim Authority and others,C.P.723-K/2019 Akbar Adeeb Zubairi and another v. The Chairman Sindh Lobour Appellate and others,C.P.741-K/2019 Rasheed Ahmed Memon v. The Chairman Sindh Labour Appellate Tribunal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
319		Suit.B 4/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	National Bank of Pakistan. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Amna Export (Pvt) Ltd. & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-JUN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
320		Cr.Bail 829/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	ALLAH MUHAMMAD S/O KHUDA NOOR (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-JUL-20	Yes	(1) Direction by a superior Court to the trial court to conclude a trial within a specified period is an administrative direction, and non-compliance thereof does not ipso facto entitle an accused person to be admitted to bail. (2) Return of the stolen amount by the accused cannot be taken as a ground in itself to grant bail independent of the merits of the case.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
321		Const. P. 4483/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Pakistan International Airline Corp Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
322	2021 CLD 194	Suit.B 15/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	National Bank of Pakistan (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Textile City Limited & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-APR-20	Yes	1. Notwithstanding the failure of the defendant to comply with conditions of a leave application, the Court is still required to apply its mind to the case of the plaintiff before passing any order/judgment. Leave granted where statement of account incomplete. 2. Notwithstanding the creation of a mortgage, the mortgagor remains liable to the lessor for any breach or non-performance of the conditions of lease; and that if the lessor forfeits the lease, the remedy of the mortgagee is against the mortgagor for indemnification, and not against the lessor. The security of the mortgagee in the mortgaged property can be no better than the interest given to the mortgagor by the lease.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
323	2021 SBLR Sindh Note 522	Const. P. 4953/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Peoples University of Medical & Health Sci (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-DEC-20	Yes	Reasons assigned to the short order dated 11.11.2020 passed in the MDCAT petitions viz. C.P. Nos.D-4953, 5036, 5158, 5237 of 2020 (challenging the vires of Pakistan Medical Commission Act, 2020) by Division Bench of Sindh High Court comprising Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar and Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Ali Mazhar(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.L.A.1301-K/2020 Peoples University of Medical & Health Seiences for Womon & others v. Pakistan Ministry of Health Services & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
324		Suit 618/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	ABDULLAH RAFI (Plaintiff) VS DIRECTOR PROPERTY AND ENTERTAINMENT TAX & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	12-FEB-21	Yes	Sindh Entertainment Duty Act, 1958	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
325		Const. P. 8126/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Riaz Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
326		Suit 850/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Along with other connected Suits.	2020	Dewan Sugar Mills Limited (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-AUG-21	Yes	Selection for audit under section 25 of the Sales Tax Act and section 46 of the Federal Excise Act requires the giving of reasons.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
327		Const. P. 3786/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s Rajby Industries (Petitioner) VS Sajjad Ali And ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-19	Yes	The private respondents in these cases were gatekeepers and labours respectively and were terminated in terms of Section 12(3) of the Standing Order, 1968, thus it is not an industrial dispute which could empower the Commission to assume and exercise its jurisdiction in terms of Sections 54 and 57 of the IRA, 2012. Such provisions empowering the Commission in terms of Sections 54 and 57 of the IRA, 2012 were also in existence well before its promulgation and also while the provisions of IRO(xxiii) of1969 were in existence.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry	C.P.683-K/2019 M/s Rajby Industries v. Sajjad Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
328		Cr.J.A 631/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	JAWAD ALI S/O DEEDAR ALI (Appellant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-SEP-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Yousuf Ali Sayeed(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
329		Const. P. 1644/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Nawaz Murad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
330		Const. P. 1550/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Jalauddin (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
331		Const. P. 10/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Dr. Muhammad Nawaz Abbasi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
332		Const. P. 133/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Ghulam Parwar (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes	Out of turn promotion, deputation and OPS	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
333		Const. P. 442/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Abdul Qudoos (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
334		Const. P. 256/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Sajid Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
335		Const. P. 182/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.P.No.D-198 of 2021 [Qurban & another Ali vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P. No.D-435 of 2021 [Khalil Ahmed & anothervs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P. No.D-479 of 2021 [Mushtaque Ali & others vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P. No.D-509 of 2021 [Noorullah Dehraj vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P. No.D-534 of 2021 [Nazar Ali vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P. No.D-668 of 2021 [Gul Mir vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-769 of 2021 [Mst. Razia & another vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-845 of 2021 [Abdul Majeed vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-914 of 2021 [Pir Bux & others vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-1027 of 2021 [Ali Ahmed & another vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-1070 of 2021 [Ayaz Ali & others vs. SHO PS Punhan Khan Chandio & another] C.P No.D-1198 of 2021 [Ali Khan vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-1277 of 2021 [Mukhtiar Ali & another vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-1543 of 2021 [Behram Khan vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] C.P No.D-1556 of 2021 [Khurram Ali vs. Province of Sindh & Ors] -:2:- C.P No.D-182/2021 a/w connected petitions C.P No.D-1689 of 2021 [Muhammad Waris @ Suneel vs. Province of Sindh & Ors]	2021	Mevo Khan (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
336		Const. P. 2724/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Abdul Sattar Khanzada (Petitioner) VS Government of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
337		Const. P. 114/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: attached case ...... CP No. D- 1236 of 2014	2018	Ghulam Mohammad (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
338		Const. P. 335/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Shahid Hussain (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
339		Const. P. 688/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Imran (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
340		Const. P. 63/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Muhammad Amin & Others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
341		Suit 1256/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Eaton Phonenixtec MMPL Co., LTD (Plaintiff) VS Messrs. New Rabia Enterprises (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-NOV-22	Yes	Plea of equitable set-off in defense to Order XII Rule 6 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
342		Suit 891/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MST. FEHMIDA BEGUM (Plaintiff) VS MATI-UR-RAHMAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-SEP-22	Yes	Stranger to an arbitration award cannot file objections.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
343		Const. P. 240/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2017	Mazhar Ali Langah (Petitioner) VS Asad Ali Khoso & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-JAN-23	Yes	Territorial jurisdiction of Family Court is governed by Rule 6 of the Family Court Rules 1965, not by provisions of the Guardians and Wards Act 1890.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
344		II.A. 7/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2015	Mohammad Rafique Aghani (Appellant) VS Mohammad Ali Aghani and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-JAN-23	Yes	The requirement of Article 79 of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 is that if a document is required by law to be attested, it shall not be used as evidence until two attesting witnesses at least have been called for the purpose of proving its execution, if there be two attesting witnesses alive, and subject to the process of the Court and capable of giving evidence. There is a proviso for a registered document, but that is not relevant for the present purposes	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
345		R.A (Civil Revision) 46/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	EDO Roads Kashmore @ Kandhkot & others (Applicant) VS Abdul Hafeez Chachar & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-JAN-23	Yes	The courts can mould the relief within the scope of the provisions of Order VII, Rule 7 of the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ("C.P.C."), and are empowered to grant such relief as the justice may demand in the facts and circumstances of the case.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
346		Suit 224/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	ABDUL QAYUM KHAN (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL AZIZ KHAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	01-MAR-24	Yes	Mistake of Court. Court-Sale set-aside under inherit powers.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
347		Const. P. 6912/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	UBL (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	11-AUG-23	Yes	Bank account of customer debited with the forged cheque. Bank held liable to reimburse customer.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Ahmed Ali M. Shaikh, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
348		Suit 645/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MST.SHABANA HANIF (Plaintiff) VS M/S.NEW CHALI TRADE CENTRE (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-NOV-23	Yes	Section 13(3) SBCO, 1979. Interpretation of. Regulation 5-1.22 KBTPR, 2002. Section 22(1) of Limitation Act, 1908. Time runs from date of joinder application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
349		E.P 25/2024 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Usman Ghani s/o Yaqoob Hingoro (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-NOV-24	Yes	Restoration of Election Petition, allowed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
350		Const. P. 4657/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Ubaidullah Qazi (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	04-SEP-24	Yes	Absorption contrary to section 11A Civil Servants Act. Writ issued.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arbab Ali Hakro