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 Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui 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		Civil Revision 69/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Muhammad Sharif, thr:L.Rs: (Applicant) VS Abdul Razak, thr:L.Rs.and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-JAN-19	Yes	The applicant claimed to be in possession of the subject property, however, he was unable to demonstrate as to how he came in possession. The agreement is absolutely silent as far as delivery of possession is concerned. His brother was a lessee of the land in question, however, the lease expired in the year 1997 and the possession of his brother is neither in pursuance of the sale agreement nor could he be deemed to be in possession as a lessee after the sad demise of his brother. His only defence was that he was given possession of the suit land in part performance of the agreement which has not come out of the evidence and the agreement. His own witnesses denied his version as there was no decision being taken as far as possession is concerned at the time of alleged agreement. In fact, the record and proceedings were called and original agreement was perused. It reflects a contrary view about possession which is to be delivered at the time of the registration of sale deed, hence, the evidence of the applicants is not confidence inspiring.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.175-K/2019 Muhammafd Sharif thr. his L.Rs & others v. Abdul Razak thr. his L.Rs & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
2		Cr.Rev 57/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Paltoo Khan Rajput (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-JAN-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
3		Const. P. 949/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Zainal Abden Sarki (Petitioner) VS SHO PS Civil Line Jacobabad and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-JAN-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
4	2014 SBLR Sindh 495	Const. P. 518/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Amir Aslam Shaikh & ohters (Petitioner) VS COurt of IV th Rent Controller & ohters (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JUL-13	Yes	the jurisdiction vested in it was not exercised fairly justly and in fact the findings of the learned Rent Controller has completely shut down the plea raised by the petitioners/tenants wherein it is alleged by tenants that in terms of section 18 the default claimed is to be regulated by section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and despite the fact that 30 days period was provided under section 18 to tender the rent, the tenants/petitioners can still avail the rights guaranteed to them in terms of proviso to section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, provided that they have fulfilled the conditions laid down therein. The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for respondent No.3 are not relevant to the present case. They relate to the issue of interlocutory orders regarding which no appeal lies, however, in the instant case issue is totally different wherein the learned Rent Controller has not performed and exercised the jurisdiction, as required.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui	C.A.200-K/2013 Muhammad Nadeem v. Aamir Aslam Shaikh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
5		Suit 815/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MUHAMMAD SHAHNAWAZ & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS K.E.S.C & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	25-APR-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
6		Suit 40/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Technova Enterprises (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Sohail Tayyab Ali & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	29-JUN-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
7		Suit.B 78/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Haji Abdul Razzak (Plaintiff) VS Faisal Bank Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-FEB-17	Yes	Prima facie it seems that the MCB has filed Suit No.1674 of 1997 only for recovery of US $.51,066,208/-. Both counsel have also relied upon pleadings of Suit No.1674 of 1997 As far as this particular amount i.e. US $.26 Million is concerned, for which all rights claimed to have been transferred to M/s Al-Faisal Investment Bank Limited, MCB from its pleadings has shown no interest and it is only in pursuit of its claim of recovery that this amount was sought to be attached and it is on consideration of above facts and circumstances that this amount of US dollars was ordered to be released subject to execution of guarantee in terms as stated in the order of the Honble Supreme Court. After execution of the guarantee Al-Faisal Investment Bank got payments of US $.21 Million on 09.03.1998 and of US $.5 Million on 11.03.1998.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
8		Const. P. 3188/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Abdul Shakoor Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Habib Bank Ltd & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-DEC-12	Yes	Obviously the respondent which is a public limited company has to streamline performance appraisal and development and to provide mechanism for evaluating employees to facilitate ranking of individuals according to their respective performance. Such appraisal of the employee could ultimately become the basis of distinction between performers and nonperformers, hence the arguments of the learned Counsel for the petitioner that such amendment is discriminatory, malafide and does not provide a right to defend is not sustainable. Impugned amendment clearly stipulates action only in the event that a member of regular staff of the Bank receive two (02) consecutive appraisals which are below average/below par.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
9		H.C.A 236/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Member(LU) Board Revenue & Ors. (Appellant) VS K.P.T. Officer Coop.Housing Socy & Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-SEP-13	Yes	The compromise entered into between the parties is one which is beyond mechanism and mandate which enabled the Government of Sindh to have transferred the land in question and the learned single Judge ought to have considered aforesaid aspects before allowing the compromise application as prayed. I	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.2191/2013 The Trustees of Port of Karachi v. The Member (Land Utilization) BOR, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
10		Suit 302/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	FatimaFert Limited (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-17	Yes	Thus, it is unanimous view that an order of suspension of the operation of the judgment and decree or leave granting order would not operate to have a binding effect on other parties; it could operate inter parties since the operation of the judgment and decree was suspended in a particular suit/appeal with reference to particular party.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
11		Suit 2282/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Ghazi Anwar Kerio & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-FEB-16	Yes	The plaintiff has approached this Court when he was already terminated and while granting the relief of the nature as claimed would amount to granting a decree as this is the main relief sought by the plaintiff. As admitted, the plaintiff is at the verge of retirement and hence the relief of the nature as to the reinstatement at this interlocutory stage as such would create a different situation. The listed application thus is dismissed with the above observation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
12	2018 CLD 1305	M.A. 317/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2003	Shezan Services (Pvt) Limited (Appellant) VS Shezan Bakers & Confectioners (Pvt) Ltd (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-MAY-18	Yes	The interpretation of subsection 2 of Section 10 of Trademark Act, 1940, in view of the above, cannot be restricted to a simple concurrent use irrespective of any agreement. Use of trademark under the agreement is not only permissive use but conclusive rights were being delegated and hence the use is concurrent to the use of the inventor. The subject use thus would come within honest concurrent use under the circumstances described in the agreement. It is inconceivable that the appellant would enjoy the consideration of a rental premises if the right of trademark is excluded. Certainly the consideration was for a particular territory i.e. Lahore division which was taken care of by the Registrar	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.57-K/2018 Shezan Services (Pvt) Ltd v. Shezan Bakers & Confectioners (Pvt) Ltd and another,C.P.838-K/2018 Shezan Services (Pvt) Ltd v. Shezan Bakers & Confectioners (Pvt) Ltd and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Allowed,Disposed Leave Granted
13		R.A (Civil Revision) 180/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	Province of Sindh & Ors (Applicant) VS Syed Murad Ali Shah (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-JAN-18	Yes	Appellant may have lost the remedy of appeal but not their rights as to the entitlement over the subject land, as they claimed, and they may pursue actions and/or approach revenue forum to get the title clear, in case it is so desired, which may be considered and decided in accordance with law and the exparte finding may not come in the way of such judicial proceedings which shall be in accordance with law. This is a case where the provincial government shall also initiate proceedings against the officials who were responsible for not contesting the case on merit or who may be in collusion with the respondents and shall submit report to this Court within three months. States interest and/or the revenue interest is to be jealously guarded and more importantly when some officials appeared to have acted negligently and carelessly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.585-K/2018 Syed Murad Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh and others,C.A.137-K/2019 Syed Murad Ali Shah v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed,Disposed
14		Const. P. 654/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	Chaudhary Iqbal Hussain (Petitioner) VS Dr. Ehtesham Naseerul Haque & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.5180/2017 Chaudhry Iqbal Hussain (decd) thr. LRS v. Dr. Ehtaesham Naseerul Haque & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
15	2018 PLD Sindh 251	M.A. 39/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Liaquat Ali (Appellant) VS Mst. Huma Faiz and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	08-JAN-18	Yes	Succession Certificate could have been granted only in respect of assets left by the deceased either in favour of widow or any of the brothers of deceased as deem fit and proper and the purpose of granting succession certificate was the distribution of assets amongst the legal heirs, which is not the case here at least for these financial heads which does not form assets of deceased. --Widow being nominee is entitled for such funds i.e. provident fund, gratuity, group insurance, welfare funds and benevolent fund without having any recourse of obtaining any succession certificate.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.28-K/2018 Liaquat Ali v. Mst: Huma Faiz and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
16		II.A. 30/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Mrs. Naseem Akhtar (Appellant) VS Mst. Rehana Nihal & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	11-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui	C.A.1-K/2018 Mrs. Naseem Akhtar v. Mst: Rehana Nihal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
17		I. A 139/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2003	Muhammad Ayoub (Appellant) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.88-K/2017 Haji Baig Ali thr. his L.Rs and others v. WAPDA and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
18		I. A 23/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Munawar Ali & others (Appellant) VS H B L & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
19		Const. P. 1182/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Habib Bank Limited (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Yameen and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.721-K/2018 Habib Bank Limited v. Muhammad Yameen and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
20	2019 YLR 574, 2019 SBLR Sindh 856	M.A. 10/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Aurora Broadcasting Services (Pvt) Ltd (Appellant) VS PEMRA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	23-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
21		Const. P. 940/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Abdul Aziz (Petitioner) VS Dr. Nizamuddin Ghori and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
22		II.A. 7/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Muhammad Haroon and others (Appellant) VS V/S Qaimkhani Welfare Society and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
23		Civil Revision 170/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Taj Muhammad (Applicant) VS Allah Din & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-MAR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
24		Const. P. 2012/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Abdul Faheem (Petitioner) VS P.O. Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
25		Conf.Case 15/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Irfan Ali (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
26		Conf.Case 14/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Fouji Imam Ali (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
27		Const. P. 8908/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	M/s Pakistan Television Crop Ltd (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Habib Ahmed and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-FEB-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon	C.P.2836/2021 M/s Pakistan Television Corporation Limited thr. Muhammad Atif, Senior Personnel Officer, Karachi v. Muhammad Habib Ahmed Khan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
28		II.A. 6/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Muhammad Haroon and others (Appellant) VS Qaimkhani Welfare Society and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.247-K/2020 Muhammad Haroon and others v. Qaimkhani Welfare Society Registered and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
29	2022 PTD 634, 2021 SBLR Sindh 2408	Const. P. 8642/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Govind Ram (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakitan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-SEP-21	Yes	The powers primarily were exercised under Section 176(1)(b) of Income Tax Ordinance, whereas investigation undertaken in terms of Section 9(1) of Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010 by the investigating officer could commence, provided that the investigating officer acted, not later than seven days from the date of order of attachment made under sub-section (1) of section 8 or, seizure of property under section 14 or section 15, on service of a notice of thirty days on the person concerned which may also be an assessee, however, no such pre-qualification exists. We are therefore, of the view that unexplained amount which came in and went out of the account, could be inquired about and an explanation could be sought but until and unless an explanation is forwarded by the assesse to the dissatisfaction of the officer concerned, it is inconceivable at the said premature stage that it was laundered money which is defined under Anti-Money Laundering Act, 2010. Any amount which is not accounted or not considered as taxable amount not necessarily be the laundered money having meaning under AMLA-2010.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
30	2022 PTD 168	Const. P. 3682/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Samad Pipe Ind (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	01-OCT-21	Yes	Re-validation notice of bank guarantee was issued after a year of provisional assessment and unless final assessment or determination is made and placed for consideration, this re-validation notice of bank guarantee would be of no consequence i.e. even if it is revalidated there cannot be a question of its (bank guarantees) encashment on account of lapse of time for determining the duties and taxes finally in terms of Section 81 of Customs Act, 1969, as it prevailed at the relevant time. -- Had it been a case of final determination or final assessment, there was no occasion of releasing of consignment on securing differential amount through bank guarantee. The department should have asked for entire amount as being determined finally. This being the core issue, no satisfactory explanation was forwarded by respondents counsel for not complying with the requirements of Section 81 of the Customs Act, 1969.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.1676-K/2021 The Collector of Customs & another v. M/s. Samad Pipe Industries (Pvt) Ltd. & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
31	2021 SBLR Sindh 2413	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 913/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Parkash Lal (Applicant) VS Deputy Collector of Customs & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-SEP-21	Yes	Critical examination of ibid provision reveals that there are no consequential effects provided under Section 194-B of Customs Act, 1969 to a decision beyond 60 days time or within such extended period, as the Tribunal may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, fix. The word shall alone cannot demonstrate the mandatory test of the provision. What is more essential is the consequences and further test such as penal action, if prescribed. In the absence of such consequences or penal action the word shall alone cannot be construed as the time frame being mandatory when the Tribunal itself has been given authority to extend the period as deemed fit by it.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
32	2020 SBLR Sindh 279	Suit 860/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	M/S. WALLSTREET EXCHANGE (PVT) LTD. (Plaintiff) VS WAQAS SABIR CHIPA & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-APR-14	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
33	2014 CLC 1714	Suit 169/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	ABDUL REHMAN KHAN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE CORP. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	10-FEB-14	Yes	In my view under the present facts and circumstances where a circular has been challenged which involves a common question of fact and since involves common grounds, it certainly involve common question of law as such is covered by Order 1 Rule 1 CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
34	2017 SBLR Sindh 2173	Judicial Companies Misc. 9/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	South Asia Geophysical Services (SAGeo) (Applicant) VS New Horizon Exploration & Production Ltd. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	04-JAN-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
35	2021 MLD 1905	Const. P. 971/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Habib Bank Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Mst. Neelofar Awan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	05-MAY-21	Yes	In view of above I am of the view that tentative rent order should have been complied and for the period of March and April, the tenant/petitioner could have asked for adjustment of half of the rent but this was only possible after compliance and not after defiance. The rent of May/June 2020 was alsonot deposited in time. I do not find any portion of the order to be unlawful and hence the principle that since some portion of the order is not lawful, entire order is to be set aside, is not applicable here.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
36		Const. P. 1333/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Rukhsana Zaffar & Ors (Petitioner) VS Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
37		Suit 378/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	M/s. Emocon Engineering (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Exterran and another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	25-JAN-16	Yes	The nature and scope of Act XVII of 2011 is such that the discretion, as available in Section 34 of the Arbitration Act, 1940, is not available. A party to an arbitration agreement against whom legal proceedings have been brought and in respect of a matter which is covered by the arbitration agreement, may upon notice to the either party to the proceedings, apply to the Court in which the proceedings have been brought, to stay the proceedings insofar as the subject matter is concerned unless the arbitration agreement is claimed to be null and void or any part is incapable of being performed, which is not the case here as in terms of Para 27 of plaint the plaintiff himself seeks application of the subject agreement in letter and spirit, which includes the arbitration clause.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
38		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
39		Const. P. 2695/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Syed Muhammad S/o Muhammad Anwar (Petitioner) VS Noorullah & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	08-APR-21	Yes	-The petitioner while making such statement of alleged purchase has not realized the burden he took over. There is a marked difference in the probative value of entering into possession for the first time as tenant, and continuing in possession with claim of change in its nomenclature. Where occupant claiming his continuous possession as other than original character, it is expected that some trustworthy evidence in furtherance of his subsequently claimed character would be shown, failing whereof his admitted character would concur (Reliance2). -This PT-1 was then followed by another PT-1, which is claimed by the respondent No.1. This PT-1 then followed by notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. While recovering taxes in terms of the gross annual rental value, as assessed by authority under ibid Act, constructive possession of the respondent No.1 had been identified and regulated. It may not constitute the ownership but it does authorize the one who was found in constructive possession, to regulate his possession as required under the law. This was thus a jura possession recognized by Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act and rules framed thereunder of 1958. Thus having constructive jura possession with reference to property in question, an authoritative recognition in the shape of PT-1 was issued. -This PT-1 would enable the respondent No.1 to deal with his possession as deem fit and proper under the law. It is not in dispute that respondent No.1 was and is responsible for payment of annual gross rental value and it is not in dispute that in terms of Section 14 of Sindh Urban Immovable Property Tax Act, 1958, the tax recoverable from any person on account of any building or land, if found in arrears, it shall be lawful for the proscribed authority to serve upon any person paying rent in respect of that building or land or any part thereof to the person from whom the arrears are due, a notice for the recovery of such taxes may be issued to the tenants or one from whom such taxes are required in terms of PT-1. It also enables the authority that if a person willfully fails or neglects to comply with the notice, the authority may after giving him an opportunity of being heard proceed against him as it could have proceeded under the provisions of this act against the defaulter of the tax. -Thus, in my view this PT-1 authorizes respondent No.1 to deal with this property as deem fit and proper and a lawful notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was issued to the petitioner to apprise him about the current situation as to the change of PT-1 and authority of new landlord.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.573-K/2021 Syed Muhammad v. Noorullah & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of [ Four months time granted ]
40		Suit.B 124/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	NATIONAL BANK OF PAKSITAN (Plaintiff) VS FATEH TEXTILE MILLS LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-FEB-17	Yes	The presumption of truth cannot be said to be attached to a statement of account, which is not certified as required under Act 1891. Computer generated accounts may not have required attestation under Act 1891 for any other issue but not for considering the claim of the plaintiff as true and correct. Indeed such statement could be believed to be true in case it is ratified as above and on the assumption/confirmation that it is certified by the relevant officers concerned. Even in a computer generated statement, the statistics/figures are being fed by the accountants. These accountants were previously used to prepare ledger/accounts books through their own hands/manually hence the presumption of truth in relation to both the statements could only be said to be attached in case they are certified, as required under the law. --It is a settled principle of law that in case of conflict between special laws and general laws, special laws prevail. ----It is quite surprising that despite the judgment of Honble Supreme Court, whereby the appointment of the President of the plaintiff bank was held to be unconstitutional, the Power of Attorney executed by such alleged president was continued to be implemented/ acted upon. This act of the plaintiff bank is not only contemptuous but also unlawful and illegal in view of the fact that the principal ceased to exist the moment the judgment was rendered by the Honble Supreme Court insofar as the appointment of the president of the plaintiff bank is concerned	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
41		Suit.B 33/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Plaintiff) VS REFEH ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-SEP-16	Yes	The only thing to be seen is as to whether in the statement of account any additional amount towards markup or any other charges are being claimed. Learned counsel for the plaintiff in that regard has taken me to the entries in the statement of accounts to show that it is only the debit and credit entries in relation to the two finance agreements that are being considered.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
42	2016 YLR 748	Suit 164/1996 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1996	LT.CDR.MIRZA MANSOOR HUSSAIN (Plaintiff) VS S.MUHAMMAD FAHEEM (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-SEP-15	Yes	I am of the view that though the defendants No.3 & 4 have not opted to issue public notice before purchase of property however it would be difficult to assume that it was done in bad faith, particularly when the record of the DHA shows the alleged entitlement of defendant No.2 to sale. Off course the defendants No.3 & 4 could not have traced the forgery as now come on surface. More importantly the defendants No.3 and 4 still are in occupation of the premises in question and raised construction at the relevant time. Had there been an iota of fraud they would have got away in these six years i.e. from 1990 to 1996. Since public notice is not considered as a legal requirement it cannot be stretched down to the wire that it was in fact in bad faith. Therefore, it cannot contribute towards mala fide which could cast any shadow on his bona fide. Hence, I am of the view that the issue No.4A is decided in affirmative that the defendant is a bona fide purchaser without notice. The plaintiff is however entitled to claim damages, which are to be calculated according to the market value of the subject plot.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
43		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
44		Const. P. 6452/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ghulam Rasool Bhagat (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-DEC-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
45	2021 PLC (CS) 1304	H.C.A 108/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Professor Dr. Lubna Ansari Baig (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-JUL-21	Yes	--we are only of the view that once an earlier injunctive order was passed, a follow up order to carry the real object of the earlier order should have been passed. Presumably, earlier order was passed after a tentative assessment of well-known principle of granting injunction. Learned Single Judge would have been empowered to revisit and decide the applications finally, based on three ingredients, referred above, but not in a cursory manner and that too after passing adverse remarks. --This selection of observation by the learned Single Judge has perhaps overlapped and overshadowed the earlier order and the mandate and without actually the applications being heard and decided. The cursory proceeding normally leads to miscarriage of justice and cumulative effect of the impugned order render it as confounded and in variance.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
46	2017 MLD 249	J.M 37/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	M/s. Drug Regulatery Agency (Applicant) VS Zam Zam Corporation & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-APR-16	Yes	If the provisions of Section 12(2) CPC are allowed to facilitate a stranger to the suit whose rights have not been affected by the outcome, the provisions are not available for the applicant as otherwise it would open the floodgate of litigation for initiating the proceedings. The application under section 12(2) CPC filed by Saeed Allahwala appears to be misconceived. He may have remedy available with him to initiate proceedings in relation to the warning letter issued but by moving this application he could achieve nothing in this regard.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
47	2018 SBLR Sindh 245	Suit 2257/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Al-Hamd Associates. (Plaintiff) VS Sohail Nawab. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-MAY-17	Yes	The plaintiff in this matter has fairly invoked the jurisdiction of this Court in pursuance of the arbitration clause and not for any other remedy which may include reinstatement or declaration that it was unlawfully cancelled. --In the instant case the plaintiff is not seeking any injunctive relief and instead chose to file this application under section 20 of the Arbitration Act for referring this dispute of alleged termination. Whether or not it is lawful on the part of the licensor to terminate is not for this Court to comment.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
48	2022 PTD 363	Const. P. 6544/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s Drive Line Motor Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Othes (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-NOV-21	Yes	Since section 138 deals with the frustrated cargo and Rule 86 has defined what frustrated cargo would be. It is thus one which will brought into customs station by reason of inadvertence or misdirection or where consignee is untraceable or has dishonoured his commitments and the consignor wishes to have it re-shipped to him. Since the consignee has refused or dishonored his commitments, the consignor immediately acted upon by moving an application for re-export on 17.04.2018 and that is exercised under Rule 88 of the ibid Rules. There was no occasion for the Collector of Customs to have avoided or discarded the application of the consigner for the re-export of the vehicle as it was and is within the definition of frustrated cargo and permission ought to have been followed in terms of Rule 89 on Collector being satisfied which he should under the relevant circumstances of the case as in our view the vehicle came out as a frustrated cargo.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
49		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 447/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Collector of Customs MCC (Applicant) VS Fareed Ahmed Shager & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-OCT-21	Yes	The initial burden is on the department, which has to be discharged in the light of registration book which carries all presumption to its genuineness and more important when copies of such documents were sent to customs department. In the absence of any record of the excise department at the time when the subject vehicle was transferred in favour of the respondents, no question arises out of the proceedings to cast any doubt over the bona fide transfer of the vehicle and hence no interference is required as far as impugned decision is concerned. The proposed questions, though not arises out of the Tribunals order, yet are deliberated upon to avoid any element of they (respondents) being condemned unheard	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
50	2022 PLD Sindh 47	Civil Ref. 2/2018 (F.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Assistant Chief Inspector of Stamps (Appellant) VS .. (Respondent)	F.B.	Judgement	16-NOV-21	Yes	The Court had itself observed that the valuation done by the family Court was for a particular purpose and since it was not a decree of a Court the valuation so carried out was not binding. And then the Court went on to observe that even if there is a decree of the Court, the stamp duty would be payable as per Valuation Table. Though on facts the said judgment is not relevant; nonetheless, since it has been cited before this Full Bench, therefore, we are compelled to hold that we do not approve such observations made by the Division Bench in the aforesaid paragraph. Had it been in performance of decree, an instrument is being registered, it ought to be on the basis of value determined in the decree and/or agreement entered into for which performance is to be made in terms of Court decree. In such situation there was no occasion for altering/undervaluing the property to avoid stamp duty as the value is already determined by Court of law or decree. It is only in case when the property has changed its status lawfully i.e. from a built-up property to an open plot or from a semi-constructed property to a fully constructed property, the value of the property may be altered in instrument sought to be registered. Thus, when the property sold out on the basis of a decree, which decree has valued the property in question, then the right of valuing the property does not rest with the vendor and vendee and/or the concerned authority. H	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Junaid Ghaffar
51	2022 PTD 205, 2022 PTCL 400	Const. P. 8297/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Louis Dreyfus Co. Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS F.B.R & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-NOV-21	Yes	the goods which have already been subjected to sales tax under the previous regime and were in stock by 30.6.2019 and to be supplied after the effected date of the standard regime would be subjected to input tax adjustment under standard regime to save the goods from double / increased incidence of tax. Several sectors have been accommodated by the FBR such as steel sector, oil and ghee sector etc., but specifically the bulk importers of edible oil were not given this fair opportunity to maintain equality. Thus STGO No.105/2019 in its true spirit be applied in the case of the petitioner in relation to a stock for which stock report has been filed in terms of FBRs letter dated 09.7.2019. The manual returns thus filed in terms of the orders of this Court shall be taken into consideration in view of the above, wherein adjustment of the stock, as mentioned above is claimed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author)
52	2022 PTD 984, 2022 SBLR Sindh 1536	Const. P. 5791/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Zona Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	10-JAN-22	Yes	There is no space of interpretation provided by petitioners in relation of Foreign Exchange Manual read with Section 154 of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001. Similarly, there is no applicability of extra territorial operation for giving effect to Article 141 of the Constitution. Hence we conclude accordingly. The doctrine of occupied field would also not come into play as we are of the view that Entry 49 of Federal Legislative List, as structured after 18th Amendment, empowers the province to legislate on the subject under consideration. The legislative powers defined under Articles141, 142 and 143 of the Constitution have not been violated while encompassing services rendered by indenters to be within the frame of SSTA 2011 and find its place within exclusion defined in Entry 49 of Federal Legislative List of Fourth Schedule of Constitution.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.917/2022 Zona Pakistan (Private) Limited Karachi v. Province of Sindh, through the Secretary, Karachi and others,C.A.4024/2022 Zona Pakistan (Private) Limited Karachi v. Province of Sindh, through the Chief Secretary, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted, CMA Notice, Relist with connected appeals after vacations at Islamabad,Disposed Disposed of
53	2018 CLC Note 82	M.A. 31/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Independent Media Corp. Pvt (Appellant) VS PEMRA & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
54	2018 YLR 2337	Const. P. 160/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Muhammad Younus (Petitioner) VS VIIth A.D.J Karachi (South) & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	05-DEC-17	Yes	Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979)--- ----S. 15--- Ejectment application---Commercial premises---Bona fide personal need of landlord---Scope---Prerogative of landlord to supplement portion(s) of rented premises--- Scope--- Petitioners/ tenants contended that landlords were continually evicting the tenants of subject property at their will and whim and ground floor alone of multi-storeyed subject premises was sufficient to run their small scale industry---Landlords/ company contended that as ground floor had no frontage so whole subject building was needed for viable functioning of their company---Validity---Admittedly, subject property was commercial premises so bona fide need of the landlords for such property was to be seen on the touchstone of test different from that of residential rented premises---Record revealed that landlords in the evidence of one ejectment proceedings stated that their initially occupied ground floor had no frontage but in the cross-examination of proceedings of other ejectment petition, main gate as entrance on the rear side of ground floor was admitted---When the prerogative of landlords was left to their desire when the ground floor was acquired, in order to acquire more space some confidence inspiring evidence was required---Prerogative, choice and whims could not be the only tool left to judge the bona fides of the landlords at later attempts when they failed to explain insufficiency of earlier portion---Landlords made no attempt to show any progress of their company which was hampered due to mere insufficiency of space---Memorandum and Articles of Association of the company/landlords was silent as to running of factory as its object---High Court observed that there were no aims and objects of the company enabling the landlords to evict tenants for the purpose of establishing industrial unit " for its own"---Bona fides, in circumstances, became missing ingredient to evict tenants on the ground of personal requirement---High Court set aside impugned judgments passed by the two Courts below, resultantly the ejectment applications were dismissed---Constitutional petitions were allowed accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
55	2015 CLC 1278	Execution 64/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Decree Holder) VS SULTAN ALI AKHANI (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Judgement	05-MAR-15	Yes	"Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) --- ----S. 47 & O. XXI, R. 23-A---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 14---Application for making award as rule of court---Consent decree---Execution petition---Objections---Contention of decree holders was that objections to execution petition could not be considered unless judgment debtor had deposited the decretal amount or furnished security in lieu thereof---Validity---Validity of decree could only be challenged before the Executing Court if the same was void or had been passed by the court having no jurisdiction---Provisions of O.XXI, R.23-A, C.P.C. were mandatory and objections to the execution by a judgment debtor could not be considered unless judgment debtor had deposited the decretal amount or furnished security in lieu thereof---Executing Court could not go beyond the decree---Judgment debtor could not escape from his obligation under the decree---Requirement of notice and hearing were duly complied with at the time of trial---Executing Court could not be burdened with re-trial---Compromise decree was in fact a contract, breach of which might give rise to fresh cause of action to decree holder---Decree was neither void nor it had been passed by a Court having no jurisdiction---Objections to execution application taken by the judgment debtor were over-ruled, in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
56		Const. P. 41/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Janta devi (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-DEC-20	Yes	Son Quota	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
57	2023 CLC 2119	Suit 2933/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL CONTAINER TERMIANL LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-MAR-23	Yes	Plaintiff is in no position to succeed on the strength of investment made by him as it was on Build Operate and Transfer (BOT) basis. Plaintiff build and operated it for 21 years and now it stands transferred at the conclusion of Agreement.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
58		Judicial Companies Misc. 2/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Industrias Cannon de Colombia S.A (Applicant) VS Olympia Spinning & Weaving Mills Ltd (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-AUG-16	Yes	The claim of the petitioner itself is yet to be ascertained on the touchstone of Article 51 and Section 19 of the Limitation Act which summarily cannot be decided here. Even in the case of Halla Spinning Mills the observation of the Honble Supreme Court was that efforts should be made by the judicial forums to adopt such device so that the project may continue running commercially and its financial liabilities starts reducing gradually. --The statutory notice of demand under clause (a) of subsection (1) of Section 306 of the Companies ordinance is in relation to a debt claimed by the petitioner which as observed is to be ascertained and is also subjected to a limitation clause and hence such statutory notice would also loses its strength when not only the claim is bonafidely disputed but is also subjected to the Limitation Act, which in this particular case appears to be a mixed question of law and facts.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
59	2015 PLD Sindh 261	Suit 1003/1979 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1979	AL-AHRAM BUILDERS LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS P.D.O.H.A. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-OCT-14	Yes	"(a) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Specific performance of agreement---Indoor management, doctrine of---Applicability---In terms of doctrine of indoor management, plaintiff cannot be made to suffer for any deficiency on the part of defendant to follow informal procedure internally adopted by it. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129---Two presumptions---Applicability---Where there are two presumptions and both are equally claimed to be balanced, court must yield for one which best accords with facts. (c) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 129 (g)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os.XI & XVI---Withholding of evidence---Presumption, raising of---Principle---In order to raise presumption under Art.129(g) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, it is not necessary to follow procedure of giving notice for production of documents under O.XI, C.P.C. or to summon documents under O. XVI, C.P.C. (d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.12---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.114---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Agreement---Proof---Estoppel, principle of---Applicability---Claim of plaintiff was that earlier suit was withdrawn subject to conditions mentioned under letter dated 17-6-1974---Plea raised by defendant society was that the letter in question was result of fraud---Validity---Plaintiff, as per its plaint had unequivocally accepted offer contained in letter in question and further withdrew proceedings initiated by it---Although details of earlier suit filed by plaintiff did not come on record during evidence but such averment had been reaffirmed by plaintiff's witness in his deposition---Nothing was on record from the side of defendant to controvert such assertion of plaintiff and defendant was estopped in law from turning its back and resiling from commitment made through letter dated 17-6-1974---Defendant invited offers for transfer of plot in question in response thereto plaintiff submitted offers and the same were accepted by Managing Committee of defendant society and unconditional offer was communicated to plaintiff without any reservation---Such was an unqualified acceptance and constituted valid contract for transfer of subject property by defendant to plaintiff---Defendant failed to point out any illegality or irregularity in allotment made in favour of plaintiff, therefore, it could not cancel the same---Suit was decreed in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
60		Judicial Companies Misc. 12/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Patek (Private) Limited and another (Applicant) VS . (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-MAY-16	Yes	It is contended by the learned Counsel for the petitioner that the scheme of arrangement is such that the petitioner No.1 is being demerged and one part of it is being amalgamated and merged with petitioner No.2. Scheme is available as annexure-E. In terms of the order dated 23.9.2015 such petitioners were allowed to hold separate meetings with their shareholders including the directors and the Chairman was directed to submit report accordingly. The report has been filed subsequently and in pursuance of this merger petition SECP has filed its parawsie comments/objections which are substantially dealt with one by one.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
61		Judicial Companies Misc. 29/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Amir Bux Channa & Another through Attorney (Applicant) VS Isra Islamic Foundation (Guarantee) Limited. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-JAN-23	Yes	Perhaps the Act would define role of Chancellor and Vice Chancellor and before reaching to such conclusion I am of the view that all such affairs, as ordered as interim measure, referred above, shall continue and Nazir shall continue to disburse salaries of employees of Isra University accordingly in terms of list already available with him (Nazir) including payment towards utilities and/or any other lawful routine expenses likely to be incurred.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
62	2023 CLD 454	Judicial Companies Misc. 44/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Shafi Tanneries (Pvt) Ltd & (2) Others (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	17-FEB-23	Yes	This petition under section 279 read with Section 280 to 283 and 285(8) of Companies Act, 2017 pertains to demerger of specific undertakings of petitioners No.1 and 2 in petitioner No.3.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
63	2023 MLD 1131	Suit 1294/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/S KARACHI CABLE SERVICES (PVT) LTD. & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-SEP-22	Yes	Even if there was a jurisdictional error with regard to action initiated by PEMRA authority it had to be objected and/or resisted before the concerned authority whereas to my grasp, it is not a jurisdictional error	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
64	2023 CLD 426	Judicial Companies Misc. 45/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	ASSOCIATED CONSULTING ENGINEERS ACE LtD & 4 OTHERS (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-FEB-23	Yes	The Scheme of Arrangement/Demerger Undertaking in view of understanding of the members/directors is to redesign and restructure the companies to promote the business avenues and apparently not against the public interest or violation of law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
65	2023 CLC 1422	Suit 116/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	GUNVOR SINGAPORE PTE LTD (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN LNG LIMITED & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	13-FEB-23	Yes	Procurement of LNG is a complexed but well settled process in international market. It has a limited and defined market and limited suppliers with a constant pressure of fluctuating market prices. The suppliers are never seen at losses and at times poll in windfall gains because of fluctuating market and this is how the system works. Realistically they (LNG supplier) do not end up in losses, unless a senseless decision is made. Pakistan like many other countries has a limited capacity to dock/store and transport LNG. ----The bid bond is an entirely independent contract to the bidding document and is enforced on the basis of the terms indicated in the bid bond. Bid term's validity and enforcement were not discharged on the Gunvor not being declared the most advantageous bidder on the opening of bid but endured itself for the entire period during which the bid remained valid i.e. up to 11.01.2021.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
66		Suit 2841/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	ALI ADNAN ARIF TABBA (Plaintiff) VS NADRA & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-SEP-22	Yes	In the absence of any substantial relief being matured, no consequential relief could be claimed, be that damages. Neither any jurisdictional error was highlighted nor the plaintiffs case is within the frame of such jurisdictional error hence plaintiffs case could not be isolated on such count alone.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
67		Suit 622/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	FAUZIA SAID KHAN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS SHAIZA SAID KHAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-AUG-22	Yes	in the absence of any challenge to the declaration of gift executed by deceased himself during his life time along with signed transfer deeds, it is a futile attempt to grant any such injunction of the nature as argued, and not even prayed. No doubt the application itself has prayed for an order that the defendants be restrained from selling, transferring, disposing off or gifting in any manner, way or form the property, undertakings and assets of the company other than in accordance with law, which do not call for orders as prayed for on the strength of the shareholding of the company, which has not been disputed in the application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
68	2024 MLD 387	Suit 2020/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/S FORTUNE FOUR LLP (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-MAR-23	Yes	Buying property on "as is where is basis" does not conclude that it was purchased with this understanding that there is no right of way from the northern side (Jinnah Avenue). The right of way was only objected by Civil Aviation Authority much later, but that has not been justified by the Civil Aviation Authority at this interlocutory stage and mere objection alone is not enough when the title of 1994 and 1996, prior to it being mortgaged with the Bank of Khyber identified the metes and bounds.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
69		Const. P. 7225/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Yousuf Master (Petitioner) VS A.D.J IV (Central) & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-NOV-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.L.A.4396/2022 UMAR TEXTILES thr. its Authorized Representative Mr. Muhammad Iqbal v. The Province of Sindh thr. Secretary Excise & Taxation Department, Sindh, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
70		I.T.R.A 973/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Commissioner (Legal Division) (Applicant) VS State Life Insurance Corp. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	31-MAR-23	Yes	Section 65 of 1979 Ordinance, which is in relation to additional assessment, provides that no proceedings thereunder i.e. subsection (1) of Section 65 shall be initiated unless definite information has come into the possession of (Deputy Commissioner) and he has obtained a previous approval of the Inspecting (Additional Commissioner) of the Income Tax in writing to do so. Subsection (3) of Section 65 further reiterated that notice under subsection (1) in respect of any income year may be issued within ten years of assessment year in which total income of the said year was first assessable.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
71		Const. P. 4317/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonement Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
72		Const. P. 946/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Muhammad Aslam Bajwa (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
73		Const. P. 2797/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mir AKbar Askani (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
74		Const. P. 6821/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Securpring (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
75		Civil Tran 28/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Mst. Sana (Applicant) VS Muhammad Nasrullah Hussain (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
76		I. A 127/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Mst Khursheed Begum & Ors (Appellant) VS NIB Bank Ltd & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-FEB-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
77		Const. P. 131/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Saleem Butt (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
78		I. A 120/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Faysal Bank Limited (Appellant) VS Masood Asghar & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-JAN-24	Yes	Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (???FIO 2001???) is a special law and covers all proceedings upto execution. In the previous law that is Act of 1997, it enabled the Court to convert the proceedings into execution application on preferring an application whereas the frame of instant law is different as can be seen in terms of Section 19 of the FIO 2001. It provides that upon announcement of Judgment and decree the suit shall automatically convert into execution application. Thus no sooner the Judgment and Decree is passed the proceedings stand converted into execution application and the act does not provide a way to file a fresh execution application, as inadvertently did by the appellant. At the most, since an appeal was pending before this Court and the machinery of execution was not triggered, the application that was inadvertently moved as an execution application could at the most be considered for triggering machinery of the Banking Court where the suit was decreed and converted into execution application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
79		Const. P. 1531/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Platinum Petroleum Service (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.P.3421/2023 Platinum Petroleum Service, Hyderabad v. Province of Sindh through Secretary Irrigation department Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
80		Const. P. 652/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Aftab Sattar Khan (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
81		Const. P. 7261/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Azhar Iqbal Faruqui (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
82		R.A (Civil Revision) 34/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Wikiyo (Applicant) VS Mst. Aami and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	16-AUG-23	Yes	The succession to the estate of a Muslim under Muhammadan Law is open only at the time of his/her death and legal heirs alive at such time could be entitled to inherit his/her estate. It is only Section 4 of the Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 which intervened with prospective effect. Thus the legal heirs of a predeceased son in the instant case were never devolved of any share or could not draw title by inheriting estate of his grandfather/ great grandfather under Muhammadan Law	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
83		Const. P. 4306/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.232/2024 Karachi Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Karachi v. State Life Insurance Corporation of Pakistan, through its Attorney, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
84		H.C.A 242/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Dadabhoy Foundation & another (Appellant) VS K. B. C. A. & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-DEC-23	Yes	The order passed in JM has not given a license to carry on construction in violation of status quo order. In fact it restrained the parties from raising construction. Even the permission claimed from Sindh Building Control Authority is of no avail in presence of status quo order and the matter being subjudice.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
85		Const. P. 3532/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Gul Naz (Petitioner) VS Faisal Canotnment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
86		Const. P. 435/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Ashique Husain Gorchani (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
87		Const. P. 3532/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Saeedullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Clifton Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
88		Const. P. 7832/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Hashim and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
89		Const. P. 8341/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Shahida Salam (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
90	2012 PLD Sindh 449, 2012 SBLR 1411	Suit 1512/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	MOBIN RAFIQUE & OTHER (Plaintiff) VS RASHID AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	26-JUN-12	Yes	The reasons that I have highlighted the occasions and circumstances ibid where a Receiver could be appointed is because I have gone through the entire affidavit filed in support of the application for appointment of Receiver and in none of the paragraphs the apprehension that the property would be wasted or it is in danger of being wasted was shown. The affidavit discloses that both the business concerns were in control, custody and possession of the defendants No.1 to 3 since the death of father i.e. 2005. It is also mentioned that the profits and income received from these business concerns were being collected and consumed and retained by defendants No.1 to 3 without sharing the same with the plaintiffs or other legal heirs. It has also been disclosed that the defendants are trying to sell the property in question, of course they mean the movable property (as immovable property is on rent) and they urged that they are entitled for their share out of the business income. However, they have not disclosed a single ground whereby this Court could exercise and invoke powers to appoint Receiver. Admittedly the business was being run by defendants No.1, 2 and 3 since 2005 and for reasons mentioned above it is sufficient to hold that the solvent grounds which could attract the provisions of Order XL rule 1 CPC are not available though apparently it seems that the plaintiffs rights and interests as far as their share in the business is concerned is being denied but certainly this alone is not sufficient to invoke the powers under Order XL rule 1 CPC which is a very harsh remedy which is to be used sparingly. The plaintiffs here alleges only exclusion and not waste or malversation. Even apprehension of mismanagement or misappropriation alone would not be sufficient to call for appointment of a Receiver, which is not the case of the plaintiffs	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
91	2016 CLC Note 10	Suit 549/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	MOBEEN RAZA and another (Appellant) VS M/S. ALLOO & MINOCHER DINSHAW (Appellant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-14	Yes	Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S. 42---Suit for negative declaration seeking only the disentitlement of defendants in suit property---Maintainability---Interpretation of S.42, Specific Relief Act, 1877---Plaintiff sought declaration to the effect that the defendants had no interest in the suit property and were not entitled to sell or dispose of, the same---Question before the High Court was whether plaintiffs could seek such negative declaration in relation to the disentitlement of the defendants without claiming in ownership , interest or legal character for themselves in relation to the suit property ---Held, that plaintiffs had not sought relief in respect of property in question for themselves, nor any legal character had been attributed to suit property, hence no entitlement in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877 was available to the plaintiffs---Plaintiffs had sought declaration to the effect that defendants had no locus standi or right in relation to the suit property; however such prayer would not entitle the plaintiffs to file suit for declaration when they were not claiming any interest, title or legal character in the property, and especially when defendants had established their interest in the property by placing a registered sale deed---Suit for negative declaration was only maintainable in certain exceptional cases---When a plaintiff demonstrated some interest in the property to which some legal sanctity could be attached only then plaintiffs could seek some legal character in terms of S.42 of the Specific Relief Act, 1877---Suit for declaration, in the present case, sought declaration to the disentitlement of the defendants, and was not maintainable---Suit was dismissed, accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
92	2013 CLD 550	Const. P. 734/2008 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	M/s Sardar Mohammad Ashraf (Petitioner) VS National Bank of Pakistan & ORS (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-NOV-12	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
93		Cr.Bail 547/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Muhammad Khan Brohi and an other (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-JAN-13	Yes	injury in terms of the FIR was apparently caused by accused Gulzar who is stated to have used K.K with intention to commit murder of Amjad. Such report is also silent as far as other injury which allegedly caused by the lathi blows are concerned. The enmity that has been shown between Kalhoro and Brohi community is also vigorously pleaded and such can not be ruled out. As such the applicant has made out a case of further inquiry.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
94	2013 CLD 1922	Spl.H.C.A 98/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Irfan Nawab (Appellant) VS Soneri Bank (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-MAY-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
95		J.M 4/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Anant Kumar Parshtam Kanabar (Applicant) VS Swami Narain Temple Estate Trust & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-NOV-13	Yes	Upshot of the above discussion is that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that he is a necessary and property to be joined in the suit proceedings, which could be contemplated as fraud and misrepresentation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
96	2016 PLC (CS) 1219	Suit 739/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Safdar Anjum & Others (Plaintiff) VS P.I.A. Corporation (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-APR-16	Yes	"Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Employees (Service and Discipline) Regulations, 1985--- ----Reglns. 78 & 79---Employees of Pakistan International Airlines Corporation---Audio tapes instigating the employees to observe strike---Dispensing with regular inquiry---Non-providing of material to be used against the employees---Effect---Audio tapes---Prerequisites for admissibility and evidentiary value---Personal hearing of such employee---Requirements---Corporation ordered for dispensing with regular inquiry against the employees but no material/information was communicated to them on the basis of which inquiry was dispensed with---Validity---No material on the basis of which inquiry was dispensed with was communicated to the employees---Show-cause notice was silent as to the nature of material and information claimed to be in the custody and possession of authority---Impugned order to dispense with regular inquiry was devoid of judicious application of mind---Anyone in the authority who had decided to dispense with holding of an inquiry had rendered himself/herself an unfit person to conduct further proceedings of personal hearing---Dispensation order could only be passed once the material was shown and shared with the accused employee whose reply and response should become a basis of such decision---Authority or person giving personal hearing should not rely on personal knowledge and information as in that case the essence of impartiality would be lost---Person who recorded alleged audio tape conversation should be material witness and without he being confronted with the accusation such conversation should not be used as an evidence against him---Competent authority could dispense with inquiry if facts and circumstances of the case so warranted---Such Authority should not sit with prejudice mind that they had already dispensed with the inquiry and had made their mind---Substantial right of inquiry could not be snatched from the employees without hearing them---Impugned show cause notice of hearing was bad in law as it was without reasoning and same did not contain the material to be used against the employees---Competent authority was bound to record reasons in writing for dispensing with holding of inquiry---Audio tape recording could be admitted in evidence if it was produced in evidence by its maker---Prerequisites for admissibility of tape recording as evidence were that accuracy of recording had to be proved; voice recorded to be properly identified and court must consider the genuineness of the tape before it was accepted---No one should decide cases on the basis of personal knowledge as in that case he would become party to the proceedings---Competent authority should sit with judicious mind and impartially listen to the defence and response of the employees---Corporation was directed to provide all the material available which it felt sufficient to dispense with holding of inquiry---Employees should be provided reasonable opportunity which might not in any case exceed one week for filing of reply which should be considered at the time of hearing for passing appropriate orders---Employees would be entitled for all the benefits as they were receiving earlier till they continued to be employees of the Corporation."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
97		Const. P. 2839/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Azeem (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and otehrs (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	19-JAN-21	Yes	recruitment process of Head Master/Head Mistress in BPS-17 and their participation in SPSC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
98		Const. P. 1123/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Shaikh Sultan Ahmed S/o Abdul Khalique (Petitioner) VS Iftikharuddin Paracha & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.706-K/2018 Sh. Sultan Ahmed v. Itfikharuddin Paracha and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution as well as on merit.
99		Const. P. 2148/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mst. Shahana W/o Muhammad Ali Siddiqui (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Ovais & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.318-K/2018 Mst: Shahana v. Muhammad Ovais and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
100		M.A. 47/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s. Labbaik Pvt Ltd (Appellant) VS PEMRA & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	26-JUN-18	Yes	hese folds, as unfolded, could only reveal contravention on the part of the Ministry of Interior and not on the part of appellant. Security clearance no doubt is inevitable but under the present set of facts Council of Complaints would not come in picture. Rule 7(d) of Rules 2009 without any ambiguity provides a right to PEMRA to ascertain the credibility and track record of the management and the majority shareholding and management control and so also in terms of Rule 7(e) read with Rule 9(5) of 2009 Rules at inception, whereas 30(d) caters for subsequent change. It however does not include the scope of Council of Complaints in terms of Section 30(d) of the Ordinance 2002 as prima facie it relates to issues between Ministry of Interior and PEMRA.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1506/2017 PEMRA thr. Secretary to Authority, Islamabad v. M/s Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd. and others,C.A.1568/2017 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) thr. Secretary to Authority v. M/s Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd and others,C.P.1689/2017 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) thr. Secretary to Authority v. M/s Labbaik (Pvt.) Ltd and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of as having been Fructified,Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded
101		Const. P. 3841/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Ranjho (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-MAR-19	Yes	The petitioner has every right to pursue his remedy against it, which he failed. The amount paid to the father could never be considered as the dower amount paid to the bride and that she was liable to return at the time of dissolution of marriage by way of khulla. Even the ring as mentioned in the nikahnama was refused / declined to have been received by her and no confidence inspiring evidence was recorded by the defendant to believe that version. In this constitution petition such deeper re-appraisal of evidence is not within the domain of this Court when two efficacious remedies i.e. trial Court and appellate Court were exhausted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
102	2019 SBLR Sindh 1212	R.A (Civil Revision) 108/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Shoukat Ali Solangi & others (Applicant) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-APR-19	Yes	The jurisdiction of a Civil Court cannot be completely ousted against the officials on account of any colourful exercise of powers. The mandatory test is to be seen by consequential provisions. The jurisdiction to be exercised by these officials should strictly be within the four corners of the statue and not otherwise. In case it is so pleaded, it needs probe and unless such questions are dealt with accordingly after an enquiry and probe, plaint cannot be summarily rejected as has been done in this case. I am not commenting about the merit of the case which may go either way, but it is the manner in which a plaint was dealt with.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
103		Const. P. 1429/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Shahnawaz Dehraj (Petitioner) VS P O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-APR-19	Yes	In defence, all that has been argued was that his father was only a covering candidate and has not secured even a single vote as the candidature was withdrawn. This is no reason to defend above misconduct and misuse of authority that since he was only a covering candidate and has not secured even a single vote, therefore, a sympathetic view should be taken against him. Success of a candidate to whom the incumbent Chairman was supporting is not a condition precedent as far as violation or misuse of office or authority is concerned. It is the active participation, influence and publicity which activated the authority concerned to remind him of his duty which ultimately ended up as a notification, whereby the petitioner was rescinded. There was no material in defence available nor even pleaded. He admitted his presence at the time of submitting nomination papers. He admitted his presence at some of the occasions where the candidate delivered speeches in a corner meeting and also his photographs in huge panaflex, signboards, hoardings, etc. and the only reason of his availability and pictures, panaflex, hoardings and publicity boards was to influence public at large and misuse of his office.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput
104	2020 YLR 132	E.P 19/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Jam Saifullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-APR-19	Yes	Section 144(4) of the Election Act provides that an Election Petition and its annexure shall be signed by the petitioner and the petition shall be verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 for the verification of the pleadings. This clearly overcomes the earlier provision of Section 55(3) of ROPA which provides that every election petition and schedule or annexure to the petition shall be signed by the petitioner and verified in the manner laid down in the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Thus, it is no longer required under present enactment that the annexures are to be verified as was the requirement earlier under ROPA. As far as the signatures on the annexures/schedule are concerned, the record shows that perhaps on an objection raised by the office it was complied with.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
105		E.P 13/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Mir Ghalib Hussain Khan Domki (Petitioner) VS Abdul Raoof Khoso & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-APR-19	Yes	It is thus a case which is not seriously contested by petitioner and even the officials around/against whom the story revolve were not summoned or examined by the petitioner to prove his assertion vis-??-vis corrupt and illegal practices. Thus in the absence of any material in support of petitioners case or contrary to the order of Sukkur Tribunal whereby nomination papers of returned candidate were accepted, the nomination papers of the returned candidate cannot be invalidated as this Commission is not an appellate authority of an earlier Sukkur Tribunal constituted to scrutinize the nomination papers of the candidates under the law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
106		Const. P. 1680/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mrs. Tahmina Amir Khumbati & Another (Petitioner) VS Akbar Ali & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	25-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.876-K/2018 Mrs: Tehmina Amir Khambati and another v. Akbar Ali (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
107		Const. P. 126/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Yousuf Thr. Dr. Muhammad Naqi (Petitioner) VS Shamsuddin & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.61-K/2018 Shamsuddin v. Muhammad Yousuf and others,C.P.621-K/2018 Shamsuddin v. Muhammad Yousuf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
108		Const. P. 1992/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Mujeeb ur Rehman and others (Petitioner) VS S.M Javaid Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.602-K/2017 Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and others v. S.M. Javaid Ahmed and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed - 3 Months time allowed.
109		Const. P. 100/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2019	Tanzeem Fikr o Nazar Sindh (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro	C.P.351/2019 Tanzeem Fikr-o-Nazar Sindh thr. its President Asghar, Sukkur v. Province of Sindh thr. Secretary Local Government, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
110		Civil Revision 84/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	1997	Allah Bux Khan and others (Applicant) VS Iqbal Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-FEB-19	Yes	An attempt was made by the applicant / defendant while cross examining the plaintiffs witness to establish a case but nothing came out of the cross-examination as not even material questions were suggested. All assertions on oath almost went unrebutted. The share of Ahmed Khan and the mutation in the record in favour of his two sons was never challenged either in the shape of evidence / witnesses or cross-examination. Further the transactions in the shape of sale deeds by his two sons and then by subsequent buyer Deedar Ahmed Khan in favour of plaintiff / respondent also remained unchallenged along with revenue entries. The judgment and decree, which was referred by the applicant / defendant in the written statement, remained a discussion only to the extent of pleadings as the same was never unearthed. The said judgment, thus, has not seen the light of the day as far as record of this case goes. On the basis of these long standing entries in the revenue record and/or documents no adverse presumption could be attached in the absence of any challenged to them.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.359-K/2019 Allah Bux Khan (decd) thr. his L.Rs v. Iqbal Ahmed (decd) thr. his L.Rs,C.A.11-K/2022 Allah Bux Khan (decd) thr. his L.Rs v. Iqbal Ahmed (decd) thr. his L.Rs Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed
111		Civil Revision 17/2003 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2003	Mst.Aisha Kazi and others (Applicant) VS Anwar Ahmed (died),through his L.Rs. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-FEB-19	Yes	The registration of a document does not help in proving the contents of the document. This burden is to be discharged separately under the Evidence Act, 1872 and/or the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984. Mere alleged registration does not prove the contents of the instrument. The quantum of evidence to establish a testamentary paper must always depend upon the circumstances of each case. Burden to prove execution lies on those propounding a Will to affirm positively execution of the Will. Opposite side should not be burdened with onus to prove that Will had not been executed or that it was a forged one.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
112		Const. P. 1387/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Aslam Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Mst. Ambreen Sadiq and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	23-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
113		E.P 3/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Saifullah Abro (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	26-NOV-18	Yes	ection 55(3) of the RoPA, 1976 to the extent of verification and signing of the schedule or annexure is peri materia to Section 144(4) of the Elections Act, 2017, however, this relevant provision is to be adjudged and tested along with the rules framed under the Elections Act, 2017. Previously, there were no such rules except (Conduct of Election) Rules, 1977 which catered the process of election (pre-election process). Rule 140 offers that every petition shall be processed by the Tribunal and in case the petition is found deficient of laid down procedure, the petitioner shall be informed accordingly, indicating the deficiency/ies in the petition, directing him to fulfill the same within seven (07) days of the receipt of communication from the Tribunal, failing which the petition is liable to be dismissed by the Tribunal. The moot question thus is whether Rule 140 has any application to Sections 142, 143 and 144 of the Elections Act, 2017.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
114		Const. P. 6546/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Bheru Lal (Petitioner) VS PTCL and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-OCT-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
115		Const. P. 1335/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Muhammad Rizwan and another (Petitioner) VS Shahid Ali and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio	C.P.13-K/2019 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Finance Deptt: Govt.of Sindh and another v. Muhammad Rizwan and others,C.A.1193/2019 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Finance Deptt: Govt.of Sindh and another v. Muhammad Rizwan and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation,Disposed
116	2019 SBLR Sindh 896	II.A. 54/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Zafar Aziz Osmani (Appellant) VS Lt. Col.(R) M. Yousuf Satti & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.4212/2018 Muhammad Gulistan Khan v. Zafar Aziz Osmani & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
117		Const. P. 1358/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ismail Ibrahim S/o Ibrahim Jamal (Petitioner) VS Kashif Muhammad Baig & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.80-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Ismail Ibrahim and others,C.P.1097-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Ismail Ibrahim and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted
118		Const. P. 2088/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Muhammad Rafique (Petitioner) VS Mst Haseena & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-18	Yes	Two things are admitted in the cross-examination of the petitioner / defendant No.1; first is that certain dowry articles were retained by him and that in the other set of evidence he stated that only golden ornaments were taken away by the plaintiff / respondent No.1 from the house. The first part insofar as above dowry articles are concerned, the same are admitted whereas for the other dowry articles i.e. golden ornaments, the burden was on defendant / petitioner to establish that she (respondent No.1) took away all of them.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
119	2019 YLR 2500, 2019 SBLR Sindh 1096	Const. P. 922/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Capri Autos (Petitioner) VS Dr. Masuma Hasan & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.907-K/2018 Dr. Masuma Hasan v. Capri Autos Motor Cycle Dealer and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
120		Cr.J.A 119/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Suhbat (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
121		I. A 92/2002 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2002	Sirajuddin Sikandar (Appellant) VS L.A.O.and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-AUG-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.35-K/2020 Commandant Indus Rangers Headquarters v. Sirajuddin Sikandar & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
122	2023 PLC (CS) 1133	Const. P. 139/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Nadeem Zuberi (Petitioner) VS C.A.A (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	04-FEB-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon	C.P.1156/2021 Civil Aviation Authority, Karachi v. Nadeem Zuberi,C.A.445/2021 Civil Aviation Authority, Karachi v. Nadeem Zuberi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted.impugned judgement is suspended.to be fixed after 3 months,Disposed Dismissed
123		Criminal Appeal 43/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Naveed (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
124	2017 PLD Sindh 567	J.M OGRA 1/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Sui Southern Gas Company (Applicant) VS Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-NOV-16	Yes	The jurisdiction under section 12(2) of Ordinance 2002 is limited to the extent that this Court could only apply judicial view as to whether the procedural requirement as required under Ordinance 2002, Rules and the Licenses have been followed. This Court cannot sit as a Court of appeal and consider those details which the OGRA has undertaken. This Court is neither concerned with the policy nor with the rates. The price fixation mechanism is not a function which is to be undertaken by this Court, off course to the extent where the procedural requirements have been flouted, the Court may provide indulgence. In the given frame this Court has minutely seen all such procedural requirements which were undertaken and considered by the regulatory authority. These specialized performances which are assigned to regulatory authority could hardly be undertaken by this Court in exercise of their judicial discretion. Judicial intervention in the instant matter is required only where the person aggrieved i.e. SSGCL could show that the tariff fixation is a procedure bypassed, arbitrary and ultra vires. It could only then if the statutorily prescribed procedure is not followed, a tariff could be held ultra vires to be remanded back.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1066/2016 The Oil & Gas Regulatory Authority (OGRA) thr. its Chairman, Islamabad v. Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd (SSGC), Karchi & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
125		Const. P. 2616/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	M/s Sea King Shipping (Petitioner) VS Asstt: Collector of Custom and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-SEP-21	Yes	Section 202 of Customs Act, 1969 does not extend its arms against a clearing agent acting in good faith without any collusion or negligence to cause financial loss to national exchequer. As observed, neither a show-cause was issued nor the assessment order declared such terms of recovery to be made against clearing agent. In fact the importer failed to substantiate his declared value in terms of Section 25 of the Customs Act, 1969 read with Rule 109 of the Customs Rules, 2001. The declared value may have varied with the advice of Director General Customs Valuation however, the connivance of clearing agent to cause losses to national exchequer is missing. Not all such Goods declarations be categorized as false or untrue statement and hence require a burden to be discharged by customs officials, if such is attributed separately against importer and clearing agent. Not necessarily a declared value, which is objected by the customs officials be always considered to be a willful act of causing losses to national exchequer in terms of duties and taxes, however, a mechanism is provided to levy duties and taxes in terms of transactional value i.e. price actually paid or payable for the goods under section 25 of Customs Act, 1969 when sold for export from Pakistan, subject to provisos therein	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
126	2022 PTD 59	Const. P. 4188/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s Panjgour Goods Transport and Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-OCT-21	Yes	The proposition whether the events, as disclosed in the respective seizure reports of all three references followed by show cause notices and passing of Order-in-Originals, could be distinguished from the frame of SRO 499(I)/2009 as far as owners plea is concerned. Preamble (b) of the aforesaid SRO provides that the option shall not be given to pay fine in lieu of confiscation in respect of a vehicle which is defined as good/goods in terms of sub-clause (b) of the said preamble. Thus, a lawfully registered vehicle/conveyance, having packages and containers inside, found carrying smuggled goods, in false cavities or were being used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offended goods under clause (s) of Section 2 of Customs Act, 1969 becomes a subject matter of such offence. This clause (b) has emphasized that a vehicle or conveyance used exclusively or wholly for transportation of offended goods cannot be distinguished from the one having packages and containers inside as such conveyance having packages and containers are inclusive of such definition of vehicle/conveyance.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
127	2024 YLR 16	Const. P. 2068/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Gulistan Textiles Mills Limited (Petitioner) VS VIIIth ADJ Karachi South & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	25-MAY-21	Yes	- Similarly, a presumptive view in respect of overall inflation and rate of taxes cannot be applied. The maintenance claimed to have been made/done by the landlord/respondent and in support thereof they have filed some accounts and debit vouchers but it pertains to a period w.e.f. March 2007onward. How these debit vouchers and maintenance bills are being applied to entire building and on what calculation and basis its ratio in terms of facilities provided to the premises is being applied, is inconceivable on the strength of the evidence available on record. Floor-wise true calculation is not provided. The presumptive analysis thus is beyond the domain and jurisdiction of the Rent Controller. The statistics in terms of inflation and maintenance charges should have been provided in statement recorded on oath and only then it could have been taken into consideration by the appellate Court. Filing plethora of documents disclosing them as debit vouchers in respect of maintaining the entire building is inconceivable. Statistics showing percentage of taxation over the building in question as well as maintenance as to be applied to entire building and has to be established statistically and not generally. Such data was not provided to Rent Controller. Taxation and maintenance are differently applied on ground floor and upper floors. - Similarly in presence of lease deeds of the same building between same landlord and tenant or between same landlord and other tenants, the reliance/applicability of rent or fair rent of other buildings in the adjoining locality should not have been applied as a priority, wherein respect of which direct evidence is available. When a building is operated by lifts there is not a serious degree of difference between second and third floor of the same building where premises are situated. - Though the Rent Controller while determining fair rent of the premises in question has taken a very conservative view by fixing fair rent at Rs.10/-per sq. foot, yet I am of the view that fair rent fixed by the appellate Court is on higher side. The Rent Controller and appellate Court were required to provide a cumulative effect of all those factors available under section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 subject to availability of evidence though the quantum of inflation and the enhancement of taxation has not been statistically provided in terms of applicability of such claim/charges per sq. foot yet the other factors may contribute for the determination of fair rent. - The rise in cost of construction has also not been demonstrated statistically. It is only presumptive analysis that cost of construction rises with the passage of time, however, the witness is required to provide data of such rise in cost of construction through his affidavit or any expert witness. It is a difficult assignment but the requirement of law. This burden could be relieved had appropriate lease deeds of same building or of adjoining building having similar facilities could be cited in evidence. - Section 8(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 enables the Rent Controller to revise such fair rent on account of changes/ additions brought or improving the premises in question which is not the case here. Similarly, there cannot be an automatic enhancement at the rate of 10% per annum on the fair rent in terms of Section 9 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. It provides a maximum cap of 10% per annum on the existing fair rent and not an automatic enhancement to its maximum. Such enhancement at any particular rate, which in any case should not be 10% per annum, is dependent on certain factors which were not decided in the application under section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979. Besides, there was no prayer for such enhancement under section 9 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1490-K/2021 Gulistan Textile Mills Limited v. The Learned VIIIth Addl.District Judge, South at Karachi. & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
128	2022 PTD 8	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 424/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Collector of Customs MCC (Applicant) VS Syed Javed Ahmed & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-SEP-21	Yes	The Tribunal has also laid reliance on Rule 17 of the Baggage Rules, 2006 which provides that the goods brought in commercial quantity shall be allowed release only on payment of duty and taxes at the statutory rates and redemption fine equal to thirty per cent of the value of the goods in terms of the Notification No.SRO 547(1)/2005 dated 06th June, 2005 wherein fine was subsequently reduced by a following SRO in 2009. Thus in view of the definition of Section 2(s) of the Customs Act, 1969 the commercial quantity of silver jewelry does not fall in any prohibition or restriction clause unless proved otherwise. The SRO 499(1)/2009 also allow commercial quantity baggage to be released on taxes or redemption fine. In view of Section 139 of the Customs Act, 1969 we are of the view that the passenger was at liberty to declare such contents of his baggage orally which he did as disclosed in the impugned order and such facts cannot be re-appreciated while hearing reference	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
129		Suit.B 37/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	BANK ISLAMI PAKISTAN LTD (Plaintiff) VS FATANI IMPEX (PVT) LTD (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-MAR-16	Yes	Insofar as circular of the State Bank of Pakistan, as relied upon by defendant No.5, is concerned, it only caters for a situation where such personal guarantee for minor shareholder was not obtained. It is not the situation here where a minor shareholder of the company is insisted upon to submit a personal guarantee. As a partner/director he stood guarantor and such personal guarantee is available on record which is continued to be enforced. Hence, I do not consider the arguments of learned counsel for the defendant No.5 sufficient for the grant of leave as by raising such arguments, no substantial question of law and fact has been raised.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
130	2022 PLC (CS) 69	Const. P. 3893/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Shabana Haider (Petitioner) VS Fed of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-NOV-19	Yes	The right of withdrawal of the resignation was available as long as the resignation was not accepted. This gained strength when sub-clause (v) is read along with this proposition. It provides that in case an employee withdraws the resignation before its acceptance, the resignation shall be deemed to have been withdrawn. This is not the case here. The resignation was accepted on 08.02.2016 whereas the request for withdrawal of the resignation was made on 26.02.2016, on the imaginary ground that 30 days' notice period was yet to expire. In this context we may observe that notice period has nothing to do with the acceptance of resignation. On acceptance of resignation all that is essential for an employee is to complete the notice period i.e. to serve the Commission in case the employee had opted to give one month notice. The employee could have opted to pay salary in lieu thereof but that is not the case here.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
131	2020 PLC CS Note 26	Const. P. 4527/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Dr. Muhammad Aslam and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-DEC-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
132	2020 SBLR Sindh 1735	Suit 1222/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Forte Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Petroleum Ltd. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-FEB-17	Yes	-The contract in question contains specific terms in relation to any default of the plaintiff including but not limited to late delivery of the goods. It is also an admitted fact that on account of late deliveries of certain goods, in pursuance of such clauses relating to late deliveries the defendant No.1 had already deducted liquidated damages from the subject bills/invoice. Hence, once such late delivery charges have been recovered/deducted, the encashment of subject guarantee in relation to same issue is a debatable issue. It amounts to collecting liquidated damages twice over the same alleged default and can be termed as vexing the plaintiff twice which is also hit by Section 74 of the Contract Act. Therefore, any attempt to collect further amount on the basis of same default would tantamount to be in violation of Section 74 of the Contract Act which prima facie prohibits compensation/penalty in excess of any amount stipulated in the contract itself. --Insofar as second contention, which relates to complying with the terms and conditions of new obligations of the documents dated 09.10.2012 and performance guarantee dated 21.12.2010 is concerned, it only covers the obligation as contained in the purchase order dated 08.12.2010 and 13.12.2010 and any other subsequent amendment, novation, additional obligation, that may arise in relation to the project shall not be covered by the terms thereof. The ultimate paragraph of this performance guarantee is in support of above observation. Such recourse is deducible out of section 128 of the Contract Act, which allows the guarantee obligation to be limited by way of contract.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
133	2021 PTD 1955	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 239/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Lake View Forest (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-AUG-21	Yes	-The scheme of the Customs Act reveals that the subject is governed in terms of Section 25 of the Customs Act and in case it could not be determined under Section 25, then the recourse is available by applying valuation ruling if available in terms of Section 25-A whereafter it is finalized under the Customs Act, 1969. After the assessment and the release of the consignment, the goods are made out of any charge of the Customs. In case the aforesaid process is required to be revisited, (in appropriate cases), the mechanism is available under the law such as Section 32, 193 and 195 of the Customs Act, 1969. --The event of post scrutiny of the goods declaration after assessment and release of goods, is not covered by Section 80(3), as undertaken. It is applicable at the time of original checking of the goods declaration in his hands and goods are yet to be assessed and released and not at belated stage when even the goods have been released. This situation (for appropriate cases) is catered by Section 32, 193 and 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 where under a show cause and/or an appeal within 30 days could have been preferred, or the Board or the Collector of Customs or the Collector of Custom (Adjudication) may, within his jurisdiction, call for the examination of the records of any proceedings under the act for the purpose of satisfying itself as to the legality or propriety of any decision or order passed by a subordinate officer respectively, could have been followed, however, none of them were invoked. Surprisingly the applicant opt to invoke Section 80(3) of the Customs Act which is then shown to have been followed by consequences. It is thus under above referred provisions when the competent authority is of the view that the assessment was not made in accordance with law, the past and closed transaction could be reopened but not in the manner as done in the instant case. Prima-facie it is neither a case of mis-declaration as correct PCT was claimed by the consignee nor this is a case of mis-declaration in terms of its value declared, to make out a case under Section 32 of the Act. --- Without prejudice applicants case is that Section 80(3) of Act was rightly invoked under the given facts and circumstances. In the instant case, if at all, there was any illegality in the assessment of the goods, it could be attributed to the sub-ordinate officers of the Customs and hence the implication of Section 32 of the Customs Act, 1969 would not be attracted to penalize the respondent or their directors. The purported action by Customs was triggered under Section 80(3) of the Customs Act, 1969 does not have a legal cover in view of the goods being out of charge and the recourses which could have been made were under Section 32, 193 and 195 of the Customs Act, 1969 which were not directly invoked.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
134		Const. P. 1169/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Nusratullah Khan S/o Farhatullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Shahid Aslam & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-OCT-17	Yes	sale agreement does not reflect that he/petitioner was given possession in part performance of the agreement. The possession was to be handed over on payment of full sale consideration when he undertook to pay in installment. How then plea of handing over possession in part performance be accepted. The alleged payment towards initial sale consideration was also all in cash. He could have defended the application after complying the tentative rent order.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
135		Const. P. 885/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Nazia Munsif (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-DEC-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
136		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro
137		Const. P. 1152/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	M/s. Agfa Colour Services (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Additional District Judge-IV Karachi & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-DEC-17	Yes	The winter holidays would not be excluded from computing the period of limitation as the application to obtain certified copy of the order, in order to exclude the winter holidays, ought to have been filed on the day when the judgment was announced which may be a day before commencement of winter holidays	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
138		Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 455/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Commissioner Inland Revenue (Applicant) VS M/s. New Allied Electronics Industries (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-SEP-21	Yes	Under Customs Act, 1969, Section 79 onwards is a procedure which regulates the import through filing of Goods Declaration along with necessary documents including examination of imported goods and clearance thereof. Such mechanism was adopted and exhausted by the customs when goods declaration was dealt with. The purported allegation of misdeclaration was in fact within the domain and jurisdiction of Collectorate of Customs, which, in case of any controversy, could have retained the consignment/goods for further inquiry or chemical test and determine the duty provisionally till disposal of the inquiry or reassessment. This has not happened in the instant case as had it been a misdeclaration of the goods, the officers concerned may have taken cognizance and could have objected to the assessment in terms of Section 193 and 195 of Customs Act, 1969 read with Section 32 of the said Act. Sales Tax Act, 1990 does not deal with issue of misdeclaration as being dealt with by the customs officials under Customs Act, 1969. Therefore, unless a misdeclaration is established by the customs officials such recourse of recovery of short levy of sales tax could not have been triggered. The dispute of classification was never raised at customs level.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
139		II.A. 215/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Allah Bux S/o Muhammad Umer Baloch (Appellant) VS Shahnawaz and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-APR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
140		Const. P. 316/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Noman Butt S/o Iftikhar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS The Court of IIIrd ADJ, Karachi South and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-JAN-20	Yes	The petitioner cannot challenge the source wherefrom such golden ornaments were purchased, either by respondent No.3 or her father. All that is important for such controversy is that ornaments, which were given to respondent No.3, were retained by petitioner.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.273-K/2020 Noman Butt v. The Court of the Learned IIIrd Additional District Judge Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
141		Const. P. 1810/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Kamar Ali S/o Tahir Ali (Petitioner) VS VIth Sr.Civil Judge/Rent Controller Khi East & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-OCT-17	Yes	It appears that these petitions are against an interlocutory order passed on 21.07.2017 whereby the application of the petitioner in relation to framing of preliminary issues was dismissed. The law does not provide any room to file appeal/petition against an interlocutory order. By this tentative/interim order no right appears to have been taken away from the petitioners by rejecting an interlocutory application which could be subjected to petition under Article 199 of the Constitution of Pakistan	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
142		R.A (Civil Revision) 68/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mst. Naseem Kausar and others Thr. Junaid Safdar (Applicant) VS Sardar Abdul Rehman (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-APR-21	Yes	Reader and even for that matter court had no jurisdiction to extend time for filing leave application against statutory period and that too without any justified reason. By that time the service has already been effected at least by publication on 06.12.2020. In terms of Order XXXVII Rule 3, CPC, the leave to defend application is supposed to have been filed within the period prescribed therein.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.812-K/2021 Mst.Naseem Kausar & others v. Sardar Abdul Rehman & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
143		M.A. 24/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Rameez Dar S/o Liaquat Dar (Late) (Appellant) VS Learned IXth ADJ, Karachi (South) (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-APR-21	Yes	There is nothing on record to ascertain as to how learned Additional District Judge came up with the valuation of immovable property at Rs.1,50,00,000/-as schedule of property discloses it at Rs.10 Million. Unless otherwise evidence and material is available,such statement/schedule which is filed along with memo of petition should not have been discarded or ignored.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
144		Const. P. 418/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M Parvaiz Hayat (Petitioner) VS VII ADJ (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	21-FEB-18	Yes	In case the two tenements of same nature are allowed to be evicted under section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 it would be in defiance of a restriction in terms of subsection 2 of Section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 that he (landlord) is not in occupation of a building (or independent portion) owned by him in any locality. Once he (landlord) got possession of an independent portion of the building or a premises then he automatically ceased to be entitled under the said provision for a second shop. He may avail benefit under other provisions of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 for eviction of tenant but at least for the purposes of Section 14 Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 his remedy ceases when one portion of the building or an independent premises got vacated.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
145		Const. P. 6599/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	M/s Lucky Cement (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and ORs (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	20-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.21/2022 Lucky Cement Limited, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Revenue, Islamabad and another,C.A.318/2022 Lucky Cement Limited, Karachi v. Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Revenue Division, Chairman Federal Board of Revenue, Ministry of Finance and Revenue, Islamabad and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
146	2023 CLC 372	Suit 3084/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	SHARIF ULLAH KHAN (Plaintiff) VS PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORP. LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	10-JAN-22	Yes	In terms of Section 60/62 of the Easement Act it is not vested right of a licensee to enforce the terms of such agreement which in its present form only presents permissible rights i.e terms of agreement as stated therein which could be withdrawn, even without notice in case of a license. Hence in view of that, the plaintiffs right is not matured to enforce rest of the agreed obligation including the tenure of one year. In case the plaintiff is of the view that under the general law it has been unlawfully terminated without assigning any reason, they have already secured it by way of this suit in the shape of recovering damages.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
147	2022 PTD 779	Const. P. 5596/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s Zarif Khan Zai and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-DEC-21	Yes	Appendix "H" of Import Policy Order 2016 provides list of Pre-shipment Inspection Companies which includes M/s SGS whose certificate was provided by the respondent at the time of import. The Committee, allegedly constituted for compliance of Import Policy Order 2016, however considered the manufacturing year of the vehicle as 2006 on the basis of seatbelt, which perhaps is extraneous consideration; there is no serious challenge to the pre-shipment report of M/s SGS which is one of the preshipment inspection companies, as structured in Appendix "H" of Import Policy Order 2016. There has to be material of evidentiary value to form a different view than the one disclosed in M/s SGS certificate.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
148		Const. P. 975/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Muhammad Iqbal & Ors (Petitioner) VS Azhar Abbas Butt & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	09-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
149	2014 YLR 1273	Suit 1015/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Abdul Aziz. (Plaintiff) VS Shahid Ahmed and others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-JAN-14	Yes	"Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11, O. II, R. 2 & O. XXIII, R. 1---Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.91 & 113---Withdrawal of earlier suit---Filing of fresh suit---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Contention of defendants was that earlier suit was withdrawn unconditionally and plaintiff was precluded from filing fresh suit---Validity---Plaintiff had fresh cause of action to file the present suit---Earlier suit had been withdrawn under O.XXIII, Rule 1, C.P.C. but same would preclude the plaintiff to file fresh suit on the same cause of action---Cause of action to file the present suit commenced from the day when the alleged settlement between the parties was arrived at and compliance of same was denied---Plaintiff sought compliance of settlement arrived at between the parties at the time of withdrawal of earlier suit for which limitation period was three years---Article 91 of Limitation Act, 1908 would not apply in the present case as the facts entitling the plaintiff to file present suit commenced when public notice was issued---Present suit had been filed for enforcement of settlement arrived at in the earlier suit between the parties---Earlier suit was filed for declaration and cancellation of sale deed, however on account of settlement a fresh cause accrued to the plaintiff on denial of such settlement---Plaintiff had not relinquished any rights with regard to suit property---Application filed under O. VII, Rule 11, C.P.C. was dismissed accordingly. "	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
150	2020 SBLR Sindh 744	Const. P. 213/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	Burhan (Petitioner) VS Election Commisson Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
151		Judicial Companies Misc. 3/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Ali Husain Rajabali Limited (Applicant) VS Security & Exchange Commissioner of Pakistan (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-JAN-22	Yes	The company claimed to have been authorized under Article 6.4 of its Articles of Association to pass special resolution in this regard which it did subject to confirmation of this Court, as required under section 89 of Companies Act, 2017. The Extraordinary General Meeting (EGM) was carried out on 30.01.2020 after issuance of notices dated January 8, 2020 and on the recommendation of the Board of Directors the resolution was passed on 08.01.2020. The Board unanimously through a special resolution passed on 30.06.2020 in terms of Section 89 of the Companies Act, 2017 resolved that the paid up share capital of the company be reduced in terms of the above.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
152		R.A (Civil Revision) 70/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2006	Muhammad Amjad (Applicant) VS Shaikh Inamullah & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-APR-22	Yes	Since the applicant has failed to prove that the respondents No.1 & 2 had the knowledge of any sale transaction, the act of purchasing the property without public notice cannot be pressed into service to prove the mala fide of the respondents No.1 & 2. It could be a careless approach being less serious but not at par with mala fide / dishonesty. Hence specific performance cannot be enforced against subsequent buyer in view of facts of case. Similarly with respect to other issue which concerns with the willingness of applicant, which also on facts ended against applicants, no claim of any alternate relief of damages could be granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
153		Const. P. 1599/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Asif S/o Rasheed Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Mst. Nasreen Bano & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	24-MAY-18	Yes	as the case of personal requirement is concerned, there is nothing to challenge the personal bona fide need of the landlord. The defence that has now taken, at this stage, is that the premises are never owned by the respondent as it is the land of KMC and the respondent has no title. Even this defence as of now, is not available to the petitioner since the definition of landlord included the respondent who was receiving rent on the basis of rent agreement at the relevant time, which is named as Goodwill Agreement. The only relationship that could said to be in existence in pursuance of such agreement is of a landlady and tenant. In case the petitioner intends to challenge the title of the respondent, he could have handed-over the possession of the premises to the landlady first and then may challenge the title of the landlady if permissible under the law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
154		Const. P. 370/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Mst Bibi Naz Bibi (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-JAN-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
155	2023 PLD Sindh 400, 2022 SBLR Sindh 1938	H.C.A 192/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Muhammad Aqeel & Others (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-JUN-22	Yes	-----Learned Division Bench on the apprehension of the appellants and the counsel representing Board of Revenue, Government of Sindh that the private respondents will create third party interest as the construction was being raised regularly, granted an interim order that no further third party interest shall be created, however, nowhere the order suggests that the powers of learned Single Judge to pass any other injunctive order that may require in the interest of justice before or at the time of disposal of the injunction application, were also curtailed. This aspect of the argument of appellants cannot be termed as ratio of judgment. ------If the learned Single Judge was empowered to pass an order while deciding the injunction application finally, then the said judge equally enjoys the powers to pass interim or ad interim orders of the restraining nature, on the tentative assessment of claims, keeping the interest of the parties and to save interest of the litigants involved. Discretionary powers of the court are wide enough to foster the interest of justice and equity, as it demands.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
156		Suit 2273/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mst. Shehnaz Sultana (Plaintiff) VS Kamal Ahmed Qureshi & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	05-NOV-22	Yes	Indeed in our society women have been deprived of their due share in the property but the preponderance of evidence yield it other way as not only has she admitted to have received Rs.4 lacs as her share in the property but also admitted to have been maintained throughout her life by her brother/defendant No.1. No other sibling came to support her claim.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
157	2023 YLR 2101, 2022 SBLR Sindh 1037	Suit 1027/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Syed Qadir Dad Shah (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan International Airline Company (PIACL) (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	15-DEC-22	Yes	Undoubtedly the aircrew needs to be looked after by specially trained staff and for this reason such job training is inevitable. The normal take care of an employee (patient) of defendant No.1 are different from those who operate flights and there could be no two opinions about it. The officials of defendant No.1 may have awaken late in realizing their duties and it is they who could be blamed for earlier flight operations through untrained staff but the passengers cannot be left at the mercy of those who lacks such qualification/training, be it an "on job training"	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
158	2023 CLD 225	Judicial Companies Misc. 35/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	The Securities & Exchange Commissioner of Pakistan (Applicant) VS Natover Lease Reliance Ltd (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-OCT-22	Yes	Incorporation does not fully cast a veil over the personality of a limited company through which the courts cannot see. The courts can, and often do, pull off the mask. They look to see what really lies behind. A corporation will be looked upon as a legal entity as a general rule but when the notion of legal entity is used to defeat public convenience, justify wrong, protect fraud or defend crime the law will regard the corporation as an association of persons	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
159		Suit 2008/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	MST SAMIA QAZI (Plaintiff) VS THE PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-FEB-23	Yes	There cannot be parallel trial of same questions before two forums under doctrine of election. Once the questions raised by directorate and passed through appellate forum which decides the issues after hearing the appeal of plaintiffs, who opt to prefer an appeal, this original jurisdiction cannot be exhausted, not even as an Appellate authority against the decision of two forums including Appellate Authority created under the Sindh Coal Act, 2012 and the relevant Rules.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
160	2023 CLD 219, 2024 SBLR Sindh 166	Judicial Companies Misc. 2/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	DIN FARM PRODUCTS (PVT) LTD (Applicant) VS Security & Exchange Commissioner of Pakistan (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-SEP-22	Yes	Share Reduction Allowed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
161	2023 CLD 883	Judicial Companies Misc. 14/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Foundation Securities (Pvt) Limited & Another (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-MAR-23	Yes	In view of the above, it appears that the petitioners completed all necessary legal formalities, including holding separate meetings of shareholders and creditors, requisite publication and issuance of notices to the Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan. In terms of meetings of the shareholders reports of which meetings are available on record, not a single shareholder of any of the two petitioners objected to the scheme	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
162	2023 PTD 1415	Const. P. 4446/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Hascol Petroleum Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-APR-23	Yes	Like Letter of Credits, which essentially establishes the intent and commercial transaction the presence of vessel at high seas has to be seen within the same frame i.e. it is there for petitioners and such has not been established via vessels Bill of Lading or private contracts as they are easily getable	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.680-K/2023 HASCOL Petroleum Limited & another v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary (Revenue Division) Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Re-List
163		Suit 2037/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Natasha Malik (Plaintiff) VS Naeem Malik & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	10-MAY-23	Yes	As per Article 128 of the |Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984 the only person competent to dispute the parentage of the plaintiff would be her putative father (and that too only if the father had refused to own the child from the outset). However, defendants No.1 and 2 contend that Article 128 is only applicable to cases where illegitimacy is being contended and not to cases of adoption. The approach of our superior courts in response to Article 128 covers both.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
164		Const. P. 6813/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/S Maskatiya Industries (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
165		I. A 60/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Abdul Basit Khan (Appellant) VS Bank Islami Ltd & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	04-DEC-23	Yes	*the appellant is none but a stranger to these proceedings and the observation of the executing Court does not call for any interference as it is a dispute between financial institution and the customer and appellant is thus not in any way a proper and necessary party and that too after the disposal of suit, when it was decreed and execution proceeded. ** In terms of Order XXI Rule 60 CPC release of a property from attachment can be allowed only in case the objector/claimant had a title or right over it, whereas in the instant case on one hand appellant has no valid title in his favour and on the other there is a registered document whereby the judgment debtor is the sole owner of the subject property	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
166		Const. P. 6653/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Scilife Pharma Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
167		Const. P. 6805/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Active Apparel (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
168		Const. P. 6820/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Unique Building Materials (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
169		Const. P. 4985/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Ahsanullah Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
170		Const. P. 3730/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Sarfaraz (Petitioner) VS Qamar Mushtari Begum and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-MAR-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
171		Const. P. 4313/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
172		Const. P. 2970/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Sana Hussain Merchant and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
173		H.C.A 301/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Karachi Metropolitan Corporation (Appellant) VS M/s. Sui Northern Gas Pipelines Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-FEB-24	Yes	As to the objection that decretal amount has to be deposited before this Court as without it appeal could not be heard and decided, we are of the view that Order XXI Rule 23-A PC, as relied upon by the learned counsel for respondent, does not demonstrate an embargo on powers being exercised by the appellate Court while hearing appeal; it only demonstrates that the executing Court hearing objections, filed by judgment debtor to the grant of execution, shall not proceed unless the decretal amount is secured. We are not executing Court who is hearing the objections of judgment debtor, rather an appellate authority	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
174		Const. P. 5293/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Riffat Saeed Akhtar (Petitioner) VS Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
175		Const. P. 216/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Amanullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
176	2024 PLD Sindh 38, 2024 CLD 202	Suit 174/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/S BISMILLAH METAL IMPEX (PVT) LTD (Plaintiff) VS PORT QASIM AUTHORITY & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-OCT-23	Yes	The tug/craft is to be weighed on "as is where is basis" and there is no way that the drafts/tugs could be weighed in a way that steel and other part/ components of the ship should be segregated first.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
177		Suit 1063/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Pakistan Refinery Limited (Plaintiff) VS Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-DEC-14	Yes	in terms of Rule 10 of the Civil Defence (Special Powers) Rules, 1951 hereinafter referred to as the Rules, 1951, no construction can take place within 200 yards of defendants installation therefore, they were asked to stop installation/ construction immediately hence the instant leading suit is filed. Similarly defendant No.1 has also filed the connected suit against the plaintiff on the ground that it being classified as Key Point Installation, no construction of the nature as has been raised can be allowed. I	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
178		Suit 694/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Barrett Hodgson Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd. & another (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Refinery Limited & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-DEC-14	Yes	Rule 10 of Rule 1951 is an enabling provision for the concerned government. Such rule provides that either federal government or the provincial government, as the case may be, may by an order in respect of an area specified therein provide for securing that no building or building of such class, as may be specified in the order, shall be erected, extended or structurally altered except with the permission of that government as to lay out, material and construction. Thus, the words area specified does not and cannot be extended to restrain any adjacent land owner from raising construction in accordance with law. The word area specified in Rule 10 means the key-point such as 1-A etc. It is this area which is to be specified in the order to secure such area; either it may be point installation 1-A or 1-B, the concerned government may it be federal or provincial provide for securing such area that no building of such class as may be specified in the order referred above be erected without permission of that government unless that government gives permission with regard to its layout material and construction.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
179		Civil Revision 15/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2006	Revo (deceased),thr:his L.Rs.&Ors. (Applicant) VS Chandoo Marecho and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1172-K/2018 Revo thr. his L.Rs and others v. Chahdoo and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
180	2012 CLD 1588	Suit 222/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	NADIR AKMAL KHAN LEGHARI (Plaintiff) VS ASIM ARSHID & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	13-AUG-12	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
181		Suit 1307/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	M/S. HABIB OIL MILLS (PVT) LTD (Plaintiff) VS MR. IRFAN A. IFTIKHAR (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-AUG-12	Yes	the suit of the plaintiff is decreed only in terms of prayer clause (a) however with interest as prescribed under sub rule 2 of Order 37 CPC with cost	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
182		Cr.Bail 16/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2013	Abdul Sattar and Others (Applicant) VS Deputy Director ACE and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-FEB-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
183	2016 PLD Sindh 479, 2018 SBLR Sindh 2022	Suit 62/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s. Getz Pharma (Pvt) Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-MAR-15	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
184		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
185		Const. P. 849/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Nofil Nawaz Mulkana (Petitioner) VS Sana Maqbool & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-JUN-18	Yes	The proceeding in the nature of summary trial does not mean that process of effecting service will only be a formality. It is but the initial pillar in the procedure to achieve disposal on merit after effecting service. The trial Court Judge should have made efforts and that should be seen to have been done by trial Court in effecting service though nothing is available on record as far as Bailiffs report of refusal is concerned. There is nothing as far as reasoning is concerned as to why service was not effected at the address of Copenhagen and why address of the attorney Umer Al-Hamidi was considered as lawful. What convinced the trial Court to conclude that summons of the instant suit were to be served upon alleged attorney is mystery. The process of substituted service is not to be taken lightly by the trial Court. It is to be exercised only in case when it is required i.e. where the Court is satisfied with the reasons to believe that the defendant is keeping out of way for the purpose of avoiding service or that for any other reason summons cannot be served in the ordinary way the Court shall order for service of summons by: (a) affixing a copy of the summons at some conspicuous part of the house, if any, in which the defendant is known to have last resided or carried on business or personally worked for gain; or (b) any electronic device of communication which may include telegram, telephone, photogram, telex, fax, radio and television or (c) urgent mail service or public courier services or (d) beat of drum in the locality where the defendant reside; or (e) publication in press; or (f) any other manner or mode as it may think fit;	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
186		Suit.B 16/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Askari Bank Limited (Plaintiff) VS Sajid Textile Industries (Pvt.) Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-MAR-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
187		Judicial Companies Misc. 31/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan (Applicant) VS M/s Baig Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-FEB-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
188		Suit 1216/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Jamshoro Joint Venture Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Sui Southern Gas Co., Limited. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
189		Suit 1106/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Habib University Foundation (Plaintiff) VS Mecatch (Pvt.) Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-DEC-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
190		Const. P. 75/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M/S Shakoor Automobiles (Petitioner) VS Mst.Jamshed Malik and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-NOV-17	Yes	The petitioner however chooses to deposit the rent continuously in the name of a deceased person despite having knowledge. He may have deposited the rent for the years of 2014 and 2015 but it was deposited after acquiring knowledge of sad demise of Riaz Malik hence it was not a lawful deposit after service of notice of ejectment application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.636-K/2017 M/s Shakoor Automobile v. Mst: Jamshed Malik and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
191		E.P 9/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Ismail Shah Rashdi (Petitioner) VS Naeem Ahmed Kharal & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-FEB-19	Yes	The requirement of the nomination form is the disclosure of candidates assets and liabilities and that of dependents. The returned candidate did disclose the liabilities on him or his dependents as Rs.88,53,710/-, however, the heads of these liabilities are not available nor was it questioned by petitioners counsel. Though he is only required to disclose his assets and liabilities, he was not required to disclose the liabilities of independent children or of his elder brother, who is now deceased, and has a family, which in no way, was/is dependent on him.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
192		Const. P. 2336/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Shahan Mashori (Petitioner) VS Mst. Asima Mashori & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
193		E.P 15/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Tahir Hussain Khoso (Petitioner) VS Sohrab Khan Sarki & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-FEB-19	Yes	If a history is traced of the judicial pronouncement relating to the question in hand that concerns with the deficiencies in the election petition and deciding its fate, the first judgment that I came across is of S. M. Ayub v. Syed Yusaf Shah and others reported in PLD 1967 Supreme Court 486. It deals with the National and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Act (VII of 1964). Section 59 of the aforesaid law is somehow peri materia to Sections 142, 143 and 144 of the present enactment of 2017. The Hon'ble Supreme Court maintained that Section 67 does not, in terms, say that the petition shall be dismissed even if there be a partial failure to comply with the provisions of Section 59, ex facie Section 67 of the Act would seem to be designed to cover a case where the petition as a whole made allegations of a vague and indefinite character, without being supported by full particulars of the corrupt or illegal practice alleged. The Hon'ble Supreme Court held that unless, therefore, the language of the law is intractable and clearly provides for dismissal of a petition for a technical defect, the Courts should not be astute to ascribe to the legislature a desire to be hypertechnical, so as to smother genuine litigation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
194		Const. P. 125/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Dr. Muhammad Naqi S/o Muhammad Shafi (Petitioner) VS Shamsuddin & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-MAR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.60-K/2018 Shamsuddin v. Dr.Muhammad Naqi and others,C.P.620-K/2018 Shamsuddin v. Dr.Muhammad Naqi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
195		Const. P. 1787/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2013	Ghulam Ali & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
196		Civil Revision 96/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2009	Syed Himat Ali Shah (Applicant) VS Government of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-SEP-18	Yes	Prima facie, such declaration could only be sought in case the respondent Ghulam Hussain was in the process of seeking any declaration as to his own entitlement over the subject land but that is not the case, hence, I agree with the contention of the State Counsel that the suit is hit by the provisions of Sections 42 and 56 of the Specific Relief Act. In addition to the above, the government of Sindh was not sued through concerned Secretary of the Revenue Department, and even if any opportunity is given, in terms of the reported judgment of Government of Balochistan, CWPP&H Department and others v. Nawabzada Mir Tariq Hussain Khan Magsi and others reported in 2010 SCMR 115, the suit would have been time barred against the officials whose order was challenge. Hence, I do not agree with the reasoning assigned by the appellate Court without considering the consequences of the above legal issues.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
197		Const. P. 197/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Miss Hina and an other (Petitioner) VS District Accounts Officer Sukkur and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-18	Yes	Since possibility of competence of appointed candidates, as claimed by them, cannot be brushed aside straight-away as they have been serving since seven years nor it would be in the interest of justice to deprive petitioners of their undeniable rights to have fair-competition. Therefore, to ensure a balance, we do not find it proper to order for fresh process of recruitment by re-advertisement. We find it in all fairness to provide a fair-opportunity of proving their eligibility only to those, who, having eligibility, to test the competence. Worth to add that fresh advertisement would make it open for all, eligible today, which may result in prejudicing the eligibility of those, who otherwise were eligible at such time (about seven years ago). Thus, in short, fresh competition amongst those who appeared earlier could be the best solution that we have for them. Needless to add that if they (private respondents) are and were competent they would sail and, if not, will sink and in such eventuality they would not press application of Locus poenitentiae with reference to their length of service because legally seven years of service cannot overshadow the non-transparent and deceitful recruitment process as same was / is nothing but a premium, being given to them, on account of a cheating undertaken by the officials who conducted the recruitment process.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio	C.P.17-K/2019,C.P.1469-K/2018,C.P.4857/2018,C.P.4654/2018,C.A.1190/2019,C.A.1194/2019,C.A.1189/2019,C.A.1191/2019 SCP	Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation,Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation,Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation,Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed ,Disposed
198		Const. P. 240/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Mujeeb-ur-Rehman and others (Petitioner) VS Provincial Police Officer and othes (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-AUG-18	Yes	hus the matter was referred to the Police Recruitment Board to be placed in a meeting before them for a decision within the period prescribed therein and to submit report to this Court. In pursuance of the order dated 27.05.2017 the report was submitted and out of 19, 4 were declared as successful at serial No.1 to 4 in the compliance report available at page 477, relevant page 479. Candidates from serial No.5 to 9 were failed whereas candidates at serial No.10, 11, 12 and 16 were appointed in other department. Some of the candidates refused to receive notices. Three separate statements to the above extent were filed which are taken on record. We do not see any error or impediment in the implementation and compliance of the report of Mr. Bashir Ahmed Memon by the Police Recruitment Board. After passing of so many years, the interview by the Police Recruitment Board was inevitable and it is borne out from the order dated 27.05.2017 for placing the report before the Police Recruitment Board for decision, otherwise the order of their appointment could have been passed then and there by this Bench.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio	C.P.1182-K/2018 Muneer Ahmed and othes v. Provincial Police Officer Sindh Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
199		Const. P. 2870/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Mushtaque Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Mumtaz Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-OCT-18	Yes	The grounds assigned by the appellate Court while allowing the application under Order VII Rule 11 does not germane to the requirement for rejecting of plaint under Order VII Rule 11. This is no ground that the petitioner was not in possession of the suit property since last so many years. It is also immaterial that the father has not challenged the title of his own son / sons during his lifetime. This is not disputed that the property was purchased at the time when these claimants from whom respondent No.14 has acquired the property now were only minors. It is also not denied that there is no such specific denial as far as alleged rights of the petitioner are concerned as merely in possession of the suit property does not mean that the rights of the petitioner were also denied. At the most the right of the petitioner could be said to have been denied prima facie, when an attempt was made to execute the sale deed in favour of respondent No.14 Mst. Hina Perveen which was the right accrued to the petitioner to file a suit to seek declaration as made in the plaint, hence this is a case of conflicting findings of two courts below. The reasoning and findings assigned by the appellate Court insofar as rejection of plaint is concerned, is not sustainable under the law. The appellate Courts order is set aside, however, this being a mixed question of law and fact, trial Court is directed to frame issues amongst others and this being a preliminary issue, parties be directed to record evidence on this issue as well as on other issues as and when framed by the trial Court, however, since the matter is pending for quite some time, we expect that the trial Court shall conclude the trial and pronounce the judgment preferably in four (04) months with compliance report to Additional Registrar of this Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
200	2019 YLR 966	F.R.A 22/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s. Pharmacie Plus (Appellant) VS Abdul Latif & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui	C.P.711-K/2018 Abdul Latif and another v. M/s Pharmacie Plus (Pvt) Ltd.,C.M.A.881-K/2018 Abdul Latif and another v. M/s Pharmacie Plus (Pvt) Ltd.,C.A.25-K/2018 Abdul Latif and another v. M/s Pharmacie Plus (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted, Notice in CMA.,Disposed Allowed,Disposed Allowed
201		Const. P. 1112/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Swami Narayan Temple Trust Karachi (Petitioner) VS Mst. Paroo & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	04-JUN-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.884-K/2018 Mst: Paro v. Swami Narayan Temple Trust Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
202		Const. P. 3687/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Khushi Muhammad (Petitioner) VS S.L.A.T and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-AUG-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
203	2020 CLC 1173	H.C.A 381/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Jamil (Appellant) VS Mst. Waheeda Aslam & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-JUL-19	Yes	It is plaintiff (respondent No.1) who has come for execution of decree of money. Now money decree was matured only on account of her relinquishment of share in the immovable property being auctioned. Had she not relinquished her share in the property, her money decree would not have been passed. The property which she relinquished was auctioned for her money decree	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.527-K/2019 Mst: Waheeda Aslam and others v. Muhammad Jamil and others,C.P.592-K/2019 Ali Sufyan and another v. Muhammad Jamil and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution,Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
204		Const. P. 6812/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s Karachi Club (Petitioner) VS SLAT and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
205	2022 CLC 489	Const. P. 145/2004 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2004	Muhammad Hashim Thr:L.Rs Dr.Aftab Ahmed & Others (Petitioner) VS Haji Abdul Ghafoor and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
206	2021 PCr.LJ 1270	Const. P. 2147/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Abdul Ghafar S/o Noor Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-MAR-20	Yes	Every disease, if not attended properly, would cause negative and hazardous effect to life but it doesn???t mean that its medical remedy is bail from the recovery of such diseases. His treatment in a best available hospital under a care of best team of doctors could serve the best option. These stresses and pressures discussed could only be ruled out if a patient remains away from all these stresses and strains and the best possible place for the prescribed health issues is a Hospital where a patient could be treated free from all such stress possibilities. Post Arrest Bail Application on medical ground dismissed in view of the recommendations of the Medical Board	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.363-K/2020 Abdul Ghaffar v. Federation of Pakistan & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
207		Civil Revision 108/1999 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1999	Abdul Majid (Applicant) VS Dur Muhammad & ORs (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	10-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
208		Const. P. 1905/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: Cp.D 1932/2011 &1269/2016	2011	Hyderabad Municipal Corporation (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-APR-20	Yes	Law Discussed: Land Acquisition Act, 1894----- Standing Order of the revenue department No.12, subsection 31 regarding land acquisition provides that if the land was not required for the purpose it was acquired, it should be relinquished and should be offered to the original occupant/owner on payment of compensation received by them and in case of their refusal to have it back on the said terms, it should be considered as a government property in the record. The proceedings of acquiring land could only be ended once the compensation is deposited and the possession was taken over by the acquiring agency. Thus, this would be in severe violation of Articles 23 and 24 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, depriving the land owner not only from enjoying the property but also from its compensation. Thus, there is no justification that he (the owner/private respondent) may be granted interest now after almost three decades of litigation when the value of the property multiplied several hundred folds, as against the compensation, the value of which was determined three decades before and grant of interests under Land Acquisition Act, under the circumstances has no justification.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.420-K/2020 Hyderabad Municipal Corporation v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
209	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 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
210		Const. P. 3636/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Abdullah Shah Ghazi sugar Mills (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
211	2021 YLR 2278	R.A (Civil Revision) 55/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Tobria S/o Ismail (Applicant) VS The Board of Trustee KPT and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-APR-21	Yes	- The licences on which respondents were relying were expired somewhere in 2013. After the expiry of the alleged licences the Karachi Port Trust started receiving amount as being lease money and a period of lease was also disclosed in the challans issued by Karachi Port Trust to applicants though separately describing them as licensee as well. - In this primary examination perhaps the respondents have not demonstrated to have passed the criteria and test to adjudge them (applicants) as licencees. Since the rental receipts were issued for a lease period, as available on record, therefore, notice under section 87 of the KPT Act for the eviction cannot be read to have been issued in pursuance of the aforesaid Act as a lessee cannot be evicted without due process of law. Hence, such action is not deemed to have been taken or purported to have been taken under the ibid Act. - When an action was not deemed to have been taken under the Act, the barring provision of Section 87 would not apply and plaint in this regard for a colourable exercise of powers by official of KPT cannot be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC. It requires a trial as to whether action was in accordance with law or otherwise. The appeal preferred by the applicants met the same fate as it was dismissed. - I am of the firm view that the issue of notice of eviction to an occupant of the nature as described above is not warranted under the law and on such threat of eviction he cannot wait for a period mentioned in the barring section i.e. Section 87 of KPT Act and is not covered by any of the provisions of Act when status of applicants is adjudged as lessee in the last challan issued. It needs trial for a conclusive determination. When the applicants claimed to have been in occupation as lessee by virtue of challan issued to them the status of licencee was not carried forward and altered to a status of lessee by virtue of such challan and the descriptions provided therein. This is at least tentative view which should have been formed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
212	2021 CLD 1008	H.C.A 284/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Famous Brands (Private) Limited (Appellant) VS Samsonite IP Holdings S.A.R.L & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-MAR-21	Yes	By moving an application under order VII rule 11 a litigant does not surrender to the jurisdiction of the Court. The jurisdiction is conferred by law based on facts. A litigant may be right or wrong in asserting that the Court had no jurisdiction or that the suit is barred by law. But, this act of litigant would neither confer and/or bestow nor take away any jurisdiction which in fact is conferred by law. Actions of parties prior to litigation leads to constitution of a cause to initiate proceedings in Court of competent jurisdiction. - If the two applications were not moved simultaneously and would have been filed one after the other, will a litigant still be debarred from filing the other application such as Order VII Rule 10 CPC.A simple answer to this proposition is No as rejection of plaint has its own reasons whereas return of plaint has its own. In an application under order VII rule 11 a litigant has only to show that it does not disclose a cause of action; the relief claimed is undervalued or is not properly valued and that the suit appears to be barred by law. None of these rational is available while entertaining an application under order VII rule 10 CPC, which is for return of plaint on numerous counts including but not limited to pecuniary jurisdiction and territorial jurisdiction. Courts when plaint is presented are required to see whether they are bestowed with pecuniary and territorial jurisdiction whereas under Order VII Rule 11 CPC Courts are required to see whether it is barred by law. The Court had to apply law to decide the issue of jurisdiction; it is the law that confers or takes away the jurisdiction of the Court and not based on moving of application under the aforesaid provision of law. Another proposition is that while entertaining and hearing application under order VII rule 11 CPC Court is empowered to return the plaint if the circumstances so warrants as required under the law. -Section 86(3) of the Trademark Ordinance, 2001 provides that owner of the trademark which is entitled to protection under the Paris Convention as a well-known trademark shall be entitled to restrain by injunction the use in Pakistan of a trademark which, or the essential part of which, is identical or deceptively similar to the well-known trademark in relation to identical or similar goods or services, where the use is likely to cause confusion or where such use cause dilution of the distinctive quality of the well-known trademark. - At the very outset there is nothing in the instant case which could attract Section 81 of Trademark Ordinance, 2001. The proprietor of the mark never gave up their right or it has not been demonstrated that for continuous period of five years from the date of alleged registration (in favour of user) in the use of registered mark in Pakistan, the proprietor was aware of it and that the proprietor ceased to be entitled on the basis of that earlier trademark or other rights. The engagement of the appellant with the respondent itself is enough to understand that there was no case of acquiescence at all. In fact the appellant conceded when they assumed the role of a distributor. -The appellate Court normally avoid interfering in the orders of the interlocutory nature involving exercise of discretion as the appellate Court cannot substitute its own discretion unless when the discretion has been exercised arbitrarily, capriciously, perversely or where the Court has ignored certain principles regulating grant or refusal of injunction. The appellate Court is not required to reassess the material to reach a conclusion different from the one reached by the trial Court/learned Single Judge on the consideration that another view is possible.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon	C.P.4034/2021 Famous Brands (Private) Limited, Lahore v. Samsonite IP Holdings S.a.r.l., Luxembourg through its Attorney Abdul Rasheed, Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
213		F.R.A 10/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Aamir Rafat Siddiqui Thr. Attorney Mrs. Sadia Aami (Appellant) VS The VIIIth Senior Civil Judge, Khi South & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-MAR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
214	2022 PTD 266	Const. P. 4778/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Pakistan Mobile Communication (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-OCT-21	Yes	The impugned enactment is for area which formed part of province i.e. Sindh hence for all intent and purposes Article 142(c) is significant. It emphasized Provincial Assembly to legislate with respect to any matters not enumerated in the Federal Legislative List. The impugned Act whereby Serial No.6A was introduced to the First Schedule forming part of Table-II is introduced through a Money Bill in terms of Article 73 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. No other Entry of Part I of the Federal Legislative List could then be taken into account as this was a money bill which is primarily covered from Entry No.43 to 53 as routed through Article 73 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. The federation has already conceded and we are not required to deliberate on the point that for a tax to fall under the said Federal Legislative List it must be covered by Entries No.43 to 53. This, as claimed to be a sales tax/Federal Excise Duty, is apparently covered in terms of Entry 49 to the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Thus, the 18th Amendment excludes the Federation by virtue of the Entry 49 from the competence to legislate on the subject of services rendered in their province on account of SSTA, 2011 w.e.f. 01.07.2011. --It is neither in the competence of the federation to legislate after 18th Amendment nor it relates to federation to invoke Entry No.58 of the Fourth Schedule to the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Similarly, Entry No.59, as relied upon by the respondents counsel, that these matters are incidental or ancillary to any matters enumerated in this part, is also inconsequential as this cannot be invoked independently unless a reciprocal entry is found within the competence of federation. One may argue this Entry 59 may have a bridged with Article 151 but we have already discussed non-application of Article 151.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.6171/2021 Federal Board of Revenue through the Secretary Revenue, Ex-officio Chairman FBR, Islamabad and others v. Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd, Karachi and another,C.A.3109/2022 Federal Board of Revenue through the Secretary Revenue, Ex- officio Chairman FBR, Islamabad and others v. Pakistan Mobile Communication Ltd, Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Pending
215	2018 MLD 1408	II.A. 49/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Zaka Uddin (Appellant) VS M/s. S. Ashrafi Abbasi & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	01-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
216	2014 CLD 1039	Judicial Companies Misc. 2/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Zafar Iqbal and Others (Applicant) VS Naseem Ahmed and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-MAY-15	Yes	It is not a question of embarking upon the jurisdiction, but a question which involves adjudication of issues before this Court. The question of overlapping is also not tenable as the title of these shares is not subjudice before Senior Civil Judge at Multan. I may however observe that the District Judge may pass its own independent order and any observation here shall not influence proceedings before any other forum including trial of Suit No.54 of 2013.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
217		Const. P. 1478/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Izqar Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-NOV-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
218		Const. P. 132/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s Millennium Mall Management Co (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-JAN-24	Yes	the power to levy, charge, impose and recover any or all tax(es) separately on immovable property is concerned it is an alien object under cantonment laws in the present frame of the Constitution. The tax on the annual rental value of immovable property is a tax and not a fee or any other genre of levy. The Cantonment Boards have no power to levy tax on immovable property including tax on annual rental value of immovable property. The Presidential Order 13 of 1979 has no effect on the subject after the revival of the Constitution and the 18th Amendment, and the subject law to the extent of provision of section 3 as applied, is no longer protected.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.102/2024 Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Defense, Govt of Pakistan Rawalpindi v. M/s Millennium Mall Management Company through its Managing Partner, Karachi and others,C.P.230/2024 Faisal Cantonment Board through Executive Officer, Karachi v. M/s Millennium Mall Management Company, through its authorized managing partner and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending ,Pending
219		Const. P. 8948/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Sajid (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-MAR-21	Yes	Member of the Armed Forces--review petition pending before respondent No.1 may be ordered to be decided under the law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
220		Const. P. 550/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Muhammad Sabir (Petitioner) VS Faiz Ahmed Qureshi & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
221		Const. P. 144/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Anwar S/o Muhammad Sarwar (Petitioner) VS Mazhar Ali B. Chohan & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-FEB-18	Yes	The reliance on the agreement that petitioner had entered into with son of respondent No.2 is of no help as an agreement does not confer any title or a permission to have possession of the premises, which otherwise is owned by the respondent No.1.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
222		Const. P. 651/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	Shahid Sajjad (Petitioner) VS Dr. Ehesham Naseerul Haque & 3 Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
223	2021 MLD 2085	Const. P. 4604/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sohail Hameed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-JUL-21	Yes	It is not only the petitioner for whom the respondents, including federal and provincial governments, have taken this decision but in fact the respondents in pursuit of their responsibilities to take care of the health of entire nation, have issued numerous notifications, circulars to curb the virus spread. Petitioner, instead of being supportive, is being troublesome in the smooth operation of effective measures undertaken by government. The government is primarily responsible to take care of health of 220 million citizens of Pakistan and hence the desire of one person being petitioner cannot supersede the demand of ever-growing spread of pandemic Covid-19. The Sindh Government has already taken steps and are monitoring it periodically under the umbrella of Sindh Epidemic Diseases Act, 2014. Section 3 of ibid Act enables the government to take strict measures as they deem fit and proper in case the provincial government feels the necessity of enforcing prescribed measures to curb the threatened situation. ---This Covid-19 is exceeding and spreading for a number of reasons that it is new virus meaning that no one has immunity for this virus. It is highly contagious, meaning it spreads fast. Its novelty meaning scientists are still not completely sure as to how it behaves since it is changing its form and producing different variants and since they have a very limited history to go on. It is being reported worldwide that Covid-19 will have its short medium and long term effects for general population, health care workers, patients and other citizens. As our general responsibility we need to think ahead of ourselves and think beyond and stop being selfish, not only for our survival but for the survival of our population. The only way is to support the health care system.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.1106-K/2021 Sohail Hameed v. Federation of Pakistan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous
224		Const. P. 1271/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Khawaja Muhammad Ali S/o Khawaja M Ismail Late (Petitioner) VS Syed Razi Ahmed & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-NOV-17	Yes	In the absence of any proof as to the original tenant as being M/s Muhammad Ismail, a registered or unregistered partnership firm, least that could be a point of understanding or admission that Muhammad Ismail was tenant as the ejectment application was filed against him and Khawaja Muhammad Ali and availability of a rent receipt	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
225		Suit.B 78/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Habib Metropolitan Bank Limited. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Shahi Textiles and others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-FEB-14	Yes	the statement of account filed along with the plaint cannot be stated to be a statement of account under the provisions of Banker Books Evidence Act, 1891 and cannot support the claim of the plaintiff in terms of the provisions of Section 9 subsection (2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
226		Const. P. 968/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Kamran Khan (Petitioner) VS Governor Sindh/Chancellor University of Karachi (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-DEC-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan	C.P.108-K/2020 Kamran Khan v. Govt. of Sindh / Chancellor University of Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
227		Suit.B 190/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	ASKARI BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS MAGNA STEEL PVT LTD & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-FEB-16	Yes	The defendants since admitted the repayment of the same finance facility were stopped from denying or questioning such finances. This is even supported by a letter whereby they agreed to avail Rs.345 Million and requested to terminate remaining amount of Rs.155 Million. The subject Syndicate Terms Finance Agreement is available as Annexure B/1 page 87. Although the purchase price was mentioned as Rs.696,875,000/- but the statement of account provides charging of markup in accordance with agreed formula. Such admission in terms of the agreed rate of markup is also admitted by defendant No.1 in their annual account and the outstanding amount is also reflected in the statement of annual account	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
228		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 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
229		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 451/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Allied Engineering & Services Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-AUG-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
230	2022 PTD 512	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 850/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Collector of Customs MCC (Preventive) (Applicant) VS Falak Jan & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-DEC-21	Yes	Exemption is a privilege being enjoyed by diplomats and other dignitaries. If we trace history of last 50 years (though there were earlier SROs also), we come across initial SRO 53(I)/70 issued in exercise of powers available under Section 19 of Customs Act for all articles of household and personal effects including motor vehicles for the personal use by the ruler of any of the Gulf Sheikhdoms including vehicles imported by the UAE dignitaries which includes use and donations to welfare projects in Pakistan with conditions, such as articles will not be sold without prior consent of Central Board of Revenue, as it then was. It was persons specified SRO as it contained list of all such dignitaries with a table attached. Vehicle was imported in 2002 when SRO 506(I)/88 was active. It restricted the sale without prior permission of Federal Government, Ministry of Foreign Affairs, to be routed through a formal application. In other event, no such vehicle could have been sold within two years of its importation to anyone other than Department of Investment Promotion or diplomatic representatives or mission of foreign government, except when the diplomatic representative by whom it was imported is transferred within two years of its importation and it has been used by him for not less than one year. So nothing beneficial could be achieved by respondent through said SRO	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.273/2022 Falak Jan v. The Collector of Customs Model Collectorate of Customs (Preventive) Custom House Karachi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
231	2013 CLC 316	Suit 1702/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	MRS. NAJMA VASEEM ADANWALA. (Plaintiff) VS MRS. ABIDA JAWAD (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-SEP-12	Yes	At one hand the plaintiff claimed that he was and is ready to perform the part of her obligation pursuant to which she had issued notices at the address provided by the defendant and on the other hand she failed to deposit such amount in Court which she was willing to pay her. If the plaintiff could be exempted from the payment of Rs.1 Million at the required time on account of non-availability of the address or on account of the avoidance for the registration of the sale deed than at least the time when she filed suit, she should have come forward and should have deposited the sum of Rs.1 Million in Court. The fact that she was/is enjoying the possession of the said property, it became all that important for her to discharge this obligation as her first priority, which she failed but this non-deposit in Court does not constitute breach of agreement. The Court is also conscious of the fact that the plaintiff has not just made the payment of the token amount, in fact she has paid 60% of the total sale consideration against which the possession was handed over to her. This 60% was utilized by defendant.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
232	2023 PTD 576	Const. P. 4729/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Wazir Ali Ind Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	20-DEC-21	Yes	Since 2010, Commissioner entrusted with the mandate of calling the record as and when required. Now one thing is for sure that this "as and when required" is not meaningless as being consistently followed and maintained throughout. We now need to understand what could be the event or stage when this phrase may come into play and be given some meaning. Eventually when a Commissioner examines the return of a tax payer, he may have some queries which might be tempting to call record as he may not be able to reconcile and/or resolve them through return statement. Those queries must be understood and settled to the satisfaction of the commissioner before he could make up his mind further. Now the audit is nowhere in the scheme when such questions came for consideration after going through the returns while the Commissioner acts under 25(1) of Sales Tax Act, 1990. Surely the record may satisfy the curious mind but queries must be genuine at the time of calling the record which could not have been answered without going through the record required. Therefore, record calling could not be a roving exercise and cannot be a courtesy call either. The phrase "as and when required" had remained part of Section 25 throughout ever since it was introduced. It is not "as and when desired" but "as and when required". Therefore, the reasons in the shape of "mindful queries" must be in existence and disclosed before calling record for the fulfillment of requirement "as and when required". The requirements of 25(1) are neither unfettered nor are so liberal that a hunting expedition would commence. It is the periodical transfiguration of the provisions of Section 25 that led us believe that there has to be an event or occasion when the Commissioner required the record and documents maintained under this Act or any other Act. Even requiring the documents/record for satisfaction of queries must be revealed so that notice may not transform into a hunting time. However, if the mindful queries were not met, he may authorize an officer of the Inland Revenue, on the basis of record obtained under subsection (1) by him, to conduct audit. Now, if the officer of the Inland Revenue subordinate to the Commissioner is under the obligatory command of Commissioner to conduct audit then the Commissioner must disclose the discrepancies he found while forwarding record already obtained by him, for audit be conducted in pursuance of the queries of the Commissioner, which queries must see the daylight so that the officer of the Inland Revenue proceed accordingly. The officer of the Inland Revenue on his own without having knowledge of discrepancies, queries of the Commissioner, cannot start the proceedings of audit which has to be under the authorization. It would only be general audit but not as contemplated under section 25(1) which compelled the commissioner to call record. The authorization thus should contain the reasons and mindful queries required to be processed through the audit which he has passed on to designated officer. Thus, insofar as Section 25 is concerned, we would conclude that for purposes of Section 25(1) Commissioner must frame legitimate mindful queries to the knowledge of a taxpayer after going through the returns which must be either be satisfied after calling the record or otherwise.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)	C.P.315-K/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Wazir Ali Industries Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
233	2022 PTD 290	Const. P. 5113/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	OBS Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-NOV-21	Yes	The impugned Circular has only restored the process of Section 170 of Ordinance 2001 for claiming refund only however actions which have already been taken thereunder are not open for a scrutiny at least under Section 221 of Ordinance 2001. For convenience however we may say that impugned Circular has prospective effect only. The adjustments made and allowed on the basis of Circular 4 cannot be subjected to provisions of Section 221 of Ordinance 2001. Applications made under section 170 of Ordinance 2001 for refund has the limitation of three years in terms of Section 170(2) i.e. deemed assessment or when tax was paid whereas deemed assessment itself could be subjected to amendment within five years of such deemed assessment hence the purpose which cannot be achieved under Section 170 is available under other provisions of Ordinance 2001.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.139-K/2022 Commissioner Inland Revenue v. Sanofi-Aventis Pakistan Limited,C.P.70-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. OBS Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
234		Suit 359/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	PAK ARAB FERTILIZERS LTD. (Plaintiff) VS DAWOOD HERCULESS LTD. & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-OCT-14	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
235	2016 CLC 1396	Suit 2471/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	M/s Hascol Petroleum Limited (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Shell Pakistan Limited & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-MAR-16	Yes	Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXIX R.1 & 2---Suit for declaration, damages, permanent and mandatory injunction--- Application for grant of temporary injunction---Statutory tenant---Suit property was leased to defendant vide lease agreement that had expired and despite correspondence from landladies same was not renewed---Landladies entered into a new lease agreement with plaintiff but defendant had installed its machinery on leased land---Effect---Ignorance or no-reply on part of defendant should not be considered in a way that he had conceded their rights as to possession or statutory rights of tenancy---Defendant was for all intent and purposes in occupation of suit property and were running business of supply of petrol and other allied products---Defendant had also applied for storage license after spending huge fee contrary to allegation that they were not interested in operation from suit property---Plaintiff's case was not considered to be one of prima facie, nor it would suffer an irreparable loss---Plaintiff had also not come with clean hands, hence was denied discretionary relief---High Court, in circumstances, dismissed application for grant of temporary injunction under its original jurisdiction.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
236		Suit 2999/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY OFFICERS ASSOC. & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-MAR-22	Yes	it is inconceivable that under the ibid repealed Ordinances, which were never in fact acted upon, plaintiffs could exert for the transfer of the employees/officers of the two divisions to their respective authorities. The law that stood prior to the repeal of the ordinances under consideration revived and the two authorities are now deemed to be working under the common umbrella of Ordinance 1982 as were earlier.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
237		Suit 2766/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MIRPURKHAS SUGAR MILLS LIMITED & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-MAR-22	Yes	This would be an extraneous issue if sugarcane price in the province of the Punjab is compared with the minimum price in Sindh as the factors involved in fixation of minimum price in the Punjab are not available before this court. Although this is not the core issue arising out of the litigation as here I have to see whether provision of Section 16 of the Act, 1950 have been complied substantially, however, the factors that rendered difference of prices between the two provinces are that harvesting season of two provinces is different; Fertility of the Punjab soil that normally yields more per acre than in Sindh; irrigation water; subsidy on fertilizer and higher level sucrose. These are only tentative assessment since Mr. Pirzada has, in terms of the minimum price of the sugarcane historically, has questioned its fixation to have been always more than Punjab sugarcane price whereas it is always been less in the province of Sindh	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
238	2022 PLD Sindh 278	S.M.A 394/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Saleem Islam s/o late SYed Zafar ul Islam (Petitioner) VS Wing Cdr Syed Feroze Ali Rizvi & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-FEB-22	Yes	Section 15 of the Civil Procedure Code provides that every suit shall be instituted in a Court of lowest grade competent to try it. The primary reason, amongst many, is that a right of appeal may be available before appellate jurisdiction which jurisdiction is asked to exercise concurrent jurisdiction. Concurrent jurisdiction could only be exercised in exceptional cases and circumstances which do not exist here. It could also be exercised when appeal is being heard and orders are required to be passed as being from original court/forum, for exercise of concurrent jurisdiction as in the case of Idara-e-Noore-Haq.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
239	2024 SBLR Sindh 319	Judicial Companies Misc. 33/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	NUTRICO MORINAGA (Private) Limited. (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-FEB-22	Yes	To question the merger it is rather to be seen from the perception that a wise group of businessmen has taken a decision considering all its pros and corns. While taking such decision there are chances of success and failure but then while questioning such decision the bona fide is the real litmus test. A businessman takes decision foreseeing the future aspect. The Court could only see that all legal formalities have been fulfilled and that the scheme is neither unjust nor unfair or against the national interest but cannot challenge the wisdom of a decision of businessman as by doing that the Court would be overriding the wisdom of a businessman and their prerogative. Even otherwise the report of Chartered Accounts is also very material who were engaged for calculating the swap ratio in respect of envisaged scheme of arrangement.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
240		Suit 210/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mst. Yasmeen Mirza & another. (Plaintiff) VS Batool Amir Ali & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-MAR-22	Yes	The proposed compromise is absolutely contrary to the rights of minor. They should have disclosed all such facts in suit as well as in the application and it would be up to Court either to release share of the minor to Guardian Ad Litem or to retain it under a deposit scheme, with the Nazir of this Court. However entire plaint and these applications are silent in respect of share of the minor. I would take it as if minor is being deprived of her lawful share deliberately.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
241		Suit 55/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Mrs. Rubina Aslam. (Plaintiff) VS P.I.A. Corporation & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-NOV-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
242	2023 CLD 691	Judicial Companies Misc. 29/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Amir Bux Channa & Another through Attorney (Applicant) VS Isra Islamic Foundation (Guarantee) Limited. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-22	Yes	1. A post to which a person is nominated is not a tenured post. His nomination can be withdrawn at any time by the nominating authority, although it has to be seen whether nominating authority is constituted legally. 2. This principle of reading down is applied when a provision is capable of more than one interpretation and one or more of those interpretations would render the other provisions either redundant or illusory or in conflict with main frame of the Statute. In such cases, Courts will read down the provision in a manner that saves the provision . 3.since the induction of the council members has been successfully disputed by petitioners; hence I am of the view that the audit of the foundation is also inevitable. 4. Claim of rent by foundation is neither illegal nor illogical, however one may argue on the quantum and an arbitrary way of fixing the rent. This should have been done without any influence and coercion from either side.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
243	2023 CLD 652	Judicial Companies Misc. 1/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Nadeem Power Generation & Nadeem Textile Mills Ltd (Applicant) VS Nadeem Textile Mills Ltd. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-DEC-22	Yes	A wise group of businessmen has taken a decision considering all its pros and corns. While taking such decision there are chances of success and failure but then while questioning such decision the bona fide is the real litmus test. A businessman takes decision foreseeing the future aspect. The Court could only see that all legal formalities have been fulfilled and that the scheme is neither unjust nor unfair or against the national interest but cannot challenge the wisdom of a decision of businessman as by doing that the Court would be overriding the wisdom of a businessman and their prerogative.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
244	2023 PLD Sindh 66, 2023 CLD 265	Suit 2272/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: Suits No. 2273, 2455 and 2474 of 2021	2021	PAKISTAN SUGAR MILLS ASSOCIATION & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	13-JUN-22	Yes	Chairman's right to cast second vote Challenged by plaintiffs. **There should not have been a situation of even number of member of commission in a quasi-judicial proceeding, however, in the current situation the event of an equality of votes reached and hence the Chairman/Chairperson and/or any other member already rendered opinion, cannot be saddled with additional responsibility to cast a vote to untie knot as it would destroy the balance of each independent judicial mind being applied to a triable question under adjudication.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
245	2023 PLD Sindh 11	H.C.A 210/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Haji Ibrahim & Others (Appellant) VS Abdul Qadir Lakhani & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-JUL-22	Yes	1). Before granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction the Court had to feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it would appear that the injunction had been rightly granted. 2).Similarly, a mandatory injunction ought not to be granted on an interlocutory application in the absence of special circumstances and then only in clear cases either where the court thought that the matter ought to be decided at once or where the injunction was directed at a simple and summary act which could be easily remedied or where the defendant had attempted to steal a march on the plaintiff. Moreover, before granting a mandatory interlocutory injunction the Court had to feel a high degree of assurance that at the trial it would appear that the injunction had been rightly granted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Rashida Asad
246	2023 CLD 464	Judicial Companies Misc. 18/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Habib Metropolitan Modaraba Manag. & Others (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-FEB-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
247		Suit 1568/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	MUHAMMAD SALEEM SHAFI (SINCE DEACSED) THR. L/H (Plaintiff) VS M/S. PATEL HOSPITAL KARACHI & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-NOV-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
248		Const. P. 1961/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2018	Fahmeed Akhtar (Petitioner) VS Ist. Addl:D.J Sanghar & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-MAY-22	Yes	The Appellate Court is burdened with more responsibility if a judgment is being set-aside then in case where the judgment is being upheld by him, as he could agree with the reasons assigned by the trial court. But when the judgment and decree is being set-aside then the strong reasons are required to be provided by the Appellate Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
249	2023 SBLR Sindh 1373	Const. P. 1351/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: CP No. D- 1352 of 2022; CP No. D- 1353 of 2022; CP No. D- 1354 of 2022; CP No. D- 1355 of 2022;	2022	Novex Dry Cleaners Hyd (Petitioner) VS learned Sindh Labour Court Hyderbad & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-MAY-22	Yes	Since the discretion was exercised by the Tribunal in condoning the delay within frame of SIRA Act 2013, we cannot replace our discretion with that of the Tribunal as this petition is neither statutory nor efficacious remedy. We are not sitting in appeal against order of appellate labour tribunal. The petitioners have already exhausted the remedy of appeal before Appellate Tribunal.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
250		Suit 1724/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Aejaz Lutfi & others. (Plaintiff) VS M/s Delhi Co-operative Housing Society Ltd & anotr (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	12-OCT-22	Yes	Whether defendant No.1 has done enough to develop land is also a triable issue, therefore, I am not inclined, at this point of time to reject the plaint of the suit out rightly on account of involvement of triable issues and existence of the cause of action	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
251		Judicial Companies Misc. 4/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	THE CHANCELLOR MASTERS & SCHOLARS AND ANOTHER (Applicant) VS N/A (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-MAR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
252	2023 CLD 644	Judicial Companies Misc. 9/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	AWWAL MOHDARABA MANAGEMENT LTD AND OTHERS (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
253	2023 CLD 616	Judicial Companies Misc. 12/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	RAZAQUE STEELS (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-23	Yes	Merger as Scheme of Arrangement Allowed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
254		Suit 585/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	KHALID INAM (Plaintiff) VS MRS. SUMMAYA REHMAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-APR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
255	2024 PTD 1	Const. P. 4079/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Shakeel Ahmed Kanasa (Petitioner) VS Federal Tax Ombudsman and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-MAR-23	Yes	Petitioners have neither been served any notice intimating them with regard to the complaints against which the investigations were to be conducted nor have been given fair opportunity to respond to the accusations of alleged maladministration and corrupt practices. Furthermore, the Federal Tax Ombudsman is authorized to summon record under section 10(9) of Ordinance 2000 and no reasons have been provided as to why the powers conferred therein have not been exercised and resort has been made directly to inspection of the petitioners offices. Indeed there must be some refusal by the petitioners to comply with Section 10(9) of the ibid ordinance before measures such as inspections are resorted to and/or a case has to be made out to jump/short-circuit the mechanics.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
256	2023 PLD Sindh 278	Const. P. 1781/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s Tandlianwala Sugar Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-APR-23	Yes	----Section 35 of the ibid Act could empower Director General to make rules in terms of mandate within the statute. The rules thus could never be framed to pierce the contour of the statute itself. -----Without prejudice to above, unless a parent statue provides such levy, the rules by way of subordinate legislation cannot be legitimized. The concept of subordinate legislation by way of rules is to toe the object of the main statute and not to collide with scheme of law. The subordinate rules, even if conceived to be available, could only function in conformity with the main statute in order to give effect to the statutory provisions, which is not the case in hand.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
257		I.T.C 233/2001 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2001	COMMISSIONER OF INCOME TEX (Applicant) VS KARACHI STOCK EXCHANGE (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-MAY-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.985-K/2023 Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited v. Commissioner Inland Revenue Zone -VI, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
258	2024 CLD 496	Judicial Companies Misc. 15/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	GULISTAN SPINNING MILLS LIMITED & OTHERS (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-23	Yes	Ss. 280, 281, 282, 283 & 285(8)---Scheme of Arrangement---Rights of parties---Petitioners sought approval of understandings and arrangements reached at between borrower and financers/creditors---Validity---High Court could not sit as Court of appeal over and above wisdom disclosed by borrower and creditors while agreeing to certain terms of repayment, provided it was within the frame of company law and within the contours of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---To such extent High Court was bound to watch and commercial wisdom of participant of the Scheme could not be pierced by a Bench who might have its own opinion---Company jurisdiction of High Court in such matters was peripheral and supervisory and not of an appellate authority---By taking into confidence all stakeholders, a policy was devised to settle and pay liabilities of all secured creditors in a befitting manner---To achieve such goal, charged assets of petitioner company were put to sale through Assets Sale Committee consisting of representatives of banks---High Court set aside all objections and approved the Scheme of Arrangement---Petition was allowed, in circumstances	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
259		Const. P. 4028/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Aslam Assi (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
260		I. A 79/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: I.A D 78/2021	2021	M/S Qalandri Filling & CNG Station & others (Appellant) VS SME Leasing Limited (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.P.1291-K/2023 M/s. Qalandri Filling & CNG Station & others v. The Manager S.M.E. Leasing Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
261		Const. P. 5769/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Ashraf Khan (Petitioner) VS Islamic Republic of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
262		Const. P. 4315/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
263		Const. P. 6814/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	NKR Engineering (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.L.A.669-K/2023 The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) v. M/s. Blessed Textiles Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned (Next Date: 15-Apr- 24
264		I. A 26/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2011	Abdul Jabbar Soomro (Appellant) VS The Manager SMS Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	16-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
265		Const. P. 349/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Mst. Mumtaz Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Faisal Ali Shaikh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.P.1187-K/2023 Mst.Mumtaz Shaikh v. Faisal Ali Shaikh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
266		H.C.A 36/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Muhammad Wasim Awan (Appellant) VS Muhammad Riaz Awan (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-DEC-23	Yes	Cumulative effect of entire evidence would weigh in favour of respondent and against the appellant. The appellant has miserably failed to discharge the burden of proof even for all original, issues, in his favour on all the counts	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author)	C.P.8-K/2024 Muhammad Wasim Awan v. Muhammad Riaz Awan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
267		Spl.H.C.A 288/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	PSRM Steel Pvt Ltd. (Appellant) VS ASkari Bank Ltd. & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-DEC-23	Yes	The appellant could hardly be considered to have a case for interference as on the counts as being highest bidder; no vested right could be assumed at such stage;; even the acceptance of an offer is not a vested right which has to pass through the rigorous of Order-XXI Rule-89/90 CPC etc. The appellant, merely on the strength of a highest bidder, cannot insist for acceptance of its offer and/or confirmation when the material available before the court, as shown above, was sufficient to justify the order of reauction of the properties both moveable and immoveable which have been ordered to be highlighted in the sale proclamation to fetch the maximum amount. In terms of sale proclamation, the discretion vest with the Court either to accept or refuse bid(s) subject to valid reasons.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
268		I. A 15/1995 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1995	Govt. of Sindh & Others (Appellant) VS Haji Muhammad (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.A.92-K/2023 Govt. of Sindh through Secretary Land Utilization Department and others v. Haji Muhammad Deceased through L.Rs. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
269		Const. P. 6657/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Universal Packaging Co. Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
270		I. A 105/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Naveed & other (Appellant) VS Habib Bank Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-JAN-24	Yes	The judgment may not bind us in terms of Article 189 of the Constitution of the Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, but we are in agreement with the observations made therein that in the first instance it is to be seen whether a plaint has complied all the requirement of Section 9 of the FIO, failing whereof, the consequences would follow, which in the instant case should have been a grant of leave in the absence of a true Statement of Accounts, as it is not the correct reflection of account.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
271		H.C.A 274/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s. China Mobile Pak Ltd. (Appellant) VS M/s. Makran Communication & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-JAN-24	Yes	Health status of one of the partners of firm could not be attributed to the termination of agreement/license agreement and more importantly, if it is not established to be an ???unlawful termination of license???, then the principal cannot be saddled with the responsibility of paying the damages of whatsoever nature. A lawful termination may have effected someone???s health, but the lawful actions taken cannot be subjected to claim of damages. Only unlawful termination may give rise to a claim of damages. Since it is not established to be an unlawful termination, therefore question of awarding damages does not arise	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial	C.P.L.A.221-K/2024 M/s China Mobile Pak Ltd. v. M/s Makran Communication and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
272		H.C.A 129/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Nooruddin & others (Appellant) VS M/s. S.I.T.E. Ltd. & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-JAN-24	Yes	So Section 21 CPC has its own comprehensive jurisprudence which could overview the original court`s proceedings. The ibid section is primarily for appellate/revisional court where an appeal is preferred apparently by the appellant defending the suit but one must not be misled by such language. The language is couched in such a way that for appellant, who defended the suit, some restrictions were imposed, before enabling the appellate court to take cognizance. It has, however, provided a legal frame for the trial court considering the nature of jurisdiction being objected. **Lack of territorial or pecuniary jurisdiction becomes a mere irregularity at a later stage, if not taken at the earliest which does not make a decree nullity and in fact if taken belatedly and successfully may lead to a failure of justice. ***The two jurisdictions of the appellate court have been established to have acted lawfully i.e. (i). In the first instance where on account of procedural illegality or irregularity, identified above for [a] & [b] kinds of jurisdiction not by way of inherent lack of jurisdiction, a litigant plaintiff is ousted and (ii). In a case of lack of inherent jurisdiction, the court continue to proceed with the matter which may have resulted in the failure of justice. For both these limbs, the appellate jurisdiction is available	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
273		Const. P. 6654/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Jalil Packaging (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.233/2024 Cantonment Board Korangi Creek through Executive Officer, Karachi v. Jalil Packaging through its Managing Partner, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
274		Const. P. 4308/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
275		Const. P. 4312/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
276		Const. P. 2070/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Hashim (Petitioner) VS Mst. Anita Kalim and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-JAN-24	Yes	This is not the court which can reappraise the facts as concurrently maintained by the two courts below as this is not the court of appeal. The jurisdiction of this court under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan in relation to findings of facts is limited. The petitioner has already exhausted their remedies by moving the application under Section-12(2) CPC followed by dismissal of revision application and this court under Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot sit on the concurrent findings of facts of two courts below. No interference is required as far as the dismissal of the main revision application is concerned.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
277		Const. P. 5811/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Rehan Mansoor (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
278		Const. P. 6811/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Palpex Pharmaceuticals Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
279		H.C.A 111/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s. Pakistan State Oil Co. Ltd. (Appellant) VS M/s. Ahmed Brothers & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	20-FEB-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
280		Const. P. 4323/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
281		Const. P. 6506/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Dilshad Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
282		Const. P. 7657/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Inam Willayat Ali (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
283		Const. P. 6808/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Noor Associates (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
284		Const. P. 6444/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mrs. Najma Asif Sajan and Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
285		Const. P. 5459/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	IBA (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
286	2015 CLD 1162	Suit 1203/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	NOUARTIS AG. & OTHR (Plaintiff) VS NABIQASIM IND. PVT LTD (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	03-APR-15	Yes	"Trade Marks Ordinance (XIX of 2001)--- ----Ss. 8(1) & 40---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 54---Infringement of trade mark---Permanent Injunction---Application for grant of interim injunction under O. XXXIX, Rr. 1 & 2, C.P.C.---Similarity and deceptivity in trade marks, determination as to--- Plaintiffs, pharmaceutical company owned trade mark ""LESCOL"" and got the same registered in year 1991---Trade mark ""DESCOL"" belonged to defendant, also a pharmaceutical company, which was registered in 2003---Plaintiff sought permanent injunction against use of defendant's trade mark and running of business thereunder contending that defendant's trade mark was phonetically, visually and structurally deceptive and confusingly similar and/or resembled plaintiff's trade mark and defendant's product was likely to pass off as that of plaintiff's product---Both trade marks involved sale of almost same medicinal product---Validity---Prescription of doctor and his expert opinion would be important factor in recommending medicine---Persons prescribing, dealing and offering medicines were specialist meant to protect passing of such medicine available at shop and sale of such medicine were carried out by authorized or licensed persons---Partially phonetically both trade marks were similar, but, for pharmaceutical products, the assigned names were given on basis of generics---No one could claim any proprietary right regarding such generic words as to its exclusive use---Trade mark was to be seen with complete getup, colour scheme, design and printing---Plaintiff's claim related to phonetic similarity between the two trade marks and not to the whole word or design or getup---No deceptive similarity existed between the two trade marks when seen as a whole---Pharmaceutical products were not ordinary goods which a person could point out at shop and buy at his choice---No case was made out for injunction---Application was dismissed, in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
287		Civil Revision 14/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2006	Revo (Expired),thr:his L.Rs. (Applicant) VS Chandu and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1171-K/2018 Revo thr. his L.Rs and others v. Chahdoo and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
288		Cr.Bail 555/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Hazoor Bux Brohi and another (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-FEB-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
289		Suit 252/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Dr. Muhammad Iqbal & others (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Medical Association (Centre) (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-JAN-14	Yes	Bye-law 48(d) provides that all delegates will be elected by the respective branches and the Branch Secretaries have to get their names registered with PMAC one month before the conference in order to prepare an electoral list. It appears that such exercise has been carried out by PMA Hyderabad and Dr. Muhammad Waseem Shaikh, the Honorary General Secretary, has provided the list. The only controversy that needs to be resolved is that of Annexure P/8, which is the letter of PMA Hyderabad concerning their general body meeting wherein they have decided the names of the delegates. In order to resolve such controversy I have gone through the relevant articles and bye-laws of the Association. Sending names of delegates of a branch in pursuance of relevant bye-laws are only the prerogative of concerned branch and as far as any decision taken in the general body meeting of PMA Sindh is concerned, it carries no role in the branch decision concerning delegates. PMA Sindh could only forward list of the delegates provided by the concerned branch. It is important to note that as far as General Body Meeting of PMA Hyderabad is concerned, it has not been objected by any member of PMA Hyderabad that the delegates of PMA Hyderabad were not elected. It was only PMAC which claims that the list of Hyderabad delegates was not sent. Now if anybody who could have a valid objection as far as election of delegates are concerned that could be a member or members of PMA Hyderabad, certainly not PMAC or PMA Sindh. None of the members of PMA Hyderabad has objected to the process of sending names of delegates of PMA Hyderabad so it does not lie in the mouth of defendants to object to such list of delegates (as far as election is concerned) when they themselves have no role in the process of sending list of delegates. Importantly in electoral list the names of delegates from Hyderabad Branch have not been included and it was only central councillors who have been inducted. Byelaw 48 speaks for election of delegates and for sending its name by General Secretary of that particular branch.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
290	2014 PLD Sindh 268	Suit 1706/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Dr. Samrina Hashmi (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan Medial Association (Centre) & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-DEC-13	Yes	Certainly and undoubtly the cause of association is much higher than the cause of an individual. In this matter, it is to be seen whether injuries or irreparable loss that may be caused to the association is important than the personal injuries of the plaintiff. I have no confusion in my mind that the cause of the association is at higher pedestal. In priority the interest and reputation of the association has to be safe guarded. At the same time this does not mean that the cause of an individual is to be ignored. What is meant by this observation, is that in priority cause of the association is to be kept at higher forum.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
291		Cr.Bail 413/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Ghulam Qadir Umrani (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-JAN-13	Yes	It appears that the present application is only confined to the crime under Section 9(c) of C.N.S. Act. I have very minutely and carefully perused the record and the alleged recovery of 1900 grams Charas and it is noted that no private mashirs were associated. It is also inconceivable to learn that on spy information the applicant was found roaming around the place of incident alongwith weapon and charas. It is clearly a case of further enquiry.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
292		Cr.Bail 391/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Sadar Shar (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-MAR-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
293		Cr.Bail 318/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Mehmood Soomro (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-JAN-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
294		Suit 1344/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Amin Jan Mohammad (Plaintiff) VS Innovative Investment Bank Ltd. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-NOV-13	Yes	the changes so made are not proved to be structural as the averments of the plaintiffs witnesses are neither corroborated nor supported by any cogent material except that of verbal assertion. So also the plaintiff has failed to bring on record and/or exhibited any receipts to show payment as maintenance charges to the Association. It is a settled practice that whenever maintenance is paid receipts are being issued towards the same and in the absence of such receipts it cannot be established that the plaintiff has paid the maintenance charges and that too at the rate claimed. Since I have observed that the plaintiff has failed to prove any structural changes in the premises, the question of damages or cost towards restoring the premises back to its original position does not arise and the plaintiff is not entitled to claim such relief. As regards the claim of notice amount i.e. 12 months rent is concerned, the defendant in his letter dated 09.05.2008 (Ex.PS-1/9) asserted that since the premises was vacated by the defendant on special circumstances, therefore it was not binding on them to give notice of 12 months. This is an admission on the part of the defendant that they have not given 12 months notice. As regards the claim of the defendant as to the special circumstances, such thing is nowhere in the agreement which may absolve the defendant to perform his part of the agreement.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
295		Cr.Bail 508/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Rasheed Ahmed Arain (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-JAN-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
296	2012 CLD 1623	Suit.B 65/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	NIB BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS TERRY TOWELLERS (PVT) lTED (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	13-AUG-12	Yes	Suit for recovery was decreed and machinery of judgment-debtor was to be auctioned---Objection Application to enforcement of decree---Contention of the objector inter alia was that he was the landlord of the premises where the machinery was kept; that arrears of rent had been due to him and that he on his own expense moved the machinery to a godown and had incurred rent for the same---Contention of the objector was that he be compensated for the costs incurred by him from the sale proceeds of the machinery---Validity---Claims of the objector were flimsy and he had not kept record of the accounts or payments by cash for the godown and it was inconceivable that he was incurring expenditures on a person who in arrears of rent and with whom he was litigating---Machinery was hypothecated/pledged with the decree holder Bank and even otherwise it was the preferential right of the decree holder Bank to auction the machinery against their claim---Claim of objector was without merit---Application was dismissed, in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
297		Const. P. 177/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Muhammad Azam Siddiqui and another (Petitioner) VS Mrs. Rana Ejaz and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-DEC-12	Yes	The strength of the learned trial court order as well as of the appellate Court order is that one advocate namely Sardar Abdul Hameed Iqbal has filed an undertaking on behalf of the petitioner No.1. This could hardly be a ground to reject the application under section 12(2) CPC as primarily what is to be seen by the learned trial court as well as appellate Court is whether there was sufficient material in terms of the bailiffs report which is available on record to hold the service good against the petitioners or not. The question of filing of undertaking on behalf of petitioners is of no material consequence as it can be a managed one since it is not signed by the petitioners. Hence the learned trial court while rejecting the application under section 12(2) CPC as well as appellate Court has mainly /relied on the undertaking given by one advocate. The learned trial court has decreed the suit for specific performance against the petitioners and has ordered for registration of the conveyance deed in favour of respondent No.1. Such valuable rights in this case which were taken away from the petitioners are at stak	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
298		Cr.Bail 612/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Muhammad Aslam (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	02-JUL-13	Yes	The contents under Section 489-F for the perusal as reproduced as also the contents of the FIR clearly manifest the dishonesty. For reaching the conclusion as to whether offence under Section 489-F is bail out or not the applicants attitude towards the cheques need not to be further established as he has failed to inform the concerned Manager of the Bank regarding the alleged misappropriation of cheque which was allegedly stolen. The applicant has not been able to this fact satisfactorily as to why this information was not given to the Manager. It also creates an impression that before issuing cheque to the complainant he might have managed to lodge this non-cognizance report to save his skin from future dispute. With these reasons I am clear in my mind that the applicant is not entitled for concession of bail and this bail application is dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
299	2017 SBLR Sindh 1537	Suit 2110/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Glaxosmithkline Services Unlimited (Plaintiff) VS Anfords Pakistan (Pvt) Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	05-DEC-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
300	2017 CLC Note 141	Suit 67/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Fashion Knit Industries (Plaintiff) VS Sui Southern as Co. Ltd. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-16	Yes	Impugned Sunday Closure Notices are illegal, unlawful and ultra vires the Constitution	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
301		Suit 2603/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Novartis Pharma Pakistan Limited (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-DEC-16	Yes	The drugs are being considered as essential commodities. These are always subject to regulations and unbridled ways of dealing with the prices and allowing market forces to set the prices cannot be granted. This could not be taken as violative of Article 18 or 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan. These are reasonable restrictions and are being protected under the Constitution as often it happens the cartels are formed to manipulate the situation of these essential commodities and hence are always subjected to reasonable restrictions. However, in Suit No.1217 of 2016 in which Mr. Anwar Mansoor Khan learned advocate is appearing wherein Policy itself has been challenged I would dispose of the injunction application in the following terms and keep the lis pending as an issue in relation to the vires of subject policy had not been framed. Any finding here would not influence the trial of this suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
302		Suit 223/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Arif Habib Equity (Pvt.) Limited & others (Plaintiff) VS Army Welfare Trust (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-DEC-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
303		Adm. Suit 2/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	M/s Megafeeder (Pvt.) Limited (Plaintiff) VS M.V. H & H Tide & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-16	Yes	For exercising admiralty jurisdiction the case is to be made out in terms of Section 3 of Ordinance 1980 and prima facie no claim appears to have been made out as against defendant No.1 under admiralty jurisdiction. The question now arises is whether defendant No.2 who was prepared to deposit US $.300,000/- with the Nazir of this Court was in lieu of the claim against defendant No1 or defendant No.2 stood surety for itself as well. The order referred above is clear in this regard. The defendant No.2 deposited the subject amount against arrested vessel and it is not a surety against defendant No.2 otherwise this amount could have been withhold. The amount that was deposited thus could only be considered as a surety for defendant No.1 vessel for which prima facie the case has not been made out.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
304	2021 PLD Sindh 13	Const. P. 598/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	PROVINCE OF SINDH THROUGH SECRETARY EDUCATION (Petitioner) VS ISLAMIC EDUCATION TRUST & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	31-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.709-K/2017 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: (Colleges) Education & Literacy Department v. The Islamic Education Trust and others,C.M.A.3636/2019 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: (Colleges) Education & Literacy Department v. The Islamic Education Trust and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Dismissed
305		Const. P. 1890/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mrs. Israr Amna Begum & Others (Petitioner) VS S.M. Muhammad Iqbal & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	23-OCT-17	Yes	As regards the claim of investment/Pugree of Rs.4,40,000/- is concerned, the same cannot withstand the default that has been committed by the petitioners. The Rent Controller cannot adjudicate upon the issue of Rs.440,000/- either as investment or to be considered as Pagree amount hence this petition filed against the concurrent findings of two Courts below which findings being based on reasoning and supported by documents i.e. conveyance deed in respect of the demised premises, does not merit consideration.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.12-K/2018 Mrs.Israr (Amna Begum) and others v. S.M.Muhammad Iqbal and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Not Pressed
306		Civil Revision 35/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Jam Muneer Ahmed Khan (decd),thr:L.Rs: & Ors (Applicant) VS Ahmed Din Rajri and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
307		I. A 22/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2017	Krishandas and others (Appellant) VS H.B.L and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
308	2024 CLC 18	Suit 2/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ali Mushtaq & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others.. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-JAN-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
309		Civil Revision 171/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Abdul Haleem and an other (Applicant) VS Land Acquisition Officer and an other (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
310		Const. P. 829/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Rasheed Ahmed @ Abdul Rasheed & Ors (Petitioner) VS P O Sindh & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-OCT-18	Yes	In pursuance of the report submitted by Mukhtiarkar (Revenue) Ghotki, one Muhammad Umar was found to have occupied the subject piece of 00-09 ghuntas to which these petitioners do not claim. They only claim that this piece of land, which is claimed by respondent No.4, is part and parcel of the village and as such the villagers have right over the land. This is not a public interest litigation as the petitioners were defendants in the suit and contested on their own right as being in occupation. The petitioners have not been able to show any right or title over the land in question. The orders, which they have impugned, may have been passed beyond jurisdiction but the approach of the petitioners is mala fide and the hands are tainted. They have not approached the Court with clean hands. Muhammad Umar, who was found to be in possession, was claimed to be the brother of the petitioners and this fact was not denied, and he has not been made party in these proceedings purposely. This is not difficult to ascertain as to why he has not been arrayed as one of the petitioners.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro	C.P.714-K/2018 M/s Sessi United Staff Union Sindh (CBA) and another v. The Registrar Trade Unions and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
311		Const. P. 3426/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Shamim Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Shoaib Ahmed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1468-K/2018 Sahmim Ahmed v. Shoaib Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
312		Const. P. 3217/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Dr. Muhammad Osama Shafiq (Petitioner) VS PEMRA and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-AUG-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
313		Const. P. 470/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Hanif Khan (Petitioner) VS M/S Atlas Battery & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-MAY-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zafar Ahmed Rajput	C.P.3568/2019 Moulana Shahzado Dreho v. Province of Sindh thr. Secretary Sindh Cultural Heritage, Karachi & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
314		Const. P. 599/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Zahid Khan S/o Muhammad Mutloob Khan (Petitioner) VS Mrs. Zainab and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	29-MAY-19	Yes	. If these are the pleadings then this is not a personal requirement. At the most it is a case that a fair rent is not being tendered by the tenant and resort could be made under section 8 of the SRPO, 1979. Under Qanoon-e-Shahadat, the evidence at best could support pleadings but additional case can not be made. The witnesses have taken U-turn in evidence when they deposed that premises are required for personal use. Pleadings of the parties cannot be ignored and evidence cannot be read in isolation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.483-K/2019 Zahid Khan v. Mrs. Zainab and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
315		Criminal Appeal 146/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Manzoor ALi (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
316		H.C.A 29/2006 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	Muhammad Imran Mustaqeem & Ors (Appellant) VS Muhammad Mustaqeem & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-FEB-24	Yes	The object of petition for Letters of Administration is only to the extent of its grant or otherwise and the question of sale and purchase of the properties does not arise whereas in the instant matter despite objections taken by one of the legal heirs for its conversion into a suit, the property was attempted to be auctioned. Once the property devolved amongst the legal heirs that was and is the end of the lis filed in shape of petition for Letters of Administration. Hence, in all fairness not only the impugned order is set aside and appeal is allowed but now since the property is to be devolved amongst the legal heirs, the Letters of Administration be issued accordingly, if it has not been issued as yet, leaving it up to them i.e. legal heirs to see/decide the fate of their property as they deem fit and proper and not in a petition, which is/was only to the extent of grant of Letters of Administration.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
317	2021 CLD 48	M.A. 24/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	MUHAMMAD SHAH KAKAR THR ATTORNEY AHMED SHAH (Appellant) VS INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY TRIBUNAL AT SINDH & BALOCHIS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-JUN-20	Yes	SRO 170(I)/2017 dated 17.03.2017 is for "imported goods only" and was not applied to parallel or grey market imports and de-minimis imports. Powers to take action, detention, seizure, confiscation of goods imported into or taken out of Pakistan were/are always available with the customs officials and it is not that SRO 170(i)/2017 that has empowered them, it only set the process to be initiated by custom officials in relation to goods being imported. What was amended by virtue of SRO 768(I)/2014 is also very material. In Section 3CC and 3E of Customs Act, 1969 formation of the Director General of Intellectual Property Rights Enforcement was redesigned along with its functions, jurisdiction and powers. In the present case Tribunal could only pass order to the extent of trade mark being an infringed one or otherwise and to restrain it from being violated. The Procedural action of custom officials was not questioned independently by respondent. Once the effect of infringement was determined by tribunal the customs officials would definitely have followed it. Color and color scheme also at time claimed to be an inventive one but that is not the case here as no one has claimed livery or color scheme or get up to be a mark of distinction under any intellectual property rights. Both parties are contesting over one mark i.e Tabiat and no one has claimed any exclusive right over livery or dress up of mark. So everything is a disclaimer except "Tabiat". If there are deceptive liveries of common product like rice, with one trade mark "Tabiat" in the absence of a right claimed under the liveries, the buyer would definitely get confuse and jump to some other brand as a natural course. In terms of Section 5(2) of Trade Marks Ordinance, 2001 goods even if not meant for a local consumption but only to enter the port for onwards journey, would mean the use of mark within jurisdiction. Unless goods in transit are defined otherwise, only aforesaid meaning is deducible. Construction of our Trade Mark Ordinance, 2001 is also based on same scheme and there is no inconsistency as far as framing of relevant provision trade mark is concerned. The word import or export (exclusively or inclusively) not defined under the law in hand differently that is dealing with goods in transit. The case of the appellant is on better footing since the attempt is made to export the goods from the territory where the mark is registered The word "use" as explained above is also applicable to goods "for export only" and hence Section 5(2) read with section 40 of Trade Mark ordinance 2001 would be interpreted accordingly as use within territory of Pakistan.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
318		Const. P. 3135/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Millennium Mall Management Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
319		M.A. 44/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Ltd (Appellant) VS The Court of District Judge, Khi (East) & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-JUN-21	Yes	Precisely the gist of law and the succession application provides that the litigation commenced for issuance of a certificate in terms of Rule 1, 2 and 6 of Sixth Schedule of the ibid Act 2012. It enabled one of the legal heirs of the deceased to pursue the proceedings on behalf of all legal heirs who sustained damages to claim compensation from the airline. -Respondent No.2 approached District Judge/ respondent No.1 for issuance of requisite succession certificate. The District Judge/ Respondent No.1 however in terms of order impugned in these proceedings treated such compensation as an asset left by the deceased/victim and by considering it as part of succession application and has taken action in terms of the impugned order, which action is being challenged by the appellant/PIA in these proceedings. I disapprove the observation of the District Judge to the extent whereby recovery process was initiated.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.813-K/2021 Pakistan International Airlines Corporation Limited v. The Court of District & Sessions Judge East at Karachi. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
320		Const. P. 1894/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	S.S.G.C Ltd (Petitioner) VS The Registrar of Trade Union and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-NOV-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan	C.P.4450/2019 M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd, Karachi v. The Registrar of Trade Unions, C/o National Industrial Relations Commission, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
321		Const. P. 290/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mohammad Owais Yousuf (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	12-SEP-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain	C.P.1439-K/2021 Syed Shafqat Ali v. Mr. Muhammad Owais Yousuf & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Barred by Time
322	2022 PLD Sindh 6	M.A. 7/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Southern Networks Limited (Appellant) VS PEMRA Thr. Its Chairman & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-SEP-21	Yes	-Definition of a person is provided under Ordinance, 2002, which includes an individual, partnership, association, company, trust or corporation. Invariably in the show-cause/decision impugned, PEMRA presumed to have issued licenses to individual directors hence referred that licenses to them should not have been transferred by them. It is misconceived impression. --The issuance of licence is subject to Section 19 of Ordinance 2002. The authority enjoys exclusive right to issue licence for the establishment and operation of broadcasting media and distribution services and that these licences shall be in conformity with the principles of fairness and equity and the eligibility of such applicant to whom the licence is likely to be granted is based on prescribed criteria notified in advance. ---With this understanding of law perhaps the intensity of violation and penalty imposed on appellant should be viewed in term of their proportionality. Wednesburys principle while defining proportionality has discussed role of public officers entrusted with the discretionary powers. However, it is often seen that officers entrusted with such powers exercising their discretion goes unattended. Discretion at times goes unmeasured. Subjective analysis of a discretion exercised by public officers is a difficult proposition but proportionality is a tool which can play its role to serve the subject. The principle requires that measures adopted by the authority should not exceed the limits of what is proper and necessary in order to attain the objectives, legitimately. It is generally expected that where there is choice between several appropriate remedies and measures, the recourse that must be the least onerous and least cumbersome be adopted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.5469/2021 Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (PEMRA) through its Chiarman, Islamabad and another v. Southern Networks Limited, Karachi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
323		Const. P. 269/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Farrukh Iqbal Mirza S/o Mirza Muhammad Iqbal (Petitioner) VS The Ld. District Judge, Karachi East and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-MAR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
324	2019 SBLR Sindh 1466	Suit 874/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Nadeem Ahmed Chowdry. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
325		Const. P. 1661/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sheikh Muhammad Manzoor (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
326	2014 CLD 1367	Suit.B 89/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	HABIB METROPOLITAN (Plaintiff) VS ABID NISAR (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-14	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
327		Suit.B 55/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	M/S.MYBANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS M/S.APOLLO TEXTILE MILLS LTD (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	31-JAN-17	Yes	The case under banking jurisdiction is governed by special statute i.e. Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and in terms of Section 9(2) this special statute requires the statement of account to be certified under Act 1891. The provisions of this law would become redundant in case the contention of the plaintiff is considered to be correct. This sole ground is sufficient to grant unconditional leave to the defendants.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
328		Suit.B 66/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	ASKARI BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS MAGNA STEEL (PVT) LTD & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	28-MAR-14	Yes	The provision of section 9 & 10 of the of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 are mandatory. Upshot of the above discussion is that both leave to defend applications are allowed as prayed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
329		II.A. 131/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Kaleemuddin (Appellant) VS Naushaba Mobeen & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
330	2017 CLD 546	Suit.B 51/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Pakistan Kuwait Investment Co. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Three Star Hosiery Mills Ltd (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-NOV-16	Yes	The purpose of such authentication and certification in terms of subsection (8) of Section 2 of the Act is that it signifies the authenticity of document such as statement of account which in absence of such certificate cannot be presumed to be correct. Bankers Book Evidence Act provides the presumption of the correctness to such statement of account and is considered to be correct if it is certified by the officer as contemplated under section 2(8) of the Bankers Book Evidence Act,1891. Though it may have been attempted to be cured on the basis of additional statement of account which appears to have been certified yet the authority of the officer is only in relation to instituting a suit, verification of plaint, engaging a Counsel etc. in terms of Board resolution. This authority based on the board resolution cannot be stretched down to the frame of Section 2(8) of the Bankers Book Evidence Act. In the connected matter of Pak Kuwait Investment v. Active Apparel International where the shareholders claimed to be the same, the leave was granted on this score alone. The auditors report may have its strength but such material document ought to have been filed along with the plaint since the defendant have no chance to rebut the same as has been filed along with the replication.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
331		Const. P. 1465/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	MUHAMMAD ISHAQ KALOTA (Petitioner) VS NAFEES AHMED & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-17	Yes	Admission of alleged default by tenant in any previous litigation or even in this case cannot be relied upon. Admission could only be of facts and cannot be of law. The law takes effect when applied on facts. Admission of law, if any, has to pass through the test prescribed and required by law itself. If a person conceded to have defaulted being ignorant of law such is no admission unless approved by law as the law takes its course when applied on facts which may suggest otherwise than what allegedly conceded or admitted in facts	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
332	2016 SBLR Sindh 753	Suit.B 8/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Dubai Islamic Bank Pakistan Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Gulistan Textile Mills Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-JAN-16	Yes	s the denial of disbursement of the amount is concerned, I am in agreement with the contention of the plaintiffs counsel that the documents available as Annexure C/1 to D/1 and onwards shows that after the approval of this financial facility the defendants themselves have offered to purchase the commodity to be disposed of at a price agreed. The statement of account needs not to be in a particular format. The statement of account needs to include all those required heads to establish that such an amount was disbursed and availed and paid and such amount was overdue, which include principal amount as well as interest/profit, as the case may be.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
333	2022 PTD 245	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 335/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Forte Impex Lahore (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-OCT-21	Yes	Simply mentioning that there is danger of removal of goods is not sufficient. The officer must state grounds which justify apprehension of danger of such removal and so also information that he received from an individual having name and that the concerned party has taken steps or about to take steps for the removal of the goods. Nothing of such sort is mentioned in the under considered warrant allegedly issued under section 163 of Customs Act, 1969.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
334		Const. P. 1811/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Tahir Ali thr. Attorney Zulfiqar Ameer Ali (Petitioner) VS VIth Sr.Civil Judge/Rent Controller Khi East & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
335	2022 PTD 539	Const. P. 4292/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/s Outdoorsman (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-DEC-21	Yes	We do not find any necessity of an independent license from the federal government in presence of Import Policy Order, 2016 w.e.f. 14.6.2018 followed by Import Policy Order, 2020. The Import Policy Order, 2016 in terms of the subject in hand was amended by virtue of SRO No.772(1)/2018 on 14.6.2018 which provides that the individual license holders or arms dealership license holders [as issued by Home Department, Province of Sindh] are allowed to import arms and ammunition. It was clarified by Federal Government, Ministry of Commerce & Textile vide letter dated 06.09.2019 that the import of arms and ammunition does not require any import authorization from the Commerce Division Islamabad after issuance of SRO No.772(I)/2018 dated 14-06-2018. For convenience and ready reference, text of [i]. Letter dated 06.09.2019, [ii]. Section 6(1) and [iii]. Entry No.62 Part I of Appendix B of IPO, 2020 ---Section 4 of ibid Act 2013 is related to the license for the manufacture/sale of arms and ammunition which is not the case here. Section 5 deals with the import, export and transportation which for all intent and purposes means import and export within the province of Sindh and we, while read it down, do not find it to be ultra vires to the Constitution. It primarily concerns with the person who is brining into and taking out of Sindh or any of its districts, arms, ammunition or military stores of a firearm or convert an imitation firearm into a firearm unless a license has been issued in accordance with the provisions and rules thereunder. Similarly, in section 9&10 the words import and export are in relation to brining into and taking out of the province of Sindh and any of its districts and it does not mean import of any arms and ammunition from outside the country which is an independent subject of the federal government hence, we read down these provisions to be within frame of Sindh Arms Act, 2013 and are not ultra vires the Constitution.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.245-K/2022 The Province of Sindh through Home Department Government of Sindh & others v. M/s. Outdoorsman & others,C.P.246-K/2022 Federal Board of Revenue & others v. M/s. Outdoorsman & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending ,Pending
336		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 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
337		Const. P. 847/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Sohailur Rehman (Petitioner) VS Azgar Abbas Butt & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	09-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
338		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 927/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Rehman Construction Company (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)	C.P.432-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Rehman Construcation Co. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
339	2013 CLD 854	I. A 152/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Crescent Leasing Corporation Ltd., (Appellant) VS Sarhad Goods Transport Co.& Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	19-DEC-12	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
340	2016 PLC (CS) 92	Suit 519/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Ali Ahmed Lund (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & ors (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	29-MAY-14	Yes	"Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973--- ----R. 12-A---Correction of date of birth in service record---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that his date of birth was 2-4-1956 instead of 2-4-1954---Validity---Plaintiff passed Central Superior Service examination in the year 1983 and became civil servant in the said year and he had been since then maintaining his date of birth as 2-4-1954---Employee could not rectify his date of birth after insertion of R.12-A in Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973---After 30 years of service it had revealed to the plaintiff that his actual date of birth was 2-4-1956---Once date of birth in the record at the time of joining service was mentioned the same should be final and no alteration was permissible--- Insertion of R.12-A in Civil Servants (Appointment, Promotion and Transfer) Rules, 1973 was logical and statutory in nature---Suit being not maintainable was dismissed in circumstances---Plaintiff had reached to the age of superannuation and any salary, perks, privileges or any benefits availed subsequent to the age of superannuation should be returned forthwith."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
341	2023 SBLR Sindh 1041	Suit 102/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	M/s. Sassi International. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Oman Air Lines & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-16	Yes	The airway bill in terms of Rule 11 prima facie is evidence of the conclusion of contract, of the receipt of the goods and of the conditions of carriage. Rule 13 to me is relevant and crucial as far as the facts of the case in hand are concerned. It provides that consignee is entitled on the arrival of goods at the place of destination, to require the carrier to hand over to him the airway bill and to deliver the goods to him, on payment of the charges due and on complying with the conditions of carriage set out in the airway bill. Chapter-3 of the Rules relates to the liability of the carrier. Rule 18 is also very relevant as far as the facts of the instant case are concerned. It provides that the carrier is liable for damage sustained in the event of the destruction or loss or damage to any registered luggage or any goods if the occurrence which caused the damage so sustained took place during the carriage by air. Rule 24 provides that the cases covered by Rules 18 and 19 the action for damages may be brought, however subject to the conditions and limits set out in this schedule hence reliance is placed on Rule 29 which provides a period of two years from the occurrence of causes. The causes set out in the plaint are beyond the scope of Rule 29 as relied upon by the defendant. The last airway bill provides date of flight as 31.8.2011 and perhaps the expected date of delivery could be within the following 2/3 days	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
342	2015 YLR 2436	Suit 50/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Waterlink Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Farrell Lines & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JUN-15	Yes	"Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908).-- ---O. XXXVIII, R. 5---Attachment before judgment---Transportation of goods from one country to another---Breach of obligation---Attachment of container-- Word ""intent""---Scope---Plaintiff had sought attachment of containers which were belonged to Shipping None of the containers sought to be attached could be deemed to be in Pakistan as ultimate destination of such goods was Afghanistan---Said goods were only available at Port in Pakistan for the purpose of clearance and transshipment i.e. for transit period only---Plaintiff had no claim with regard to the containers-,-- Detention charges must have been accrued for shipping line---Goods did not belong to the consigner rather same belonged to the consignee in Afghanistan-Goods were neither deemed to have arrived or existed in Pakistan nor it would belong to consignor for the purpose of attachment-- Plaintiff had no privity of contract with the consignee---Present suit had not been filed against the consignee of the attached goods but against contractor of the consignee against whom plaintiff had a claim of recovery---Neither containers nor the goods therein were liable to be attached for the purpose of claim of plaintiff---Goods were meant to be transshipped to Afghanistan which were in Pakistan only in transit---Goods were not removed with ""intention"" to frustrate the decree which might be passed-- Application for attachment of goods was dismissed in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
343		Suit 873/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Aftab Hussain (Plaintiff) VS Government of Sindh & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-FEB-14	Yes	"a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 56---Lease agreement---Scope---Suit for permanent injunction , recovery of amount incurred on the maintenance and renovation of suit property and security deposited for the same---Rejection of plaint---Scope---Contention of plaintiff was that defendant had assured that he would not be evicted from the suit property and licence would be extended for another three years and he had incurred amount on the maintenance and renovation of premises and security for the same was also paid to the defendant---Validity---Neither declaration to the effect that plaintiff was a lessee was made nor he could maintain the present suit as a licensee---Expenses incurred on the renovation of premises would not give any cause of action to the plaintiff as agreement was silent with regard to construction or renovation work---Claim of damages was maintainable only in case the defendant had withheld the permission to use the premises without notice which was not the matter in the present case---Alleged claim of compensation/damages was not maintainable as plaintiff was given notice not to enter into the suit property---Plaintiff had no cause of action and no injunction could be granted of any nature---Present suit was hit by Ss. 42 & 56 (f) of Specific Relief Act, 1877---Application for rejection of plaint was accepted and plaint was rejected in circumstances. (b) Words and phrases--- ----""Lease"" and ""licence""---Distinction---Lease was transfer of interest in property whereas in a licence such element was excluded; exclusive right of possession was granted to the lessee and the lessor was totally excluded from such right; right granted to the lessee was assignable and transferable while in a licence it was not so; licence was a personal right which was purely permissible right; notwithstanding the permission, the grantor would retain control over the property."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
344	2015 SBLR Sindh 327, 2015 SBLR Sindh 469, 2016 MLD 266	Suit 1108/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Syed Shabir-ul-Hassan Khusroo. (Plaintiff) VS Asad Mustafa & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	16-OCT-14	Yes	a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----S.4---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Succession---Son of predeceased sister of deceased---Inheritance, right of---Scope---Categories of legal heirs---Plaint, rejection of---Provisions of S. 4 of Muslim Family Laws Ordinance, 1961 were applicable to a specific category of class of legal heirs i. e. sons and daughters of deceased which could not be applied to the son of predeceased sister of deceased---Sons and daughters of predeceased sister would come in the third category of legal heirs i.e. distant kindred---Shares out of assets at first were to be consumed by the sharers and left over to be consumed by the residuaries and if there were no residuaries then same had to revert back to the sharers---If sharers and residuaries were available then distant kindred were not entitled to share under Islamic Law---Both the sharers and residuaries were available in the present case and there was no question of inheritance by distant kindred---Plaintiff being in the third category of legal heirs was not entitled to inherit share from the assets left by the deceased in presence of sharers and residuaries---Plaint could not be rejected in piecemeal---Application for rejection of plaint was dismissed in circumstances. (b) Islamic law--- ----Inheritance---Categories of legal heirs---Categories of legal heirs were sharer, residuaries and distant kindred.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
345		Suit 1476/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Latif Farooqi (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan International Airline Corporation Limited (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	25-FEB-22	Yes	In terms of the written understanding, the plaintiff`s insurance claim should have been forwarded to the Insurance Department with available record, immediately after 12.6.2017 however, they took about six months when the Manager Insurance and Terminal Benefit for payment of loss of license insurance was appraised of such fact of the plaintiff`s medical inability. The reference to insurance company was made through AGM claims on 27.6.2018 i.e. after more than a year of expiry of policy and plaintiff being declared unfit. The plaintiff was then informed that the insurance company rejected claim of the plaintiff as insurance policy was expired and his case was forwarded to relevant insurance company belatedly	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
346		II.A. 128/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Hum Network Limited (Appellant) VS Naveed Khan & Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-DEC-17	Yes	The requirement of passing a resolution is set at par with the powers of directors under section 183(1) of the Companies Act, 2017 which is parametria to Section 196 (1) of the Companies Ordinance, 1984. Since the Board is vested with the powers of management which has delegated all such rights through a Power of Attorney to the Chief Executive with further powers to delegate such powers therefore, such strict action in terms of under Order VII Rule 11 CPC for rejection of the plaint is uncalled for. This delegation of power further gets support in terms of Articles of Association which reiterate the aforesaid authority as statutory delegation of powers which was vested with the Board of Directors.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
347		Judicial Companies Misc. 38/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MFG Insurance Company Limited (Applicant) VS Securities & Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-FEB-22	Yes	In case for confirmation of resolution of reduced share capital the question for consideration are, should the Court refuse its sanction to the reduction out of regard to the interest of those members of the public who may be induced to take shares in the company; is the reduction fair and equitable between different classes of shareholders; whether the reduction is shared by all; and is it designed to work justly and equitably and whether it does not involve diminution of the liability in respect of unpaid capital or payment of any shareholder of any paid up capital; and there is evidence regarding loss of capital and nonrepresentation of available assets. None of these impediments exist in the case of the petitioners company and consequently in view of above proposed reduction in the share capital, as resolved by the company itself, apparently seems to be just, fair and reasonable and not likely to adversely affect the interests of shareholders who have themselves resolved to the approval of this scheme of reduction. The proposal for reduction of share capital is therefore confirmed in terms of the requirements of Companies Act, 2017.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
348	2015 CLD 1849	Suit.B 29/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	THARPARKAR SUGAR MILLS LTD. (Plaintiff) VS N.D.F.C. & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-NOV-14	Yes	"Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9, 19, 22 & 27---State Bank of Pakistan, BPD Circular No.29 dated 15-10-2002---Suit for declaration and injunction---Auction of property---Plaintiff company filed application for restraining defendant Bank from auctioning its property to recover outstanding amount in pursuance of decree passed in an earlier suit---Plea raised by plaintiff company was with regard to applicability of State Bank of Pakistan, BPD Circular No.29 dated 15-10-2002---Validity---Enforcement of BPD Circular No.29 by individual Banks to their respective customers was in fact the prerogative of Banks and it was for them to decide whether such debt outstanding against customer was a lost debt or recoverable in terms of assets mortgaged with them---State Bank of Pakistan, BPD Circular No.29 was binding once the Bank reached to a decision that such debt was not recoverable or a lost category and then procedure and perameters as laid down therein were to be adopted as a binding parameter but prima facie not in terms of its mandatory application---Judgment. and decree passed in earlier suit could not be made subservient to the outcome of present suit in terms of Ss. 22 & 27 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Any mode whereby consent decree passed in earlier suit was sought to be deferred, modified, altered and reviewed was violative of law--??Application was dismissed in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
349		II.A. 58/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Shafat (Appellant) VS The Agha Khan Hospital & Medical College Foundatio (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-NOV-17	Yes	No employ can coerce his master for continuation of his employment as long as he himself wishes to continue. A legitimate expectation of a notice fulfilled by payment of a months salary and that is only the wisdom behind this one month notice before termination.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
350		Const. P. 303/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Manzoor Ali & another (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-APR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
351	2023 CLD 530	M.A. 2/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mckinsey & Company Pakistan (Private) Limited (Appellant) VS Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-FEB-23	Yes	It is nobody's case that holding company has discharged such obligations, if at all it is under such duty. It is not stated that the holding company has disclosed such data in the consolidated financial statements of the group and presented as those of single enterprise and that such would be within domain of SECP, so that the purpose of non-disclosure of the remuneration of CEO or director of the relevant company whose shares are being held, would be inconsequential.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.577-K/2023 McKinsey & Company Pakistan (Private) Limited v. Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
352	2023 CLD 125, 2023 SBLR Sindh 444	Suit 1225/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Pakistan Beverage limited (Plaintiff) VS State Bank of Pakistan & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	12-OCT-22	Yes	No concluded terms of remittance via Letter of Credit were concluded prior to the cut-of date of 07.04.2022 and hence there is no retrospective applicability of Circular dated 07.04.2022 to the contract between supplier and plaintiff and such restrictions, as notified in the impugned circular, shall apply to the case in hand	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
353	2023 CLD 241	Judicial Companies Misc. 29/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Total Parco Pakistan limited & another (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-SEP-22	Yes	This is not a conveyance or sale deed under Transfer of Property Act which requires registration and stamping under Registration Act and Stamp Act ibid, before Sub-Registrar; rather it is a Scheme of Arrangement not required to be registered under the two ibid enactments before the Sub-Registrar. It is approved by a Court of law as an instrument confirming scheme and forwarded to any authority concern in the format as defined in Form A ibid. Since the aforesaid transfer under Scheme of Arrangement is not in pursuance of Land Grant Policy, therefore, the charges as being claimed for the transfer of plot are not applicable on this count also.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
354	2024 PLD Sindh 50	Suit 1292/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	ARY COMMUNICATIONS LTD (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-MAR-23	Yes	Reasonable restriction imposed by law, by no stretch of imagination means to condemn a person/entity without any justification and without hearing3. According to (RSF) Reporters without borders Pakistan press, since beginning is oscillated between civil societys demand for greater press freedom and the political and executive/establishment elites constant reassertion of extensive control over the media. This has to be streamlined within frame of law not by dictations	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
355		Suit 145/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	JDW Sugar Mills Limited & others (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	07-MAR-23	Yes	Now this debate is not concluding here to benefit any party to whom quota was allocated or would be allocated following above understanding of policy, but the end beneficiary is the federal government as the policy ensured prompt foreign exchange in about 45 days of opening of Letter of Credit. We need to understand that the subject matter is of such a magnitude that it requires immediate and conclusive attention of Court. Cane commissioner misunderstood when he applied his wisdom without following the limitations that they are under. Federal government is also equally responsible in not assisting this Court and clarifying the intent of policy to the cane commissioner as adjudged above. Politics should not invade policy matter meant for public interest in a way that fundamental and secured legal rights of citizen would get prejudiced. This case seems to be one of those, unfortunately. Thus, not being an ordinary situation I not only inclined to grant injunction restraining cane commissioner to act in such manner and distribute quota arbitrarily, but would expect prompt makeup for the losses by adhering to the above conclusion drawn by this Court, as far as sugar mills quota is concerned i.e. distribution on performance based i.e. sugar crushed and/or sugar produced which is the only justified formula provided by federal government when policy was made and applied. Since it is time bound issue and since sugar has its best use if consumed in two years' time, it is expected that cane commissioner would respond and submit reallocation within two weeks from date of this order	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
356		Suit 1961/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Amir Hussain (Plaintiff) VS Sir Syed University of Engineering & Tecnology (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-MAR-23	Yes	It is thus a private University which was formed and is governed by the statute. I would conclude that there is a relationship of master and servant between the plaintiff and defendant	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
357		Const. P. 4309/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
358		Const. P. 8166/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Abeer Shaikh (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
359		Const. P. 6810/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	NKR Clothing Tower Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
360		Const. P. 4318/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
361		Const. P. 5166/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Amin Chapal (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author)
362		Const. P. 5521/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mst. Bilqis Khalid and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
363		Const. P. 6655/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Adamjee Automotive Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
364		Const. P. 6807/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Shan Industries (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
365		Const. P. 6812/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Golden Sindh Cotton Ginning & Pressing Factory (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
366		H.C.A 224/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mst. Khursheed Begum & others (Appellant) VS Muhammad Iqbal & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-JAN-24	Yes	The rights of the legal heirs to intervene in terms of Order XXI Rule 89 and 90 CPC (though both rules are separate in nature), to be exercised within 30 days??? time of the acceptance of offer, as sale certificate was also ordered to be issued	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial	C.P.L.A.732/2024 Faraz Ali v. Mst. Khursheed Begum and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
367		Const. P. 40/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Munawar Ali Sagar & Others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-OCT-23	Yes	A) The site "Karoonjhar Hills" is not available for excavation of any nature whatsoever except excavation for discovering historical monuments and that too after following international guidelines and archeological department B) Mines & Mineral Department do not enjoy the jurisdiction over it since it is protected heritage and not available as a site for mining/excavation; C) Entire range Karoonjhar Hills in ???one monument??? under the law and cannot be divided into pieces and portions and to make some part of it (range) available for any prohibited excavation. Its importance lies in preserving the entire range and not permitting mineral excavation in between as it would not only destroy the beauty but at the conclusion of mining process would destroy the existing topography	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.P.3964/2023 Province of Sindh through Chief Secretary Sindh Secretariat, Karachi v. Munawar Ali Sagar and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Notice
368		Const. P. 3341/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Saeed uz Zaman Khan (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
369		Const. P. 4111/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Amir Mahmood (Petitioner) VS Izharuddin and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-NOV-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
370		Const. P. 2196/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Deen Muhammad (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1119-K/2023 Deen Muhammad v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary M/o Interior and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
371		H.C.A 93/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Jameel Ahmed & Others (Appellant) VS Hayat Muhammad Sher Pao & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.1297-K/2023 Hayat Muhammad Sher Pao & others v. Jameel Ahmed & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
372		Const. P. 6660/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mehrab Mercantile Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
373		Const. P. 4159/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mairaj Begum (Petitioner) VS Director M.E.O and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
374		Const. P. 6661/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mediplas Innovations Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
375		I. A 59/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Arshad Mirza (Appellant) VS Darsyus T. Sethna & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-JAN-24	Yes	There is no cavil to this proposition that under special summary chapter, only special jurisdiction is conferred upon the court, proceeding whereunder could only be seen under negotiable instruments and any deviation thereof would give rise to an exercise of jurisdiction not vested upon the court and the order/judgment is only a nullity. In the instant matter, a decree is passed under summary chapter against an individual who has not executed any negotiable instrument and hence could not have been subjected to summary proceedings. Certainly, if the presence of appellant/defendant No.2 was necessary and important in the wisdom of plaintiff/respondent No.1, in the sense that he was a guarantor or that amount could be recovered from him, then the case could have been proceeded against them/him under ordinary civil jurisdiction. When confronted, Mr. Fazal ur Rehman that this decree could not have been passed under summary chapter against him and/or could not be executed against the appellant, learned counsel for the respondents though initially insisted that it was a belated attempt on the part of the appellant to raise this point, but later conceded as no limitation would run against an order which is a nullity or without jurisdiction in the eyes of law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
376		Const. P. 4327/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
377	2013 CLC 164	Suit 1440/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Mst.Shabana Yasmeen (Applicant) VS Prov.of Sindh (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	27-AUG-12	Yes	For the purpose of existence or absence of a prima facie case in relation to exercise under Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2, facts canvassed by both sides have to be examined and it is on preponderance of facts as based on documentary material and averments in the way of affidavits that concept of arguable case has to be determined. In addition, while deciding application under Order XXXIX rules 1&2 CPC, Court is required to travel beyond four corners of plaint to determine, though tentatively, as to on what facts, finding is to be based. Thus spectrum of Order XXXIX rules 1 & 2 CPC is broader and more comprehensive	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
378	2012 CLC 1508	Suit 485/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	SOORTY ENTERPRISES (PVT) LTD (Plaintiff) VS K.E.S.C. LTD & ANOTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	18-JUN-12	Yes	when the parties are not at issue the question of its determination does not arise. The plaintiffs was already put on notice by notices dated 17.2.2012 and the controversy came to an end on account of such admission with regard to keeping the load as standby. The distinguishing features as far as this suit and the Suit No. 329/2012 are concerned is of course the admitted position with regard to the status of the sanctioned load when the initial notices dated 17.02.2012 were replied. Since there was no question of determination and even after the issuance of notices it was consistent stand of the plaintiff that it was keeping the sanctioned load as standby, the defendant No.1 was well within their right to disconnect the electricity as the determination is not required.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
379		Suit 804/1996 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1996	ABDUL KARIM K. KHAN. (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL MALIK K. LOKHA (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-13	Yes	The plaintiff cannot succeed for the restoration of his suit on the weaknesses of defendant Counsel. He had to show why he was prevented from appearing which was to be measured on the touch stone of the sufficient cause independently and not viz-a-viz defendants Counsel appearance or non-appearance.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
380		Cr.Bail 309/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Abdul Haque Chawro (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-JAN-13	Yes	It appears that the entry allegedly referred pertains to the year 2003, whereas the FIR was lodged in the year 2012, thus there is inordinate delay of nine years. Although the entry pertains to the year 2003, however, it is yet to be ascertained as to whether such entry was on account of the fraudulent act of the applicant who was neither posted nor claimed to have been acted and for that how the applicant could be made responsible. All that has been pointed out is that the sale certificate on the basis of such entry was made, which per learned State Counsel was bogus entry and have bogus sale certificate. It is also yet to be determined as to whether this forged entry was inserted in the record of rights during his tenure or prior to him.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
381		Cr.Bail 521/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Muhammad Sallah Junejo (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-FEB-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
382		Cr.Bail 238/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Riaz Magsi (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-FEB-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
383		Cr.Bail 552/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2011	Abdul Rasool Khoso & ors (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	13-MAR-13	Yes	In the entire application it has not been convincingly stated as to what malafide was involved in nominating the applicants after 04 months and 12 days. Statement of the applicants that since they have been involved after 04 months and 12 days is sufficient to establish the malafides, I am afraid, is not convincing statement. The complainant and the eyewitnesses have categorically nominated the applicants in their statements and as observed by the Honourable Supreme Court that no court would have any power to grant pre-arrest bail unless all the conditions specified for allowing bail before arrest specially the condition regarding malafides were proved. Perusal of the record shows that no such ground was available or were made out as far as bail application is concerned. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances and in view of medical post-mortem report and the statements of the eyewitnesses I am not inclined to grant pre-arrest bail in favour of the applicants and being so the instant application stands dismissed and the interim pre-arrest bail already allowed to them is hereby recalled. Accordingly, bail application is dismissed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
384	2015 PCr.LJ 813	Cr.Misc. 264/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2011	Hussain Bux Dal and others (Applicant) VS Muhammad Khan Ghumro and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-JAN-13	Yes	the sufficient material was not available before the Judicial Magistrate as well as before the revisional Court to handover the custody of the buffaloes to the respondents only on the basis of the enquiry report by disregarding the fact that these respondents did not bother to make hue and cry for about one and a half year and all of a sudden when these buffaloes were recovered or discovered, they lodged F.I.R to take advantage. It is yet to be determined as to how they got such information and who gave them such information of these buffaloes being seized. This needs further expert enquiry and investigation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
385		Cr.Bail 459/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Saddam Hussain Qambrani (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-JAN-13	Yes	It appears that the enmity that has been shown in the F.I.R is on account of playing cricket, as stated in the F.I.R. It is alleged that accused Saddam Hussain on the issue of altercation over playing cricket gave and in furtherance of common intention accused Muhammad Parial caused pistol, accused Saeed Ahmed caused iron bar and accused Ali Asghar alias Zahid caused Danda blows to brother of the complainant Riaz and accused Saddam Hussain fired from gun straight upon brother of the complainant Riaz with intention to commit his murder, such injury as reported in the F.I.R has been explained in the final medico legal certificate in terms whereof the investigation result shows that metallic gun shot opautics on both sides of chests, and on the left shoulder joint arms, such injury has been declared as Ghayr Jaifah Munaqilah and is of firearm weapon. Apparently this offence falls under section 337-F (vi) P.P.C, punishable upto seven years.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
386		Suit 352/2000 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2000	plaintiff (Plaintiff) VS Defendant (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-NOV-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
387		Cr.Bail 403/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Mubarak Ali (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-JUL-13	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
388	2016 MLD 1527	Const. P. 2547/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Khalid Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Deen Muhammad & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-DEC-15	Yes	Sindh Local Government Act (XLII of 2013)--- ----Ss. 23 & 36---Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2013, R.18---Election for the seat of local council---Non-disclosure of complete assets at the time of submitting nomination papers---Effect---Rejection of nomination papers---Scope---Proper and Seconder were required to be from the constituency of candidate Nomination papers of the candidate were rejected on the ground that he had not disclosed his complete assets at the time of submitting the same---Appeal filed by the candidate was accepted and it was held that a person could not be disqualified for not disclosing the assets---Contention of rival candidate was that false statement had been given disclosing incomplete assets---Validity---Provisions of Sindh Local Government Act, 2013 and Sindh Local Councils (Election) Rules, 2013 did not provide any necessity or mandatory requirement to submit the details of assets at the time of submitting nomination papers---Successful candidate had to submit the details of assets within a period of 30 days when he took oath of an office---Candidate could not be disqualified on summary assumption for such details of assets---No one should be penalized for not disclosing the assets when law did not require him to disclose the same---No reason was available with the Returning Officer to reject the nomination form on account of not disclosing the assets---Statement made by the candidate did not fulfill the requirements for considering it to be an affidavit on oath---Even such information could not be considered to be a false affidavit---Nothing had been gained by the candidate by not showing assets at the time of filing nomination papers---Such information could not be considered to be a mala fide---Candidate's proposer and seconder were required to be from the same ward or constituency from where a candidate was contesting the election---Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.603-K/2015 Khalid Ahmed Memon v. Deen Muhammad Talpur and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
389		Suit 1980/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Engro Fertilizers Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Pak. Standards & Quality Control Authority & Ors. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-MAY-16	Yes	Before parting I may observe that at an interlocutory stage this being not a petition or an appeal but an interlocutory application a detail discussion of the factual aspects of the matter and the Pakistan Standard & Quality Control Authority Act (Act VI of 1996) itself may prejudice case of the either parties.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
390	2017 CLD 1148	Execution 23/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Bankers Equity Limited & others (Decree Holder) VS M/s Pangrio Sugar Mills Ltd. (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Order	27-FEB-17	Yes	The Banking Court while executing a decree passed under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is entitled to adopt any procedure deemed appropriate by it to effect sale of mortgaged properties in execution of a decree. Judicial sanctity in disposing of the mortgaged property through Court auction is required to be reaffirmed. Such sanctity could only be disturbed if there is a material irregularity which leads to fraud to cause loss to any one which is not the attribution. Mere allegation that the property worth more than it was evaluated is not sufficient. Every judgment debtor, if allowed to plead the value of his property there can hardly be any auction which could be conducted. There was nothing to prevent the judgment debtor during these ten years since decree was passed in 2006 to bring a buyer of its choice who could offer a price as it (judgment debtor) desires. The Court while considering the objections of the judgment debtor has also to weigh and consider the miseries and pain undertaken by the decree holder. It is within the domain and propagative of the banking Court to adopt any of the procedure it deems fit and proper and hence this question is not of any material importance that the bid is substantially low as compared to the reserved price or forced sale price.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
391		Const. P. 1357/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Shrimati Aashi (Petitioner) VS Bhesham Lal & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-SEP-17	Yes	This Proviso is primarily is in consideration of the fact that Muslim women who file their respective suits for dissolution of marriages and dower amount shall also be in a position to avail the jurisdiction of local limits where the (wife) ordinarily resides but that doesnt exclude the jurisdiction of the above two situations i.e. (a) and (b).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
392		E.P 19/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Jam Saifullah Khan (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	24-APR-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
393	2016 CLD 1938	Suit 516/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Jubilee Life Insurance Co (Plaintiff) VS The United Insurance Co (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-MAY-15	Yes	Section 39 of the Trademark Ordinance, 2001 relates to the rights conferred by registration whereas Section 40 of the Ordinance deals with the infringement of the registered trademark. In terms of Section 40 subsection 3(c) of the Ordinance a person shall infringe a registered trademark if the person uses in the course of a trade a mark which is identical with, or deceptively similar to, the trademark in relation to services of the same description as that of service in respect of which a trademark is registered. The proposition thus appears to be simple that service which is being dealt with by both the plaintiff and the defendant whether is of same description or otherwise to attract the provisions as referred above. I may refer to the international classification of goods and services and it seems that it is being dealt with by class-36 and there is no dispute in this regard as the defendant himself chooses to apply under the same class. The defence that they have been dealing with takaful business would not turn much as it is being dealt with by the same classification	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
394		Const. P. 1359/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Yousuf Thr Attorney Muhammad Shahid (Petitioner) VS Kashif Muhammad Baig & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.81-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Muhammad Yousuf and others,C.P.1098-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Muhammad Yousuf and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted
395	2020 SBLR Sindh 232	Const. P. 233/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS Mst. Fozia Aqeel Zaheer Lari and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	08-JAN-18	Yes	The personal bona fide need of the landlord/landlady is measured on the basis of a gauge which is dependent upon consistent and conscious inspiring evidence and the existence of such evidence provides presumption as to existence of genuineness unless evidence contrary to such bona fide requirement is available. The touchstone provided by the Honble Supreme Court in such circumstances is that the landlord/landlady should be expressive as to the insufficiency of space already in possession. She may have obtained possession of any adjacent premises under section 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 but bona fide requirement of subject shop is to be determined on the basis of available evidence. The bona fide requirement also get disturbed or shaken when the landlady was found to have let out other premises or found to have handed over possession of the premises, which was the subject matter of connected rent application, wherein the very premises required for personal need (as could be ascertained from evidence) was handed over to other tenant irrespective of the fact if it was acquired under 14 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.104-K/2018 Mst: Fozia Aqeel Zaheer Lari v. Muhammad Aslam and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
396		Const. P. 1452/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Eng. Nizamuddin (Petitioner) VS Dr. Shakeela Qazi & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	07-NOV-17	Yes	The provisio of aforesaid Rules provided additional room for the subject cause to file a suit for dissolution of marriage and dower amount within the local limits where wife ordinarily resides. It is distinguished from rest of the jurisdiction wherein the parties were last resided and/or where cause wholly or in part has arisen. While applying the said Rule a suit for dissolution of marriage by way of Khulla can be filed at the address where wife ordinarily resides at the time of filing suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.11-K/2018 Engineer Nizamuddin v. Dr.Shakeela Qazi and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
397		E.P 21/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Irfan Ahmed Khan Jatoi (Petitioner) VS Abid Hussain Bhayo & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-FEB-19	Yes	I would take into consideration is the service to be effected upon respondents before or at the time of presenting the petition. This petition was sent through courier on 19.09.2018 at 09:54 p.m. The receipts are available in the miscellaneous file, which is a part of the main file. The courier was sent to this Tribunal and all other contesting respondents including the returned candidate. No doubt, in Section 143(3) of the Elections Act, 2017, the intention of the legislature is clear as it talks about petitioner to serve a copy of the petition along with annexures to the respondents, however, the record reveals that it was sent to the Tribunal as well as to the contesting respondents at the same time. It was received by the Tribunal at 12:00 noon on 22.09.2018. The agent / TCS courier may have consumed time in preparing different receipts and for that reason, different time is disclosed in the receipts but for all intent and purposes, it was done at the same time. The Tribunal was shown to have delivered this petition, as stated above, on 22.09.2018 at 12:00 noon, whereas, other for other consignees, the date and time of delivery is not disclosed. Although, the presumption is only attached to the registered post in terms of Section 27 of the General Clauses Act, but in view of the above facts and circumstances, it would amount to stretching it too far in case it is presumed that the notices of the petition were not delivered or served presumably at the same time when this Tribunal received the memo of petition along with annexures. It may also be noted that 20th and 21st of September were declared as public holidays being 9th and 10th of Moharram-ul-Haram.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
398		Civil Revision 25/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Muhammad Rafique & anor (Applicant) VS Syed Warand Ali Shah & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	11-FEB-19	Yes	Mutation itself does not create a title and a person driving title thereunder had to prove that the same was lawfully entered and attested, thus, no presumption of correctness was attached to the mutation entries till they are proved satisfactorily and independently through cogent evidence. Any subsequent entry or title on the basis of such entry of 1971 thus would also fall along with original sin.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
399		Const. P. 5188/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Miss Hina & others (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio	C.P.21-K/2019 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Finance Deptt: Govt.of Sindh and another v. Miss. Hina Qureshi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation
400		II.A. 1/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Mst.Hanifa (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-NOV-18	Yes	The appellant has attempted to challenge, by filing Civil Appeal No.44/2007, both the preliminary decree dated 10.10.2000 and final decree dated 28.03.2007. The appellate Court, on consideration of the accounts and the reports of the Mukhtiarkar, did not find any illegality or irregularity committed by the Senior Civil Judge while passing final decree. It is also a matter of fact that in her own examination-in-chief, she has stated that at the time of marriage, the age of his father-in-law was about 80 years and that two of her sons Abdul Majeed and Abdul Rahman were jobless. In the pleadings, respondents No.3 and 4 i.e. Mst. Hanifa and her husband Nazeerullah s/o Haji Sultan Muhammad, whose property is under dispute, admitted that his father-in-law / father was an old man and needed care and help in feeding and lodging, which was done by defendant No.3 (appellant), hence when enquired from the counsel Mr. Lawrence that he was on death bed, Mr. Lawrence honestly and categorically conceded. He, however, was of the view that he was in full senses.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.28-K/2019 Mst: Hanifa v. Province of Sindh thr. Revenue Department Hyderabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
401		Const. P. 65/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Ghulam Shabir (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	11-OCT-18	Yes	The comments filed by respondents No.3 and 4 accompanied with the recommendation of the Government of Sindh, Finance Department with reference to Rule 171 of the Sindh Civil Services Rules that there shall be no change in the date of birth which shall lead to the advantage to the Government servant concerned and unless an application in that behalf is made by the Government servant concerned within two (02) years of the date on which his service book was opened under Rule 167 of the Sindh Civil Services Rules. His service book apparently was opened in the year 1988 by Superintendent District Jail, Dadu, and an attempt has been made to alter it in the year 2017 and that too on the basis of irrelevant factor on account of medical certificate which otherwise, never permit such correction. It may well be added that things, if are done, in deviation to specific law and procedure, shall always be considered as nullity hence no benefit could be claimed in consequence thereof.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
402		Const. P. 77/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2012	Haji Abdul Ghaffar (Petitioner) VS Head Master Govt Primary School Bhutta Road Suk (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-OCT-18	Yes	ence, it could be safely observed that the pleadings of the plaint do support the proposed amendment sought by the petitioner. In the same way, will not change the nature and complexion of the suit. Had the proposed amendment be not supported by the pleadings in terms of Para 6 as well as in terms of prayer clause A, it could be a possibility that nature and complexion of the suit may have been altered by introduction of these impugned, proposed amendments, but that is not the case here.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
403		Const. P. 3130/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2011	Muhammad Adnan (Petitioner) VS Secretary Finance (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio	C.P.12-K/2019 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Finance Deptt: Govt.of Sindh and another v. Muhammad Adnan Qureshi,C.A.1192/2019 The Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Finance Deptt: Govt.of Sindh and another v. Muhammad Adnan Qureshi Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted.to be fixed after Summer vacation,Disposed
404		I. A 22/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Asmatullah Khan Masood (Appellant) VS The President (HBL) & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-DEC-18	Yes	Section 128 of the Contract Act provides that the liability of the surety is co-extensive with that of the principal debtor unless otherwise provided by the contract. This liability is enforceable under the law and the principal borrower was also liable for the repayment of the outstanding loan. The surety has guaranteed the performance of an agreement which principal borrower failed and, hence, deduction of the amount from suretys account is within the frame of the guarantee that he executed. Though in the cross-examination, he has admitted to have received the loan amount from Habib Bank Limited, Ghotki and that he had not paid the loan amount to the concerned bank within time, however, he also stated that he stood guarantor of the haris who obtained loan. The loan application was in his name and the pass book, khasra girdwari also stood in his name duly mortgaged with the bank. The finance agreement was also executed in his name and so also in the names of haris. This evidence is neither here nor there to benefit the appellant.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
405	2021 CLC 1437	Const. P. 5890/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Ashiq Hussain Chaudhary & Ors (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-NOV-20	Yes	If at all any alteration is inevitable or the open spaces that vests with the Cantonment Board now is required, the powers and jurisdictions vests with the Board with whose consultation the desired object could be materialized and not otherwise.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain	C.P.1026/2021 The Officer In-Charge Army Housing Directorate, Karachi v. The Federation of Pakistan through the Secretary Ministry of Defense, Rawalpindi Cantt and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
406	2018 PLD Sindh 377	Const. P. 4/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Scherazade Jamali (Petitioner) VS Hasim Gillani & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-MAR-18	Yes	The primary object of the Guardian & Ward Court or for that matter appellate Court was to discover as to where the welfare of the ward lies and how such welfare can be effectively achieved and maintained and should not have concerned with the visitation rights of father. --Jurisdiction Issue- The child may be an American national by birth and he may have been permanently residing in Kuwait with parents but he is a dual national. When the respondent/ father surrendered to the jurisdiction of the trial Court by moving an application under section 25 of the Guardian & Wards Act, it was promptly responded and replied by filing written statement and jurisdiction conceded by petitioner. --Once petitioner acquiesced to the jurisdiction, she cannot approbate and reprobate at the same time. The question of jurisdiction even if made dependent on ordinary residence of ward, it may not be a pure question of law that can be assailed at any forum or at any time. For that it has to be specifically pleaded so that the facts in this regard be brought to the notice of the Court. It is, thus, not a simple question of law rather a mixed question of law and facts which requires determination through evidence. --Movement or Restriction in Movement of ward-The ward belongs to a family which can afford a better upbringing, education and environment either in Pakistan or anywhere in the world which was restricted and curtailed by restriction in his movement. The Courts below should not have seen welfare only from the angle that the father/respondent must not miss his opportunity to see his child but it must also be seen from the angle as to whether a ward who is capable of studying abroad, in case the opportunities are available to him, should he be deprived of on account of the fact that father must not miss a visiting opportunity? --In any other case it would have been the welfare considering the situation of the ward while being at Karachi and only Pakistani national but the situation here is different as the child is privileged to have access to any educational institution around the world including Pakistan. An educational institute or an environment for which most of the children could only dream for. Every child has its own peculiar circumstances and the welfare demands may vary. The restriction in the movement in the present case appeared to be a tool to settle score with mother/petitioner but it will not serve as the welfare of the child. The father/respondent who had raised serious allegations against the mother/petitioner as he claimed that she is not fit to take care of ward yet is not serious in having the custody of the ward, although none of them stands proved in evidence. There are ways and mechanism to regulate the movement which is not achieved by of restricting the movement.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1034/2018 Hashim Gillani v. Scherazade Jamali & others,C.A.1355/2018 Hashim Gillani v. Scherazade Jamali & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of,Disposed
407		II.A. 46/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	Muhammad Aqil (Appellant) VS Muhammad Amir & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	31-MAY-18	Yes	The newly developed question in these proceedings while the instant appeal was pending adjudication is the alienation of the property by respondents No.1 and 2 to respondent No.3. It is claimed to have changed hands and respondent No.3 claimed to have acquired rights in the property and very ably represented by the same counsel who represents the respondents No.1 and 2. Its alienation was effected while the interim order was operating. Additionally Mr. Abrar argued issue of lis pendens. Admittedly the notice under section 18 of the Registration Act in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act was not issued. The question of lis pendens would take its effect when proceedings would be initiated in terms of section 18 of the Registration Act, 1908 for its effectiveness and cure as required in terms of Section 52 of the Transfer of Property Act.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.975/2018 Syed Muhammad Sami-ud-Din v. Muhammad Aqil & others,C.A.976/2018 Muhammad Amir & another v. Muhammad Aqil & another,C.A.32-K/2018 Muhammad Aqil v. Muhammad Amir and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending ,Pending ,Disposed Dismissed
408		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 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
409	2020 PLC (CS) 895	Const. P. 141/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Usman (Petitioner) VS PTCL and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-DEC-19	Yes	Subsection 2 of Section 36 of Pakistan Telecommunication (Re-Organization) Act, 1996 enabled an employer, with the consent of the transferred employee, to award appropriate compensation in lieu of whatever benefits they could have gained at the end of their tenure. These employees were given service benefits, which were not even matured at the time the employees opted VSS, hence it cannot be said that any guarantee or secured right was arbitrarily snatched by the employer. These employees could have continued to serve without opting VSS. VSS is a binding contract and nothing about its unconstitutionality was established nor is there any substance to render it as void under the Contract Act. In the entire scheme of Pension Act and rules there is nothing to prevent the employees from entering into a contract (for any prompt gain) in bargain with their post retirement or pensionary benefits.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
410		Civil Revision 14/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Khadim Hussain (Applicant) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	16-MAR-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
411		Const. P. 716/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Muhammad Ishaque (Petitioner) VS Abdul Khalique Memon and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
412		Const. P. 1752/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	M/s Shadman Cotton Mills Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
413		Const. P. 3815/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Maqsood Ali (Petitioner) VS PTCL and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	13-JAN-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
414	2020 YLR 2597	Const. P. 2180/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Masood Ahmed Wassan & others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-APR-20	Yes	For roads, bridges, gas/oil line etc. most precious lands were/are being acquired or intercepted in between to have a shortest distance to minimize the cost of that project, but we do not realize that while doing so we are not only destroying fertile/ agriculture land but so also risking our future. This acquisition is normally based on feasibility report of that particular project but there is no realization that for providing some convenience or low cost project, precious land is being destroyed, which is far more important for our future than the convenience and low cost project. The project may cost less but consequences would be detrimental. We are living in a world where natural resources such as fertile land is being vacuumed up by development of concrete structure and this would count a lot in future and no one would come for our rescue when we have to yield our own food for our own consumption. In this case land was attached with the research based agriculture department of Sindh which caters for not only fruit crop but other agri products as well. The authorities responsible for identifying this land have not applied their mind at all and in an attempt to please, the most fertile land of the province had been provided for an object which could conveniently be achieved on non-agriculture land, subject to law. Blanket recommendation was forwarded by the Committee constituted for the aforesaid purpose and without identifying the reasons of disassociating the land with the agriculture based research department, they have made this land available for a scheme called Shaheed Mohtarma Benazir Bhutto Town. The recommendation of the Committee and the action of the authority is neither transparent nor lawful but in fact a mala fide attempt to usurp the most precious and fertile land of district Mirpurkhas where research is being conducted. The provincial government should have emphasized to uplift the research system of the agriculture department and steered the progress by maintaining it rather than to ignore the research based system. They could always find the land anywhere else and provide resources and amenities for dwellers where the land could be developed by land developers. The performance of Ministry of Agriculture to save the land was half-hearted and they only presented themselves as marionette since they have not taken action against usurpation of their land. If we really want to protect the agricultural lands and to promote sustainable agrarian growth for the future, large scale basic reforms and legislation are needed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam
415		Const. P. 750/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Total Parco Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain
416		II.A. 99/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Abdul Rahim Memon (Appellant) VS Mst. Amna Shaikh & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	10-APR-21	Yes	Whatever is deposed by the attorney, he deposed it on behalf of the principal on instruction and hence nothing could be taken away on the count that it was hearsay -Plaintiff/respondent has also examined one of the witnesses of the agreement whereas the other had expired and hence according to Qanoon-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, it was otherwise proved through the evidence available on record. On the other hand the appellant examined himself only without corroboration of any other witnesses. Even defendants No.2 and 3 did not turn up to examine themselves and/or to support the appellant/defendant No.1.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.649-K/2021 Abdul Rahim Memon v. Mst. Amina Sheikh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
417	2023 MLD 522	Const. P. 2129/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Akram (Petitioner) VS M/s. Jamia Imamia Trust & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-APR-21	Yes	It is immaterial for the tenant as towho are the trustees and how those trustees were/are being replaced. It is indoor/internal management of the trustees and trust which has nothing to do with the relationship of landlord and tenant between Jamia ImamiaTrust and thepetitioner. None of thealleged trustees who were deprived of any benefit of being a trustee was cited as a witness or summoned by the petitioner.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
418	2016 CLD 1938	Suit.B 63/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN (Plaintiff) VS RAJA TRADERS & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	16-APR-15	Yes	Under the parameters of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 the defendant is entitled for a relief if question of law and fact is being established. Article 10-A of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan no doubt provides an opportunity of fair trial but it does not amount to a trial of a suit where neither any question of law nor a fact was established. Article 10-A of the constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan also provides for the determination of a civil right and the obligation. Once the due process as required in terms of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is adopted and the defendant is before the Court for redressal of his grievance, all he has to do is to establish the question of fact and law for determination of civil right and obligation, which is to be determined by the Court. In terms of Section 10(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 the application for leave to defend is supposed to be in the form of written statement which shall be containing summary of substantial question of law as well as fact in respect of which in the opinion of defendant, evidence needs to be recorded..	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
419	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 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
420	2018 PLC Lab. 232	Const. P. 149/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	National Refinery Ltd (Petitioner) VS Mst.Farida Begum & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-DEC-17	Yes	Once an application under order I rule 10 CPC was filed, respondent No.3/Commissioner assumes the jurisdiction to pass order under the law. Any order that transgresses its authority and jurisdiction is then to be tested on the touchstone of principle whether a substantial relief likely to be granted to the respondent No.1, has been impaired. Not only the petitioner was allegedly deleted but at an interim stage declaration has been made that petitioner is not the employer which is beyond the principle laid down in the case of Fauji Fertilizer Company Ltd. v. National Industrial Relations Commission reported in 2013 SCMR 1253. So if its authority and jurisdiction is to be analyzed on such touchstone it looks transgressed. By scoring off petitioner from the pleading it exercised jurisdiction not vested in him as in trial the determination was yet to be made. Scoring of petitioner from trial before trial is an act exercised with material irregularity. Presiding Officer held security company responsible and swap them and the intention was reflected in the order, (one comes in and other goes out). Besides this, such an option of reviewing the order was attempted to be exercised when an application under order IX rule 9 read with section 151 CPC was filed to set aside order dated 14.05.2011 which also met its conclusive dismissal on 05.01.2012 and the matter thereafter was fixed for framing of issues.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
421		Const. P. 576/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Muhammad Nadeem & Ors (Petitioner) VS Vth Addl: District Judge Karachi & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-17	Yes	The bona fide of the applicants/petitioners in view of above evidence cannot be challenged on the ground that Shop No.2 was vacated at some point of time and the premises is in possession of the attorney of the applicants. The father of the applicants, in fact is doing his business under the name and style of Akhtar & Sons. The judgments, as relied upon by the respondents counsel are not applicable to the facts and circumstances of the instant case as the respondent has failed to establish that it was lying vacant before filing of the ejectment application. -----As far as dishonesty or non-existence of good-faith is concerned, the burden was upon respondent to show that good faith is missing or that the tenant vacated Shop No.2 prior to filing of the ejectment application and hence it was required to be disclosed as to nonsuitability of Shop No.2. It is clearly stated in the cross-examination that the attorney of applicants, who is also their father, is conducting business in the name and style of Akhtar & Sons. The respondent has not cross examined about the genuine need of attorneys son Muhammad Nadeem/petitioner No.1 as he has also denied that Shop No.2 is vacant in the building. It is the cumulative effect of evidence of the parties, which is to be looked into.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
422	2018 CLC 1357	R.A (Civil Revision) 166/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Jacob (Applicant) VS English Biscuits Manufactures (Pvt) Ltd & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
423		Const. P. 577/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Shoukat Ali S/o Muhammad Alam. (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-DEC-12	Yes	The question of deletion of section 28-A of the Act and application of newly inserted proviso to section 16 is directly related to such question as to what could be the right time to determine the value of the land, which is to be acquired for public benefit. Will the intended desire of the acquisition authority be the right time; would the survey of the land to adjudge its suitability be the right time; or would it be the date of notification or would it be actual physical possession to be the right time.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
424		Const. P. 4617/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Irfan Gul Dars and Ors (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-NOV-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
425		Const. P. 1628/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Zulfiqar Hussain (Petitioner) VS District Judge, Khi-C & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-DEC-17	Yes	annual value of the premises or imposition of taxes may have contributed but the landlord has not taken shelter on those grounds. Therefore, in the absence of any evidence as regards other points/ingredients of Section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, the consideration of existing point can be given effect. On account of enforcing only one of the ingredients the landlord is not disentitled for the enhancement of rent.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
426		Const. P. 2377/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Bank Alfalah Limited (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-12	Yes	petitioner is precluded from raising such contention in the generalized form, more importantly as we have already observed it is not the kind of investigation that would be governed by any of the above enactment since it involves a question of granting auto loan on the basis of bogus document such as Auto loan agreement, ID Card of individuals who never applied for such loan. It is mainly related to their officers concerned and it is to be seen whether any public exchequer, cess was involved and/or misappropriated including but not limited to the offence that has already been registered.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
427		Suit.B 130/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	NIB BANK LIMITED (Plaintiff) VS TANVEER COTTON MILLS (PVT) LTD (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	02-NOV-16	Yes	No doubt the documents attached with the replication cures the defect as originally existing in the statement of account available at pages 277 onwards however such document attached with the replication cannot be replied or rebutted. At the most it could be considered as a document curing the defect existing in the earlier document but on this defect and deficiency a leave application cannot be out rightly dismissed since the claim of the plaintiff is based on statement of account which is not in accordance with subsection 8 of Section 2 of Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1891. In such a situation an opportunity ought to have been provided to the defendant to defend the suit which is not based on proper statement of account. The presumption of truth cannot be said to be attached to this Statement of Account. Even if it is a computer generated statement it is being fed by human being therefore in my view even such Statement of Account for the purposes of deciding the claim ought to have been certified in the same manner.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
428		Const. P. 310/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Habib Bank Limited (Petitioner) VS IXth Rent Controller, Khi (Central) & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-APR-21	Yes	-Since statute does not provide remedy of appeal, this petition has been filed to invoke jurisdiction of this Court under Article 199 of Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. By dismissal of an application under order VII rule 11 CPC, none of the fundamental right of the petitioner was violated to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court. -The whole gummit of the lis is yet to be decided and hence if an appeal against such order could not be maintained, how this alternate recourse be made available, when no fundamental right of the petitioner seems to have been violated.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
429		Const. P. 631/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Nusrat Hussain @ Shahid Warsi (Petitioner) VS Aal-e- Aba Trust & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-APR-18	Yes	The rent was deposited in the name of two persons i.e. Aale-eAba Trust and as well as previous owner Fayyaz Hussain Qazalbash. This was done after receipt of notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 from new owner i.e. Aale-e-Aba Trust. Despite having knowledge and despite having seen the documents, as the correspondence shows, the tenant/ petitioner without first offering the rent to the respondent No.1 started depositing rent in Misc. Rent Case. This deposit is not a lawful deposit in terms of Section 10(3) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
430	2021 CLC 98	Const. P. 1111/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Nafeesa Begum (Petitioner) VS State Life Insurance Corporation & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	27-JAN-20	Yes	The expression subject to agreement is occasionally used in the correspondence exchanged between the parties during contract negotiations. These words denote that the document is not an offer or acceptance and negotiations are still going on. The expression, which may be found similar and closer to the term subject to agreement, is without prejudice, which may not be a synonym but much closer to the essence of expression subject to agreement/contract.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
431	2022 PTD 94	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 203/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s. Universal Enterprise (Applicant) VS The Customs Appellate Tribunal & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-OCT-21	Yes	The amount of remittance may not be of any importance as the actual evidence is invoice which is relied upon. Hence the price actually paid could very conveniently be determined on the basis of such documents and notwithstanding the insertion / amendment made in the year 2017 as far as the second proviso to Section 25A is concerned, it is the amount, which is actually paid or payable which is considered as customs value for the goods when sold for export to Pakistan.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author)
432	2022 PTD 1302	Const. P. 3068/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s Quick Contractor & Traders (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-21	Yes	With this observation since Import Policy Order 2013 in its present form is exactly the same (for present purpose) as it stood in 2009, the clarification will be carried forward and the objections of the department insofar as the two dissimilar brands/makes i.e. crane and truck are concerned, would not be tenable. It was never the requirement of Import Policy Order 2013 that a truck-mounted crane should be factory-fitted or that the crane and truck should not be dissimilar as far as their makes are concerned.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
433	2022 PTD 576	Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 2/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	IMS Health Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Applicant) VS Commissioner-II SRB (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-NOV-21	Yes	It is the consideration in money including federal and provincial duties and taxes which constitute value of taxable services which the person provides against the consideration but it excludes the amount of sales tax under the ibid Act. The Tribunal was of the view that the invoices generated on the amount includes the expenses/expenditures plus 10-% service charges and is to be taken as one revenue component for services rendered. The Tribunal is also of the view that in certain cases there is specific rule in Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 providing for valuation of a particular service and providing a certain minimum threshold and also any exemption and exception. However, Tribunal considered that since no rule is available for the category of Business Support Services full value of generated invoices shall be taken as the value of services rendered or provided in terms of provisions of Section 5 ibid. --Primarily value of service charges for the purposes of Act 2011 is governed by the value of service agreed upon between the provider and the recipient as the market itself is so competitive that nothing could defeat the actual amount being declared to be taxed. However, in case such understanding of value of service is doubtful as it does not disclose correct value of service, it was open for the department to have considered the open market price of such service as required to be determined under section 6 of Sindh Sales Tax on Services Act, 2011 which is not the case here. Two provisos to Section 5 deals the situation of value of service. In a situation where the consideration of value of service is in kind or is partly in kind and partly in money, value of service shall mean open market price2 excluding the amount of sales tax under Act 2011. Similarly in case where service is provided by provider to a recipient who is an associated person and the value is not the actual value of service, then the value of service which is being provided by a provider to a non-associated person shall be counted and in case no consideration is claimed or value is lower than it is being provided by other persons, the value of service shall be of open market. In principle the department has not disputed the value of services rather the department is of the view that reimbursed amount or the amount of maintenance/expenses incurred should be made part of the value of the service.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
434		Const. P. 1812/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mrs. Rehana Mansoor W/o Mansoor Saleh (Petitioner) VS VIth Sr.Civil Judge/Rent Controller Khi East & ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
435	2021 SBLR Sindh 2413	Const. P. 1033/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Ahsanullah S/o Amanullah (Petitioner) VS Sultan Shah and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	16-APR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.800-K/2021 Sultan Shah v. Ahsanullah & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
436		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 36/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Quick Contractors & Traders (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan(Author)	C.P.519-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Quick Contractors & Traders Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
437		Const. P. 3070/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s Rehman Contractors Co. (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal(Author)	C.P.428-K/2022 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. Rehman Construction Co. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
438		Const. P. 1904/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Province Of Sindh & Others (Petitioner) VS Shabbir Ahmed & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-DEC-20	Yes	The amount allegedly deducted as government policy as 25% was held to be unlawful. The petitioner intend to travel beyond the judgment and decree wherein neither such defence was taken nor the deduction of the amount of Rs.1,78,415/- being 25% of the entire amount of respondent was held as lawful deduction in terms of the government policy. The petitioner cannot travel beyond decree which was neither challenged by the petitioner nor it is otherwise unlawful.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
439		Const. P. 1608/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Hareef Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Chancellor Quaid Awam Uni SBA and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	22-OCT-20	Yes	University Matter	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
440		F.R.A 24/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Nasir Hussain & Ors (Appellant) VS Mumtaz Ali (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-OCT-17	Yes	The evidence i.e. available on record and three contrary versions and the pleadings of the rent case wherein no amount of rent was stated to be in existence or fixed and the cause of action alone was enough to establish that the cause was not on account of non-payment of any rent and it is only on account of interference caused by the appellant in renting out shops to different individuals that respondents furious to file the ejectment application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
441		Suit 2139/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	SPIRIT INDUSTRIES PVT LTD & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS PROVINCE OF SINDH & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-APR-22	Yes	It seems that strategically parties resorted to litigation to have an order of the Court in presence of media campaign and were not willing to do it themselves. Cause for filing this suit is only to the extent that defendants gave a deaf ear to the requests of plaintiffs as far as supply and its acknowledgment is concerned. Defendants are within their rights to accept and inspect the goods as per specifications before goods could be acknowledged. Therefore, if a Committee is created or formed for inspection of goods, the plaintiffs should not shy away and the only purpose left for the Committee is to carry out above mandate as per terms of the contracts-	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
442		Const. P. 650/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Zahoor Khan (Petitioner) VS Mst. Inshallah Begum (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-DEC-12	Yes	Since final order on the ejectment applications has already been assailed in other parallel litigation, it would be in the fitness of things that such an order denying to implead the City District Government Karachi as necessary and proper party could well be agitated before the forum hearing the appeal in respect of an order disposing of the main ejectment applications and the Court hearing the appeal or petition in respect of final order passed on ejectment application could decide the controversy as to whether the City District Government Karachi was or was not a necessary and proper party before the trial Court in rent proceedings.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
443		Const. P. 83/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mohammad Suleman (Petitioner) VS Abdul Rasheed and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	05-MAR-18	Yes	In the present case it was a heavy burden upon the appellant to disprove the execution of such lease or to prove a collusive execution of lease but failed in such attempt. In terms of Articles 70 and 72 of the Qanoon-e-Shahdat Order, 1984 the registered instrument must yield in favour of oral evidence. The registered instrument would always carry a presumption of truth and a very strong and exceptional evidence is needed to dislodge the inference of truthfulness and genuineness of such document. It may have been said by the Deputy Director Land, Lyari that the issue can be resolved by summoning the officer from Excise & Taxation Department who may verify the number but it was not satisfactorily established by the appellant by summoning the witness.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
444		Suit 2027/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	TARIQ HUSSAIN MAHESAR (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	25-NOV-16	Yes	Perusal of these clauses show that the plaintiff was restrained from having direct or indirect interest or connections with an external organization that has business dealing with the PSO and that any act of such member or any such involvement which could potentially be considered in clear conflict. The clause 3.4.1 further emphasises that a member of PSO family shall not give or receive bribe in order to retain or bestow business or financial advantages and that any account of personal financial benefits for having giving business to outsider will constitute bribery and that any such relationship with external agencies should be such that the PSOs integrity shall not be damaged	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
445		Judicial Companies Misc. 41/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Gadoon Textile Mills Ltd. and Others (Applicant) VS .. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	04-JUN-14	Yes	"Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984)--- ----Ss. 284, 285, 286, 287 & 288---Demerger of companies---Collective business decision---Scope---Determination of consideration including the commercial aspect of the merger along with manner of the swap ratio was primarily and substantially the prerogative of the members of the respective companies---Businessmen had to take decision considering all the pros and cons of demerger and merger of companies---While taking such decision there would be chances of success and failure but while questioning such decision the bona fides was the real test---Businessmen could take decision foreseeing the future aspect---Court could only see that all the legal formalities had been fulfilled and scheme was neither unjust nor unfair or against the national interest but could not challenge the wisdom of a decision of businessmen---While demerging shares of Real Estate and Textile the representatives or shareholders might decide to keep them separately which could not be challenged before the court---Company was conducting two business which were being separated---Advantages and disadvantages of keeping them together would remain there by disassociating the two businesses and their shareholding---Both would separately yield profit and loss hence the cumulative effect of the net result would not matter---Proposed scheme was based on the principle that each shareholder would get its respective share in terms of percentage that he was in collective business---Petition for demerger of companies was granted."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
446		Const. P. 2098/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Syed Shahzad Ali S/o Syed Shabbir ALi (Petitioner) VS Abdul Ghaffar & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-MAY-18	Yes	There cannot be any evidence structure of which not pleaded in written statement. It appears to be an attempt to support the allegations in respect of the property in question, as undertaken by some of the brothers of respondent who are in dispute as to its title. However the definition of landlord and owner are defined which would restrict tenant to probe once they consider respondent as their landlord.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
447		Const. P. 3359/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Saad Rehman (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
448	2013 MLD 584	Suit 729/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	ABDUL WADOOD (Plaintiff) VS MUHAMMAD IQBAL & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	01-OCT-12	Yes	(a) Malicious prosecution--- ----Suit for malicious prosecution, recovery of damages and compensation---F.I.R. was registered by defendants against the plaintiffs---Trial Court acquitted the plaintiffs in connection with the F.I.R. under S. 245(1), Cr.P.C on the basis that prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt---Plaintiffs instituted present suit with the contention that they had been maliciously prosecuted by the defendants by registration of an F.I.R.---Validity---Plaintiffs were acquitted by the Trial Court on account of the fact that prosecution had failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt---Judgment of Trial Court was silent with regard to the "malice" of the defendants and also with regard to the "falsehood" of the F.I.R.---Plaintiffs had failed to establish that there was "no reasonable and probable cause" for their prosecution---Plaintiffs had also not proved claimed special or general damages----Simple affidavit in evidence had been filed by plaintiffs without support of any documentary evidence claiming professional fee, travelling charges, business loss, mental torture/discomfort, damages on account of loss of reputation and defamation in public---Suit for malicious prosecution was dismissed accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
449	2023 YLR 414	II.A. 44/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: IInd Appeal No. 45 of 2021	2021	Abdul Malik (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & Others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-JUN-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.901-K/2022 Abdul Malik v. Province of Sindh through Secretary, Revenue Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
450	2023 CLD 1088	Judicial Companies Misc. 49/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	SPI INSURANCE COMPANY LIMITED AND ANOTHER (Applicant) VS . (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-JAN-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
451	2023 CLC 1098	Suit 1357/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	ABDUL REHMAN (Plaintiff) VS NOMAN ABID (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	08-SEP-22	Yes	The circular in this regard is for the litigants who have crossed age of 65, widow who have not re-married and orphan whose both parents have expired. The litigant, for the purpose of defining above circular, does not include the attorney who is contesting on behalf of person litigating under such status, on a private arrangement. The attorney may have crossed the age of 65 but the litigant has not.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
452	2023 CLC 1361	Suit -775/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	SYED FARRUKH GHANI (Plaintiff) VS BANK OF PUNJAB & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-JAN-23	Yes	It cannot be a heady acceptance if a jurisdiction is conferred on a mere desire of plaintiff who claimed to have received information at Karachi where he resides without considering the actual adjudication at a place which is away from our jurisdiction. If this is accepted, then the jurisdiction of any trial court may also be altered if it could be established that he/she heard the decision somewhere else. There is a heavy counter admission by plaintiff i.e. his surrender before a jurisdiction beyond this court. The law of jurisdiction takes its own course and while the plaintiff surrendered before the enquiry committee which is admittedly beyond the territorial limits of this court, the follow up procedure concludes his dismissal at Lahore. If the court would accept the statement of plaintiff that he was residing at Karachi hence would determine the jurisdiction, it would negate the long standing principle and doctrine as recognized under section 16-20 CPC. It is the ultimate cause which gives birth to a jurisdiction under normal circumstances and that is dismissal from service at Lahore where he surrendered.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
453	2023 CLD 366, 2023 YLR 1177, 2023 SBLR Sindh 366	Suit 2707/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/S AGP LIMITED & ANOTHER (Plaintiff) VS M/S GALAXY PHARMA (PVT) LIMITED & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-SEP-22	Yes	Undoubtedly and undisputedly the circumstances governed by an agreement no longer exists to enable defendant No.1 to continue using the registration. This drug was registered on the application of foreign principal in favor of defendant No.1 enabling it to manufacture, market and sell the products of the foreign principal. In view of severance of relationship between plaintiff No.2 and defendant No.1, as disclosed above the agreement came to an end. ---In the absence of any contract between foreign principal and defendant No.1 it would be a matter of serious concern if defendant No.1 would continue to manufacture, market and sell product of foreign principal without its permission and authorization. Plaintiffs thus have disclosed a prima facie case with balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss in their favour.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
454	2023 CLD 624	Judicial Companies Misc. 16/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Awwal Modaraba Managment Limited & 3 others (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
455	2024 PLD Sindh 75	Suit 1789/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	ARIF HASSAN ALI HASHWANI & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS SADRUDDIN HASHWANI & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	16-MAR-23	Yes	If a litigant is entitled to more than one relief in respect of same cause of action, as indeed, in the instant case, he has to sue for all or he may sue for any of the relief he may opt but the leftover would count as an omission to sue. Since provisions of Order II rule 2 CPC are penal in nature it would preclude a litigant to sue for a portion of claim or remedy so ignored or omitted. The plaintiffs have ignored and omitted to sue for all the claims and reliefs to which they were entitled with regard to a cause of action that is "breach of trust" and hence are precluded to have a next round of litigation on the original cause of action. Plaintiff can only ignore any of the matured relief at the risk of treating them as relinquished or ignored one	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
456		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 8/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Collector of Customs (Prdeventive) (Applicant) VS A G P (Pvt( Ltd (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-MAR-23	Yes	Timeframe in passing orderin-original from the date of the show cause notice is mandatory, which can only be avoided subject to proviso	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
457		Const. P. 5861/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Fouzia Owais Khan & Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
458		Const. P. 4319/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
459		Const. P. 3179/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Haji Moosa Khan (Petitioner) VS Mst. Nazia and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-NOV-23	Yes	Suggestions alone that they have given false evidence could not be materialized in favour of the petitioners as primary burden was discharged by plaintiffs/respondents. It is a cumulative effect of all evidence available on record that is to be seen and applied. In addition to it, this Court in terms of Article 199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan cannot assume the jurisdiction which is otherwise not vested, that is reappraisal of evidence, which has been done by the revisional court and that is the last fact finding court. This Court could only intervene had the jurisdiction been exercised which was not vested and/or vested but not exercised.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.1273-K/2023 Haji Moosa Khan (Late) through L.Rs. and others v. Mst. nazia Bibi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned (Notice)
460	2024 CLD 290	Suit 318/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	MUHAMMAD AYUB TAREEN & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS JS BANK LIMITED & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-JUN-23	Yes	-A subsidiary as defined in Section 2(68) of the Companies Act, 2017, which can only exist in relation to a holding company in which the holding company either (i) controls the composition of the Board of the subsidiary or (ii) exercises or controls more than one half of its voting securities. Viewed in this context and in particular read with Section 23 of BCO, it is clear that the word ???form??? used in this section clearly envisages the forming of a subsidiary by acquisition either by control of composition of its Board or control of more than half of its shareholding by way of acquisition under the Regulations, 2017. This is further strengthened by the fact that Section 23(1) uses the term ???formed??? in past tense in respect of the subsidiary being taken over by Banking Company. So it envisages a subsidiary which is being formed or was already formed. --The objective behind and mischief sought to be avoided by Section 23(1) is to bar more than one commercial banking license within a group save where a subsidiary is engaged in Islamic banking. Whether the subsidiary is a newly formed company or formed by way of acquisition of its majority shareholding, is immaterial to that objective.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
461		H.C.A 465/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Murtaza Baig & others (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-FEB-24	Yes	The impugned order is only an interlocutory order and the main application under section 12(2) CPC is pending. The elections of the society pending since last more than six years i.e. ever since this appeal is filed and pending. It is therefore in the interest of the Society itself that the elections be held at the earliest with the inclusion of these applicants of application under section 12(2) CPC, identified as respondents in the instant appeal.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
462		Const. P. 6656/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Galaxy Pharma Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
463		Const. P. 71/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	National Bank of Pakistan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana(Author)
464		Const. P. 663/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel (Petitioner) VS LUMHS thr: Registrar & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	28-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.A.1938/2023 Liaqat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS), Jamshoro through its Registrar and another v. Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel and others,C.P.3933/2023 Liaqat University of Medical and Health Sciences (LUMHS), Jamshoro through its Registrar and another v. Muhammad Ahsan Shakeel and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed.also a short CO
465		Const. P. 249/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mrs. Shehla Balal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
466		Const. P. 4316/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
467		Const. P. 6806/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Synergy Corp (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
468		Const. P. 715/1996 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	1996	MST ANILA ABRAR (Petitioner) VS GOVT. OF SINDH AND OTHERS (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-MAR-24	Yes	i-Section 10(2) of the Citizen Act gives a preferential treatment to the spouse of Pakistani man vis-??-vis a Pakistani woman and thus infringes constitutional guarantees ii-The object is foreign spouses and not just foreign wives and thus making of 10(2) and reading it now may vary with constitutional demands. The intent of the said provision is not to encourage or facilitate women to marry Pakistani men. The concept which now emerged through international jurisprudence is to enable Pakistanis married to foreigners to be able to live together and acquire nationality for their spouses and live a family life in Pakistan and the Act of 1951 should now be read and tamed accordingly. Restricting the benefit of Section 10(2) to Pakistani men only is a clear discrimination to Pakistani women. 45. The doctrine of reading in is used by Courts to extend the scope to avoid and limit the discriminatory language having head-on conflict with a constitutional provision. The doctrine of ???reading in??? involves adding words to a statutory provision to bring it in conformity with constitutional provisions. iii- The application of "reading in" is required to cater section 10(2) of the Citizenship Act to save it from offending Article 25 of the Constitution that is wherever reference is made to ???woman??? and ???she??? therein; the words "or man" and "or he" be read. This adjustment shall not have any effect on the operability of the statute.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
469		I. A 61/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	United Bank Ltd. (Appellant) VS Ghulam Nabib Sheikh (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	03-APR-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
470		Const. P. 6804/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Alpino Food (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
471		Const. P. 3764/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Asadullah Khatri (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
472		Const. P. 4027/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mrs. Farzana Javed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
473		Const. P. 7408/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Muhammad Ali (Petitioner) VS IInd A.D.J & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-JAN-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
474		Const. P. 3538/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s Trump Management (Petitioner) VS Faisal Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
475		Const. P. 3171/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Karim Abdul Hameed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
476		Const. P. 6816/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Eternal Group of Industries (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
477		Const. P. 6817/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mulla Ebrahimji Kairmbhoy (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
478		Const. P. 6854/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s Samba Bank Ltd (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
479		H.C.A 278/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Welfare Association Ali (Appellant) VS Shakeel Ahmed and Another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	20-NOV-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
480		Const. P. 350/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.Ps No.S-351, 352, 353, 354, 355 and 356 of 2023	2023	Ayazuddin (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Iqbal & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
481	2014 SBLR Sindh 416	Const. P. 2205/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Abdul Razzak (Petitioner) VS Election Commissiner of pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-MAY-13	Yes	Jamate-Islami, under whose banner the petitioner has participated and contested the election, has boycotted the election and such fact via speech was covered by electronic media when the leaders of the said political party expressed their views. In the light of such boycott as the petitioner was contesting as a candidate for Jamat-e-Islami he cannot said to be an aggrieved person.	Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Faisal Arab, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
482		Cr.Bail 340/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Abdul Sattar Jaffery (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-MAR-13	Yes	It is matter of fact that a number of such mobile phones of china origin, namely, are Nasaki available in the market and alleged recovery of such mobile phone is not sufficient to decline the bail to the applicant, when the recovery itself is doubtful, as to whether it is the same set or it has been replaced. In addition to above there is delay of seven hours in lodging the F.I.R. The injuries allegedly caused are not on the vital part of the body and on the touchstone of the judgments referred above, the applicant is entitled for bail, which was accordingly granted by a short order and these are the reasons for the same.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
483		Judicial Companies Misc. 23/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	U.B.L V/S (Petitioner) VS M/s Pak Rock Oil Trading Corporation (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	21-JUN-16	Yes	As regards the prayer clause (d) to the effect that the action be taken against the directors of the respondent company under section 412, 413 and 414 of the Companies Ordinance, 1984, learned counsel for the petitioner has not forcefully argued on the subject; nor the provisions of Section 305, 306 provides any relief of such nature as mentioned in Para d of the prayer clause. Perusal of the ibid sections would reveal that such an action can be taken by the Court only on an application of the Official Liquidator in the course/process of winding up of the company, which process is yet to commence and such recourse would still be available for petitioner.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
484		Const. P. 1679/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mrs. Tahmina Amir Khumbati & Another (Petitioner) VS Akbar Ali & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-MAY-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.875-K/2018 Mrs: Tehmina Amir Khambati and another v. Akbar Ali (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
485		Const. P. 3842/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2014	Ranjho (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	01-MAR-19	Yes	The petitioner has every right to pursue his remedy against it, which he failed. The amount paid to the father could never be considered as the dower amount paid to the bride and that she was liable to return at the time of dissolution of marriage by way of khulla. Even the ring as mentioned in the nikahnama was refused / declined to have been received by her and no confidence inspiring evidence was recorded by the defendant to believe that version. In this constitution petition such deeper re-appraisal of evidence is not within the domain of this Court when two efficacious remedies i.e. trial Court and appellate Court were exhausted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
486		Const. P. 1384/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Arshad Pervez (Petitioner) VS Kashif Mohammad Baig (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.82-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Arshad Pervez and others,C.P.1099-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Arshad Pervez and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted
487		Const. P. 2084/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Imran S/o Abdul Sattar (Petitioner) VS Court of IVth Rent Controller Khi South & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	17-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.627-K/2018 Karachi High School owned & operated by the Civil Lines Educational Society thr. Director and another v. Muhammad Imran Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
488		Const. P. 3128/2011 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Lt. Col (R) Asif Saeed and another (Petitioner) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-NOV-12	Yes	Section 6(2)(d) the action was designed in such a way that it is likely to cause death or endanger a persons life. Section 6(2)(ee), define use of explosive substance. Section 6(2)(i) pertains as to an action leading to a serious risk to safety of the public or a section of in the way it has been designed to frighten the general public. Section 6(2)(j) and (n) is also attracted/involved as the action pertains to burning of vehicles and violence against police force and public servants etc.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1102/2016 Lt. Col (R) Asif Saeed & another v. The State & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Withdrawn
489		E.P 1/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Nida Khuhro (Petitioner) VS Moazam Ali Khan Abbasi & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.188/2019 Nida Khuhro v. Moazzam Ali Khan & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Allowed
490	2020 CLC 92	E.P 7/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Muzaffar Ali Brohi (Petitioner) VS Meer Nadir Ali Magsi & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	15-JAN-19	Yes	The question now which remains for resolution is whether the omission on part of the Oath Commissioner in mentioning, in the attestation of verification or the affidavit, if the oath had been administered to the appellant/deponent, shall have the effect of invalidating the election petition. As regards the above, suffice it to say that according to the provisions of Article 129, illustration (e) of the Qanun-e-Shahadat Order, 1984, there is presumption of correctness attached to an official act and it could not be controverted by the learned counsel for the respondent that the oath commissioner who is appointed by the respective High Courts under the law shall be performing the official acts for which he was appointed. However, he has stressed that the administration of oath before attestation by the Oath Commissioner should not be presumed in this case rather should reflect from the contents of attestation. We have applied our mind to this aspect of the matter and hold that in order to meet the real object and the spirit of the election laws which require verification on oath, in an ideal situation, the Oath Commissioner at the time of verification of the petition etc. and also the affidavit, must record and endorse verification/attestation that the oath has been actually, physically and duly administered to the election petitioner/deponent. But as the law has not been very clear till now, we should resort to the principle of presumption stipulated by Article 129(e) ibid in this case for avoiding the knock out of the petition for an omission and lapse on part of the Oath Commissioner. But for the future we hold that where the election petition or the affidavit is sought to be attested by the Oath Commissioner, the election petitioner shall insist and shall ensure that the requisite endorsement about the administration of oath is made, otherwise the election petition/affidavit shall not be considered to have been attested on oath and thus the election petition shall be liable to be, inter alia, dismissed on the above score. We consciously and deliberately neither apply this rule to the instant case nor any other matter pending at any forum (election tribunal or in appeals).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
491		Const. P. 650/2004 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	Yasmin Sharfuddin (Petitioner) VS Dr. Ehtesham Naseerul Haque & 3 Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-OCT-17	Yes	A Power of Attorney generally delegates all such powers which are required to be done on behalf of principal and the contents of the Power of Attorney would be such that all such things, which claimed to have been done by attorney on the basis of the Power of Attorney, could be construed from the language and meaning of the contents of the powers, which were delegated through different paragraphs. However, it needs not to be an encyclopedia that even a minor and insignificant act in furtherance of a main object is to be incorporated in the body of the Power of Attorney. ----it is the prerogative of the landlord who discloses the suitability of the premises. A landlord cannot be compelled to occupy any other premises which in his (landlords) wisdom or desire may not be suitable. The prerogative or choice to select the premises for the use and occupation of the landlord or for the use and occupation of their children cannot be questioned by any reasonable hypothesis. Besides this, in the instant case the cross-examination insofar as personal requirement is concerned is absolutely silent and could not be shattered	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.721-K/2017 Mrs. Yasmin Sharafuddin v. Dr.Ehtesham Naseer-ul-Haque and otehrs Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
492		Civil Revision 46/1997 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	1997	Allah Wadhayo Naich and others (Applicant) VS Mian Khan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-DEC-18	Yes	insofar as these ancillary reliefs followed by declaration are concerned that relate to the documents, the Civil Court and the appellate Court have rightly exercised their jurisdiction, but insofar as the possession is concerned, on the basis of pleadings and in terms of para 17 of the plaint, it is regulated by the Rent Controller in terms of Section 13 of the Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
493		Const. P. 743/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Ali Sher Shanbani (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
494		Const. P. 1966/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Abdul Rehman Jiskani and others (Petitioner) VS Misri Khan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	01-OCT-18	Yes	In terms of Order XXII Rule 4 sub-rule (4) CPC it is not necessary to substitute the legal representatives of any such defendant who has failed to file a written statement or has failed to appear and to contest the suit at the hearing; and the judgment in such cases may be pronounced against the said respondents notwithstanding his death, and such judgment shall have the same force and effect as if it had been pronounced before his death took place. Surprisingly, the same counsel is appearing for both the alleged co-plaintiffs.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
495		Const. P. 2427/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Iftikhar Ahmed Soomro (Petitioner) VS CDGK and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Justice Mrs. Kausar Sultana Hussain
496		Civil Revision 178/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Nouman (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	17-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
497		Cr.J.A 192/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Noor Muhammad (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
498	2021 YLR 867	Const. P. 6168/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Sardar Abdul Hameed (Petitioner) VS The Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-JAN-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
499		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
500		Const. P. 1264/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Yar Mohammad (Petitioner) VS Province Of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	03-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
501		Conf.Case 20/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2017	Muhammad Ayub (Appellant) VS The state (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
502	2023 CLD 253	Suit.B 2/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Bankers Equity Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Galadari Cement (Gulf) Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-NOV-22	Yes	The primary consideration however remains that Order I Rule 10(2) CPC which is being heard, does not allow the applicant to be either necessary or proper party. Necessary party is one who ought to have been joined as party in whose absence no effective decree could be passed whereas proper party is one whose presence before the Court is necessary to enable the Court to effectually and completely adjudicate upon and settle all questions involved in the suit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
503		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 354/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. A. R. & Company (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-SEP-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.1647-K/2021 The Collector of Customs v. M/s. A.R. & Company Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
504		Cr.J.A 65/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Badar @ Badro (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
505	2022 PTD 402	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 418/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Abdul Ghafoor (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
506		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 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
507		Const. P. 874/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Ghazala Wd/o Noor Hassan (Petitioner) VS Samina Naz & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
508		Suit.B 2/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	UNITED BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS FASHIONWEAR (PVT) LTD & OTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-SEP-15	Yes	Contents of the plaint as well and it appears that the defendant has evasively denied his liabilities in the leave to defend application which is not requirement of Order VIII Rule 4 CPC. Under the law every allegation of fact in the plaint should be denied specifically and if not it would amount to an evasive denial. ---Insofar as the claim of the mark up is concerned as it should be strictly subject to agreement as in chart given as the plaintiff has not cited any agreement to entitle them to claim mark up as sought, however no dispute with cost of funds from the date of default	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
509	2022 SBLR Sindh 1052	II.A. 20/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Khayyam Ahmed Khattani (Appellant) VS M/s. Orix Leasing Pakistan Limited (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-FEB-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.100-K/2022 Mr. Darya Khan v. Mr. Naeem Ahmed Khan Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
510		Suit.B 55/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	IGI INVESTMENT BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS M/S.DHA COGEN LTD. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-JAN-16	Yes	It appears that the defendant has neither shown any amount that was availed of by it nor shown the amount which is to be returned/repaid. Hence, there is a non-compliance of the mandatory requirement of Section 10(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The consequence provided in default thereof is dismissal of the leave application.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
511		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 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
512		Const. P. 673/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Abdul Rehman S/o Khursheed Ali (Petitioner) VS Saim Mehmood and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	24-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
513	2021 SBLR Sindh 1669	R.A (Civil Revision) 39/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Muhammad Ayub (Applicant) VS Muhammad Shafee & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	23-JAN-20	Yes	Registered instruments would stand against oral and unregistered instruments.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.239-K/2020 Muhammad Ayoob v. Muhammad Shafi (decd) thr. his L.Rs and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
514	2019 SBLR Sindh 1630	Suit 263/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Maqbool Co-Operative Housing Cociety Ltd.. (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Jawed & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-MAY-16	Yes	The crucial letter in relation to the withdrawal of the approved plan dated 03.12.2015 has not been agitated. It is nowhere claimed in the petition that vide letter dated 03.12.2015 the subject plan has already been withdrawn.Thus the subject letter of withdrawal was never available for consideration of the Honble Division Bench while passing the order dated 15.12.20215 hence the order passed on 08.2.2016 in this suit is independent of the order passed by the Honble Division Bench. On the strength of the withdrawal of the approved plan the defendant was restrained from raising any further construction which construction could not be deemed to have been allowed vide order dated 15.12.2015 and since the defendant continued with the construction contempt application was filed.After inspection it revealed that the defendants were continuing with the construction. The defendants have not denied raising construction at the time of inspection. Counsel submitted that the Honble Division Bench in HCA as well as in Constitutional Petition has continued the order passed in C.P. No.D-7743/2015 therefore, it does not constitute violation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
515		Suit 64/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	GHULAM RASOOL (Plaintiff) VS ASGHAR ALI (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-JAN-15	Yes	No doubt it is a valid cause of action which has been utilized by the plaintiff but then cause of action and the proof of damages being sustained by the plaintiff are two independent issues. If the defendant has provided a cause to the plaintiff by filing this suit for malicious prosecution it does not absolve the plaintiff from established that he has in actual suffered such damages.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
516		Suit.B 84/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	M/s. Summit Bank Limited. (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Al-Abid Silk Mills Limited. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	21-NOV-14	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
517		Suit.B 93/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	BURJ BANK LTD. (Plaintiff) VS M/S. PAK HY-OILS LTD. & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-FEB-16	Yes	The Facility Advising Letter was subsequent to the Murahaba Facility Agreement dated 01.6.2010 these Murahaba Facilities are to be established independently as being separate and independent transactions. Certainly the agreement in relation thereto does provide a mechanism, method and a way in case of dispute however as to the disbursement of amount and availment of fund, it could independently be established through Murahaba transactions which in the present case have not been denied except it is claimed that all previous debt prior to June, 2010 stood paid and that these Murahaba transactions have not been based on any Finance Agreement. The set of documents provided by the plaintiff is sufficient to ascertain (i) the principal amount, (ii) the profit payable, (iii) transaction debt and (iv) the maturity date. Thus in my view this could hardly constitute a ground to grant leave in this suit since the finance otherwise is established and nothing would turn on the contention that the stamp endorsed on some of the documents were subsequent to the agreement which documents were earlier used with some different dates as the contents of the guarantee itself is sufficient. The plaintiff would have gained nothing by endorsing such stamps on those documents as text of guarantees speaks itself. The contents of the guarantee relates to a Finance Agreement or any supplemental thereto thus these transaction of Murahaba Facility though are supplement to the earlier agreement and Facility Advising Letter so also these guarantees cannot be said to be limited only to the extent of date prior to the 2010. These contentions of the learned Counsel for the defendant do not constitute a substantial question of law and facts.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
518	2015 SBLR Sindh 215	Suit 1920/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	MUHAMMAD ANWAR & ORS (Plaintiff) VS BADRUDDIN & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-14	Yes	The permission to file a fresh suit need not be expressed but may be implied from the circumstances under which the order was passed. In absence of express order by the Court granting permission to file fresh proceedings while allowing withdrawal of suit it could be a natural outcome and necessarily follow that such permission has been granted by the Court as in case the Court does not wish to grant the conditional application for permission, it can dismiss the application and direct the plaintiff to proceed with the suit and if he fails to do so the Court can dismiss the suit for non-prosecution. Since an express application has been filed the Court could not allow the suit to be withdrawn and at the same time refuses liberty to agitate grievance in subsequent proceedings.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
519		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 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
520	2021 PTD 1867, 2021 PTCL 804	I.T.R.A 49/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY (Applicant) VS THE APPELLATE TRIBUNAL INLAND REVENUE AND ANOTHER (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	07-SEP-21	Yes	Section 236A of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 requires a person, making sale by public auction or auction by a tender of any property or goods (including property or goods confiscated or attached, either belonging to or not belonging to the Government, local Government, any authority, a company, a foreign association declared to be a company under sub-clause (vi) of clause (b) of subsection (2) of section 80, or a foreign contractor or a consultant or a consortium or Collector of Customs or Commissioner Inland Revenue or any other authority, shall collect advance tax, computed on the basis of sale price of such property and at the rate specified in First Schedule, from the person to whom such property or goods are being sold. This provision is as clear as crystal however it is followed by an explanation inserted by Finance Act 2020 for the removal of doubt that the expression of sale of public auction or auction by tender include renewal of license previously sold by public auction or auction by a tender and where payment is received in installments, advance tax is to be collected with each installment. As we observe that there is no necessity of any explanation or any clarification as section 236A is clear in its entirety. Notwithstanding the above, even the explanation of clarificatory nature operates retrospectively as it only provides an assistance in interpreting the provisions correctly in terms of intention of the legislature, subject to however if a contradictory situation is reached by the Court interpreting the basic provisions as against explanation. We are, therefore, of the view that the applicant described as an agent collecting advance tax from the bidders/occupants/lessees/ licensees etc. to whom the premises/property was given either by way of public auction or tender or by any other mode and includes renewal of such document.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
521		Cr.Bail 463/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	SHAFQAT ALI S/O NOOR AHMED (Applicant) VS THE STATE (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-APR-21	Yes	Though the FIR is absolutely silent as far accusation against the applicant is concerned but the investigation reveals that it is a dispute of a plot in question primarily between Faizan who disclosed his name as Kamran, one of the co-accused and the two property dealers i.e. Shafqat Ali, the applicant and Iftikhar, the complainant. The facts of the case are such that it cannot be ruled out that the applicant Shafqat Ali was made hostage and that is the reason that the Call Data Record shows his presence within the crime scene. Be that as it may, it appears to be a case of further inquiry as there is no direct accusation against the applicant in the FIR.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	Crl.P.79-K/2021 The State v. Shafqat Ali Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
522		Const. P. 758/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: CP.NO D: 874 of 2017	2017	Mst. Ambreen (Petitioner) VS Honourable Court of VIth ADJ Khi Central & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-NOV-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
523		Const. P. 1153/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	M/s. AMA Colour Laboratories (Petitioner) VS VIth Additional District Judge Karachi & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
524	2023 SBLR 22	Suit 630/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mohammad Tarique Khan (Plaintiff) VS Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	11-MAR-22	Yes	1- A promotion cannot be deferred till such time the enquiry and/or disciplinary proceedings are finalized as a person is presumed to be innocent until found guilty1 . Pendency of inquiry and minor penalties could not come in way of promotion; enquiry proceedings pending against plaintiff for an indefinite period smacked of arbitrariness and mala fide and is a hanging sword on head of employees; such treatment could not sustain in eye of law to deprive the plaintiff of promotion2 . Pendency of inquiry was no ground for denying promotion to the employee and no one could be punished by denying promotion before establishing charge3 . Any such rule formed in deviation of settled principle of law would not come in the way of equality rights guaranteed by Constitution. 2--As regards rejection of plaint under order VII rule 11 CPC on the ground of res judicata is concerned, the defendants plead that the subject matter of instant suit has been decided in the earlier suit and/or the subject matter of earlier suit. In this regard firstly the subject matter of instant suit is a subsequent show-cause notice which was not even in existence at the time of filing earlier suit. Therefore neither principle of order 2 rule 2 nor doctrine of order 23 rule 1 CPC would apply.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
525		Const. P. 3310/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Muhib Ali (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-OCT-20	Yes	(SON QUOTA)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
526		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry(Author)
527		Const. P. 295/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Kamran Abdul Shakoor (Petitioner) VS Mst Zahida Haroon and Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	23-MAY-22	Yes	Section 14 never demands for a bona fide entitlement; all that is required under Section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, is that certain events have occurred within frame of Section 14 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, as stated above. A statement on oath by the applicant within parameter of said provision for personal use and possession is enough. It is this provision of law which does not contain the word ""personal bona fide need" as contained in Section 15 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance; therefore, both the provisions are different and distinguishable.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
528		Suit 288/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Pakistan House International Limited (PHIL) (Plaintiff) VS Engro Vopak Terminal Limited (EVTL) & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-JAN-22	Yes	The exclusive items disclosed in Article 3.2 is inclusive but not exhaustive. It includes Styrene Monomer [SM] Linear Alkaline Benzene [LAB] which is being claimed by the plaintiff. The license of the plaintiff issued by FBR is in fact for public bonded warehouse which too was later in time after implementation agreement of defendant No.1 and defendant No.2 which grants exclusive handling of various chemicals and to establish its terminal. This exclusivity was never challenged ever since these bonded warehouse licenses were extended. For the sake of convenience of the plaintiff, Mr. Almani submitted that the customers of the plaintiff may approach defendant No.1 for effective handling of the cargo and after it being handled at defendant No.1`s Jetty and transported to the plaintiff`s facility through the pipeline at the fee to be paid to defendant No.1, the grievance could be redressed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
529	2012 SBLR Sindh 1407	Cr.Bail 629/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Khaista Meer & Another (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-JUL-12	Yes	"Pakistan Penal Code, 1860---Sections,. 34, 392 & 397-- Contradiction in statementFurther Inquiry "	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
530	2015 CLC 916	Execution 49/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	M/S.SAUDI ARABIAN AIR LINES (Decree Holder) VS M/S.INT.MARKETING (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Judgement	02-SEP-14	Yes	"Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. XXI, Rr. 22 & 66---Execution petition---Sale of attached property---Objections---Notice to Judgment-debtor to settle terms of sale---Necessity---Deposit of decretal amount, application for---Constructive res judicata, principle of---Applicability---Contention of judgment-debtor was that neither notice for sale proclamation nor for settling terms of sale were issued---Validity---No notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. was issued to the judgment-debtor nor such application had been preferred---Decree-holder was bound to apply for a notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. so that judgment debtor had an opportunity of raising objection to the sale, if any, or assist in settling terms to sale--- Judgment-debtor was entitled for notice to settle terms of sale proclamation---Judgment-debtor would lose right to object the execution petition after his service through public notice---Service of earlier notice would not take away the right of judgment-debtor to claim notice when property was put to auction---Sale could not be considered to be a valid sale in absence of notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C.---When the judgment-debtor, in response to the notice, failed to appear, he was precluded by the rule of constructive res judicata from raising such objection at a later time and not by virtue of notice under O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C.---Non-compliance to the provisions of O.XXI, R.66, C.P.C. might vitiate the sale on account of material irregularity---Application for deposit of decretal amount was accepted in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
531	2015 YLR 2141	Suit 128/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Bank Alfalah Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Neu Multiplex & Entertainment Square Co. (Pvt) Ltd (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	14-JUL-14	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
532		Const. P. 2038/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Ashraf Suleman (Petitioner) VS IXth ADJ (South), Karachi & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-MAY-18	Yes	in order to avail a remedy under section 14 of the SRPO, 1979 the applicant/landlord is required to establish his personal need. In that case there would be no distinction left between section 14 and 15(2)(vii) of the SRPO, 1979 and the object of scheme and the purpose for which it was provided would be frustrated. The provisions of Section 14 is meant for a particular class of a landlord and hence the burden of establishing bona fide requirement or even a requirement was lifted. Section 14 has its own barrier and it is not an un-probed provision. Subsection (2) of Section 14 of the SRPO provides that nothing in this subsection shall apply where the landlord has rented out a building after he has retired or attained the age of 60 years or, as the case may be, i.e. landlord has become widow or orphan.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.882/2023 M/s Sui Southern Gas Company Ltd (SSGCL) through its M.D. Karachi and another v. Abdul Aziz and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
533	2022 SBLR Sindh 1125, 2023 PLC (CS) 202	Suit 2679/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	TUFAIL AHMED SHAIKH (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-JAN-22	Yes	There is no cavil to the fact that the plaintiff is an engineer and Member Technical as disclosed in the transfer letter of 08.11.2021. The gazetted rules that concerns with the posting and transfer in terms of Chapter V of the National Highway Authoritys Employees Service Rules, 1995 framed under National Highway Authority Act, 1991 duly framed by the federal government, recognizes that the competent authority may post or transfer an employee of the authority to the head office or to any of the subordinate offices in Pakistan under its administrative control or management, which has only gained strength on the basis of NHA Code 2005 which excludes Chairman and Member from the applicability of normal tenure for an officer on the same post for three years and not extendable for a period of more than five years in all. Thus, even the Code excludes Chairman and Member Technical from application of such normal tenure of an officer/employee.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
534	2023 PLD Pesh. 174	Suit 182/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	PAKISTAN STATE OIL CO. LTD. (Plaintiff) VS ABDUL ALI & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-NOV-22	Yes	that the defendants are not precluded from using their land in pursuance of Rule 10 of ibid Rules 1951 however the reasonable restriction for the security and safety of the occupants be adhered to, which restriction shall not be arbitrary and fanciful and that such restriction would not be of such magnitude as would materially render and disentitle neighboring land owners from utilizing their land in accordance with law as it would then be in violation of Article, 4, 23 and 24 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973. Plaintiff has prayed in the suit that no structure/ construction shall be permitted and that defendants are not entitled to raise any construction within a distance of 200 sq. yards from the plaintiff key point installation i.e. category 1-A, Zulfiqarabad Oil Terminal, is thus misconceived and would amount to acquiring the property without its market value under acquisition laws.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
535	2023 MLD 1131	Suit 2642/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	ABDUL RAUF KHAN (Plaintiff) VS MEEZAN BANK LIMITED & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	13-FEB-23	Yes	The cheque was returned by the Meezan Bank Limited having branch at Civic Centre, District Khairpur Mirus and the Criminal Miscellaneous Application was also 2 filed before Additional Sessions Judge-II, District Khairpur Mirus. Legal notice was served upon Meezan Bank, Civic Centre Branch District Khairpur Mirus, hence for all intent and purposes the cause if at all triggered, it was within the local limits of District Khairpur Mirus and this Court has no territorial jurisdiction	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
536		Suit 1354/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	MST. AFTAB FIZZA & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS RAHEEL QAISER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-NOV-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
537		S.M.A 595/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Abir Samad Viqar s/o Viqar Samad (Petitioner) VS Viqar Samad (Deceased) (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-JAN-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
538		Suit -1491/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	ISRA ISLAMIC FOUNDATION (GUARANTEE) LIMITED & ORS (Plaintiff) VS DR. NAZIR ASHRAF LAGHARI & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	23-AUG-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
539		Const. P. 3853/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	PTCL (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	23-JUN-22	Yes	whether learned Member NIRC enjoy the jurisdiction to issue contempt notices	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
540	2023 CLD 33	Judicial Companies Misc. 18/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	N.P waterproof Industries Pvt ltd & others (Applicant) VS N.P spinning Mills limited & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	06-OCT-22	Yes	Though this is not in dispute but the arguments put forward by learned counsel for petitioners is that by virtue of being a Muslim, shares automatically devolve upon the legal heirs of deceased shareholder. This perhaps may be a case under Muhammaden Law where rights are being acquired in respect of movable and immovable assets under general law, but in case where an entity is created by a special law, it is to be dealt with within that frame of special law. No provision of this special Act would take away any of their right under the general law but it laid down a procedure of its own because the entity is the creation of company law. The successor who intends to take advantage of any of its shareholding left by deceased has to go through a process prescribed by company law and that is Section 78 of the Companies Act, 2017	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
541		Suit 2814/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	REHAN HAMID (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	26-OCT-22	Yes	Plaint Returned under Order VII Rule 10 CPC. ---The only defence taken by the learned counsel for the plaintiff is that when he landed at Karachi Airport he came to know about impugned notification dated 26.11.2021, therefore, the cause accrued within the territorial limit of this Court. I am afraid this kind of logic is not tenable in law. The cause of action was accrued when and from where the impugned notification was issued and also at place where in pursuance of such agreement he works or worked for gain, and not where he on his arrival or departure informed or where it was brought to his knowledge. Furthermore, the plaintiff was appointed with defendant at Hyderabad and throughout he was employed there, therefore, if this plea is taken to be lawful it will make entire scheme of jurisdiction as redundant and such was not the intention of legislation.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
542	2024 MLD 66	Suit 672/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/S. MULTIX INTERNATIONAL CORPORATION (Plaintiff) VS KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	19-OCT-22	Yes	Word "Irrevocability" is not connected or articulated anywhere except Clause 1 i.e. for first 15 years only. There is no clause of investment after 15 years which may give continuity to irrevocability for any other period than described in the first clause and defendant has to hand over every structure, whether built by plaintiff or plaintiff occupied an already constructed area and that is it. Now at the end of this period the plea of investment cannot come into play since 15 years were consumed by plaintiff which is a huge period for recovery of such investment, if made, which in any case not the responsibility of defendant, as understood from plain reading of agreement. This has to be kept in mind while reading clause 38 that it is not a grant in perpetuity; only if parties to contract agree, it may be extended.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
543	2023 CLC 237	Suit 1068/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Liaquat Dawood Kukda. (Plaintiff) VS Syed Hashim Raza. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	12-OCT-22	Yes	Performance of the later agreement executed between plaintiff and defendant No.1, cannot be undertaken to be adjudicated by the Banking Court and/or could be denied. Even at the execution stage in a banking case, if in this suit prima facie case is made out while hearing injunction application the defendant No.1 can be restrained from executing any conveyance deed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
544		Suit 570/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mst. Alay Zahra. (Plaintiff) VS Karachi Development Authority & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	18-JAN-23	Yes	Subsequent enhancement of pecuniary jurisdiction of the Civil Courts of district Karachi including District East will not attract the jurisdiction in this case since at the relevant time the pecuniary jurisdiction was lawfully and rightly invoked. Consequential amendment under the ibid Act will not have a retrospective effect unless otherwise legislated accordingly	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
545	2023 PTD 908	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 136/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s. OBS Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. (Applicant) VS The Customs Appellate Tribunal & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-MAR-23	Yes	Since the jurisdiction of this Court under section 196 of Customs Act, 1969 is limited to the extent of question of law, which we do not see arising out of the impugned judgment, specially in terms of two questions put forth by the applicant for determination of this Court and on the basis of which this Reference was admitted for hearing, this Special Customs Reference Application is dismissed and the two questions, which are not based on law but on facts and in terms of the conclusion are decided already by the Tribunal, are decided accordingly against the applicant and in favour of the respondents.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
546		Const. P. 7234/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/s Falcon Oil Filling Station (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	31-MAR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
547		Const. P. 6662/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Najam Associates (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
548	2024 SBLR Sindh 178	H.C.A 34/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Dr. Nafees Zubair through her attorney (Appellant) VS Saeeda Bano & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-NOV-23	Yes	*-Performance is equity based, court is obliged to perform equity as performance is not vested right. **An oral (unregistered) gift alone, or any private communication between donor and donee, would not be an obstacle in seeking performance against the title holder being a last registered instrument. ***Deed of Redemption is no doubt claimed to be a registered instrument however this Redemption Deed is just a privileged document between the mortgagor and the mortgagee but the Redemption Deed itself does not confer title. ****the performance cannot be declined on the execution of oral gift and that due diligence was not made. Performance could only be sought against title holder. If these "oral gifts" are allowed to come in the way of performance, then no suit for performance could succeed. *****It would not be an equity if appellant is allowed the performance realizing the no efforts were made to deposit the balance amount at the time when injunction was sought and/or when suit was filed, since doctrine of lis pendence is also an obstacle for seller.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
549		Const. P. 4310/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
550		Const. P. 4311/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
551		Const. P. 4326/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
552		Const. P. 3426/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	M/s National Medical Centre (Pvt) Ltd (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
553		Const. P. 6802/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Entree Food Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
554		Const. P. 6803/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Akkar Internatoinal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
555		Const. P. 6819/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Hoora Pharma (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
556		Const. P. 8375/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	M/s Fine Cotton (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
557		Const. P. 3763/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Inayatullah Abbas (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
558		Const. P. 6658/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Serajsons Printers Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
559		II.A. 29/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Moula Bux Panhwar (Appellant) VS Prov of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
560		Const. P. 342/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Nafees Ahmed Siddiqui (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
561		Const. P. 8387/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	M/s Global Educational Constulting Society (Petitioner) VS Cantonmnet Board Korangi Creek and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
562		Const. P. 5391/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Abdul Razzaq (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
563		H.C.A 220/2004 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2004	M/s. S.M.Corporation (Pvt) Ltd Ors (Appellant) VS Muhammad Mohsin Butt & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	08-APR-24	Yes	Not always but invariably the limitation is found to be mixed question of law and fact.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
564		Const. P. 6815/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Pinnacle Biotech Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.L.A.657-K/2023 The Commissioner Inland Revenue (Legal) v. M/s. Faisal Spinning Mills Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending Adjourned (Next Date: 15-Apr- 24
565		Const. P. 5673/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Syed Muhammad Afsar Shah and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
566		Const. P. 1157/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2023	Muhammad Asif and Others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
567		Const. P. 1228/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Meomoona Yousuf (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
568		H.C.A 234/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Cedar Pvt. Ltd (Appellant) VS Soneri Bank Ltd & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-JAN-24	Yes	*The subject matter of the suit is not just simply a negotiable instrument but it is the rent of the subject period which was not paid, therefore, there is no logic in saying that since the Rent Controller could not pass any order on ???negotiable instrument???. **Section-12 of the SRPO, 1979 does not empower the civil court to adjudge necessary repairs to be carried out by the landlord; neither an application was filed by the tenant in this regard. ***once the rent is deposited pursuant to the orders of the Court, which the appellant had not deposited till date, the tenant/appellant will ???not??? be under the obligation to deposit the arrears of rent in compliance of Section-16(1) of the SRPO, 1979, as the tenant cannot be waxed twice. Security would not come in the way unless the tenant vacates the premises.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
569		Const. P. 3170/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Karim Abdul Hameed and Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
570		Const. P. 3987/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	M/s BBQ Delight (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
571		R.A (Civil Revision) 137/1993 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1993	Kabeer Khan and other (Applicant) VS Qadir Khan and other (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	10-OCT-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1236-K/2023 Qadeer Khan deceased through his L.Rs. and others v. Kabeer Ahmed Khan deceased through his L.Rs. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
572		Const. P. 4321/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
573		Const. P. 4324/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and ORs (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
574		H.C.A 134/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Federation of Pakistan & others (Appellant) VS M/s. Al-Hassan Tech Engg. SVC (Pvt) Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-OCT-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.1343-K/2023 Federation of Pakistan & others v. M/s. Al-Hassan Tech Eng. SVC. (Pvt) Ltd. Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
575		Const. P. 90/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2006	Malik Maqsoodul Hassan (Appellant) VS Muhammad Faisal Azam & 5 Ors (Appellant)	S.B.	Judgement	15-MAY-18	Yes	The point of merger insofar as invoking the jurisdiction in terms of Section 12(2) CPC is concerned has already attained the finality in terms of judgment reported in PLD 2015 SC 358 and there are no issues on its maintainability. However the case as presented does not come within the frame of Section 12(2) CPC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
576		R.A (Civil Revision) 13/2006 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2006	Shankar Marecho and others (Applicant) VS Ranjho (died),thr:his L.Rs.and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-18	Yes	Mr. Mukesh Kumar G. Karara, Advocate, at this juncture complains that the respondents have been harassed by the applicants due to their close relationship with the Administration and particularly police. This has been disputed by Mr. David Lawrence Advocate who represents the applicants and further assures that no harassment either has been caused or will be caused in future, even otherwise since matters are sub judice, therefore, parties are directed to conduct themselves within parameters of law and not otherwise.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
577		Suit 886/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	HUMAYUN AKHTAR JALIL (Appellant) VS CAPITAL ONE EQUITIES LTD & ORS. (Appellant)	S.B.	Order	28-MAY-15	Yes	Prima facie it appears that the amount as agreed in terms of para-1 of CMA No.3223/09 is admitted as it is duly signed on behalf of defendant no.1 as well as through its Counsel. By this order the only question that is required to be resolved is the quantum of amount payable by defendant No.1 to plaintiff. How and from where such decree is to be satisfied is not being answered here nor it is prayed for. The present application is only to the extent of money decree. It is not a question raised and/or involved as to whether the amount i.e. to be paid by the defendant No.1 would be from the amount that has been procured by defendant No.1 by means which are against the interest of other creditors. It only relates to a money decree to which plaintiff is entitled in terms of admission made in the compromise application. Insofar as earlier application bearing CMA No.6629/09 is concerned, it rather based on a letter of defendant No.1 which is not filed by defendant No.1 hence I would not make it a basis for considering claim of plaintiff in terms of the order XII Rule 6 CPC rather CMA No.11562/09 (compromise application) would be the basis of granting CMA No.3223/09. The application to the extent of the above amount is allowed and the suit is decree against defendant No.1.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
578		Cr.Bail 145/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Muhammad Usman (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	18-JAN-13	Yes	It appears that the applicant Muhammad Usman, who is alleged to be Auditor in the District Accounts Office, Jacobabad, in collusion with the other co-accused misappropriated the government amount, however, it has not been clarified to the satisfaction of the Court that how the co-accused were let-off. I also prima facie observe that the role of the applicant is limited to the extent to see the genuineness of bills and to see that the claim is within budget available. I am not inclined to go into the deeper appreciation of the evidence regarding the strictness of the role, as it might prejudice the case of either side. Since it involves further enquiry,	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
579		Cr.Bail 433/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Sajjad @ Sijoo Shaikh (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-MAR-13	Yes	Prima facie, it appears that the injury allegedly caused by the applicant is at the elbow of the right arm which went through and through and the medical report that has been read over by the learned State counsel is in fact to the extent that the fatal injury was one which is caused by Wahab which is the stomach injury in view of the above it has become a case of further enquiry despite the fact that the applicants bullet was allegedly hit at the elbow he, at this stage could not be presumed to have come with the intention to kill unless such contention is proved in evidence.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
580		Cr.Bail 292/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Imdad Ali Shar and others (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	21-JAN-13	Yes	It appears that in the FIR categorical allegations were raised against the two applicants. It was categorically mentioned in the FIR that they were brought in the police mobile at Police Station Dakhan where cash was taken from them. It was further mentioned in the FIR that on cries of Shabir Malangi he was beaten by the SHO Imdad Shar. Despite asking for mercy the applicants did not allow them to go they were beaten mercilessly ultimately, in the morning both the applicants left the Police Station by abusing that they have taught lesson for extending threats. They also did not return the amount that was taken by the applicants. It is alleged that they went to DSP as well as to Police Station New Fojdari for appropriate action however, all in vain and ultimately FIR was registered under the orders of the District & Sessions Judge, Shikarpur. The document which is a root cause in deciding the instant bail application is a final medicolegal certificate issued on 23.4.2012 in terms whereof Alif Khan son of Ali Bux Khrose the complainant, shown that in terms of X-Ray of left foot, fractures were seen in first and second metatarsal bones with soft tissue swelling and dislocation of calcanium. The injury No.1 opined by the doctor is Jurh Ghayr Jaifah Hashima caused by hard blunt substance (history of violence) .	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
581	2012 CLC 1902	Suit 1761/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	Mst. Shagufta Noor (Plaintiff) VS Defendant (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	06-AUG-12	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
582		Const. P. 210/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Muhammad Swaleh (Petitioner) VS Mst. Asma Yasin & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	12-APR-18	Yes	The burden of proving payment of rent in advance was in fact apparently discharged when on a suggestion the petitioner/tenant himself admitted in the cross-examination that the rent was payable on or before 10th of each calendar month. Thus, the tenant had only a grace period of 15 days for its payment on its becoming due. Rent was due on 10th of each calendar month and grace period of 15 days makes it 25th of each month. The money order for the month of December 2001 and January 2002 was in fact tendered on 19.02.2002, by the time the default for these two months at least had already been committed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.606-K/2018 Muhammad Swaleh v. Mst: Asma Yasin and others,C.P.701-K/2018 Mst: Asma Yasin v. Muhammad Swaleh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of,Disposed Disposed of
583	2018 YLR 2337	Const. P. 1862/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	M/S Dewan Sugar Mills Limited (Petitioner) VS M/S Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) ltd & (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	04-DEC-17	Yes	Ousting the petitioner from availing their remedy which they could have before the executing Court amounts to a denial of fair trial. I am in agreement that such a compromise ought to have been recognized by executing Court, however whether tenant can still make an attempt to have it recognized or otherwise, the jurisdiction vest with the executing Court to be exercised first and I refrain from passing on my observation as it may prejudice the case of parties	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.69-K/2018 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others,C.P.60-K/2018 Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt) Ltd. v. Dewan Sugar Mills Ltd. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed ,Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed
584		Const. P. 165/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	Dr.Fariduddin Qureshi & Ors (Petitioner) VS Syed Zammrrud Hussain & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	06-FEB-18	Yes	It is not disputed that the rent was being collected by rent collector Zamarrud Hussain who is also one of the legal heirs and respondent in these petitions. It is also a matter of record that rent up to August 2006 was paid to the rent collector whereafter the rent was tendered to the rent collector through money order in the month of October 2006. It was endorsed at the back of the money order that the tenant is remitting rent for the month of September 2006 as the rent collector has not come to collect the rent despite telephonic conversation. The said money order was refused by the rent collector on the ground that the endorsement on the money order disclosed the shop to be on Pugree basis.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.659-K/2018 Dr.Fariduddin Qureshi and another v. The 1st Additional District Judge, Karachi (Central) and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous
585		Const. P. 154/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2010	Sanaullah Rajar (Petitioner) VS Govt.of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	15-JAN-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro(Author)
586		Const. P. 1385/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Sohail Mohammad Younus (Petitioner) VS Kashif Mohammad Baig (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	13-AUG-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.83-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Sohail Muhammad Younus and others,C.P.1100-K/2018 Kashif Muhammad Baig and others v. Sohail Muhammad Younus and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed,Disposed Leave Granted
587	2019 CLC 657	Const. P. 704/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	ANTHONY D SILVA (Petitioner) VS SAFRAZ ALI (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	04-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.40-K/2018 Anthony D'Silva v. Sarfraz Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed as Infructuous
588		Const. P. 85/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	CH: MUHAMMAD SHAFIUDDIN (Petitioner) VS MUHAMMAD ATEEQUE & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-FEB-18	Yes	Section 8 provides determination of rent when all four or any one of them may exist. At times it is a cumulative effect of all four ingredients that may be taken in to consideration. One factor out of four may negate or cut off the effect of the other factor and hence it is the respective burden which is supposed to be discharged by the parties for having cumulative effect. If a party relying on any of the four factors of having negative effect, does not discharge burden, it does not restrict Rent Controller to pass order in determining fair rent on the basis of evidence on available factors. Once a fair rent is determined it cannot be said that it cannot be re-determined again under section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979, if the circumstances so warrants. There may or may not be fluctuation in the four ingredients after first determination under section 8 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and hence could also be invoked subsequently by the parties if the circumstances so required. However, once the fair rent is determined, the provisions of section 9 would then be applicable with its limitations i.e. the first increase over and above fair rent should not be before three years and that too may not be in excess to 10% per annum and the future rent was also subject to the provision of Section 9(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 and hence the provisions of section 9(2) with its limitation would apply to fair rent and was ordered accordingly by the Rent Controller. Rent Controller applied the provision as required under section 9 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.321-K/2018 Ch. Muhammad Shafiuddin (Decd) thr. his L.Rs v. Muhammad Ateeque and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
589		Civil Revision 15/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	1995	Muhammad Amin and others (Applicant) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-DEC-18	Yes	Although the marriage/Nikah itself is a contract but the parents cannot enter into contract for their sons and daughters (without their consent) which could bind them. If the sons and daughters of parents are minor, this would be an invalid contract and void ab initio, and if this is done by parents when they (son and daughter) are major and have consensual age then also they are not the ones to enter into such contract on their behalf. The concerned parties themselves are responsible for an agreement or a disagreement to enter into such contract, hence consequences of such consensus between the parents cannot end up in a penalty. On this count alone the alleged gift is invalid.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.190-K/2019 Muhammad Amin & others v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
590		Const. P. 2174/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Shamsheer Security Guards (Pvt.) Ltd. (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Manik Chowdhary & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	20-AUG-18	Yes	It was a burden upon the petitioner/tenant to establish that rent for the month of November 2007 onwards was paid in any form which burden was not discharged. In fact the suggestion that respondents refused to receive the rent w.e.f. November 2007, as borne out from the cross-examination of the petitioner, it becomes toothless defence that rent of the subject period was paid. Though this evidence was not discussed by the appellate Court yet in the ultimate paragraph it was observed that the evidence was not perused by the Rent Controller and rightly so.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
591		Const. P. 1178/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2016	Ghulam Mustafa and others (Petitioner) VS Jashan Mal and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	26-OCT-18	Yes	The question of the pendency of the suit and necessary registration under Section 18 of the Registration Act is misconceived since the decree had already been passed and as such the defence, as claimed in terms of the registration of an agreement of sale under Section 18 of the Registration Act was not available.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
592		Const. P. 415/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Ghulam Mehdi & others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-NOV-18	Yes	he subsequent judgment of the Member Board of Revenue dated 20.04.2017 not only ignored the order of his predecessor, but also ignored the fact that the suit, challenging the order of his predecessor, was also dismissed. These orders i.e. order of the Senior Civil Judge and more importantly the order of the Member Board of Revenue is implied res judicata as the subject matter of the appeal is nothing but the land which is defined as UA No.437 and 438. Here, it could safely be added that legally the litigation (s) are meant to decide controversies (issues). Where, the controversy / issue is that of general application and not limited to a party only then any decision thereon by a competent forum shall be binding upon all, including those who even were not before the legal forum / authority. A mere change of name of parties would never be sufficient to open a new round of litigation for the thing which otherwise stood decided by a lawful forum / authority. If this is ignored, there shall be no end to litigations and interested shall keep things hanging merely by substituting parties. An aggrieved however may get such decision reversed by appeal or reviewed, subject to law, but cannot seek another order from same forum / authority on plea of his being not a party to earlier lis. Any departure to such concept, shall result in frustrating the object of res judicata which otherwise has application in all matters, including Revenue jurisdiction.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
593		Civil Revision 122/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Muhammad Naeem & Others (Applicant) VS Ghulam Muhammad & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	17-SEP-18	Yes	it is a case of material irregularities and illegalities, as the evidence is totally contrary and against the claim of respondent whose suit was decreed. Hence the suit of the plaintiff/respondent No.1 stands dismissed. However, this would not give a license to the applicants as far as their claim is concerned and the revenue authorities are at liberty to act in accordance with law.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1179-K/2018 Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Naeem and others,C.A.15-K/2020 Ghulam Muhammad v. Muhammad Naeem and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Allowed and Remanded
594		Civil Revision 76/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2007	Allah Bux and others (Applicant) VS Govt.of Sindh and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	22-OCT-18	Yes	There is no cavil to the proposition that the entries were neither substantiated before trial Court nor before appellate Court and there was no reason to have relied upon those entries which have no basis as far as title is concerned and the appeal was rightly allowed and consequently the suit was dismissed. Similarly, taking into consideration the contentions of the learned State counsel regarding maintainability of suit, such being a question which is apparent on the face of it such as defect which is not curable and since it is legal, can be raised at any stage including revisional and appellate stage. There is no cavil to the proposition that Government functionaries / authorities are to be sued as required in terms of Article 174 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973 as well as Section 79 CPC. In these proceedings, the Provincial of Sindh was sued through Deputy Commissioner which is not in consonance with the judgment of (1) Haji Abdul Aziz and (2) Government of Balochistan (supra) which provides a mechanism of suing the Government through Province of Sindh and through concerned Secretary to the Government. Commissioner under the hierarchy does not represent the Province in the manner as highlighted in the plaint and as such the objection raised by the learned State Counsel also goes on to prove that the suit at the very inception should have been buried as the legal mandatory formalities in terms of Section 79 CPC and Article 174 of the Constitution have not been complied.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1463-K/2018 Allah Bux & others v. Government of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
595		Civil Revision 61/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2005	Saindad through his attorney Dodo Phulpoto. (Applicant) VS Walidad Mangrio and others. (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-OCT-18	Yes	, it challenged the orders passed under hierarchy of Revenue Law, and the last ultimate order is of Member Board of Revenue, which was passed on 26.06.2000. If that date is to be taken as a last date whereby the cause was triggered to the plaintiff / respondent, the first suit apparently was within time prescribed under the law. Though the subject suit was withdrawn, the latter suit was filed on the same day i.e. 08.04.2004 with the permission of the trial Court. Apparently, there appears to be no question involve as to whether respondent / plaintiff challenging the ultimate order of the revenue authority i.e. Member Board of Revenue is barred by time. However, if it was barred under any other law as being not maintainable, an issue could be framed by trial Court. In view of the above, I deem it appropriate to direct the trial Court to frame the issue of limitation as a preliminary issue as being mixed question of law and facts, and record evidence in the matter along with other issues and this issue of limitation shall remain open to be decided by the trial Court without being influenced by any of the observations of the appellate Court or this Court	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
596		Const. P. 3175/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2015	Mst Sahib Khatoon (Petitioner) VS P.O.Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	14-NOV-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro(Author)	C.P.1461-K/2018 Mst. Sahib Khatoon Panhwar v. The Province of Sindh & others,C.A.139-K/2019 Mst. Sahib Khatoon Panhwar v. The Province of Sindh & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed
597		Conf.Case 10/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Zubair Ahmed (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	17-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
598		Const. P. 411/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	High Court Bar Hyd (Petitioner) VS FED Of Pakistan & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-MAR-20	Yes	Petition pertains to the current issue of Corona Virus (COVID-19)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam(Author)
599		Const. P. 3461/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Shehzadi Erum (Petitioner) VS M.S Leprosy Hospital and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	09-AUG-21	Yes	review application	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
600		Const. P. 1404/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2010	Mst. Rasheda Parveen and others (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
601		Cr.J.A 81/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Karim Bux (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	17-NOV-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
602		Criminal Appeal 96/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Shareef (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	08-DEC-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)	Crl.P.5-K/2021 Sikandar Ali v. Shareef & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
603		Const. P. 7112/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Nasir Ahmed Butt (Petitioner) VS Mst. Shaheen Afroz and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	25-JAN-21	Yes	Family Pension	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
604	2020 YLR 2188	Const. P. 620/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	The Fauji Foundation Charitable Trust (Petitioner) VS Federal Land Commission & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-APR-20	Yes	Subject: Resumption of land under MRL 115 Fauji Foundation a "Charitable Trust" operating under endowment Act 1980 was functioning through a committee formed vide notification of 08.03.1972 of federal Government. Committee after deliberation resolved that secretary to act as authorized person. Unless otherwise explained, it does not deemed to have empowered /authorized secretary to further delegate the powers by a simple authority letter signed by Secretary alone, when it's not borne out of resolution. In the earlier petition when resumption of land was questioned, the parties withdrew their lis in view of negotiation which ended as 30 years leases of subject land and the cause of resumption deemed to have exhausted by way of doctrine of election, Petitioner opted for a long term lease instead to continue litigation against resumption of land .Such right (if any) was bartered with long term lease. Such right to challenge the resumption of land thus was not available when present petition was filed. Process of execution for long term lease should have followed requirement of MLR 115 and section 17 of Act II of 1977 and since it was not transparent, the two leases were executed in an unlawful manner and which period (30 years) has already been exhausted. Scheme of recovery of land revenue includes a process of attachment of holding against arrears which are due. Unless a remedy is exhausted, immediate jump to arrest and detention would not be justified. The question of declaring MLR 115 being repugnant to injunctions of Islamic law has already been decided but with its prospective effect as highlighted in the judgment of Qazalbash Waqf v. Chief Land Commissioner and the effective date was set as 23rd March, 1990 before which the process of resumption had already been completed yet long term leases were executed surrendering rights over the land. (if any)	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Faisal Kamal Alam	C.P.1751/2020 The Fauji Foundation, Charitable Organization under the Committee of Administration thr. Brig. (R) Sabir Ali, Fauji Foundation, Fauji Towers, Rawalpindi v. The Federal Land Commission thr. its Chairman, Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
605	2021 YLR 1021	Cr.J.A 115/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Vijay Kumar & Other (Appellant) VS The State (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	24-NOV-20	Yes	When the cause of death was found to be the incident on account of neurogenic shock of injuries No.1 and 2 i.e. wounds sloughing of flesh form right leg from thigh (mid) to ankle and abrasion on the left anterolateral side of Anus, it was inevitable for the prosecution to have obtained the sperm report of the sample found on the body and of the accused. It cannot be confidently said that the victim Vishal was subjected to humiliation of sodomy by the accused Vijay Kumar and Abbas Mallah since no such report of sperm test is available. --Even the alleged motive of ransom is not confidence inspiring as the Complainants family was a poor one. --There is no eye witness at all and even the story of the prosecution is not confidence inspiring as the boy who was allegedly abducted belongs to a poor class and it does not inspire confidence that somebody could abduct a child who belongs to a family from whom there are remote chances of any financial benefit.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
606	2022 PTD 372, 2022 PTCL 420	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 948/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Abdullah Traders (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-OCT-21	Yes	The goods declaration for the release of the consignments were filed prior to the insertion of sub section 4 of Section 25-A. Learned counsel for the applicant does not controvert these facts. Thus at the relevant time when the goods were cleared and/or goods declarations were filed, benefit of sub section 4 of Section 25-A was not available with the applicant for enforcing earlier Valuation Ruling dated 10.12.2007 which was reviewed on 1.9.2008 issued by the competent authority under Section 25-A and 25-D of the Act. Undoubtedly before insertion of sub section 4 the continuity of an earlier time lapsed Valuation Ruling could not have been enforced.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
607		Const. P. 1414/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mst. Fareeda Aslam thr Attorney M Aslam Mian (Petitioner) VS The DJ Karachi South and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-APR-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
608	2019 PTD 347	Suit 1763/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Umer Spinniing Mills (Pvt) Ltd., & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	05-SEP-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
609		II.A. 70/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Muhammad Farooq (Appellant) VS Ranomal and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	08-APR-21	Yes	I have reached to the conclusion that perhaps these power of attorney and sub-power of attorney are to be read with the sale agreement and sale consideration and the contents of the power of attorney which may be looked into in terms of Section 200 and 202 of the Contract Act and some view had to be formed whether it coupled with interest. In that case if the property was not enjoyed by Safari Construction (Pvt.) Limited it was surely enjoyed by one of the Directors i.e. Allah Dino Behan and at one point of time the widow of Allah Dino Behan i.e. Mominat Behan, may be as chief executive of Safari Construction (Pvt.) Limited, entered into agreement of sale, having share in it. The sale consideration for plot was paid by Allah Dino Behan. If at all for any technical reason the performance could not be sought against Safari Construction (Pvt.) Limited, it could well be asked against an individual Allah Dino Behan and/or widow Mominat who acquired share in it when she entered into agreement.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
610		Suit 510/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Muhammad Rafique (Plaintiff) VS Raja Mohammad Usman & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	08-SEP-15	Yes	First Partnership Deed is between plaintiff and defendants No.1 and 7 to 10 and the second Partnership Deed is between plaintiff and defendants No.1 to 6. Hence, the two causes of action cannot be merged into one in order to avail the jurisdiction of this Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
611		Const. P. 329/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Clariant Pakistan Ltd (Petitioner) VS The Court of Commissioner Workmen of anaother (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	29-MAY-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
612		Const. P. 846/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Zafar Malik (Petitioner) VS Azhar Abbas Butt & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	09-FEB-18	Yes	The legislature has limited the definition of personal use of the landlord to the extent of spouse and son and daughter. It thus cannot be extended to use of brother as a personal use. The personal use of the respondent himself was satisfied/proved in CP No.S-846 of 2009 in relation to Rent Case No.103 of 2002, as observed above, however the bona fide of the landlord insofar as other two applications are concerned required a strict test.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
613	2018 SBLR Sindh 520	Const. P. 609/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	MUHAMMAD MOIN (Petitioner) VS MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE & TWO OTHERSS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	11-JAN-18	Yes	The appellate Court is required to peruse the record minutely and give valid reasons while passing the judgment/decision. The impugned order of Appellate Court is absolutely without any reasoning or justification. --There appears to be no attempt on the part of the respondent to tender the rent once the notices of the application for ejectment were served upon him	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
614		Const. P. 1321/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Muhammad Irshad (Petitioner) VS Mst.Khalida Afsar & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	24-OCT-17	Yes	The initial burden was discharged by the respondent No.1 by filing affidavit-in-evidence. She also stated in the examination-in-chief that the affidavit-in-evidence that was produced as Ex. A/1 is the same and correct and bears her signature whereas in the cross-examination she has stated that she does not know about the contents of the affidavit-inevidence. It is perhaps cumulative effect of the evidence that is to be looked into. A solitary statement regarding contents of the affidavit-inevidence cannot wash the entire proceedings such as filing of affidavit on oath and the statement that the affidavit-in-evidence bears her signature and that the contents are correct.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
615	2023 YLR 40	Const. P. 891/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s United Business Machines thr Muhammad Aslam (Petitioner) VS Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	25-MAY-21	Yes	-Section 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979requires demonstration of elements such as (i) honesty of purpose and (ii) reasonableness. From the statement of landlord/owner for the purpose of eviction of a tenant on the ground of personal bona fide need only an honest intention is to be deduced and there is no other formula to adjudge good and bad faith, for the purpose of eviction on the aforesaid count. If the Court on the scrutiny of the evidence comes to the conclusion that it was an honest intention then it would be immaterial whether he remained successful in achieving the object or not that is whether his son or daughter would join him in the business after completing their education. This requirement would be immaterial in the sense that the intention of the father in evicting the tenant was an honest one.Good faith is an abstract term not capable of any rigid definition and ordinary dictionary meaning describes it as "honesty of intention". -The primary requirement and condition precedent for invoking provision of Section 15(2)(vii) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 claiming relief on the ground of personal bonafide need of landlord in good faith is that the landlord should be honest in his approach and sincerity of his purpose should be manifested by irreversible evidence and surrounding circumstances. - Sufficiency of accommodation either for a commercial/industrial activity or for residential purpose is to be adjudged best by the landlord himself and it may vary not only on case to case basis but also on the basis of nature of business that one intends to establish an honest idea about future growth of the business and its prospects. Someone may have an idea of establishing humongous business set up and he may or may not be successful in achieving his object and plan but what is 9important, as a test, is the honesty of intention and there is nothing on record in the shape of cross-examination of the landlord/owner to demonstrate that it was not an honest and genuine intention for extending and enhancing business for himself and for his family members.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.1108-K/2021 M/s. United Business Machines v. Ghulam Hussain Hidayatullah & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
616	2022 PTD 796, 2022 SBLR Sindh 22	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 826/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Samad Enterprises (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-AUG-21	Yes	the show-cause notice is without jurisdiction on the count that the customs authorities have not been conferred with the powers of adjudication as far as Sales Tax Act, 1990 and the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 are concerned. Customs Authorities have powers to collect sales tax/income tax etc. at the import stage in the capacity of collecting agents on the basis of registration certificate and the status is being adjudged by the registration authority itself. In the absence of any evidence which could contravene the requirements of the subject SRO, no other view is deducible as these are questions of facts alone, which are thus answered accordingly in favour of respondent and against the applicant.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.1602-K/2021 The Colelctor of Customs, Karachi v. M/s. Samad Enterprises Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
617	2017 YLR 582, 2016 SBLR Sindh 1476	J.M 10/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	SARA AHMED SOOMRO (Applicant) VS SARWAT UN NISA & ORS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	16-MAR-16	Yes	in such a situation where the powers have been delegated to a counsel and who acted upon it, is allowed to be challenged in such a manner, as is in this case, then perhaps there will no end to the litigation and the authority of the counsel, to whom the powers have been delegated, would always remain under shadow of doubt. Insofar additional property which was not initially available in the plaint filed by applicant herself, the special Power of Attorney is available to validate the authority of respondent No.1 to compromise on behalf of applicant	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
618		Suit.B 43/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	ASKARI COMMERCIAL BANK (Plaintiff) VS ZAFAR AHMED & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	19-NOV-12	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
619		Const. P. 914/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Sardar & Ors (Petitioner) VS Masood Hussain Antria (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-NOV-17	Yes	it is also a well settled that Constitution Petition cannot be considered as a regular appeal and hence question of facts cannot be appreciated the way they could be appreciated in appeal. The scope of the petition is limited to the extent as if any piece of evidence was misread or that the jurisdiction was not exercised in accordance with law	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
620	2021 PTD 1858, 2021 PTCL 835	Const. P. 4776/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/s Al-Hamd Steel Furnace (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-SEP-21	Yes	The amendment, as sought by the petitioner, could not have been carried out in terms of Section 45(2) of Customs Act, 1969 as this section relates to an obvious error in the import manifest or an omission which in the opinion of such officer was result of an accident or inadvertence. Petitioners case has not fallen in any of such exceptions inviting and/or calling for an amendment or issuance of supplementary import manifest as it is apparently a deliberate attempt to provide an umbrella to the original consignee as against recovery of Rs.71.179 Million. --Previously there was absolutely no permission whatsoever for carrying out any amendment in the import manifest except as provided in subsection (2). This subsection (3) was replaced by a proviso introduced through Finance Act 2021 which now provides that before berthing of vessel or the crossover of the vessel, as the case may be, the person incharge of a conveyance or his duly authorized agent may amend the import manifest subject to rules notified by the Board. ---The replaced subsection (3) of Section 45 would be applicable in the sense that except as provided in subsection (2) no import manifest shall be amended. Event disclosed is prior to amendment carried out via Finance Bill 2021. This would leave a very little margin, in fact no margin, for the amendment sought to be carried out in the import manifest in terms of subsection (2) as it is specifically for an obvious error or in fact an omission, which in the opinion of the concerned officer is a result of accident or inadvertence. In fact petitioners case has not fallen in either of the two i.e. its case is neither covered by subsection (2) of Section 45 nor the proviso recently inserted by Finance Act, 2021.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
621		Const. P. 4573/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	M/s PSO (Petitioner) VS Abdul Baseer and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan	C.P.13-K/2020 M/s Pakistan State Oil Company Limited v. Abdul Baseer and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
622	2021 PTD 2042	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 275/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s A.U Technologies & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	20-AUG-21	Yes	the questions, as proposed by the applicant department, do not appear to be the questions of law. It could have been the questions in appeal but not in Special Customs Reference Application where only questions of law arising out of the Tribunal Order could be taken into consideration. The facts of the case are that the consignments were imported on 15.09.2007 and the Goods Declaration was filed on 18.09.2007 whereas the Valuation Ruling No.22/2008, is of 11.03.2008, and hence became a convincing tool for the officers. However, there is no concrete evidence as to the value of the goods arrived at Port on 15.09.2007 for which Goods Declaration was filed on 18.09.2007. The ibid valuation ruling was later in time that it came after about six months of the arrival of the goods. So the question before the Tribunal was whether there was sufficient evidence before Valuation Department for adjudging the value of the goods in terms of the subject Valuation Ruling which was later in time (above six months).	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
623		Const. P. 520/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Masood Ahmad Bhatti. (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-MAY-13	Yes	Perusal of the contract shows that it is one time concluded contract and the parties were neither coerced nor compelled to enter such adjustments. The VSS scheme was signed by the petitioner challenging certain statistics in terms of the length of service which he could have agitated before VSS Support Centre to initiate the appeal process which was to be decided within 180 days of the VSS announcing date. The petitioner did not opt for such process and has voluntarily signed the separation scheme. It is a binding and concluded contract and the petitioner cannot resile from the terms and conditions thereof. It is required to be accepted as it is or not at all as it is the spirit of the contract itself which says take it or leave it. The petitioners claim appears to have been further adjusted only as a gesture of good-will when the package was enhanced to Rs.4,039,307/- and an additional amount of Rs.791,291/- was offered along with enhanced payable pension to the petitioner. In the circumstances, we are of the view that the petitioner has failed to substantiate his claim vis-??-vis final VSS settlement and release of his actual pension and other service benefits, however, since the petitioner is agitating his grievances since 2009 and the amount is also lying with the respondents, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to the interest over such amount. Accordingly, while disposing of the petition vide short order dated 14.05.2013 the respondents were directed to pay interest at the rate of 8% per annum from 10.3.2008 till the entire amount is paid to the petitioner. .	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
624	2017 PLC (CS) 409	Suit 207/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	ARBAB A.MUNIR (Plaintiff) VS MACKINNONS MACKENZIE & CO (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-JAN-16	Yes	Insofar as the amended clause-8A in the Supplemental Trust Deed for superannuation fund is concerned, since the plaintiff resigned much prior to the alleged amendment, it cannot be applied retrospectively though the subject clauses such as (ii) and (iii) of clause-8A of the aforesaid Deed have not been challenged but apparently it amounts to usurping the rights of the member/ pensioner who has throughout his life has done only one business and that it would be unlawful for a company to enforce such terms which are contrary and violative of the fundamental and constitutional rights as guaranteed.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
625	2012 CLC 1293, 2012 SBLR Sindh 611	H.C.A 22/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Arshad Naseemuddin Ahmed (Appellant) VS Javed Baloch & Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	02-MAY-12	Yes	It is neither obligatory nor lawful to have always decide the application under section 47 and Order XXI rule 95, 100, 103 CPC by recording the evidence. It actually depends upon the facts and circumstances of each case. The learned Single Judge has done nothing wrong while dismissing the application summarily since there was no material or facts which were required to be investigated.	Hon'ble Senior Pusine Mr. Justice Nadeem Akhtar, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
626	2022 PTD 1444	Const. P. 310/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	M/s Al Tariq Construction (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
627		Const. P. 3514/2014 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Rashida Farnaz (Petitioner) VS Fed. Of Pakistan and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	09-DEC-19	Yes	Rule-1 of the probation provides that a regular employee appointed to any post in the strategic organization shall be for a period of year. Rule-2 of the probation provides that in the event of initial appointment, the employee who failed to show satisfactory performance and conduct during the probationary period, the Competent Authority may extend the period of probation for a maximum period of another year or dispense with his/her service without assigning any reason. Rule-3 provides that if no order is issued under clause c(2), on the expiry of the first year of probation, the same shall be taken to have been extended for another one year. Thus, she could have claimed her extension of probation and not regularization, in the absence of an order, however order was passed after about three months but these facts will not materially affect the merit of the case.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan(Author)
628		Const. P. 23/2009 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2009	Dr. Muhammad Hassan Memon. (Petitioner) VS LUMHS Jamshoro. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-OCT-20	Yes	University Matter	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
629	2017 YLR 2442	Suit 1691/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Shaheen Air International Ltd., (SAIL) & another. (Plaintiff) VS Civil Aviation Authority & anaother. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	25-NOV-16	Yes	"Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2---General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 24-A---Constitution of Pakistan, Arts. 18 & 25---Suit for declaration and injunction---Interim injunction, grant of---License, renewal of---Right to trade and business---Discrimination---Plaintiffs were licensed by Civil Aviation Authority to operate commercial airline for passengers and cargo---Grievance of plaintiffs was that authorities declined to renew the license on the plea that some of the Directors and Shareholders of plaintiff company required security clearance---Validity---Denial of security clearance was not as required under the law---Such was not only devoid of serious reasoning of security/ intelligence agencies but also hit by S.24-A of General Clauses Act, 1897---In absence of detailed reasoning as to the adverse observation, it would not be possible for plaintiffs to comply with such anonymous terms---Change of directorship or Chief Executive Officer, was not the solution as it would amount to denying a right as guaranteed to each citizen of Pakistan in terms of Arts. 18 & 25 of the Constitution---Letter of government advising plaintiff company through Civil Aviation Authority that they could either get security clearance from the Directorate of Inter Service Intelligence or concerned Director/Chief Executive Officer should be considered to be changed was of no consequence at all---Denial to renew a license to plaintiff company on account of dual nationality of Directors amounted to curtailing a right guaranteed under Arts. 18 & 25 of the Constitution unless valid reasons were provided---High Court directed plaintiffs to respond to queries and provide all information and documents as and when required by the concerned authority/security agencies---High Court suspended the orders passed by the authorities---Interim injunction was granted in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
630		II.A. 31/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Bhoja Airlines (Pvt) Ltd (Appellant) VS P>I.A. Corporation (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-17	Yes	The case of respondent is based on a contract, breach of which is claimed by the respondent and hence they preferred a claim for recovery. Article 120 will only be made applicable when no Article prescribes the limitation to file a suit for recovery as claimed by the respondent. Perusal of Article 115 shows that it is for the recovery/compensation for breach of any contract either express or implied. Respondent has claimed nothing but a breach of contract in respect of service which was allegedly rendered by it as it is claimed that they have failed, refused and neglected to make payment which is breach of a contract.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
631		Suit 1058/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Muhammad Shoaib Soomro & others (Plaintiff) VS Export Processing Zone Authority & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-JAN-22	Yes	Since the inception of their appointments no codal formalities were exhausted; their appointments were on the basis of walk-in interview. I have not been able to find any advertisement or test amongst the deserving persons who could have applied for such appointments having genuine belief that later on they could be confirmed. Plaintiffs without any contest were given appointment letters and now after so many years of their unlawful appointments they want these appointments to be given premium by confirmation of their appointments, without undergoing process of even NTS tests, which was ordered to be undertaken. I would not even consider NTS tests to be a justified attempt to regularize or regulate their services.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
632	2012 CLC 1878	Suit 105/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	SYED IMDAD HUSSAIN SHAH (Plaintiff) VS REHMAT KHAN VARDAG & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	04-JUN-12	Yes	--S. 13---Application for return of court-fee---Compromise between the parties after about two months of filing the suit---Contention of the plaintiff was that since the matter had been compromised between the parties and no issues had been framed as such, they were entitled for return of the court-fee, and that the suit was filed in the month of January, 2010 and was disposed of as compromised in March, 2010, therefore, the court had only consumed two months, on basis of which the plaintiff was entitled for the return of the court-fee---Validity---Suit in question was filed on 25-10-2010, whereafter notices and summonses were issued---On 27-10-2010 the bailiff's report was returned with the endorsement that one of the defendant's had refused to receive notice and as such bailable warrants were issued on 27-10-2010---On 29-10-2010 the plaintiff was able to obtain an order by which the court directed the Judicial Magistrate to take over possession of the containers belonging to the plaintiff, which had been allegedly unauthorizedly retained by the defendants and prepare an inventory and park the said containers in the court premises---On 8-2-2010 it was ordered that the defendants might file written statements and counter affidavits within four days with advance copy to the plaintiffs who in turn might file a copy of the rejoinder, whereafter the matter was adjourned---Plaintiff moved an urgent application on 29-2-2010, and as such the matter was heard on three subsequent dates, ending in a compromise as appearing in the order dated 4-3-2010---Court had spent its valuable time in examining the case, in hearing the arguments and in deliberation, therefore, it could not be said that the court had not consumed its valuable time---Plaintiff had achieved what he could through his prayer in the plaint---Decree in terms of the order dated 4-3-2010 was passed by the High Court whereby the rights of the parties were determined---Relevant factors which went against the contentions of the plaintiff were the initiation of the proceedings by the court, hearing of the matter and the benefit derived by the party-- Application for return of court-fee was dismissed, in circumstances	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
633	2023 PLC (CS) 889	Suit -3416/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	MUHAMMAD ASLAM (Plaintiff) VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-JAN-22	Yes	laintiff was appointed by defendant No.3 when it acquired the corporate status and hence the relationship is governed the rule of `master` and `servant`. The Human Resource Manual which is relied upon by the plaintiff itself suggests that the termination of the service could be effected without assigning any reason or as a measure of retrenchment, after giving him a notice of three months or payment in lieu thereof	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
634	2022 CLC 1322	Suit 648/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Muhammad Idrees Abbasi (Plaintiff) VS Syed Akbar Khan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	18-FEB-22	Yes	Section 12(2) CPC provides a bar where plaintiff is precluded by rule from instituting a further suit in respect of any particular cause of action and shall not be entitled to institute a suit in respect of such cause of action in any court to which this code applies.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
635		Const. P. 3601/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Pakistan Stock Exchange (Petitioner) VS Sindh and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	27-JAN-22	Yes	Stock Exchange is a commercial organization and is engaged in a business of providing services for the trading of securities. As per definition of the term Stock Exchange it is a market place where facilities for trading of securities are provided. The surplus (receipts over expenses) is distributed regularly as dividend amongst the shareholders. Its shareholders taking part in trading activities as brokers derive profit. Even before demutualization the members of stock exchange were entitled to trading on stock exchange and were also provided services as brokers; they have established their offices and solicit business and use their membership for earning income therefore economic and commercial activities were the core activities of the erstwhile members and also the present TRE holders (trading right entitlement). Stock exchanges entertain applications from individuals and corporate entities to issue them such trading certificates for their economic/business activity. The stock exchange lacks the important attribute of lack of commerciality of a members club for application of the doctrine of mutuality	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.775/2022 Pakistan Stock Exchange Limited, Karachi v. Sindh through the Secretary, Ministry of Finance, Karachi and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
636		R.A (Civil Revision) 2/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Saleh & Others (Applicant) VS Muhammad Qasim & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	08-DEC-17	Yes	"Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)--- ----S.9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Suit for possession of immovable property---Application for rejection of plaint---Scope---Plaint was rejected on the grounds that plaintiffs had no legal right, character and title over the suit land and they were not in possession on the suit property---Validity---Relief in a suit filed under S.9 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 was not dependent upon the title of suit property---Said suit was to be decided only on the ground as to whether plaintiffs were dispossessed from the immovable property without their consent and without due process of law---Plaintiffs in such suit could recover possession notwithstanding any other title that might be set up in that suit---Dispute of possession was a bundle of facts which could not summarily be decided while considering an application under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.---Impugned orders passed by the Courts below were set aside---Matter was remanded to the Trial Court to frame issues including maintainability of suit and decide the controversy at the earliest within four months---Revision was disposed of in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
637	2023 YLR 1385	Suit 923/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mst. Irshad Bibi (Plaintiff) VS Samiullah Niazi & others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-NOV-22	Yes	In terms of Article 91 of Limitation Act since subject sale deed is a registered instrument it is deemed to be in the knowledge of plaintiff and the facts entitling the plaintiff to have the instrument cancelled known to her at the relevant time but she did not take any action	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
638	2023 YLR 1431	Suit 2299/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Maqbool Ahmed Solangi. (Plaintiff) VS The Chairman Board of Revenue & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	03-NOV-22	Yes	Plaintiff thus has no prima facie case in his favour and since defendants have registered instruments in their favour and have acquired the title after a long drawn litigation, the other two ingredients for grant of injunction i.e. balance of inconvenience and irreparable loss also does not exist in plaintiffs favour.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
639		Const. P. 1770/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Rahim Bux (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Ors. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-MAY-22	Yes	A formal inquiry was ordered to be conducted. That order of de novo inquiry could have been passed only when authority was convinced that decision of dismissal was neither lawful and nor based on legitimate findings and unless such finding of facts are unearthed through de novo inquiry, the order of dismissal would be meaningless. De novo inquiry in fact impliedly means that the order was set-aside otherwise there was no wisdom or logic behind such formal inquiry.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
640		Const. P. 1616/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2019	Muhammad Sharif (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	24-MAY-22	Yes	Since water quality plays significant role for aquatic life, we have enquired about tentative water quality assessment from officials who have not satisfactorily assisted. pH and TDS plays a significant role in determining the quality of water and its conduciveness for fish growth. It is very alarming if these tenders could be awarded without water assessment and thus would be a futile attempt for such purpose and may have a financial catch for some individual[s]. pH is a measurement of concentration of hydrogen ions in water. Lower pH means more hydrogen ions and higher PH means fewer hydrogen ions. pH has a scale from 1-14 which measures acidity and Alkalinity of water, anything above 7 in an alkaline based water whereas less than 7 is acidic. Similarly TDS is actually total dissolved solids in water which include both organic and inorganic substance. Research shows the effect of varying pH value differently on different commodity.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
641		Suit 1062/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Siddiqsons Private Limited & another (Plaintiff) VS Creek Marina Singapore PTE Limited & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-OCT-22	Yes	Out of a common cause, parties may have different reliefs and remedies available to them within same jurisdiction of the Court but with different procedural way outs for reliefs and remedies claimed such as original civil jurisdiction and jurisdiction under Summary Chapter, though later is also categorized as original jurisdiction.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
642	2023 SBLR Sindh 263	Suit 2637/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Tayyaba Motors (Pvt) Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Regal Automobiles Industries & another. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	17-NOV-22	Yes	The only concern of the plaintiff is that at the relevant time no notification was issued, which could identify the establishment of Tribunal if it was operating and functioning at the relevant time under section 16 of ibid Act, when the suit was filed. This is not borne out of the pleadings as no such grounds have been raised at the time of invoking jurisdiction of this Court. It was nowhere alleged that since there is no notification with regard to notifying the tribunal or appointment of presiding officer, therefore, plaintiff was compelled to file this suit. In the absence of such pleadings, it cannot be presumed or assumed that this Court had to exercise the jurisdiction, which jurisdiction otherwise vests with the Tribunal	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
643	2023 CLD 920	Suit.B 39/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	THE BANK OF PUNJAB (Plaintiff) VS M/S HASCOL PETROLEUM LIMITED (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-FEB-23	Yes	----With regard to candid admission on the part of the defendant, the execution of documents referred above including a request letter for grant of loan, sanction letters, finance agreements and creation of charge documents are of much significance. ----Defendants have neither denied execution of agreement nor challenged the authority of Mr. Jawed Khan to execute the agreement with it on behalf of the bank. It is thus not a question of law that could form substantial question out of the pleadings in consideration of law of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and execution of documents in particular	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
644	2023 CLD 366	Judicial Companies Misc. 47/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	G.A ENTERPRISES (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND TWO OTHERS (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	20-FEB-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
645	2023 CLD 639	Judicial Companies Misc. 13/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	LUCKY LANDMARK (PVT) LTD AND ANOTHER (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	02-MAR-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
646		H.C.A 372/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	M/s National Refinery Limited (Appellant) VS Syed Mansoor Ali and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-NOV-23	Yes	Sub-section-2 of Section-3 provides an appeal to a Bench of two or more Judges of High Court from an order made by a single Judge of that Court under clause-1 of Article-199 of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, not being an order made under subparagraph (i) of paragraph (b) of that clause. To our understanding, it excludes an appeal in relation to a subject summarized in Article199(1)(b)(i), whereas, rest of the "subjects" of Article-199(1) have been subjected to appeal. Subject of dismissal of a claim made under Section-15 of the Payment of Wages Act, 1936 is already subjected to appeal under Section-17, but this is not the ???subject??? which could be impugned in any of the lower fora and hence neither appeal nor petition is a remedy. For the purpose of appeal under Law Reforms Ordinance or this appeal in particular wherefrom the impugned order has arisen, out of proceeding under Article-199 from a single Bench, we may sum-up by referring to Appellate side of Sindh Chief Court Rules. Rule-8 confers jurisdiction ordinarily exercised by two Judges of this Court, except otherwise provided by law in particular. Similarly Rule-9 discussed matter to be decided by single Judge of appellate side, not necessarily under Article-199 as there may be some miscellaneous lis etc. Such work (subject) assigned under Rule9 ibid is not the one impugned by the appellant before learned single Judge, hence jurisdiction was not vested and incorrectly exercised.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.4312/2023 National Refinery Limited, Karachi v. Syed Mansoor Ali and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
647		I. A 64/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Abdul Hameed and Others (Appellant) VS Bank Islami Pakistan Limited & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-OCT-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
648		Const. P. 3847/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Mrs. Gulzar Parveen (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
649		Const. P. 1494/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Abdul Majeed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
650		Const. P. 4320/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
651		Const. P. 4307/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
652		Const. P. 7697/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Mrs. Aliya Jafery (Petitioner) VS Govt. of Pakistan & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
653		Const. P. 6396/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Khawaja Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
654		Const. P. 6397/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Khawaja Muhammad Khan (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
655		H.C.A 90/2024 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2024	Basham Baloch and Others (Appellant) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-MAR-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
656		Const. P. 1493/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2021	Altaf Hussain Tunio (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Waseem Ghori & Other (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	10-AUG-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan
657		Const. P. 5647/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Ambreen Mansoor (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
658		Const. P. 6659/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Prince Art Packages Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
659		Const. P. 6663/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Universal Brushware Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
660		Const. P. 4314/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
661		Const. P. 4322/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
662		Suit.B 94/2009 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2009	Royal Bank of Scotland (Plaintiff) VS Muhammad Nadeem (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	31-AUG-12	Yes	It is neither shown nor indicated in any document as to how the damages and liquidation charges had been claimed and calculated and how they are reasonable which amount is otherwise contrary to the provisions of Contract Act, 1872.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
663		Cr.Bail 295/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Imran Bhatti (Applicant) VS The State (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	27-FEB-13	Yes	here is a considerable delay in lodging the F.I.R i.e., 3 days despite the fact that victim's brother went to police station to obtain the letter. In addition, perusal of the F.I.R shows that there is hardly any role prescribed to the applicant and entire accusation was made for Bashir Bhatti who caused straight fire from his Kalashnikov which hit the deceased on his back and went through. However, nothing was attributed to the applicant and no role was assigned to him. As far as the case of vicarious liability is concerned, no doubt Section 460, P.P.C is quite different and distinct from Section 302, P.P.C, however, it is yet to be determined that the applicant was involved as it has become a case of further enquiry on account of delay in lodging the F.I.R. These views are also fortified by one of the judgments referred above i.e., case of Faraz Akram, in terms whereof it was observed that the vicarious liability could be determined at the trial and not at this stage, where there is inordinate delay in lodging the F.I.R.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
664		Cr.Bail 443/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Larkana	2012	Bashir Muhammadani (Applicant) VS The state (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	28-JAN-13	Yes	It is matter of fact that the present applicant Bashir Muhammadani though has been named in the FIR but no specific role is alleged against him. Neither the offence such as of instigation or prompting the main accused Bugho was attributed to the applicant. The role of other main accused is totally different from the role of the present applicant. Consequently, I admit the applicant on bail subject to his furnishing surety in the sum of Rs.250,000/- (Rupees two hundred fifty thousands only) and P.R bond in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
665		Suit 323/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Mst. Aziz Bano (Plaintiff) VS Khalifa Aziz Mian (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-FEB-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
666		Cr.Misc. 327/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	Muhammad Younus (Applicant) VS Muhammad Zafar Ali Khan and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	30-SEP-13	Yes	The trial Court appears to have passed the order summarily without touching the legal aspect as enshrined in aforesaid two cited cases and as described u/s 179 Cr.P.C.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
667	2016 SBLR Sindh 1268	Suit 1978/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Pakistan Beverage (Pvt) Ltd., & Others. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	18-MAY-16	Yes	here is a need of carving out a distinction between a determined/prescribed price for the consumer and sale price for the consumer. OGRA only determines the prescribed price on the basis of estimated revenue requirements and that is the only determination that they forwarded to the federal government i.e. Rs.469.04 per MMBTU. It cannot be considered as a sale price for each category of consumer since this could only be culminated and matured into a sale price once the federal government sends it back to the authority/OGRA for issuing a notification considering it to be a sale price in the notification. Determined prescribed price of OGRA cannot prematurely be considered to be sale price under the given circumstances. The impugned notification further lacks its sanctity as the same was much higher i.e. Rs.600 MMBTU than the prescribed/recommended price of Rs.469.04 per MMBTU by OGRA itself.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
668	2016 PLD Sindh 532	Suit 821/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ayesha Solvent Plant (Pvt.) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	04-MAY-16	Yes	Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules, 1976--- ----R. 8(1)(5)---Phytosanitary certificate---Place of origin, determination of---Principle---Goods in transit/re-export---Consignment in question consisted of soyabean of Brazil and US origin imported by an importer in Egypt and was off loaded at an Egyptian port---Relevant authorities of Brazil and USA had issued Phytosanitary certificates and on basis of same certificates, consignment was exported to Pakistan---Authorities declined to issue necessary plant protection release order in relation to consignment in question on the ground that origin of consignment was Egypt, not Brazil/USA therefore, Phytosanitary certificate had to be issued by Egypt, not Brazil/USA---Validity---Shipment from port of Egypt was being made after a delay of about six months and it might or might not be in transit---Provisions of R.8(1) of Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules, 1967 required that such plant or plant material should carry official certificate from a plant quarantine authority of that country and did not only relate to a country where such plants or plant products were grown--- Place of origin varied according to situation and requirement of a Phytosanitary status---Place of origin under the Convention and Act referred to a place from where a consignment gained its Phytosanitary status where possibility of exposure to infestation or contamination of pests was evident and could not be ruled out---Place where commodity was grown was not always considered as place of origin---If a commodity was stored, its Phytosanitary status could change over a period of time as a result of its new location---In such cases, new location could change Phytosanitary status and might be considered as place of origin---Place of origin was dependent upon Phytosanitary status not place of growth---Commodity could gain its Phytosanitary status from more than one places and NPPO of all such countries providing certificates should decide about place or places of origin depending upon the situation that they had undergone which might have changed Phytosanitary status---Egypt was to be considered as place of origin for such shipment, and the definition of 'place of origin' in policy would not turn the situation unless such certificates were made available, authorities in Pakistan under Quarantine Act were justified in not issuing release order---In terms of R.8(5) Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules, 1967, shipment arrived without certificate or declaration meant in R. 8(2) of Pakistan Plant Quarantine Rules, 1967 and with permit were liable to be confiscated or destroyed or to be returned to the port of origin at the expense of importer---Application was disposed of with order and observations by the High Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
669	2016 PTD 622, 2016 SBLR Sindh 1484	Suit 1764/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2014	Muhammad Hussain & Others (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	08-SEP-15	Yes	Faced with the presumptive taxation of imports, supplies, contract, exports etc. under section 80-C and 80-CC of the Income Tax Ordinance, 1979, where tax payers challenged the constitutionality of presumptive taxation, the Supreme Court of Pakistan in its landmark judgment of Ellahi Cotton Mills (Supra) held that section 80C and 80CC (Section 148 and 153 and 154 in Ordinance 2001) provides for presumptive taxation of income within the category of presumptive tax as under the same the persons covered by them pay a pre-determined amount of presumptive tax in full and final discharge of their tax liability in respect of the transactions on which above tax is levied. If Entry 47 is read in isolation without reference to Entry No.52 one can urge that Entry 47 does not admit the imposition of presumptive tax as the expression tax on income employed therein should be understood as to the working out of the same on the basis of computation as provided in the various provisions of Ordinance. Thus, it can be held that presumptive tax is in fact akin to capacity tax i.e. capacity to earn.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
670		Suit 1489/2007 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2007	Adnan Aziz Ahmed (Plaintiff) VS Rakil Ahmed Zaman& Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	06-MAY-22	Yes	As far as strength and defence of sale certificate, as relied upon by the defendants, who are the other set of legal heirs are concerned, the subject property never vested with the Nazir of this Court, which could enable him to sell the same and issue sale certificate. Nazir was never given any authority to sell the property on behalf of legal heirs. It was a private sale and some of the legal heirs arranged a buyer and presented him before the Court. Thus, the act of issuing sale certificate by the Nazir was without jurisdiction and/or mandate.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
671		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 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
672		M.A. 6/2005 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2005	Muhammad Basheer Juma (Appellant) VS Institute Charted Accountants Pak (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	31-MAY-18	Yes	I do not see any charge within the frame of clause 5 Part 4 of Schedule 1 of Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 in the absence of any audit report duly signed by him (appellant). All that I could see is that the report was tentatively drafted, having certain queries which the Board of Bankers Equity Limited was supposed to furnish. At the most the auditor should have asked for such queries before even attempting to prepare a draft for the period ending on 30.06.1998 and this is perhaps not covered by the clause 5 of Part 4 of Chartered Accountants Ordinance, 1961 referred above.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
673		H.C.A 7/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Tharparkar Sugar Mills Limited (Appellant) VS Bankers Equity Limited (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	04-JUN-14	Yes	"Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 27 & 22---Interpretation of S.27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Suit for recovery was decreed in terms of compromise between the parties, and subsequently, the defendant filed another suit seeking to take advantage of a State Bank Circular---Contention of the defendant was inter alia, that till such time the proceedings of the second suit culminate, status quo with regard to mortgaged property had to be maintained---Held, defendant had sought indirect relief for setting aside or modification of the judgment and decree passed in the first suit, against which defendant had not filed appeal and decree had obtained finality---Under S.27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 no court or authority was prohibited to revise, recall, call or permit or call into question the judgment and decree of Banking Court or the legality or propriety of anything done by the Banking Court, subject to provisions of S.22 of the Ordinance---Legislature in its anxiety to protect orders of the Banking Court had gone to the extent of ordaining that no authority other than the appellate forum shall even allow to throw a challenge to the validity of orders of the Banking Court and the same could not be assailed before any forum except by the way of appeal---Only possibility in which an injunction or restraining orders against execution of decree and sale of mortgaged property could be granted, would be on the presumption that decree in the first suit might be modified, altered and or set aside, which could not be presumed under provisions of S.27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001--- Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.311-K/2013 M/s Tharparkar Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Bankers Equity Ltd. and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
674		E.P 12/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Abdul Razzak Khan Khoso (Petitioner) VS Election Commission of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-MAR-19	Yes	Pleading is general structure of facts and allegations. Blacks Law Dictionary provides it to be A formal document in which a party to a legal proceeding (esp. a civil lawsuit) sets forth or responds to allegations, claims, denials, or defenses. In civil procedure, the main pleadings are the plaintiffs complaint and the defendants answer. The pleadings get support and strength through the evidence to be recorded in support thereof. Thus, it needs not to be an encyclopedia, it should contain material facts, allegations and grounds with particular references, which in the present case, are available.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
675	2017 YLR 1752	Suit 1007/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Falcon-I (Private) Limited (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	20-MAR-17	Yes	The scope of the suit apart from the requirement of Order 1 Rule 10 CPC is very necessary to be considered. Order 1 Rule 10 (2) CPC requires that the Court may at any stage of the proceedings, either upon or without the application of either party, and on such terms as may appear to the Court to be just, order that the name of any party improperly joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, be struck out, and that the name of any person who ought to have been joined, whether as plaintiff or defendant, or whose presence before the Court may be necessary in order to enable the Court effectually and completely to adjudicate upon and settle all the questions involved in the suit, be added.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
676	2020 SBLR Sindh 1269	Suit 1009/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	M/s. Century Paper & Board Mills Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Federation of Pakistan & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	26-OCT-16	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
677	2019 CLC 1159	Civil Tran 39/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2013	Sht Ashee (Applicant) VS Beshamal (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-SEP-17	Yes	Family Court Act, 1964 and the Rules framed there under i.e. West Pakistan Family Court Rules 1965 are applicable to all Family Courts including but not limited to those who professes different religions. The question before me is as to whether the trial court where a suit for judicial separation under Hindu Family Law was filed could exercise jurisdiction in view of the facts, pleadings and the relevant rules as referred above.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
678		Const. P. 1715/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Mst. Sadaf Younus thr Her Father Muhammad Younus (Petitioner) VS Saqib Nadeem & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	18-DEC-17	Yes	Insofar as Rules 5 and 6 of the West Pakistan Rules under Muslim Family Laws Ordinance 1961 is concerned, the petitioner was divorced in Pakistan while the custody of the ward was with her. Both the counsels have not objected that the ward is a dual national and since ward being with mother is living within the territorial limits of the Court where Guardian & Ward application was filed and the cause of action in terms of Rule 6 ibid arisen, it has the jurisdiction. Such point was never raised before the trial Court or before the appellate Court and hence it does not lie in the mouth of the respondent who himself filed an application for the custody of the ward surrendering himself to the jurisdiction of the trial Court.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.641-K/2018 Mst: Sadaf Younus v. Saqib Nadeem and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
679	2017 CLC Note 157	J.M 12/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Karachi Development Company (Applicant) VS IM Technologies Pakistan & another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	15-MAR-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
680		Const. P. 976/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Mst. Zareen Ali Wd/O Salman Ali Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Ajaz Ali Sehto & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	12-FEB-18	Yes	It does not lie in the mouth of petitioner either to challenge the title of the previous landlord i.e. Bilal A. Malik to whom he (petitioner) was tendering the rent or to whom the previous landlord has delegated such powers by way of letter of attornment and the relationship was thus rightly held by the Courts below. There is no cavil that on the basis of a sale agreement only such relationship cannot be decided but if such sale agreement is coupled with notice under section 18 of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 along with letter of attornment then it cannot be said to be just an agreement of sale. Such letter of attornment delegates all such authorities and powers required by a subsequent buyer to initiate proceedings, as initiated by respondent No.1 in the matter.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.99-K/2018 Mst: Zareen Ali v. Ajaz Ali Sehto and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
681		Const. P. 939/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2012	President Poors Welfares (Petitioner) VS Regional Police Officer and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	21-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro	C.P.797/2019 Mansoor Ashraf v. President Poors Welfare Association Sukkur thr. its President Hazoor Bux & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
682	2017 CLD 1256	Suit 4-B/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Habib Metropolitan Bank (Plaintiff) VS M/s. Dagra Textile (Pvt.) Ltd. & others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	11-APR-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui
683		Const. P. 42/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2019	Pir Bux Chandio (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	07-FEB-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
684		Const. P. 1443/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Islamuddin & others (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	29-JAN-19	Yes	We do not appreciate the manner on the basis of which this piece of land was allegedly allotted by the Local Government to the petitioners and that too from a park commonly known as Jinnah Chowk Children Park. District Judge has submitted compliance report which confirms this premise to be part of Jinnah Chowk Children Park. The petitioners as such are nothing but the trespassers of the land which is meant for park. They do not stand on any merit as far as the occupation of this land is concerned. The provisions of the Sindh Local Government Ordinance, 2001 were misused by the Local Government and the concerned officials of the Local Government are equally responsible for the issuance of the allotment order, which is available at page 25 of this petition.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rasheed Ahmed Soomro
685		I. A 44/2004 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2004	Hafiz Prof. Abdul Ghaffar (Appellant) VS The Assistant Commissioner & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	25-SEP-18	Yes	The land acquisition proceedings commenced well before 1997 and 1998 and the appellants originally were not made party to the proceedings. The dispute in the shape of Suit No.108/1996 was pending adjudication between private parties which was resolved somewhere in December 2002 as informed. This question of such references being barred by time was considered by different benches having their independent views, however, this question was ultimately set at rest by Honble Supreme Court in the case of Government of West Pakistan (Now Government of N.W.F.P.) through Collector, Peshawar v. Arbab Haji Aimed Ali Jan and others reported in PLD 1981 Supreme Court 516. The Honble Supreme Court, in the aforesaid judgment, examined the judgment of the Full Bench of Peshawar High Court in appeal. The Full Bench of Peshawar High Court was of the view that it is the reference of the Collector which invests the Court with necessary jurisdiction to enquire into objections mentioned in Section 19 of the Act and not the objection application filed by an interested person before the Collector.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Khadim Hussain Tunio
686		Civil Revision 72/1988 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	1988	Ghulam Qadir (deceased),thr:his L.Rs.&Ors. (Applicant) VS Ghulam Muhammad (deceased),thr:his L.Rs.&Ors. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	17-SEP-18	Yes	The issues were framed by the trial Court also relate to a decree which was allegedly obtained by false and misrepresentation / fraud. Issues framed under Section 12(2) CPC do not pertain to the declaration in respect of the orders passed by Member Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner Sukkur Division Sukkur. Hence in all fairness, the evidence that was recorded before the trial Court by the parties was in respect of issues framed and not beyond that. The issues and the evidence thereon, in relation to the entitlement of the parties and the validity of the orders of the Member Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner Sukkur Division was yet to be recorded and that could have been possible only once the appropriate issues could have been framed on the basis of pleadings. No doubt, in appropriate cases where the result would be no different than what can be achieved without setting aside a decree, appropriate orders could have been passed but in the instant case there could have been a possibility that the applicant may have been able to achieve his goal after recording appropriate evidence on providing opportunity to record evidence, insofar as the orders of the Member Board of Revenue and Additional Commissioner Sukkur Division is concerned. However, in the instant proceedings such liberty was not given to the applicant nor such issues were framed and on the basis of evidence recorded under Section 12(2) CPC the decree was reviewed and amended which was not warranted in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.A.48-K/2020 Mst: Irshad Begum @ Naseeban & others v. Province of Sindh thr. Secy: Board of Revenue Govt. of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
687		E.P 11/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Bench at Sukkur	2018	Hafiz Rabnawaz Chachar (Petitioner) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	26-NOV-18	Yes	Section 156(2) disclosed that if the contravention of the corrupt or illegal practice is proved at the polling station, the Election Tribunal may, while declaring election of the returned candidate void, direct re-poll at the polling station. The Tribunal was further coached with the negative covenant that the election of the returned candidate shall not be declared void on the ground if the Tribunal is satisfied that it was not committed by or with the consent or connivance of the candidate or his election agent and that the election agent took all reasonable precautions to prevent its commission and that any other contesting candidate was, on the nomination day, not qualified for or was disqualified from being elected as a Member. The law as framed couched very heavy burden on the petitioner not only to make out a case within the parameters of the recent Election Act that corrupt practice was exercised but also that it was done in connivance with the returned candidate.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
688		II.A. 63/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui (Appellant) VS Mst. Afsari Begum & Ors (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-APR-18	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
689		H.C.A 449/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Syed Waseem Ahmed (Appellant) VS Muhammad Shahnawaz & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	19-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon	C.P.712-K/2019 K-Elecric Ltd. v. Muhammad Shahnawaz and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
690	2020 PLC (CS) 417	Const. P. 673/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Ahmed Ali Saharan (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon	C.P.591-K/2019 Ahmed Ali Saharan v. Province of Sindh and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
691	2020 PLC (CS) 1359	H.C.A 15/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Karachi International container Terminal Ltd. (Appellant) VS Brig (Retd.) Arif Mahmud Malik (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	23-SEP-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon
692	2020 PTD 1952	Const. P. 4867/2013 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	Qasim International Container Terminal (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-JAN-20	Yes	The main object of the Customs Act, 1969 is to make it expedient to consolidate and amend the law relating to levy and collection of customs duties, fee and service charges and to provide for other allied matters. So it does not matter that the amending provisions do not itself qualify as one imposing duties and taxes etc. All other ancillary and allied provisions in the Customs Act are meant to facilitate the officials to carry out their main objective and mandate and that is the collection of duties and taxes by applying law. Customs Act is nothing but a fiscal Statute meant to extract customs duties and other taxes. A simple reading of Article 73(2) (a to g), may distract the ideal conclusion but it is to be seen that these very amendments are inserted in a fiscal statute, the main object of which is to extract duties, taxes etc. These amendments are thus nothing but to toe and facilitate the main object of the statute and hence it is ancillary and incidental to main object of imposition, abolition, remission, alteration or regulation of any tax which they would ultimately perform while performing their duties within the premises of these private port/terminal operators to whom licenses were issued. Each statute carry different mechanics to assign a varying meaning of the "same word". The meaning of same word may vary from one legislation to another and it is the Statute and the very provision itself that would determine as to which varying definition would come into play to carry the object of such legislation. In order to find intent of word in any provision of statute, it is always wise or logical to discover individual meaning of a solitary word first, however at times it is to be read in connection with entire provisions to find logical meaning closer to the functioning of the Statute and provisions. A word may have potential to be explained differently. Meaning of a word discovered judicially to understand a provision of statute does not necessarily be applied to provision of another Statute as it may dis-balance the scheme of that Statute. It may tend to carry same meaning in a similar Statute, if used in different provisions/Sections etc. but may not necessarily carry same intent in another Statute. Entertaining an application by an adjudicating authority is altogether different in the present contest as they (port operator) do not enjoy such authority and authorization as far as adjudication is concerned. Certificate itself is adjudication by someone having authority in this regard which require no more deliberation by private port operators.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan	C.P.426/2020 Qasim International Container Terminal Pakistan Ltd, Karachi & others v. Federation of Pakistan thr. the Secretary, Revenue Division, M/o Finance, Islamabad & others,C.A.194/2020 Qasim International Container Terminal Pakistan Ltd, Karachi & others v. Federation of Pakistan thr. the Secretary, Revenue Division, M/o Finance, Islamabad & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted/Stay,Pending
693		Const. P. 1725/2012 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2012	M/S shadman Cotton Mills Ltd (Petitioner) VS Abdul Jabbar and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	22-OCT-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
694		II.A. 5/2014 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2014	Muhammad Haroon and others (Appellant) VS V/S Qaimkhani Welfare Society and another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	03-FEB-20	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.261-K/2020 Muhammad Haroon & others v. Qaimkhani Welfare Society Registered through its President & another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed for Non-Prosecution
695	2022 CLC 254	M.A. 1/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Show Time Cable & Datacom Pvt Limited (Appellant) VS PEMRA & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-APR-21	Yes	Two propositions/counts are as under: (i) That for the impugned decision an opinion was sought from the Regional Council of Complaints which had no jurisdiction under the ibid Ordinance to comment and/or recommend any opinion ,as far as dispute is concerned; (ii) That even if such recommendations are ignored to have been forwarded by the Council of Complaints and the impugned order be seen as an independent decision of PEMRA then again, the details of the outstanding dues does not seems to generate from PEMRA Ordinance 2002, Regulations 2011-12 and PEMRA Rules 2009, and hence are/were illegal and unlawful, and could be struck down by this Court on merit. -So far as the first question as raised by the appellant is concerned, is answered in affirmative that the Council of Complaints had no jurisdiction for rendering opinion/recommendation to PEMRA under the Ordinance and its role in this regard and the advice sought is of no avail and merits no consideration; it should have been an independent order of PEMRA in view of provisions of PEMRA Ordinance. - Schedule-B attached to these rules enables PEMRA to recover in-house channel fee for cable TV. Table VI provides licence fee of Rs.175,000/-upto10,000 subscribers as B-5 category which category appellant is enjoying followed by annual renewal of Rs.87,500/-. This amount is being paid by the appellant in terms of said rules as reflected in the outstanding dues chart hereinabove. It also enable the licensor PEMRA to recover Rs.24/-per subscriber per year which is a subscriber fee(Table VI), disclosed in horizontal column 2 in the subject chart incorporated in the impugned order. Table IX deals with in-house channel licence fee and is chargeable to all categories from B-1 to B-10. -Thus, in view of aforesaid rules and regulations, the claim is legitimate and I do not see any transgression of the PEMRA authority in claiming the amount mentioned in the impugned decision. -.It is pertinent to point out that rationale and vires of such levy and charge were argued by appellants counsel as the fee and other claims are claimed to be disproportionate. Perhaps these arguments could have served better had it been a case of challenging the vires of regulations and rules.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.3385/2021 Show Time Cable & Datacom (Pvt) Limited, Karachi v. Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority, Islamabad through Chairman and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Disposed of
696		II.A. 35/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Syed Fasih Iqbal Thr. his Legal Heirs & Others (Appellant) VS Hassan Sardar & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	14-APR-21	Yes	Perhaps deciding issue No.1 afresh in this third tier of litigation would be harsh as any party aggrieved of it would be deprived of right of appeal. A fair judicial proceedings includes a right of appeal and only then the spirit of fair trial could be materialized. In my humble view this issue ought to have been decided on merit by the Courts below so that it could be decided conclusively whether any rights in the property were delegated by defendant No.1/applicant to defendant No.2/respondent No.2as only then attorney could delegate such rights further to the plaintiff i.e. respondent No.1 herein as his sub-attorney and a decree of lawful purchaser could be passed in favour of respondent No.1	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
697	2018 CLD 389	Judicial Companies Misc. 30/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Gulshan Weaving Mills Limited & others (Applicant) VS OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-APR-17	Yes	This Scheme of Arrangement although is silent as to suretys liability but it was argued to propose and suggest in a manner which tend to take away the statutory rights of non-consenting creditors of the same class or of any other class of creditors. There are of course contractual rights and statutory rights which members of the same class of creditors may barter for any consideration but the consent of the majority of one class of creditors cannot sweep the statutory or legal rights available to them under the law unless the variance is established. The majority view could prevail over minority and releases the guarantors only in case of variance in terms of repayment and in its absence it does not interfere any other statutory rights. Such sanction could only be deemed to be to the exclusion of objectors or non-consenting creditors who merely seeks to enforce statutory rights available to them under the law. The principle of Section 133 of the Contract Act in its strict sense would not apply to a case of Scheme of Arrangement under the present circumstances of the case. --It is perhaps this common interest of consenting creditors which distinguishes the objector from rest of the secured creditors and since there is no commonality of interest between the objector and the consenting secured creditors the effect of this Scheme of Arrangement would not bind the objector.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
698	2022 PTD 345, 2022 PTCL 415	Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 94/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Commissioner inland revenue legal (Applicant) VS M/s filters pakistan pvt. ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-OCT-21	Yes	Section 6 is pari materia to provisions for recovery of sale tax in respect of goods imported into Pakistan and time and manner shall be similar to that of recovery made under Customs Act, 1969. For the instant matter, for determining tax liability for the period 2011-12 limitation would perish by 30 June, 2017. Show cause notice was issued on 21.08.2017, after requisite period. Hence, any notice that was issued belatedly i.e. beyond the statutory requirement would have no bearing. --The consequential point that arises is whether a timeframe prescribed under Section 11(5) of the Sales Tax Act, 1990 for issuance of show-cause notice and after the expiry of timeframe prescribed, could be extended and/or resurrected a time barred cause under SRO 394(I)/2001 dated 21.05.2009 read with Section 74 of the Act, 1990.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
699	2022 PTD 390, 2022 PTCL 396	Spl:Sales Tax Ref: A. 104/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Commissioner I-R Zone-I (Applicant) VS M/s. Faizan Steel (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	18-OCT-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.1679-K/2021 Commissioner Inland Reveue v. M/s. Faizan Steel,C.A.442/2023 Commissioner Inland Reveue v. M/s. Faizan Steel Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Converted into Appeal and Allowed and Remanded,Disposed
700		Const. P. 848/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/S. ADAMJEE IMPEX (Petitioner) VS SHAIKH MUHAMMAD KHALID & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	19-APR-21	Yes	In view of above, I found that the orders passed under section 16(2) of Sindh Rented Premises Ordinance, 1979 was harsh inasmuch as it struck off the defence without a proper scrutiny of ledgers ofthe rent that has already been deposited in MRC, interestingly in the name of same landlord and there could have been no inconvenience to the respondent/landlord for the recovery of amount from such MRC.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
701		M.A. 5/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi; attached cases: -	2021	Jaag Broadcasting Systems (Private) Limited (Appellant) VS Pakistan Electronic Media Regulatory Authority (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-APR-21	Yes	-Once a decision was taken for the withdrawal of the complaint and to refer it to Council of Complaints, Karachi (Sindh) there should be some logical reasons for not referring it to the Council of Complaints, Karachi (Sindh). Logic and reason existed when it was withdrawn from Council of Complaints, KPK to Council of Complaints, Sindh. It was exclusive prerogative of PEMRA and not Council of Complaints, KPK.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
702	2022 MLD 308	II.A. 205/2019 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Ms. Qaiser Jehan Begum Thr. Salman Hussain Memon (Appellant) VS Sindh Building Control Authority (SBCA) & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	30-APR-21	Yes	the provisions of Section 42 were misconstrued by Courts below. A plaint could only be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC if it is barred by law. None of the provisions of law was cited by respondents counsel and/or find mention in the orders/judgment of two Courts below whereby a plaint of the suit of the appellant could be rejected under order VII rule 11 CPC. The appellant had a cause of action on account of a threat to her property in view of alleged unlawful and illegal construction beingraised on the adjacent plot.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.815-K/2021 Amir Nisar v. Qaiser Jehan Begum & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
703		Const. P. 154/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	TARIQ MASOOD (Petitioner) VS SHER MUHAMMAD DIN & OTHERS (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	09-APR-21	Yes	The respondent may have proved the ownership of the property but then the relationship of landlord and tenant has to be established independently. It has to be proved through reliable evidence and documents that applicant/respondent apart from being owner of property was also the landlord of the occupant.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
704		Const. P. 1074/2018 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Mst. Parveen Ara (Petitioner) VS Muhammad Hanif & Another (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	07-APR-21	Yes	Evidence available does not fulfill the requirement of Section 15-A of the SRPO as it has to be proved independently that the premises was re-let. Counsel for the petitioner has not been able to prove its contention through evidence that it was a misuse of section 15 of the SRPO whereby the eviction of the petitioner was acquired through a mala fide attempt.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)	C.P.580-K/2021 Mst.Parveen Ara v. Muhammad Hanif & others,C.P.1475-K/2021 The Commissioner Inland Revenue v. M/s. Amir Asim Steel Re-Rolling Mills (Pvt) Ltd. & others,C.A.47-K/2021 Mst.Parveen Ara v. Muhammad Hanif & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Leave Granted,Disposed Dismissed,Pending Adjourned
705	2021 CLC 1931	M.A. 3/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	M/s. Jiangsu Dajin Heavy Industry Co. Limited (Appellant) VS Port Qasim Authority (PQA) and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	03-JUN-21	Yes	- Indeed, it appears that it was more than a month after opening of the bid that the appellant made an attempt to rectify its material inability by furnishing a separate/counter bank guarantee from Bank AlHabib for both the tenders. This deficiency could not have been resurrected as by then the ship sailed. These belated attempts would have amounted to a modification of the tender documents, which is not permissible under Rule 31 of Rules 2004. Eventually only those whose technical bids were found to be in consonance with the terms of the invitation, were liable to be considered for further steps and were considered accordingly. -Petitioner being aware of the said tender conditions participated and having participated in the tender cannot challenge or dislike prerequisites meant for technical qualification. He could only expect judicious treatment within the playing rules however, it was too late for appellant when it realized that playing conditions were not palatable to it. The situation faced by appellant based on the aforesaid facts is not res integra as a number of judgments are in the filed covering the issue as settled law. - Even if I have to measure bidding terms on the touchstone of malice and mala fide, I would come out with understanding that these terms are for every one and not to exclude anyone. These are commercial transactions and decisions in this regard should base on strict compliance of terms of tenders whereas equity and fair play based on financial offer is not primary concern. Even if someone intends to impress by showing better financial offer, he has to qualify first on technical grounds. It is the overall impact till completion of job that needs serious consideration by procuring agency. Whether a bidder has the ability to deliver as per terms of tenders and having capacity to ensure projects completion should be the primary concern of procuring agency. There is thus nothing which could lead to conclude that the process ended up in a decision of rejecting technical bid of appellant was flawed. - Any term within frame of law is also not open for a judicial review even under the hierarchy of procurement laws as Rule 25 enables the procuring agency to require bid security not exceeding five per cent of the bid price to be furnished by every bidder and procuring agency may save its effectiveness for a period as they required in terms of Rule 26.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
706	2022 MLD 73	Const. P. 948/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Mst. Ameer Jahan / Bisma Noreen (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan & Ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-OCT-21	Yes	COVID VACCINATION AND 5G TECHNOLOGY ---Fifth Generation technology is making its roots across the world and all countries have framed policies to get benefit out of it. Fifth Generation technology caters for faster browsing, streaming, uploading and downloading speed with better connectivity. Its adoption perhaps is the only way out to be at par with rest of the world. Its application is nowadays common in robotic devices, self-driven cars, medical devices etc. Insofar as Covid-19 is concerned, perhaps the petitioner is not even remotely aware of the consequences of Corona Virus disease that triggered in 2019 and is yet to be controlled; there are international and national policies which are being towed by different departments of the provincial as well as federal government including health departments. The world is facing this novel experience which is never seen before is pandemic in nature and since last two years efforts are being made to have a complete control over it. Research progress is continued however the precautionary measures to control its maximum effect is being taken and monitored in the entire world by way of enhancing the immunity of body i.e. resistance against the virus (Covid-19). One should not be an obstacle by saying that he/she is not interested in such scheduled vaccination as this might result in rapid growth/increase/ontogenesis of Corona Virus.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.51/2022 Bisma Naureen/Ameer Jehan v. The Federation of Pakistan thr. Secretary Defence, Islamabad Islamabad and others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
707		Const. P. 790/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Zafar Ali Palejo (Petitioner) VS Province of Sindh & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	21-NOV-19	Yes	in the absence of a challenge to the recommendation of DPC by any aggrieved person, we do not conceive it to be justified in withholding notification as to promotion of petitioner in pursuance of recommendation of the Departmental Promotion Committee. We, therefore, had allowed this petition vide short order dated 21.11.2019 on the strength of the recommendation of the Committee and subsequent approval by the Chairman. The respondents are thus directed to issue a notification in consequence of such recommendation	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Zulfiqar Ahmad Khan
708		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
709		Const. P. 8807/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Imran Ind (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	05-JUL-19	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
710		Const. P. 526/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Major Mehmood Kashif Ali (Petitioner) VS Mst.Sana Mehreen and others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	19-DEC-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
711	2022 PTD 732, 2021 SBLR Sindh 2391	Const. P. 5674/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	M/s Spectrum Enterprises (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	02-SEP-21	Yes	Sub-section 2 of Section 81 caters for a situation when the goods are allowed to be cleared or delivered on the basis of provisional determination, the amount of duty, taxes and charges correctly payable to those goods shall be determined within six months from the date of provisional determination. The time is further extendable provided the officer concerned may in the circumstances of exceptional nature and after recording such situation extends period of final determination, which shall in no case exceeds ninety days.2 Proviso to sub-section 2 provides the calculating mechanism of the period prescribed in subsection 2 of Section 81. Sub-section 3 of Section 81 provides the mechanism on completion of final determination. The amount already paid or guaranteed shall be adjusted against the amount payable on the basis of final determination and difference between the two amounts shall be paid forthwith to or by the importer as the case may be. --Indeed the Explanation in a statute/enactment does form an integral part to the extent of explaining and elaborating meaning of the word in the section3 and the purpose is to explain, clarify, add or subtract something by clarification 4, however, the word provisional assessment is neither used in sub-section 1 nor in sub-section 2. It is sub-section 1 which secured differential amount on provisional determination and not provisional assessment 5. If the interpretation of respondent is accepted then customs would never bother to determine it finally and would enjoy benefit of not doing anything after provisional release. We may observe that the respondent conceded that the cause of delay in final determination is not attributable to the importer.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal	C.P.1606-K/2021 Federal of Pakistan & others v. M/s Spectrum Enterprises Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed Dismissed
712	2022 SBLR Sindh 687	Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 450/2016 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS M/s. Allied Engineering & Services Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	30-AUG-21	Yes	As far as finalization of the provisional assessment in time is concerned, the provisional assessments were made on 07.09.2012 and it was required to be finalized within the time frame given under section 81(2) of the Customs Act i.e. six months. This finalization ought to have been completed by 06.03.2013 (incorrectly stated 07.03.2013) as the law requires finalization within six months. The final assessment was made on 15.05.2013. Reliance of the learned counsel for the applicant was placed on the note of Additional Director of Customs which forwarded a summary for the approval of the extension. Allegedly the time was extended on 20.03.2013 by 60 days. By the time the purported summary was granted, on 20.03.2013, six months time had already lapsed. The fact of the matter is that the time for finalization had already lapsed. Even if 60 days time is counted from the date when time lapsed i.e. 06.03.2013, it should not have gone beyond 06.05.2013 whereas final assessment was made on 15.05.2013.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Agha Faisal
713		Const. P. 2468/2010 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	M/S Tri-Star Power Ltd. (Petitioner) VS SECP and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-DEC-12	Yes	Since a substantial right of petitioner was subjudiced in the Appeal No.15/2005 before the Appellate Bench therefore, the Division Bench of this Court was pleased to suspend the operation of the order and the trading of shares were restored. Presently there are findings of the Appellant Bench against the petitioner which are subject matter of Misc. Appeal No.04/2009 now renumbered as 74/2010. The miscellaneous appeal was kept pending under objection and the petitioner did not obtain any orders for suspension of the orders of Appellate Bench of SECP	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
714		Suit.B 151/2010 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2010	DAWOOD ISLAMIC BANK LTD (Plaintiff) VS M/S.AFTAB TECHNOLOGIES (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-JAN-15	Yes	It is also very pertinent to mention that even the defendants along with their leave to defend application have filed their own statement of account such as one available as Annexure D/38 onwards and it is in consonance with the statement of account shown by the plaintiff. Hence, I do not see any reason to disagree with the statement of account given by the plaintiff.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
715		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 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
716		Suit 792/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	MRS.ATIYA SULTANA (Plaintiff) VS THE KESC E.C.S & ORS. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	09-OCT-15	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
717	2017 PLD Sindh 520	Suit 1145/2008 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2008	M/S. BHANERO ENERGY LTD. (Plaintiff) VS SUI SOUTHERN GAS CO. LTD. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-JUN-15	Yes	The other aspect i.e. to be applied is the Principle is Estopple. The person or entity shall not be permitted to blow hot and cold with reference to transaction or insist for different treatment at different time. Since 1995 and more importantly since the Policy of 1994 and 2002 was introduced they have never considered themselves to be an IPP. It would be highly inequitable if an entity is allowed to repudiate a former instance or act to deny a constant approach of another entity or person who has been all along insisting on it constantly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
718		Const. P. 1246/2011 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2011	Mst. Hajra Khatoon (Petitioner) VS Javed Akhtar & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	09-NOV-17	Yes	There appears to be a solitary defence for non-payment of rent, which is a sale agreement claimed to have been entered between petitioner and the father of respondent No.1. Such could hardly be taken into consideration on account of the fact that the petitioner admitted to have been inducted in the premises as tenant and he cannot resile from such relationship on the pretext of an agreement of sale. The petitioner in order to prove such claim had to surrender the possession as being tenant and only in case he succeeds in establishing his case for specific performance, the possession could be restored and/or he be absolved from payment of the rent after decree.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
719		Const. P. 1252/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Shakeel Khilji S/o Rehman Khilji (Petitioner) VS Samreen Tayyaba & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	25-OCT-17	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
720	2020 SBLR Sindh 239	Const. P. 569/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Muhammad Shahzad Ali (Petitioner) VS Syed Abid Ali & Others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	14-NOV-17	Yes	Hence the only presumption, deducible in absence of any contrary evidence is that it was executed and authenticated in presence of Notary Public who is one of the authority to authenticate the subject document i.e. Power of Attorney. --	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
721		Const. P. 8570/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Nisar Ahmed (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-DEC-21	Yes	There is not an iota of evidence available to disagree with the observation of the Tribunal which ordered its (vehicles) release unconditionally however subject to verification of ownership. This being situation no question has arisen to deviate from the findings of the Tribunal and proposed question No.1 is answered in affirmative as the seizing agency has failed to comply with the provisions as required under section 26 of Customs Act, 1969 whereas the proposed questions No.2 is irrelevant for the purpose of declaring the subject vehicle as an smuggled vehicle.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
722		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 704/2019 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2019	Director DG I&I (Customs) (Applicant) VS Abdul Hameed Sheikh & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	26-NOV-21	Yes	Had it been registered then perhaps the lawful presumption would have attached to such registered document but no such document constitute evidentiary value for the purposes of the impugned order passed by the Tribunal as such data of all the aforesaid documents are different and distinguishable and are not reconcilable. The impugned orders, at least of the Tribunal, is not clear at all, particularly as to on what basis the vehicle is being released as the Motor Vehicle Tax Slip, Annexure-D to the memo of Reference, discloses the identity of the subject vehicle as Toyota Crown as against claimed vehicle Toyota Surf Jeep.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
723		H.C.A 47/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	Wahid Hussain (Appellant) VS Federation of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-21	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
724		Spl. Cus. Ref. A. 1233/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Collector of Customs (Applicant) VS Ms. Shazia Aman (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	07-DEC-21	Yes	the Valuation Ruling such as one dated 10.07.2008 is not applicable as the valuation is to be issued on the basis of data of 90 days, either before or after, import in terms of Rule 107(A) of Customs Rules 2001. It has not been disclosed as to what the exact dates of the clearance of the goods are however subsequent valuation rulings, as reviewed, are of 15.07.2009 and 27.04.2010 respectively. In the absence of a clear date of clearance of the goods, the applicability of Valuation Ruling of 15.07.2009 and 27.04.2010 would be farfetched. Subsection 4 to Section 25A of Customs Act, 1969 was amended by Finance Act 2010 and assented on 30.06.2010 which was subsequent to the last ruling relied upon, hence by the time goods were cleared the regime of availability of 90% data, pre or post, was applicable as the applicability of last issued Valuation Ruling was introduced after 30.06.2010. Even the show-cause notice is silent as to the date of clearance of the goods.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan
725	2014 YLR 2315	Suit 1386/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	MS ROHEELA YASMIN (Plaintiff) VS MS. NEELOFAR HASSAN & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	21-APR-14	Yes	"(a) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)--- ----S. 7---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XX, R. 13-Administration suit- Talaq-e-Bain- Effect--- Contention of plaintiff was that she being wife of deceased was entitled for deferred dower as well as share from his property whereas defendants contended that plaintiff had been divorced by the deceased and she was not legal heir to claim inheritance-Validity-Plaintiff was given Talaq-e-Bain and no question of reconciliation would arise---Such Talaq would become effective the moment same was pronounced-Plaintiff was not entitled for any inheritance however claim of dower amount was debt on the property of deceased which was to be paid first. (b) Muslim Family Laws Ordinance (VIII of 1961)- --S. 7---Divorce--- Effectiveness of--- Scope---Marriage could abe dissolved by husband at his will without intervention of the court-Man who wished to divorce his wife should as soon as might be after pronouncement of Talaq give the Chairman Union Council a notice in writing of his having done so and should supply a copy thereof to the wife---Talaq would not be effective until the expiry of 90 days unless same was revoked earlier expressly or otherwise. (c) Islamic Law--- ---Talaq, Mubarat and Khula-Meaning-- -""Talaq"" was divorce which was pronounced by the husband whereas ""Mubarat"" was Talaq effected by mutual consent of parties and ""Khula"" was dissolution of marriage through court. (d) Islamic Law-- ----Talaq, kinds of-Scope-Talaq would be of three kinds i.e. Talaq-e-Ahsan, Talaq-e-Hassan and Talaq-e-Bain-Talaq-e-Ahsan could be pronounced by single pronouncement during ""Tuhrs"" followed by abstinence from going to wife to establish marital relationship till Iddat period-Talaq-e-Hassan was pronounce-ment of divorce through successive three ""Tuhrs"" without establishing physical relationship with wife in any of the three ""Tuhrs""---Talaq-e-Bain was the divorce by husband through pronouncement made through single ""Tuhr"" either in one sentence or in separate sentences---Talaq-e-Bain was irrevocable divorce whereas Talaq-e-Ahsan would become irrevocable on expiry of Iddat period and Talaq-e-Hassan on third pronouncement irrespective of Iddat period-Talaq-e-Bain would become irrevocable immediately on pronouncement of the same either uttered orally or written down on a piece of paper irrespective of Iddat period-Talaq-e-Bain did not provide any room for any reconciliation-Communication was not material ingredients or prerequisite for validity of Talaq."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
726		Suit.B 23/2012 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2012	PAIR INVESTMENT CO LTD (Plaintiff) VS POLYGON DEVELOPERS & OTHERS (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	30-OCT-14	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
727		Suit.B 6/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2016	Allied Bank Limited. (Plaintiff) VS Enshaa NLC Development (Pvt) Ltd., & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-OCT-16	Yes	leave Granted- Prima facie it seems that by virtue of undertaking sum of money as equity amount was required to be injected by way of investment and it is thus no case of repayment of any amount disbursed to defendant No.2.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
728		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 Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan Iqbal Chaudhry
729		Const. P. 1382/2013 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2013	MST. SULTANA AHMED (Petitioner) VS IIIRD A.D.J KARACHI (WEST) & ANOTHER (Respondent)	S.B.	Order	31-MAY-18	Yes	There is no privity of contract between the petitioner and applicant who is claiming to be licensee. The status of the applicant is nothing more than a licensee who does not enjoy any right on its own. He has to sail and sink with the lessee and cannot maintain an independent status as being in alleged occupation or possession. Such occupation was only permissive under the Easement Act and the implied possession was always with the lessee who has already lost the cases up to the Honble Supreme Court and hence has to since with the landlord in pursuance of the eviction order maintained by this Court as well as by Honble Supreme Court. The question of being as licensee and its rights was never taken into consideration in the referred CP No.S-277/2005 (Naimatullah Shaikh vs. Noor Banoi & others) and hence it is per-inquirium.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
730	2022 PTD 866, 2024 SBLR Sindh 409, 2022 PTCL 253	Const. P. 5107/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Atlas Honda Ltd (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	18-FEB-22	Yes	Sectoral benchmark ratios are therefore figures for various business metrics that must be used by the Commissioner to determine taxable income for a taxpayer where a taxpayer has been lawfully selected for audit but is unable to provide the relevant information, sufficient explanation for the record. Sectoral benchmark ratio does not concern with sectoral audit selection. It only empowers the Commissioner on an event when a taxpayer has failed to furnish record or documents including books of accounts or has furnished incomplete record or books of accounts or is unable to provide sufficient explanation regarding defect in relation to the documents or books of accounts on the basis of an independent procedure of Section 177 of Ordinance 2001. It is at this stage when the guidelines of sectoral benchmark ratios, as prescribed by the Board, could be adhered to.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahmood A. Khan	C.P.680-K/2022 The Commissioner Inland Revenue, (Legal) v. Atlas Honda Limited & others Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Disposed
731	2022 PLD Sindh 378	Adm. Suit 2/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Tenedos Denizcilik ve Tie Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS M.T MAKHAMBET & Others (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	04-MAR-22	Yes	--Section 11 CPC is universal doctrine so it does not matter if the judgment is of a foreign Court or of a Court beyond the territorial limits of this Court. The subject claim is a tried and adjudicated issue (within competent jurisdiction) and hence it is being applied for enforcing res- judicata. There is no legislation enacted contrary to the acceptance of such rule except as provided in Section 11 CPC. --The explanation provides that a former suit is one which has been decided prior, irrespective of its filing date. Explanation II provides that for the purpose of Section 11 competence of Court shall be determined irrespective of any provision as to right of appeal from the decision of such Court5 . Explanation III provides that matter referred to must in the former suit have been alleged by one party and either denied or admitted expressly or impliedly by the other. Explanation IV provides that any matter which might or ought to have been made ground of defence or attack in such former suit shall be deemed to have been a matter directly or substantially in issue in such suit and under Explanation V any relief claimed in the plaint, which is not expressly granted by the decree, shall for the purposes of this section be deemed to have been refused. The remaining explanation VI is not relevant for the purposes of issue in hand.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
732		Const. P. 1950/2015 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2015	Muhammad Yahya & Anothers (Petitioner) VS Govt of Pakistan & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-OCT-20	Yes	Service Matter	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
733	2017 PTD 1852	Suit 991/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	China Harbour Engineering Co., Ltd. (Plaintiff) VS Pakistan & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	24-JUL-15	Yes	"Income Tax Ordinance (XLIX of 2001)---- ----Ss. 121, 124(4), 129, 132 & 137(2)---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 39, 42 & 54---Suit for cancellation, declaration and permanent injunction---Best judgment assessment---Assessment giving effect to an order---Disposal of appeal by the Appellate Tribunal---Due date for payment of tax---Commissioner Inland Revenue (Appeals) had been directed to decide the plaintiff's appeal within certain period and till final disposal of the plaintiff's appeal, the defendants had been restrained from taking any coercive action against the plaintiff---Tabulation made by the plaintiff, wherein certain heads of account had been either deleted or sent for rectification under S. 221 of Income Tax Ordnance, 2001, was not disputed---In terms of S. 124 (4) of the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where direct relief was provided in order under Ss. 129 & 132 of the Ordinance, the Commissioner would issue Appeal Effect Order within two months of the date the Commissioner was served with the order---In pursuance of S. 137 (2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, where any tax was payable under assessment order or amended assessment order or any other order issued by the Commissioner under the Income Tax Ordinance, 2001, a notice would be served upon the taxpayer in the prescribed form specifying the amount payable and thereupon the sum so specified would be paid within 15 days from the date of the service of the notice---Original demand notice had been issued prior to amended assessment; hence, the same was not sufficient compliance of issuing notice of demand in pursuance of amended assessment to provide opportunity of 15 days specifying the total amount in pursuance of amended assessment---Compliance to Ss. 124 (4) & 137(2) of Income Tax Ordinance, 2001 was necessary---Appeal Effect Order was an amended assessment tabulation and the same had to be given effect like any other amended decree---High Court directed the defendants to deposit the amount, which had been recovered by them from the Bank account of the plaintiff, in the Court till further orders."	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
734		I. A 10/2020 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2020	JS Bank Limited (Appellant) VS Ghulam Shabir & another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	13-MAY-22	Yes	The public notice "alone" in the newspaper, as issued by the Bank in the generalized form for the auction of pledged goods of different customers including gold ornaments of respondent, without any specific name of alleged defaulter(s), could hardly meet the requirement of law for effecting service of notice before auction, either under the Contract Act or the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001. Such notices should be specific and in personam.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah
735	2023 PLC (CS) 527	Suit 51/2017 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Sultan Ahmed Hashmani (Plaintiff) VS M/s Thatta Cement Company & another (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	22-FEB-22	Yes	Not even remotely, after two complete rounds of litigation upto Hon'ble Supreme Court it can be imagined that the termination of the plaintiff could be held as unlawful and consequently damages could be granted in this suit. In the first round itself, the Tribunal and the subsequent Hon'ble Courts held that the termination was lawful. Granting damages on the preposition that it was an unlawful termination, would amounts to ignoring and bypassing the judgments of the Senior Civil Judge, Tribunal, this Court as well as Hon'ble Supreme Court. There is no cavil that the dismissal of the plaintiff from the service was held to be lawful and hence the plaintiff cannot count on the imaginary unlawful dismissal, as he claimed, to claim damages.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
736		Execution 32/2021 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sultan Kath S/o Haji Suleman (Decree Holder) VS Feroza D/o Haji Kassim & Others (Judgment Debtor)	S.B.	Order	16-NOV-22	Yes	Nothing was adjudicated by the Court as to the entitlement of the parties and status of property; it was compromised out of Court which was reduced into writing and which was taken on record by this Court. Under the circumstances, Courts umbrella should not have been used in matter of execution which disputes were not adjudicated by Court. Nothing commented about the title of the subject property by trial Court, which was/is being conveyed by one private party to another in terms of the compromise reached amicably without adjudication	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
737	2023 PLD Sindh 421, 2023 CLD 1220	Suit 1797/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	THE HUB POWER COMPANY LTD & OTHERS (Plaintiff) VS CHINA POWER HUB GENERATION COMPANY (PVT) LTD & ORS (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	30-NOV-22	Yes	I- Despite different designations there are in fact `legal similarities` attached to both the documents i.e. standard letter of credit and standby letter of credit, if compared. There may be some differences in the banking practice but are functionally similar and makes no material difference when it comes to execution and implementation. The SBLC thus has evolved as one of the kind of letter of credit and forms on independent guarantee such as performance bond/surety ship guarantee. II- While in every instance where there is a fraud there would have been a lack of bonafides as well, however, to its contrast it does not mean that in every instance where beneficiary of credit lacks bonafides there is necessarily a fraud behind it. One may be compelled to or had no choice, despite having knowledge. III- The concept of unconscionability runs the same way i.e. the concept of unconscionability involves unfairness as distinct from dishonesty or fraud or conduct of a kind so reprehensible or lacking in good faith that the court of conscience either restrain the party or refuse to assist the party. Mere breaches of contract by a party would not by themselves be unconscionable. Thus unfairness is also excluded for the concept of unconscionability to prevail.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
738		Const. P. 1199/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: C.Ps. No. (D)-1207,1228,1229,1230 of 2022 Ramzan Ordinance cases	2022	Baitullah (Petitioner) VS P.O Sindh & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	05-APR-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Irshad Ali Shah(Author)
739	2023 CLD 162	Judicial Companies Misc. 1/2020 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2020	JOHNSON CONTROL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED (Applicant) VS SECURITIES & EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	21-SEP-22	Yes	Company wound up	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
740	2016 YLR 104	II.A. 11/2016 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2016	Abdul Aziz (Appellant) VS Abdul Kareem & others (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	23-MAY-22	Yes	Sale deed of appellant as being enjoyed by appellant cannot be set-aside automatically as the defence of the appellant is protected being buyer without notice of any dispute. As stated above it has to be proved independently through impartial evidence failing whereof the aforesaid provisions of law would protect the title of appellant. Section 27(b) is for enforcing performance against those who acquired title with knowledge of previous agreement/contracts, whereas section 41 of Transfer of Property Act protect title for those who acquired title without knowledge of previous litigation. Since it is a case of cancellation of sale deed I am of the view that section 41 of Transfer of Property Act is more appropriate for its application	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
741	2023 CLD 170	Judicial Companies Misc. 8/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Amer Tex (Pvt) Ltd and 6 others (Applicant) VS NA (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	01-SEP-22	Yes	Since the Demerging Undertaking is subject to any liability immediately prior to the effective date hence for the purposes of this Demerging Undertaking the effective date is the date of this order and the Demerging Undertaking is deemed to have been transferred from this date subject to any liability prior to this date, over petitioner No.1. From the effective date of the approval of the Scheme by virtue of this order without any further act or deed, all charges or liabilities in relation to Demerging Undertaking shall be deemed to have been created by and vested with the petitioners No.2 to 7. The Demerging Undertaking (inclusive of liabilities) shall be deemed to be assumed by the petitioners No.2 to 7 as their own and consequently by assumption of such liabilities, the petitioner No.1 has been relieved from all obligations in respect of such liabilities as being assumed under the scheme. Consequently rights and securities of the creditors of petitioner No.1, if any, though not disclosed, will not be affected on account of subject scheme.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
742		Suit 855/2015 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2015	Sajid Hussain. (Plaintiff) VS P.I.A., Corporation & Others. (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	27-SEP-22	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
743		Const. P. 1434/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Govt of Sindh & Ors. (Petitioner) VS Laiqdino and others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	27-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
744		I. A 82/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Muhammad Ifrahim & Another (Appellant) VS M/S. JS Bank Limited and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	29-DEC-23	Yes	The value and/or forced sale value is provided in the sale proclamation only as equity and to have an idea about the possible price.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
745	2024 SBLR Sindh 405	Suit 1932/2022 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	DINSHAW BEJAN AGA (Plaintiff) VS FIZOOZEH AGA (Defendant)	S.B.	Judgement	11-NOV-23	Yes	In such a situation there is no factual controversy left to be decided by the delegates. The delegates present in Court have conceded to such position and thus opined that a decree of dissolution of marriage may be passed	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
746		H.C.A 74/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	Standard Chartered Bank (Pak) Ltd. (Appellant) VS Mst. Fatima Ehsan Al Ghori & others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	12-DEC-23	Yes	The appellant perhaps on their own obtained expert opinion on the basis of the photocopies which could not be considered at all on several counts. Firstly, it was done at their own and whatever material provided to the alleged expert is not known either to the respondent or to the Court. Secondly, undisputedly the report was based on the photocopy of a material document which is seriously disputed and was never produced throughout the proceedings and any forensic report of an expert based on photocopy, that too obtained unilaterally, cannot be relied upon and would be gross miscarriage of justice, if that is considered. Who acknowledged those bearer certificates is also a mystery and where and how such certificates were encashed (although were bearer) is also an untraced history and the appellant negligently avoided to lead evidence.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
747		Const. P. 5929/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Syed MIthal Shah (Petitioner) VS Zareen Rubab and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	11-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
748		Const. P. 4325/2017 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2017	State Life Insurance Corp. (Petitioner) VS Karachi Cantonment Board and ors (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
749		I. A 1/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/s. Favourite Garments Industries & Others (Appellant) VS National Bank of Pakistan & Another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	06-DEC-23	Yes	It is only an extension of similar finances granted earlier, hence the claim of the respondent in respect of the suit includes the entire amount recoverable extended in the said account and that cannot be limited to the extent of Rs.5.00 million and Rs.6.00 million respectively.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
750		Const. P. 3210/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Shan (Petitioner) VS Roshan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	07-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
751		Const. P. 4184/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/s Al-Baraka Apparel (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
752		Const. P. 6809/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	M/s Khan Brothers (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
753		Const. P. 6818/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	c32 Pvt Ltd (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
754		H.C.A 326/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Mrs. Tanvir Qazi (Appellant) VS Moin us Samad Khan & Another (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	19-DEC-23	Yes	The burden of proving fraud is always on the party alleging it, which in the instant case is appellant, which should be based on clear, strong and convincing and/or independent evidence, particularly when long period has expired and valuable rights have accrued to the other side, which in the instant case is respondent No.1 who since 2008 is pursuing his case for recovery.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana	C.P.43-K/2024 Mrs, Tanvir Kazi v. Moin Us Samad Khan and another Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
755		Const. P. 5167/2018 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2018	Muhammad Amin Chapal (Petitioner) VS Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
756	2024 CLC 580	R.A (Civil Revision) 113/1995 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	1995	Muhammad Haroon through LRs (Applicant) VS Ali Asghar and other. (Respondent)	S.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
757		Const. P. 2521/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Sarah Sohail Ali (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
758		Spl.H.C.A 153/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Fateh Textile Mills Pvt Ltd & Others (Appellant) VS Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	30-JAN-24	Yes	It seems that while the claim of the bank is being multiplied continuously with the passage of time, whereas, the value of the property as determined in the year 2016 was fixed to be set off against current exaggerated claim of Bank. This is no justification. No one should suffer on account of court???s error whether it is a borrower or the bank. If at all the claim is to be set off, it should be set off in terms of the present market value and not on the basis of value of 2016 against claim of bank, as exist now. Six years have been passed and the properties must have been multiplied manifolds, which was not accounted.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
759		H.C.A 52/2023 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	Khoula Siddiqui Advocate (Appellant) VS Tariq Bin Azad & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	26-JAN-24	Yes	It was eventually be decided by the learned single Judge on the strength of the evidence likely to be recorded by the parties, however, prima facie it seems that the amount was paid from the account of deceased Azad Bin Haider and at this point of time respondent No.1 (son of deceased), cannot get away with the entire rental income of the aforesaid property depriving the daughters of deceased. In all fairness, he could only claim his share out of the rental income from the said property from the Nazir, whereas, rest of the amount shall remain with the Nazir duly invested in a profit bearing scheme, until and unless it is resolved by the court. Order accordingly.	Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
760		Const. P. 1251/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Sadiq Rajani (Petitioner) VS C.B.C and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
761		H.C.A 107/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Javed Iqbal (Appellant) VS Abdul Rasheed Tagr & Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	16-APR-24	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Omar Sial
762		Const. P. 3246/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2021	Shahnila Altaf & Others (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
763		I. A 78/2021 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad; attached cases: I.A D 79/2021	2021	M/S Qalandri Filling & CNG Station (Appellant) VS The Manager SME Leasing Ltd (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	28-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan	C.P.1277-K/2023 M/s. Qalandri Filling & CNG Station v. The Manager S.M.E. Leasing Limited Before Supreme Court of Pakistan	Pending
764		Const. P. 840/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2022	Fouzia Owais Kalia and another (Petitioner) VS Fed. of Pakistan and Others (Respondent)	D.B.	Judgement	14-DEC-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jawad Akbar Sarwana
765		Suit 814/2023 (S.B.) Sindh High Court, Karachi	2023	ZAHEER UDDIN MEMON (Plaintiff) VS SECURITY PAPERS LIMITED & ANOTHER (Defendant)	S.B.	Order	09-OCT-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)
766		Const. P. 109/2022 (D.B.) Sindh High Court, Circuit at Hyderabad	2022	Abdul Sattar through L.Rs Abdul Hameed (Petitioner) VS Secretary, Ministry of Religious Affaris and othrs (Respondent)	D.B.	Order	11-SEP-23	Yes		Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Arshad Hussain Khan