Notable Cases
A showcase of our successful legal representations and landmark achievements
Successful Case History
Explore our track record of successful litigation and legal victories across various practice areas.
Pakistan National Shipping Corporation v. Coniston Limited
The Hon’ble Sindh High Court dismissed the defendant’s application for anti-suit injunction and accepted the proposition that an anti-suit injunction can be granted by a Pakistani court in appropriate cases.
Legal Significance:
Clarified the jurisdiction of Pakistani courts to grant anti-suit injunctions in aid of international arbitration and foreign court proceedings.
Muhammad Nasir v. Ministry of Petroleum and Natural Resources
The Hon’ble Sindh High Court directed Sui Southern Gas Company Limited to provide gas connections to citizens, holding that the Court in its constitutional jurisdiction can issue such directions to public functionaries.
Legal Significance:
Expanded the scope of writ jurisdiction to enforce the right to essential utilities.
Mrs. Kaneez Fatima Abro v. President Zarai Tarqiati Bank Ltd
The Court held that once a bank adopts government pension and benefit policies for its employees, it cannot unilaterally withdraw or alter them to the detriment of retired employees.
Legal Significance:
Protected pension rights of employees of statutory corporations that adopt government service rules.
Muhammad Ibrahim v. SITE
The Court held that a registered sale deed or document can only be cancelled by a competent civil court and no executive authority has the power to cancel or revoke it unilaterally.
Legal Significance:
Reaffirmed the exclusive jurisdiction of civil courts over cancellation of registered instruments.
Muhammad Ali Rashid v. United Bank Limited
The Division Bench set aside the Banking Court’s order and held that a third-party objector has no locus standi to challenge auction proceedings of mortgaged property.
Legal Significance:
Clarified rights of auction purchasers vis-à-vis third-party objectors in banking recovery proceedings.
Ghulam Muhammad Memon v. The State
The Court acquitted the appellants in a NAB reference concerning illegal allotments of government land, holding that the prosecution failed to prove violation of any law or rule.
Legal Significance:
Emphasised the need for concrete evidence in corruption cases involving discretionary allotments.
Muhammad Hussain Mehanti v. Abdul Rashid Godil
The Tribunal dismissed the election petition for lack of material particulars and specific allegations of corrupt or illegal practices.
Legal Significance:
Reiterated the mandatory requirement of pleading specific facts in election petitions.
Syed Arsalan Iqbal v. Government of Pakistan
The Court struck down the petitioner’s placement on the Exit Control List on NAB’s recommendation, holding that such restriction on liberty must be supported by sufficient cause and due process.
Legal Significance:
Safeguarded personal liberty against arbitrary placement on ECL without justification.
Dr. Muhammad Arshad Aazmi v. Province of Sindh
The Court held that intelligence agencies cannot issue adverse reports affecting service or employment without affording the affected person a right of hearing and opportunity to rebut the allegations.
Legal Significance:
Established due process requirements for adverse intelligence reports in service matters.
Naeem Zia Khawaja v. Mrs. Hameeda Nizamuddin
The Court allowed the tenant’s appeal, holding that the landlord failed to prove bona fide personal need under section 17(4)(b) of the Cantonment Rent Restriction Act, 1963.
Legal Significance:
Reaffirmed strict proof requirement for personal need ejectment in cantonment areas.
Salim Godil v. Province of Sindh
The Court struck down attempts by district authorities to revoke commercial status of plots on security grounds, holding that such executive actions lacked legal sanction.
Legal Significance:
Protected vested commercial rights of builders and developers against arbitrary executive actions.
Saeed Ahmed v. E.C.P and others
The Tribunal dismissed the petition for non-compliance with mandatory service requirements under Section 144 of the Election Act, 2017, holding that nothing short of an affidavit of service suffices.
Legal Significance:
Enforced strict compliance with procedural service requirements in election petitions.
Ready to Build Your Success Story?
Let our experienced legal team help you achieve favorable outcomes in your legal matters.