Article 199 from the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other enough remedy is provided by law." It is effectively-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust available remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction, regardless of whether All those remedies suit them. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents unnecessary High Court litigation. Read more
The court emphasised that in cases of intentional murder, the gravity of your offense demands the most stringent punishment, considering the sanctity of human life and deterrence for opportunity offenders.
Therefore, this petition is found being not maintainable and is also dismissed along with the pending application(s), and the petitioners may possibly look for remedies through the civil court process as discussed supra. Read more
کیا ایف آئی آر درخواست گزار کی رپورٹ پر درج کی گئی تھی اور اگر ہاں تو کیا اسے اس کے خلاف ثبوت کے طور پر استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے؟
These past decisions are called "case regulation", or precedent. Stare decisis—a Latin phrase meaning "Permit the decision stand"—may be the principle by which judges are bound to this kind of past decisions, drawing on set up judicial authority to formulate their positions.
States also usually have courts that take care of only a specific subset of legal matters, such as family law and probate. Case law, also known as precedent or common law, may be the body of prior judicial decisions that guide judges deciding issues before them. Depending about the relationship between the deciding court and also the precedent, case legislation may very well be binding or merely persuasive. For example, a decision with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit is binding on all federal district courts within the Fifth Circuit, but a court sitting down in California (whether a federal or state court) is just not strictly bound to Stick to the Fifth Circuit’s prior decision. Similarly, a decision by just one district court in New York is not really binding on another district court, but the initial court’s reasoning could possibly help guide the second court in reaching its decision. Decisions via the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all federal and state courts. Read more
Following the decision, NESPAK, as directed, conducted an assessment of your grid project and submitted that adequate mitigation measures were in place to render any probable adverse impacts negligible. Based on this, the grid station was permitted to be built.
Binding Precedent – A rule or principle recognized by a court, which other courts are obligated to stick to.
The legislation as proven in previous court rulings; like common regulation, which springs from judicial decisions and tradition.
This public interest litigation came before the Supreme Court of Pakistan when petitioners challenged the construction of a close-by electricity grid station on account of likely health risks and hazards.
کیا ایف آئی آر درخواست گزار کی رپورٹ پر درج کی گئی تھی اور اگر ہاں تو کیا اسے اس کے خلاف ثبوت کے طور پر استعمال کیا جا سکتا ہے؟
Regardless of its popularity, hardly any may concentrate on its intricacies. This article is undoubtedly an attempt to highlight the flaws of this section and also the very low threshold that governs it.
In the event the employee fails to serve a grievance notice, the NIRC may dismiss the grievance petition. This is because the employer has not experienced a chance to respond to the grievance and attempt to resolve it. In some cases, the NIRC may perhaps allow the employee to amend the grievance petilion to incorporate the grievance notice. However, this will likely be only finished In case the employee can show that they'd a good reason for not serving the grievance notice. Inside the present case, the parties were allowed to lead evidence and also the petitioner company responded into the allegations as a result they were nicely aware of the allegations and led the evidence as a result this point is ofno use to get looked into in constitutional jurisdiction at this stage. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Writer), Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Abdur Rahman Source: Order: Downloads 173 Order Date: 04-FEB-25 Approved for Reporting WhatsApp
a hundred and fifteen . Const. P. 6025/2024 (D.B.) Dr. Pritam Das V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi So far as the stance on the respondents that pensionary benefits can be withheld on account on the allegations leveled against the petitioner, within our view, section twenty in the Sindh Civil Servants Act of 1973 deals with the pension and gratuity that civil servants are entitled to. However, the act does deliver for certain circumstances under which a civil servant's pension may very well be withheld or reduced. These consist of if a civil servant is found guilty of misconduct or negligence during their service, their pension could possibly be withheld or reduced. If a civil servant is convicted of a significant crime, their pension could be withheld or reduced. In a few cases, a civil servant's click here pension could possibly be withheld or reduced if he/she fails to comply with certain conditions established from the government.