The Definitive Guide to immigration law case management system
The Definitive Guide to immigration law case management system
Blog Article
Article 199 with the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other suitable remedy is provided by regulation." It's properly-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 main focus is to the intention to cause injury. This can be a major dilemma: a particularly reduced threshold for an offence carrying the death penalty.
These platforms empower individuals to understand their legal rights and obligations, advertising a more informed and just society.
Note: Please fill any subject and Click on Search button, If you don't know the complete information please leave area blank.
ninety four . Const. P. 256/2025 (D.B.) Hafeezullah V/S Govt of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi It is actually properly-settled that the civil servants must first go after internal appeals within 90 times. In case the appeal just isn't decided within that timeframe, he/she can then solution the service tribunal to challenge the original order. Once they are doing so, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits and cannot merely direct the department to decide it, as the ninety days for the department to act has already expired. Over the aforesaid proposition, we have been guided with the decision with the Supreme Court within the case of Dr.
The ICAP Staff Service Rules, 2011 were framed via the respondent/Institute, these rules may not have the operates within a transparent legal and regulatory framework of the respondent/Institute. 14. In view of what has been discussed over, without touching the merits with the case, the preliminary objection regarding the maintainability from the petition is sustained plus the petition is held to become not maintainable in terms of Article 199 with the Constitution for your reason that non???statutory rules of service cannot be enforced through writ of mandamus in terms of ratio with the judgment passed through the Supreme Court from the case of Pakistan Electric Power Company supra. Read more
The reason for this difference is that these civil regulation jurisdictions adhere to your tradition that the reader should be able to deduce the logic from the decision as well as the statutes.[four]
The appellant should have remained vigilant and raised his challenge towards the Judgment within time. Read more
Accessing free case legislation sites in Pakistan is essential for legal professionals, students, and any one seeking to understand Pakistani legal precedents.
VI) The petitioner is at the rear of the bars considering that arrest, investigation of your case is complete, he isn't any more demanded for that purpose of investigation and at this stage to help keep him guiding the bars before conclusion of trial will serve no practical purpose.
The case of *R v. Ahmed* exemplifies the practical application of this amendment and its possible to protected financial interests and maintain the integrity with the national currency. As legal practitioners and citizens, a comprehensive grasp of those changes is significant for upholding the principles of justice and contributing to a sturdy legal system.
What's more, it addresses the limitation period under Article ninety one and one hundred twenty from the Limitation Act, focusing on when plaintiff to seek cancellation. The importance of deciding application under Order VII Rule 11 CPC based solely on plaint averments in highlighted, excluding extrinsic material at this stage. Read more
The residents argued that the high-voltage grid station would pose a health risk and opportunity hazard to local residents. In the long run, here the court determined the scientific evidence inconclusive, although observing the general development supports that electromagnetic fields have detrimental effects on human health. The Court accepted the petitioner’s argument that it should undertake the precautionary principle set out during the 1992 Rio Declaration about the Environment and Improvement, the first international instrument that linked environment protection with human rights, whereby The dearth of full scientific certainty should not be used being a reason to prevent environmental degradation.