[3] For example, in England, the High Court along with the Court of Appeals are Every single bound by their have previous decisions, however, since the Practice Statement 1966 the Supreme Court of the United Kingdom can deviate from its earlier decisions, although in practice it hardly ever does. A notable example of when the court has overturned its precedent would be the case of R v Jogee, where the Supreme Court of your United Kingdom ruled that it as well as other courts of England and Wales experienced misapplied the regulation for almost thirty years.
Article 199 from the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other adequate remedy is provided by regulation." It's properly-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust offered 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
Matter:-HARASSMENT Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Const. P. 1479/2024 (S.B.) Mst. Shir Bano and another V/S Province of Sindh and others Sindh High Court, Karachi SHC Citation: SHC-252214 Tag:Primarily, this is a free and democratic state, and once a person becomes a major they can marry whosoever he/she likes; In case the parents in the boy or Female don't approve of these inter-caste or interreligious marriage the maximum they might do if they could Reduce off social relations with the son or maybe the daughter, Nonetheless they cannot give threats or commit or instigate for acts of violence and cannot harass the person who undergoes such inter-caste or inter-religious marriage. I therefore, direct that the administration/police authorities will see, if any boy or Woman that is major undergoes inter-caste or inter-religious marriage with a woman or guy that's a major, the few is neither harassed by anyone nor subjected to threats or acts of violence and anybody who offers these threats or harasses or commits acts of violence either himself or at his instigation, is taken to undertaking by instituting criminal proceedings because of the police against this kind of persons and further stern action is taken against this kind of person(s) as provided by legislation.
The ruling in the first court created case legislation that must be followed by other courts until eventually or Except if either new legislation is created, or perhaps a higher court rules differently.
This is because transfer orders are typically regarded as within the administrative discretion in the employer. However, there could possibly be exceptions in cases where the transfer is determined by malice, personal vendetta, or discrimination against the employee, They could have grounds to challenge before the appropriate forum. Read more
145 . Const. P. 3670/2023 (D.B.) Rehan Pervez V/S Fed. of Pakistan and Others Sindh High Court, Karachi First and foremost, we would address the issue of maintainability of the instant Petition under Article 199 on the Constitution based to the doctrine of laches as this petition was filed in 2016, whereas the alleged cause of action accrued to the petitioner in 1992. The petitioner asserts that he pursued his legal remedy just after involvement while in the FIR lodged by FIA and in the intervening period the respondent dismissed him from service where after he preferred petition No.
When the state court hearing the case reviews the law, he finds that, while it mentions large multi-tenant properties in some context, it is actually actually quite imprecise about whether the ninety-working day provision relates to all landlords. The judge, based to the specific circumstances of Stacy’s case, decides that all landlords are held into the ninety-day notice necessity, and rules in Stacy’s favor.
Because of this, just citing the case is more very likely to annoy a judge than help the party’s case. Visualize it as calling somebody to tell them you’ve found their misplaced phone, then telling them you live in these-and-such community, without actually offering them an address. Driving round the neighborhood wanting to find their phone is probably going for being more frustrating than it’s value.
ten. Without touching the merits from the case of the issue of yearly increases during the pensionary emoluments from the petitioner, in terms of policy decision with the provincial government, these yearly increase, if permissible during the case of employees of KMC, requires further assessment to generally be made through the court of plenary jurisdiction. KMC's reluctance click here on account of funding issues and not enough adoption of provincial increases, creates a factual dispute that cannot be resolved in writ jurisdiction, requiring the petitioner to go after other legal avenues. Read more
twelve. There isn't any denial from the fact that in Government service it is expected that the persons acquiring their character higher than board, free from any moral stigma, are to be inducted. Verification of character and antecedents is often a condition precedent for appointment to your Government service. The candidates must have good character and provide two recent character certificates from unrelated individuals. What is discernible from the above is that the only impediment to being appointed to some Government service is the conviction on an offense involving moral turpitude but involvement, which does not culminate into a proof by conviction, cannot be a means out or guise to carry out absent with the candidature with the petitioner. Bench: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Source: Order: Downloads 185 Order Date: 15-JAN-twenty five Approved for Reporting WhatsApp
162 . Const. P. 256/2025 (D.B.) Hafeezullah V/S Govt of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi It is actually effectively-settled that the civil servants must first pursue internal appeals within 90 days. In the event the appeal isn't decided within that timeframe, he/she will then method the service tribunal to challenge the initial order. Once they are doing so, the Tribunal must decide the appeal on merits and cannot merely direct the department to decide it, because the ninety times for the department to act has already expired. About the aforesaid proposition, we've been guided via the decision from the Supreme Court in the case of Dr.
10. Based on the findings of the inquiry committee, this petition just isn't deemed maintainable which is therefore liable for being dismissed, which is dismissed accordingly with pending application(s) if any. Read more
Given that the Supreme Court will be the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has actually been achieved, therefore the decision with the Supreme Court needs to become taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) in the Constitution. 10. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Read more
Therefore, this petition is found to become not maintainable and it is dismissed along with the pending application(s), and the petitioners may perhaps seek out remedies through the civil court process as discussed supra. Read more