As the Supreme Court could be the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision is achieved, therefore the decision from the Supreme Court needs to generally be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(two) on the Constitution. ten. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Read more

Article 199 on the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other sufficient remedy is provided by regulation." It is actually well-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust obtainable remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction, regardless of whether People remedies suit them. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents unnecessary High Court litigation. Read more

However, decisions rendered because of the Supreme Court on the United States are binding on all federal courts, and on state courts regarding issues on the Constitution and federal regulation.

The necessary analysis (called ratio decidendi), then constitutes a precedent binding on other courts; further analyses not strictly necessary towards the determination of the current case are called obiter dicta, which constitute persuasive authority but usually are not technically binding. By contrast, decisions in civil regulation jurisdictions are generally shorter, referring only to statutes.[4]

13. The Supreme Court has held that as soon as the act of misconduct is established as well as the employee is found guilty after thanks process of law, it is the prerogative from the employer to decide the quantum of punishment, away from the various penalties provided in regulation. The casual or unpremeditated observation that the penalty imposed is not really proportionate with the seriousness of your act of misconduct will not be enough even so the order must show that the competent authority has applied its mind and exercised the discretion in the structured and lawful manner. Read more

Because the Supreme Court may be the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has become achieved, therefore the decision with the Supreme Court needs to be taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(2) from the Constitution. 10. We must dismiss these petitions because the Supreme Court has already ruled on this. Read more

All executive and judicial authorities throughout Pakistan are obligated to act in aid with the Supreme Court, making certain the enforcement of its judgments. As being the Supreme Court is definitely the final arbitrator of all cases where the decision has been attained, the decision with the Supreme Court needs to get taken care of as directed in terms of Article 187(two) in the Constitution. Read more

For those who find an error within the articles of the published opinion (for instance a misspelled name or a grammatical error), please notify the Reporter of Decisions. TVW

163 . Const. P. 4965/2023 (D.B.) Saleem Khan V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi It's well-settled that while considering the case of normal promotion of civil servants, the competent authority has got to think about the merit of all of the qualified candidates and after because of deliberations, to grant promotion to this kind of eligible candidates who are found to generally be most meritorious amongst them. Considering that the petitioner was held for being senior to his colleagues who were promoted in BS-19, the petitioner was overlooked with the respondent department just to increase favor to the blue-eyed candidate based on OPS, which is apathy to the part of the respondent department.

Summaries offer concise explanations read more of legal principles and significant cases pertaining to land ownership, real estate transactions, property rights, and related matters, aiding you in understanding the intricacies of land and property legislation.

This page contains slip opinions. Slip opinions are the opinions that are filed over the day that the appellate court issues its decision and tend to be not the court's final opinion.

The different roles of case regulation in civil and common legislation traditions create differences in just how that courts render decisions. Common regulation courts generally explain in detail the legal rationale powering their decisions, with citations of both legislation and previous relevant judgments, and often interpret the broader legal principles.

Because of their position between the two main systems of regulation, these types of legal systems are sometimes referred to as combined systems of legislation.

Rulings by courts of “lateral jurisdiction” will not be binding, but may be used as persuasive authority, which is to offer substance to the party’s argument, or to guide the present court.