A Secret Weapon For difference between executive and non executive directors case laws
A Secret Weapon For difference between executive and non executive directors case laws
Blog Article
Article 199 on the Constitution allows High Court intervention only when "no other adequate remedy is provided by legislation." It is very well-settled that an aggrieved person must exhaust offered remedies before invoking High Court jurisdiction, regardless of whether These remedies suit them. The doctrine of exhaustion of remedies prevents unnecessary High Court litigation. Read more
Due to recent amendment, the court imposed a more severe sentence than would have been attainable under the previous Variation with the legislation.
four. It has been noticed by this Court that there is actually a delay of sooner or later during the registration of FIR which has not been explained through the complainant. Moreover, there is not any eye-witness on the alleged occurrence along with the prosecution is counting on the witnesses of extra judicial confession. The evidence of extra judicial confession of your petitioners has become tendered by Ghulam Dastigir and Mohammad Akram through their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., on 06.02.2018. Both of these namely Ghulam Dastigir and Mohammad Akram took place to become the real brothers with the deceased but they did not react in any respect to your confessional statements with the petitioners and calmly saw them leaving, a single after the other, without even moving an inch. They have not mentioned in their statements that the accused held some weapon when they visited them to confess their guilt about the murder of Ghulam Farid which could have precluded these witnesses from apprehending the petitioners. Their conduct does not glance much inspiring or natural. The petitioner, namely, Mst. Mubeena Bibi was arrested on fourteen.02.2018 and there is not any explanation regarding why her arrest was not effected after making with the alleged extra judicial confession. It has been held on a lot of events that extra judicial confession of an accused is actually a weak sort of evidence which could be manoeuvred because of the prosecution in almost any case where direct connecting evidence does not arrive their way. The prosecution can be counting on the evidence of Murid Hussain and Muhammad Afzal which is equally fragile, as both the witnesses Murid Hussain and Muhammad Afzal did not say a word concerning presence of some light for the place, where they allegedly noticed the petitioners collectively on the motorcycle at 4.
Usually, the burden rests with litigants to appeal rulings (like All those in clear violation of established case regulation) towards the higher courts. If a judge acts against precedent, as well as the case is just not appealed, the decision will stand.
The court system is then tasked with interpreting the regulation when it's unclear how it applies to any specified situation, often rendering judgments based around the intent of lawmakers and the circumstances with the case at hand. Such decisions become a guide for long term similar cases.
This Court could interfere where the authority held the proceedings against the delinquent officer inside a method inconsistent with the rules of natural justice or in violation of statutory rules prescribing the manner of inquiry or where the conclusion or finding reached with the disciplinary authority is based on no evidence. In case the summary or finding is for instance no reasonable person would have ever reached, the Court might interfere with the conclusion or perhaps the finding and mold the relief to make it proper on the facts of every case. In service jurisprudence, the disciplinary authority will be the sole judge of facts. Where the appeal is presented, the appellate authority has coextensive power to re-take pleasure in the evidence or even the nature of punishment. Over the aforesaid proposition, we are fortified through the decision in the Supreme Court in the case of Ghulam Murtaza Shaikh v. Chief Minister Sindh (2024 SCMR 1757). Read more
The issue Here's that an accused might say that they meant to injure the victim, but they didn't intend to get rid of them. In other words, they might claim that thedeath that resulted mainly because of the accused’s attack was neither foreseeable nor meant.
P.C. Liability of petitioners to the mentioned offences would be determined through the realized trial Court after sifting the evidentiary really worth from the material developed before the same. Till then, case of
VI) The petitioner is behind the bars since arrest, investigation with the case is complete, he isn't any more essential for the purpose of investigation and at this stage to keep him guiding the bars before conclusion of trial will serve no valuable purpose.
The scrupulous reader might have noticed some thing above: a flaw. Beyond the first 7 words, the definition focuses to the intention to cause “Injury,” not the intention to cause death. The 2 essential elements that must be proven in order to convict a person of the crime are “
Regardless of its popularity, very few may perhaps be aware of its intricacies. This article is surely an attempt to highlight the flaws of this section plus the extremely reduced threshold that governs it.
A coalition of residents sent a letter of petition to the Supreme Court to challenge the Water and Power Progress Authority’s (WAPDA) construction of an electricity grid station in their community, on designated “green belt” property. The Court read the matter to be a human rights case, as Article 184 (3) with the Pakistan Constitution supplies initial jurisdiction towards the Supreme Court to acquire up and determine any matter concerning the enforcement of fundamental rights of public importance.
one hundred fifteen . Const. P. 6025/2024 (D.B.) Dr. Pritam Das V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi As far as the stance in the respondents that pensionary benefits may very well be withheld on account of the allegations leveled against the petitioner, in our view, section 20 of your Sindh Civil Servants Act of 1973 deals with the pension and gratuity that civil servants are entitled to. However, the act does offer for certain circumstances under which a civil servant's pension can be withheld or reduced. These consist of if a civil servant is found guilty of misconduct or negligence during their service, their pension can be withheld or get more info reduced. If a civil servant is convicted of a serious crime, their pension could possibly be withheld or reduced. In certain cases, a civil servant's pension could be withheld or reduced if he/she fails to comply with certain conditions set because of the government.