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
Courts prioritize fairness and copyright fundamental rights though respecting the autonomy of educational institutions. To the aforesaid proposition, we're guided from the decision of the Supreme Court during the case of Khyber Medical University and others v. Aimal Khan and others, PLD 2022 Supreme Court ninety two. 9. The aforesaid exceptions are lacking while in the present case. In this sort of circumstances, this petition is found to be not maintainable which is dismissed accordingly with pending application (s). Read more
The court emphasised that in cases of intentional murder, the gravity in the offense demands the most stringent punishment, thinking of the sanctity of human life and deterrence for prospective offenders.
four. It's been noticed by this Court that there is a delay of sooner or later while in the registration of FIR which hasn't been explained by the complainant. Moreover, there is not any eye-witness from the alleged incidence as well as prosecution is relying on the witnesses of extra judicial confession. The evidence of extra judicial confession from the petitioners has actually been tendered by Ghulam Dastigir and Mohammad Akram through their statements recorded under Section 161, Cr.P.C., on 06.02.2018. Both of them namely Ghulam Dastigir and Mohammad Akram occurred to get the real brothers of the deceased but they did not react whatsoever for the confessional statements on the petitioners and calmly observed them leaving, one 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 appear 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 wasn't effected after making of the alleged extra judicial confession. It has been held on numerous situations that extra judicial confession of an accused is usually a weak kind of evidence which could be manoeuvred with the prosecution in almost any case where direct connecting evidence does not occur their way. The prosecution is usually depending on the evidence of Murid Hussain and Muhammad Afzal which is equally fragile, as both the witnesses Murid Hussain and Muhammad Afzal didn't say a word concerning presence of some light on the place, where they allegedly noticed the petitioners collectively on a motorcycle at 4.
Matter:-SERVICE Hon'ble Mr. Justice Muhammad Karim Khan Agha, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Adnan-ul-Karim Memon(Author) Const. P. 5066/2024 (D.B.) Ayaz Hussain and 432 Others V/S Province of Sindh & Others Sindh High Court, Karachi SHC Citation: SHC-224033 Tag:Provided the legal analysis on the topic issue, we have been of your view that the claim in the petitioners for retroactive regularization from their First contract appointment and seniority and promotion thereon, from that angle will not be legally seem, Aside from promotion and seniority, not absolute rights, They may be subject to rules and regulations If your recruitment rules of the subject post allow the case on the petitioners for promotion could possibly be deemed, however, we've been very clear within our point of view that contractual service cannot be thought of for seniority and promotion since the seniority is reckoned from the date of normal appointment and promotion depends upon seniority cum Health and fitness, issue to availability of vacancy topic for the approval of your competent authority.
It's now properly-settled that considerations for pre-arrest and post-arrest bail are thoroughly different, therefore, within our view the discovered Judge experienced fallen in error to cancel the bail allowed to petitioner because of the same Additional Sessions Judge.”
States also typically have courts that tackle only a specific subset of legal matters, including family regulation and probate. Case law, also known as precedent or common legislation, is definitely the body of prior judicial decisions that guide judges deciding issues before them. Depending about the relationship between the deciding court plus the precedent, case law can be binding or merely persuasive. For example, a decision from the U.S. Court of Appeals for your Fifth Circuit is binding on all federal district courts within the Fifth Circuit, but a court sitting in California (whether a federal or state court) just isn't strictly bound to Keep to the Fifth Circuit’s prior decision. Similarly, a decision by one district court in The big apple is not really binding on another district court, but the original court’s reasoning may possibly help guide the second court in achieving its decision. Decisions from the U.S. Supreme Court are binding on all federal and state courts. Read more
Some pluralist systems, for example Scots regulation in Scotland and types of civil law jurisdictions in Quebec and Louisiana, will not precisely in shape into the dual common-civil regulation system classifications. These types of systems could have been intensely influenced by the Anglo-American common legislation tradition; however, their substantive legislation is firmly rooted in the civil law tradition.
Case law, also used interchangeably with common regulation, is a regulation that is based on precedents, that is the judicial decisions from previous cases, alternatively than regulation based on constitutions, statutes, or regulations. Case legislation uses the detailed facts of a legal case that have been resolved by courts or similar tribunals.
If granted absolute immunity, the parties would not only be protected from liability in the matter, but could not be answerable in any way for their actions. When the court delayed making this type of ruling, the defendants took their request into the appellate court.
one. Judicial Independence: The court emphasized the importance more info of judicial independence along with the separation of powers.
13309-B of 2010 to generally be weak types of evidence plus the evidentiary value whereof would be noticed in the time in the trial. The investigation of this case has already been finalized and, thus, confirmed custody from the petitioner in jail is unlikely to serve any helpful purpose at this stage.”
In determining whether employees of DCFS are entitled to absolute immunity, which is generally held by certain government officials acting within the scope of their employment, the appellate court referred to case regulation previously rendered on similar cases.