Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 1766 -16 (Service matter, regarding promotion)

Summary: (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------Art. 151 & Ss. 3, 5---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3(2)---Intra-court appeal---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Scope---Constitutional petition wasallowed against which civil petition for leave to appeal was filed before the Supreme Courtwhich was dismissed as withdrawn and intra-court appeal was filed---Contention of appellantwas that delay in filing intra-court appeal was not deliberate or intentional---Validity---No reasonor justification had been given in the application for condonation of delay to justify delay infiling the intra-court appeal---Only ground/reason for condonation of delay was 'mis-reading andmisinterpreting' which was neither cogent nor confidence inspiring to extend favour ofcondonation of delay---Supreme Court while disposing of civil petition for leave to appeal madeno observations with regard to condonation of delay in filing of the intra-court appeal ratherdisposed of the petition as withdrawn---Date on which the Supreme Court dismissed the civilpetition for leave to appeal as withdrawn, was to he considered as the date of filing intra-courtappeal---Intra-court appeal, therefore, was barred by limitation---Appellant had failed to showany sufficient reason for condonation of delay---No reason existed to condone the delay in filingof intra-court appeal---Impugned judgment was personam for respondents---Petition forcondonation of delay and intra-court appeal were dismissed being barred by time. ----- (b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)-------Art. 151---Law Reforms Ordinance (XII of 1972), S.3(2)---Intra-court appeal---Limitation---Limitation for filing appeal from decree or order of High Court passed in original jurisdictionwas twenty days from the date of said decree or order

Summary: (a) Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969)-------S. 25-A---Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968),S.2(i)---Grievance petition---"Workman"---Determination of---Bank Manager---Dismissal fromservice---Procedure---Employee filed grievance petition which was dismissed concurrently---Validity---Employee was performing an administrative and supervisory role---Nature of duty ofemployee being Manager of Bank branch was supervisory and managerial and did not fall withinthe definition of "workman"---No illegality and irregularity had been pointed out in theimpugned judgments passed by the courts below---Constitutional petition was dismissed incircumstances. ----(b) Industrial and Commercial Employment (Standing Orders) Ordinance (VI of 1968)-------S. 2 (i)---'Workman' ---Meaning detailed.

Summary: Bail granted---The petitioner, appealed against the Lahore High Court's order dated October 27, 2016, dismissing his bail petition despite significant delays in concluding his trial. Adnan Prince faced charges under sections 295-A, B & C of the Pakistan Penal Code, registered at Township Police Station, District Lahore. The Supreme Court observed that the delay in the trial was primarily caused by the prosecution or the court itself, even after excluding adjournments sought by the petitioner's counsel. The Court noted that prolonged detention during trial, exceeding two years, warranted consideration for bail. The Court criticized the prosecution and investigative agencies for delays in criminal cases, emphasizing the right to a speedy trial guaranteed by the Constitution. It highlighted systemic failures contributing to backlog crises and urged authorities to address inefficiencies promptly. The judgment stressed the accountability of officers responsible for delays and directed officials at various levels to devise strategies for expediting trials and addressing delays effectively. Periodic reports on actions taken were mandated to ensure compliance with legal provisions and constitutional principles. Given the extended delay in Adnan Prince's trial, the Court granted him bail, converting the petition into an appeal. Adnan Prince was granted bail upon furnishing bail bonds of Rs. 300,000 with two reliable sureties to the satisfaction of the trial court.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.