Summary: Defendant of a Arbitration suit impugns dismissal of order 7 Rule 11 application.

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: Pending

Summary: [Role of AOR and dismissal for non prosecution]---he petitioner, Azmat Towellers (Pvt.) Ltd Multan, sought to have their case reinstated, which had been dismissed for non-prosecution on October 6, 2021. The dismissal occurred because no representative, including the petitioner's counsel, was present during the hearing.The basis for restoration was that the petitioner's counsel claimed to have been present in the court but had momentarily stepped out to use the washroom, resulting in the case being dismissed in their absence. However, the court observed that there was no affidavit provided by the petitioner's counsel to support this claim, and the court's records did not indicate the presence of the counsel in court on that day.The court emphasized the importance of the Advocate-on-Record (AOR) in representing a party before the Supreme Court. It noted that the AOR is primarily responsible for acting, appearing, and pleading on behalf of the party in accordance with the Supreme Court Rules. The engagement of additional advocates (ASC) does not relieve the AOR of their primary responsibility. The court mentioned that cases before the highest court require meticulous care and responsibility in representation.The court determined that the petitioner's AOR had not fulfilled their responsibilities as expected under the Rules. The AOR had not provided any explanation for their absence on the day of the dismissal. As a result, the court found no merit in the application for restoration and dismissed it.The court's decision was issued on December 17, 2021, reaffirming the dismissal of the petitioner's application for restoration based on the absence of proper representation and explanation.

Summary: Detailed judgement in Sacked Employees Case with Dissent --- Facts:The Supreme Court decided on multiple review petitions challenging the judgment in Civil Appeal No. 491 of 2012, which declared the Sacked Employees (Re-instatement) Act, 2010 ("the Act") ultra vires the Constitution. The Act was intended to provide relief to employees appointed during 1st November 1993 to 30th November 1996 but were dismissed from service between 1st November 1996 to 12th October 1999.---Issue:Whether the Act, which aimed to reinstate employees terminated during a specific period, was constitutionally valid.----Decision:The Supreme Court, by a majority of 4-1, dismissed the review petitions, maintaining that the Act was unconstitutional. However, it converted the review proceedings into proceedings under Article 184(3) of the Constitution to grant some relief to the affected employees.---Reasoning:The Court found the Act to be discriminatory and violative of Articles 4, 9, 18, 25, 240, and 242 of the Constitution, as it favored a specific group of employees without a reasonable classification. The Act failed to follow the principles of merit, transparency, and fairness in public appointments. However, considering the long service period of some reinstated employees, the Court decided to grant them some relief.----Rule:The decision underscored the constitutional principles governing public appointments, emphasizing merit, non-discrimination, transparency, and fairness. It also highlighted the Court's power to provide equitable relief in cases where strict legal remedies may result in harsh consequences.

Summary: Summary pending