Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: #NAME?

Summary: Balochistan Mineral Rules, 2002-------Rr. 57, 70, 83 & 90---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Condemned unheard---Show-cause notice---Necessary ingredients---Petitioner was aggrievedof cancellation of his Prospecting Licence for coal---Plea raised by petitioner was that nonotice was issued by authorities before cancelling his licence---Validity---Before any actionwas taken, affected party was to be given a notice to show cause against proposed action andto seek his explanation, as the same was sine qua non of right of fair hearing---Any orderpassed without giving notice was against principles of natural justice and was void ab initio---Before taking any action, it was right of a person to know the facts, as without knowingfacts of case no one could defend himself---Right to notice meant right of being known---Right to know facts of suit or case was to happen at start of any hearing and notice was amust to start a hearing---Notice was to contain time, place and date of hearing, jurisdictionunder which case was filed, charges and proposed action against person---All such thingswere to be included in notice to make it proper and adequate---Whenever statute made itclear that notice was to be issued to party and if no compliance or failure to give noticeoccurred, the same had made that act void---Non-issue of notice or any defective service ofnotice did not affect jurisdiction of authority but had violated principles of natural justice---Cancellation orders passed by authorities were illegal, perverse to record and arbitrary---High Court set aside orders passed by authorities as the same were void and of no legaleffect---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances.2002 SCMR 1034 rel.

Summary: Divorce Act (IV of 1869)-------S. 3(2), (3)---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20 & O.VII, R.10---Suit for separationand dissolution of marriage---Territorial jurisdiction---Parties were Christian by faith andsuing spouse sought separation and divorce on the plea of desertion---Defending spousesought return of plaint on the plea that they were living at place "Q" and cause of action hadalso accrued at place "Q" therefore, Courts at place "M" had no power to adjudicate---Validity---Suing spouse had choice of selecting his / her forum either as (i) the district whereparties had last resided together or (ii) the district within the local limits of which both thehusband and wife resided, though living separately---Matter was governed by first categorythat parties were married at place "Q" and lastly resided together at place "M"---Fordetermination of jurisdiction, provision of S.20, C.P.C. was not to be taken into considerationas provision of S.3(3) of Divorce Act, 1869, catered for the position with regard todetermination of jurisdiction of Court---In presence of provision in special law the provisionof general law was not to be taken into consideration---High Court declined to interfere inthe order passed by Trial Court---Revision was dismissed in circumstances.Muhammad Siddiq v. Zawar Hussain PLD 1974 SC 572; Syed Mushahid Shah andothers v. Federal Investment Agency and others 2017 CLD 1198 and State Life InsuranceCorporation of Pakistan through Chairman and others v. Mst. Sardar Begum and others 2017CLD 1080 rel.

Summary: Background:Ajmir Shah, an ex-Sepoy with Bajour Scouts of the Frontier Corps, was dismissed from service under Section 8(c) of the Frontier Corps Ordinance, 1959.He waited over four years to file a departmental appeal, citing the outcome of a colleague's service appeal as the reason for the delay.His departmental appeal was rejected as time-barred, prompting him to appeal to the Federal Service Tribunal.---Issues:Whether Shah's delay in filing the departmental appeal was justified.Whether the appellate authority had the power to extend the filing period for the appeal.Whether Shah's reliance on a colleague's successful appeal was a valid reason for the delay.---Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:The Supreme Court upheld the rejection of Shah's appeal, finding that his delay in filing the departmental appeal was not justified.The Court noted that the Frontier Corps Rules, 1961, required appeals to be filed within one month of being informed of the order, with provisions for extending the deadline in unavoidable circumstances.Shah's reliance on a colleague's appeal outcome was deemed insufficient justification for his delay.The Court emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures and rules for filing appeals.The Court distinguished the present case from precedent cited by Shah's counsel, as the rules in question were different.---Citations/Precedents:Usman Ali Chhachhar vs. Moula Bukhsh Chhachhar (2019 SCMR 2043) = [2020 PLC (CS) 34]Muhammad Hanif Abbasi vs. Imran Khan Niazi (PLD 2018 SC 189)Shahida Bibi vs. Habib Bank Limited (PLD 2016 SC 995)

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Intra Court Appeal in WP 492 -20 (Service Matter: Against Order dated 14 -01 -2020 (Foreign postings of FIA Employees)