- —Art.17—The right of freedom of association—but a civil servant cannot form a political party or take part in the politics rather an association or union for the betterment of employees can be formed within the frame work of law and subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by Legislature in the interest of morality or public order. Imran Khurshid vs Azad Govt. & others 2018 SCR 282 (B)
- —Articles 1 and 257—territories of Pakistan—status of Azad Jammu & Kashmir— the juxtapose appreciation of Articles reveals that the AJ&K is not constitutionally included in the territories of Pakistan. Yasir Bashir v. Saba Yasir & others 2019 SCR 1 (A)
- Articles 48, 92, 93 and 101 — advice — concept of — distinction — the Supreme Court of Pakistan held that the nature of advice of Prime Minister/Cabinet in Articles 92, 93 and 101 is of special nature and when advice in respect of these Articles is issued by the Prime Minister, it will not be governed under clause 1 of Article 48. AJK Council v. AJK Govt. 2016 SCR 145 (D)
- — Articles 62 and 63— un-amended and amended provisions—comparison of— un-amended Article 62(d) , recognizes providing of other qualifications under subordinate law— but under Eighteenth Amendment, the said provision has been deleted and other qualifications have been included in Article 62— There is no concept of providing further qualifications under the subordinate law. Sardar Ghulam Sadiq v. Khan Bhadar Khan & others 2017 SCR 55 (E)
- Art. 177 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42(4). M. Younas Tahir v. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad 2012 SCR 213 (H & AA)
- Art. 193 — See Azad Jammu and Kashmir Interim Constitution Act (VIII of 1974), S. 42(4). M. Younas Tahir v. Shaukat Aziz, Advocate, Muzaffarabad 2012 SCR 213 (H & AA)
- Art.199 — Civil Procedure Code, 1908,O.XX, R.14 — “Khula” — Dissolution of marriage, suit for —Conjugal rights, suit for — Witnesses — Held: That dissolution of marriage on ‘khula’ was permissible on completion of offer by wife to return the benefits received by her and accepted by the husband — However, if the offer made by wife is not accepted by the husband or wife declines to return the ornaments given to her it is in the discretion of the Court to finally decide the matter regarding the return of benefits — In view of dictum of Supreme Court and the view taken by High Court in 1985 CLC 2626 non compliance of wife to return benefits received by her to her husband would not adversely affect the factum of dissolution of marriage on the basis of “Khula” — In view of findings of Courts below that spouses can no more live within the limits ordained by God, the marriage stood dissolved and return of benefits by wife to husband remains merely liability of civil nature which can be enforced by the husband through appropriate means — Failure of appellant to deposit the amounts of 20 tolas with the Court by specific date would not affect her dissolution of marriage — Appeal dismissed. Kousar Nisar v. Muhammad Maqsood 2000 SCR 404 (A)
error: Content is protected !!