Case ID |
e04fd90f-29ed-4847-8981-40ea32d4d195 |
Body |
View case body. Login to View |
Case Number |
Criminal Appeals Nos. 5-D and 6-D of 1966 and Civi |
Decision Date |
|
Hearing Date |
|
Decision |
The Supreme Court found that the High Court's proceedings in contempt against the appellants were not justified, as the injunction order was still under consideration by the District Judge. The Court emphasized that the matter should have been left to be resolved in the original jurisdiction of the Munsif's Court. Furthermore, it was ruled that the appellants should not have been committed for contempt, suggesting that the High Court's summary jurisdiction should not be invoked in this case, as appropriate remedies were available under the Civil Procedure Code. This decision allows the plaintiff to pursue his case in the lower court, without the interference of the High Court's findings. |
Summary |
This case revolves around the appointments within the University of Dacca, where Dr. A. N. M. Mahmood challenged the legality of Dr. K. T. Hossain's appointment as a temporary Reader at a higher salary. The Supreme Court's ruling highlighted the importance of following proper legal procedures and emphasized that contempt proceedings should only be pursued when absolutely necessary. The decision also reinforced the principle that alternative remedies should be utilized before resorting to contempt, thereby ensuring that judicial processes are respected and maintained. The case is significant for its implications on administrative law within educational institutions and the judicial independence of lower courts. It underscores the need for clarity in the interpretation of court orders to avoid potential contempt issues, a critical aspect for legal practitioners. Keywords such as 'Supreme Court of Pakistan', 'judicial independence', 'administrative law', 'contempt of court', and 'legal procedures' are crucial for SEO optimization in legal discourse. |
Court |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
|
Entities Involved |
The State,
University of Dacca
|
Judges |
A. R. CORNELIUS, C.J.,
S. A. RAHMAN,
FAZLEAKBAR,
HAMOODUR RAHMAN,
MUHAMMAD YAQUB ALI
|
Lawyers |
Manzur Qadir, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Israrul Hussain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Latifur Rahman, Advocate, Supreme Court,
M. M. G. Hafiz, Advocate Supreme Court,
S. S. Hoda, Attorney,
Maksumul Hakim, Advocate General East Pakistan,
Maqbul Ahmad, Advocate Supreme Court,
Sharif-ud-Din Pirzada, Attorney General for Pakistan,
Khalilur Rahman Khan, Advocate Supreme Court,
Ahmed Sobhan, Senior Advocate Supreme Court,
Muhammad Nurul Haq, Attorney
|
Petitioners |
DR. M. O. GHANI, Vice Chancellor, UNIVERSITY OF DACCA,
MR. NURUL HUDA AND others
|
Respondents |
THE STATE,
DR. A. N. M. MAHMOOD,
DR. K. T. HUSSAIN
|
Citations |
1966 SLD 92 = 1966 PLD 802
|
Other Citations |
Bahawal alias Bhaloo v. The State P L D 1962 S C 476,
Clements, Republic of Costa Rica v. Erlanger (1876) 46 L J Ch. 375,
Sultan Ali Nanghiana v. Nur Hussain A I R 1949 Lah. 131,
Abdul Hayee Khan v. The State P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 169,
Homi Rustomji Pardivala v. Sub-Inspector Baig and others A I R 1944 Lah. 196,
Hadkinson v. Hadkinson (1952) 2 A E R 567,
Scott v. Scott 1913 A C 417,
All Mahomed Adamali v. Emperor A I R 1945 P C 147
|
Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
Sections |
Art. 58(3),
Art. 98,
O. XXXIX, r. 2
|