PAKISTAN NATIONAL SHIPPING CORPORATION versus MALIK AYAZ SHARIF
Section 115 Pakistan National Shipping Corporation (Partners Provident Fund) Regulations, 1979, Regular 14 and 17 amended jurisdiction, purpose and jurisdiction, final results of fact by two lower court courts, Pakistan National Shipping Corporation for 26 years The demand for the plaintiff's recovery after his resignation from the service was the same part of his services during the Provident Fund that the trial court had filed in favor of the plaintiff by the trial court and the appeal filed by the defendants to the lower appellant. The court had dismissed, the High Court's legal amendment jurisdiction primarily provides for errors. Color was. Subordinate courts cannot generally review wrongful facts in exercise of their jurisdiction, but when the decision was based on any evidence, irrevocable evidence, or misdirection that could result in gross injustice, and within the jurisdiction of the review, the court could only May interfere with the court's finding in the case. Courts exercised their jurisdiction illegally and without regard to misinterpretation or reading of evidence based on the fact of some law provision or breach of some material misconduct, or the question of a law or factual combination. If faced or on the basis of any evidence or irrefutable evidence, the exercise of jurisdiction of the amendment to the High Court should correct the error made by the subordinate courts, but on the question of this the conclusions of the two courts below. In the event of a misrepresentation or defect in non-reading of evidence, the High Court's intervention in the review certified The option would be like a bad experience. Double-check the edit jurisdiction
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
