Disturbance
Disturbance legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Connotation.
"Disturbance", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1123
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Disturbance"
P L D 1970 Dacca 203
A. K. M. SADEQUE‑Petitioner Versus AFSARUDDIN AHMED AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: (d) East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) Ordinance (I of 1964), S. 6 as amended by East Pakistan Disturbed Persons (Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (VI of 1964)‑Sub section (2) as introduced by amending Ordinance prohibiting civil Court to entertain suits‑Does not put bar against filing of money suits or sale of properties in execution of money decrees.P L D 1970 Dacca 251
SONA MIA‑Petitioner Versus THE SUB‑DIVISIONAL OFFICER, NARAYANGANJ AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court:PLD 1949 Lahore 550
THE CROW N‑Petitioner Versus HAVELI‑Respondent
Court: The learned Advocate‑General also referred to Buckman v. Button (1943) 2 All. E R 92 where after the commission of the offences, but before the hearing, the Regulations were amended by orders which increased the penalty for such offences. At the hearing, the appellant was convicted and fined to the extent permitted by the amending orders. On appeal it was contended that the amending orders were not retroactive and therefore the increased penalties, which were not in existence at the time of the commission of the offence, should not have been imposed upon him. It was held that "the justices were right in law in imposing the higher penalties provided by the subsequent orders which were in force at the date of the hearing". According to this English case, the measure of punishment was to be regulated by the Act in operation at the time when it was to be awarded. The learned Advocate‑General thought that the converse would also be true. But at the same time he brought to my notice section 4 of the Punjab General Clauses Act, the relevant portion of which is as follows :‑P L D 1970 Dacca 472
ABDUL KADER KHAN‑Petitioner Versus THE PROVINCE OP EAST PAKISTAN AND OTHERS -Opposite‑Parties
Court: Ss. 4 & 6(2) as amended by East Pakistan Dis turbed Persons (Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance (VI of 1964.)‑ Word " and " appearing after comma in the preamble‑Disjunctive and not conjunctive‑Sections 4 & 6(2) have no reference to civil disturbances of January 1964‑Provisions of Ss. 4 & 6(2) protect member of minority community in respect of his property no matter if he left East Pakistan--‑Permission under S. 6(2) to file suit against such member of minority community, held, necessary.1998 P L C (C
ACCOUNTS OFFICE, RAWALPINDI Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1998 S C M R 2722
Civil Petition No.349 of 1997 Versus MUHAMMAD SARWAR‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1983 C L C 295
DR. TAJUDDIN MANJI‑Plaintiff Versus SOCIETE INTERNATIONAL DE‑TELECOMMUNICATIONS AERONAUTIQUES‑Defendant
Court: Karachi1990 CLC 898
MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND
Court: Lahore1979 P
MOHAMMAD ASHIQEEN — Applicant Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER — Respondents
Court: Karachi2019 P Cr
Hafiz MUHAMMAD SAIF ULLAH — Petitioner Versus DSP and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)