Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Sovereign meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Sovereign

Sovereign legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

1972 PLD 84 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Sovereign-Suit against-British concept that sovereign can do no wrong and cannot be sued in Municipal Court in iris own domain-Alien to Muslim Shariat Law.

1952 PLD 120 FEDERAL-COURT-OF-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Sovereign

Status to be determined only on information supplied by appropriate Ministry of Government of Pakistan-No other facts or documents may be considered (Per Cornelius, J. In proper cases some inquiry advisable-Nawab of Junagadh, held, not foreign sovereign.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Sovereign", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1147

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Sovereign"

PTD 1963
Civil Appeal No. 407 of 1958, decided on 7th November 1960.

1963 P T D 297

PARSRAM PARUMAL Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL

Court: Supreme Court India
PLD 1965
Suit No. 17 of 1964, decided on 1st February 1965.

P L D 1965 (W

MESSRS GAMMON LAYTON, KARACHI‑-Plaintiff Versus SECRETARY OF STATE FOR THE UNITED STATES

Court:
PLD 1952
1952-June-4

P L D 1952 Federal Court 120

HER HIGHNESS MUNAWAR JAHAN BEGUM OF JUNAGADH‑Appellant Versus CROWN‑Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 1952
22nd April 1952, from the Court of Appeal of the Colony of Singapore

P L D 1952 Privy Council 69

THE SULTAN OF JOHORE‑Appellant Versus ABUBAKAR TUNKU ARIS BENDAHAR and others‑Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1956
22nd May 1953

P L D 1956 Dacca 119

Master AMIRUZZAMAN and others‑Petitioners Versus THE CROWN‑Opposite Party

Court: High Court
PLD 1952
24th April 1952; from the Court of Appeal for Ontario

P L D 1952 Privy Council 110

ROBERT J, MCMASTER and another‑Appellants Versus NORMAN W. BYRNE‑Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 1964
Regular Second Appeal No. 228 of 1957, decided on 1st July 1964.

P L D 1964 (W

Malik RAMIZ AHMAD‑Plaintiff — Appellant Versus PUNJAB PROVINCE‑Defendant — ‑Respondent

Court: Tort‑-Negligence‑-Damages, claim for, due to tortious acts of Government servants‑Doctrine of "act of State" or "sovereign act"‑Not applicable where Government acts in relation to its own nationals under Municipal law‑Maintenance of roads by Highway Authority or Government under Municipal law‑Cannot be treated as "sovereign act"‑Such authority or Government not absolved of responsibility in respect of negligent acts of its servants‑Negligent conduct of employees within scope of their employment‑ Liability of Government does not cease even if such conduct amounts to an offence Public bodies given statutory authority to create obstruction of highways‑Distinction between absolute and conditional statutory authority‑Whether such statutory authority absolute or conditional‑Question of construction of statute Obstruction to highways‑Generally indictable and actionable at law‑West Punjab Highways Act, 1948 replaced by West Pakistan Highways Ordinance (XXXII of 1959) ‑Confers no absolute autho rity in Highway Authority to act in manner causing nuisance or other injurious consequences with immunity‑Highway Authority repairing highways‑Duty cast on Authority to so stack bajri (gravel) on road as to prevent obstruction becoming danger to traveling public‑P. W. D. Chief Engineers Technical Memo. No. 1, 1933, p. 11‑West Punjab‑ Highways Act (VI of 1948), Ss. 12 & 25‑West Pakistan Highways Ordinance (XXXII of 1959), Ss. 12 & 25.
PLD 1953
First Appeal No. 46 of 1950, decided on 18th February, 1953, from the decree of the Court of Atta Ullah, Senior Civil Judge, Rawalpindi, dated the 24th April, 1950.

P L D 1953 Lahore 339

WEST PUNJAB GOVERNMENT‑Appellant Versus PINDI‑JHELUM VALLEY TRANSPORT LTD., RAWALPINDI AND SIX OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Case‑law discussed.
PLD 1956
Civil Revision No. 641 of 1950, decided on 5th February 1954, against the order of the Subordinate judge, 1st Court, Barisal, District Bakarganj, dated the 22nd August, 1950, in S. C. C. Suit No. 42 of 1942.

P L D 1956 Dacca 283

BENGAL STORES‑Petitioner Versus DOMINION OF PAKISTAN and others‑Opposite Parties

Court:
PTD 1968
We proceed now to deal with these arguments in the order in which we have stated them. As to the first line of argument we have come to the conclusion that the agreement of April 17, 1941, rests solely on the consent of the parties ; it is entirely contractual in nature and is not law, because it has none of the characteristics of law. Learned counsel for the appellant has relied on the decisions of this court in Ameer‑un‑nissa Begum v. Mahboob Begum (A I R 1955 S C 352), Director of Endowments Government of Hyderabad v. Akram Ali (A I R 1956 S C 60), Madhavrao Phalke v. State of Madhya Bharat ((1961) 1 S C R 957) and Promod Chandra Deb v. State of Orissa, Petitions Nos. 78/57, 167 & 168/1958 & 4/1959 decided on November 16, 1961. We do not think that these decisions help the appellant. It was pointed out in Madhavrao Phatke's case that in determining the question whether a particular order of a sovereign ruler in whom was combined all legislative, executive and judicial functions it would be necessary to consider the character of the orders passed. Their Lordships then examined the Kalambandi under considera tion before them and pointed out that the nature of the provisions contained in this document unambiguously impresses upon it the character of a statute or a regulation having the force of a statute." Same was the position in Ameer‑un‑nissa's case and the case of the Director of Endowments, Government of Hyderabad where this court had to deal with the effect of Firmans issued by the Nizam who was at the time an absolute ruler. It was held that such Firmans had the effect of law because in all domestic matters, the Nizam issued Firmans to determine the rights of his subjects. The Firmans were not based on consent, but derived their authority from the command of the sovereign, viz., the Nizam, expressing his sovereign will. For example, in Ameer‑un‑nissa's case the Firman set aside the decision of Special Commission in respect of certain claimants and though a subsequent Firman revoked the earlier Firman it did not restore the decision of the Special Commission. It was in these circumstances that this court observed:

1968 P T D 461

MAHARAJA SHREE UMAID MILLS LTD. Versus UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS

Court: Supreme Court India

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library