Remedy for a wrong
Remedy for a wrong legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Any justification for denying the remedy must be necessary and required strict and cogent justification because if the position was otherwise, the law would be irrational and unfair and public confidence in it would be undermined.
"Remedy for a wrong", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124937131
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Remedy for a wrong"
2025 S C M R 1764
RUKHADZE and others — Appellants Versus RECOVERY PARTNERS GP LTD and another — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of UK*2023 S C M R 1407
Messrs RAJBY INDUSTRIES KARACHI and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of PakistanP L D 1987 Lahore 618
TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD. (IN LIQUIDATION), JHELUM‑‑Petitioner Versus Mirza FAZAL HAQ and 9 others‑‑Respondents
Court:P L D 1993 Karachi 578
and 6 others ‑‑‑ Applicants/Decree‑)Fiolders Versus Appeal dismissed.
Court: ‑‑‑‑ Ss. 23, 28 & 28‑A added by Land Acquisition (Sindh Amendment) Ordinance (XXIII of 1984) ‑‑‑ Provisions of Ss. 23, 28 & 28‑A, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, comparison of ‑‑‑ Grant of interest in terms of S.28, Land Acquisition Act, 1894, is within discretion of the Court ‑‑‑ Provision of S.23(2) of the Act makes it incumbent for the Court to allow additional 15 per cent. On the market value arrived at under S.23(1), Land Acquisition Act 1894, while S.28‑A postulates 15 per cent. solatium per annum on the compensation as an addition mandatorily.P L D 1983 Supreme Court 385
Mirza MUHAMMAD SAEED-Petitioner Versus SHAHAB-UD-DIN AND 8 oTH$its-Respondents
Court: Ss. 5 & 14-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 151-Condonation of delay-Courts can show indulgence and condone delay where time has been lost by prosecuting remedy before wrong forum on account of bona fide mistake or error of counsel which reasonable and prudent man despite exercising due diligence and caution might have committed - Mistake in approaching wrong forum due to gross negligence and carelessness of counsel where not appearing that counsel has shown due diligence and caution before moving wrong forum-Held, only remedy for client of such counsel to sue him for damages for loss suffered on account of his negligence-Exercise of such remedy more frequently and counsel made to pay for their carelessness and negligence may ameliorate situation.-Counsel and client.2003 C L D 293
ENGRO CHEMICAL PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN DAWOOD and 5 others‑ ‑Defendants
Court: Karachi2024 C L C 357
AYAZ MEHMOOD — Appellant Versus MUSADAQ RIAZ and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Rawalpindi Bench)P L C (C
MUHAMMAD ASLAM Versus WAPDA through Chairman, WAPDA and 2 others
Court: Federal Service TribunalP L D 1996 Supreme Court 246
Ch. MUHAMMAD ISMAIL ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FAZAL ZADA, CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE
Court: ‑‑‑‑‑ S. 9 --- O.VII, R.11‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑‑ Jurisdiction ‑‑‑ "Want of jurisdiction," "excess of jurisdiction" and "wrong exercise of jurisdiction" ‑‑‑ Connotation and distinction ‑‑‑‑ Rejection of plaint by Court ‑‑‑ Quantum of jurisdictional defect ‑‑‑ Where any Magistrate having no powers to decide civil suits had proceeded to decide such suit, such exercise would amount to want of jurisdiction; where Civil Court had disposed of suit, jurisdictional value whereof, was in excess of its pecuniary jurisdiction, same would be case of excess of jurisdiction; and where Civil Court having pecuniary as well as territorial jurisdiction to decide case in question, had decided it by misinterpreting any provision of law or by improperly appraising evidence on record such case would be case of wrong exercise of jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Where Civil Court had jurisdiction to reject plaint but it had allegedly done so in wrong way that would be case of wrong exercise of 'jurisdiction and, not that of want of jurisdiction or excess of jurisdiction ‑‑‑ Order in question, having not been passed by Trial Court by exceeding its jurisdiction, plaintiff could not invoke Constitutional jurisdiction of ‑ High Court.‑‑Words and phrases.2003 P L C (C
ABDUL REHMAN QAMAR Versus GOVERNMENT OF N.W.F.P. through Secretary Education, Peshawar and 5 others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan