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

Punitive consequences

Punitive consequences legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2013 YLR 836 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
O. VIII, Rr. 1 & 10Failure to present written statementPunitive consequencesScope

When required written statement had not been filed, two alternatives were available before the Trial Court, namely the pronouncing of judgment forthwith or making of such other orders, though it was discretionary with the court to apply penal provisions of O. VIII, R.10, of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and pronounce the judgment even without recording the evidence but such judgment should be on the basis of facts before it

Court in the alternative could award costs and grant adjournment or proceed to record evidence ex parte and then pronounce the judgment

Punitive action for non-filing of written statement should only be taken in very extreme circumstances.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Punitive consequences", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124939834

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Punitive consequences"

MLD 1993
1992-October-21

1993 M L D 1437

ABDUL AZIZ — Appellant Versus YAHYA and 4 others — Respondents

Court: Karachi
PLC 2001
‑‑‑‑Ss.15 & 17‑‑‑Industrial Relations Ordinance (XXIII of 1969), S.38(3‑a)‑‑ Payment of wages‑‑‑Appeal against order of the Authority‑‑‑Appeal against order passed by the Authority was dismissed by Labour Court only on the technical ground that appeal under S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936 was not filed by employer/appellant in person‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Provisions of S.17 of Payment of Wages Act, 1936, had not indicated that appeal had to be filed by the employer himself, and by none else but had simply stated that it would be filed by the employer‑‑‑Language of S. 17 was not couched in specific negative words that it could not be filed either by an attorney or by a counsel or any one specific Authority in that behalf‑‑‑Failure to do so was also not provided with any punitive consequence‑‑‑Order passed by Labour Court was set aside and case was remanded to be decided on merits.

2001 P L C 634

PERSONNEL MANAGER and another Versus Mst. REKHMEENA and 2 others

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal N.‑W.F.P.
YLR 2013
Writ Petition No.524 of 2006/BWP, decided on 24th March, 2010.

2013 Y L R 836

SHABBIR AHMED — Petitioner Versus FARZANA FARID and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
CLD 2023
2022-July-19

2023 C L D 1339

ZARAI TARAQIYATI BANK LIMITED through Incharge, Legal Litigation Unit, Peshawar — Petitioner Versus MUZAFFAR KHAN — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
SCMR 2006
C.P.L.A. No.620-K of 2005, decided on 12th October, 2005.

2006 S C M R 145

GHULAM MUSTAFA BUGHIO — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL CONTROLLER OF RENTS, CLIFTON and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 1980
Appeal No. 1(K) of 1980, decided on 18th February, 1980.

1980 P L C (C

S. QASIM ALI RIZVI Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF WORKS

Court: Federal Service Tribunal
PLC(CS) 1981
Appeal No. 1(K) of 1980, decided on 18th February, ;980.

1981 P L C (C

S. QASIM ALI RIZVI Versus SECRETARY, MINISTRY OF WORKS

Court: Service Tribunal Sind
CLC 2007
N/A

2007 C L C 1109

MUHAMMAD ZAMAN — Petitioner Versus FAUZIA BIBI and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1959
Writ Petition No. 486 of 1957, decided on 27th November, 1958.

P L D 1959 (W

ALLAH DIA and another — Petitioners Versus REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER (LANDS) WEST PAKISTAN and others‑ — Respondents

Court: Rehabilitation Resettlement Scheme, (Punjab Part I) prescri bed by Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands) under section "7 (1) of the Pakistan Rehabilitation Ordinance, (XIX of 1948), as amended by the Pakistan (Economic Rehabilitation) (Amendment) Ordinance XVI of 1949, Para. 4 (c) & Instruction No. 60 (6) of the Instructions for the Deputy Rehabilitation Commissioner issued by the Rehabilitation Commissioner (Lands)‑Instruction neither punitive in character nor in conflict with para. 4 (c) of the Scheme‑Instruction fully effective only when exact area to which claimant is entitled not determinable.
CLC 1992
Writ Petition No.1778 with Civil Miscellaneous No.1794 of 1991, decided on 3rd November, 1991.

1992 C L C 379

MUHAMMAD FAROOQ and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus DISTRICT JUDGE, MARDAN and 2 others‑‑Respondents

Court: Peshawar

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