Doctrine of severability
Doctrine of severability legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Doctrine of severability permitted a court to sever the unconstitutional portion of a partially unconstitutional statute in order to preserve the operation of any uncontested or valid remainder, but if the valid portion was so closely mixed up with the invalid portion that it could not be separated without leaving an incomplete or more or less mixed remainder, the court would declare the entire act void.
"Doctrine of severability", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944572
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Doctrine of severability"
P L D 1983 Lahore 102
MUHAMMAD MOSAWWAR KHAN-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER, GUJRANWALA AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: Art. 9 - Writ jurisdiction - Audi alteram partem, maxim of Notwithstanding collection of octroi having been sanctioned in favour of petitioner and an agreement having been executed between petitioner and Town Committee, Deputy Commissioner passing order without notice to petitioner in violation of principle of natural justice-Such ground, by itself, held, vitiates impugned order.--Maxim.1986 S C M R 286
CHIEF LAND COMMISSIONER, PUNJAB, LAHORE and others‑‑Appellants Versus GHULAM MEHR and others‑‑Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1983 Lahore 86
MUHAMMAD ALI-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, GUIRANWALA AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Court: Art. 199-Writ jurisdiction-Splitting up of a document by invoking doctrine of severability-Held, not within competence of High Court in exercise of its constitutional jurisdiction.-Document.P L D 2016 Sindh 557
KHURRAM and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary/Chairman and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1963 Supreme Court 277
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, CIRCLE II, KARACHI‑Appellant Versus MESSRS HUSSAINI (WAQF‑ALAL‑AULAD)‑Respondent
Court: Income‑tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 41(1) proviso‑Variation in trust income does not necessarily lead to conclusion that benefi ciaries' shares are indeterminate when according to terms of waqf they had to share equally‑Provisions of trust deed to be referred to‑Various clauses of deed may be separately considered Doctrine of sever ability applicable‑First limb of proviso not confined to single beneficiary only‑B. P. Mahalaxmiwala v. Commissioner of Income‑tax Bombay (1954) 26 1 T R 177 ; Sri Jyotishwari Kalimata and others v. Commissioner of Income tax, Bihar and Orissa (1946) 14 I T R 703 ; Commissioner of Income‑tax, West Bengal v. Pulin Behari Dey (1951) 20 I T R 314 ; The Official Trustee of West Bengal v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1954) 26 I T R 410 ; Trustees of Sahebzadas of Sarf‑e‑Khas Trust v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1962) 44 1 T R 332 ; Yaqub Versey Laljee and another v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1946) 14 I T R 548 ; and K. B. M. Habibur Rahman v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1945) 13 I T R 189 ref. D. V. Arur v. Commissioner of Income‑tax (1945) 13 I T R 465 considered.2018 P T D 2212
COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, REGIONAL TAX OFFICE, PESHAWAR Versus Messrs SHERAZ ARENA DEANS TRADE CENTER, PESHAWAR and another
Court: Peshawar High CourtP L D 2018 Lahore 300
Barrister ASFANDYAR KHAN and others — Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2020 S C M R 1279
UBER TECHNOLOGIES INC. and others — Appellants Versus DAVID HELLER — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Canada*1963 P T D 625
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, CIRCLE II, KARACHI‑Appellant Versus MESSRS HUSSAINI (WAQF‑ALAL‑AULAD)‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court Pakistan2026 P L C (C
Syed SAAD ALI and another Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry and others
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan