Home Maxims & Terms Technicalities of procedure meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Technicalities of procedure

Technicalities of procedure legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2014 MLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Arts. 25, 37(c) & 199Constitutional petitionEducational institutionAdmission in Medical CollegeRight of Higher EducationTechnicalities of procedureScope

Method of preparing joint merit list, equipping female candidates of top and bottom to oust the intermediate male candidate, cannot be said to be within spirit and object of Art.25 of the Constitution

Refusal of petitioner, a male candidate, for his admission in MBBS class on sole count for exercise of choice option by female does not seem to be justified; it is legitimate and legal right of every individual to have higher education and it would not be appropriate to deprive the petitioner from his such legitimate and legal right in name of an option choice technique, meant for female candidates alone

Technicalities of procedure should not be used as a sword but as a bridge of facilitation in achieving intended objects of legislation, rules, procedure and policy.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Technicalities of procedure", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124944631

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Technicalities of procedure"

PLD 1997
Civil Revision No.247 of 1997, decided on 25th February, 1997.

P D 1997 Lahore 728

MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. FAZEELAT alias FAREELAT BIBI‑‑‑Respondent

Court:
CLC 1982
F. A. O. No. 90 of 1981, decided on 10th November, 1981.

1982 C L C 347

ABDUL AZIZ AND ANOTHER‑Appellants Versus SAGHIR KHAN (MINOR)‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
MLD 2004
Civil Revision No.313 of 1998, heard on 10th February, 2004.

2004 M L D 923

LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director‑General, LDA Lahore and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Haji ABDUL QADOOS‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
YLR 2004
Writ Petition No.597 of 2004, decided on 19th January, 2004.

2004 Y L R 1050

MUHAMMAD RAMZAN — Petitioner Versus FAZAL WAHID and 5 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 1999
Writ Petition No. 7536 of 1998, decided on 28th October, 1998.

1999 Y L R 670

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. SHAMO MAI and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2004
N/A

2004 Y L R 1276

DIRECTOR-GENERAL, L.D.A. — Petitioner Versus Haji ABDUL QADOOS — Respondent

Court: Lahore
CLC 1987
Civil Revisions Nos. 145, 956 and 1145 of 1979, decided on 4th October, 1980.

1987 C L C 2398

ABDUL HAMID and 4 others‑ ‑Petitioners Versus KHUSHI MUHAMMAD and 4 others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 2001
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.1644 of 2000, decided on 21st November, 2000.

P L D 2001 Supreme Court 209

MUHAMMAD ANWAR and 8 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ASHRAF‑‑‑Respondent

Court:
YLR 2023
merits---Petition was allowed

2023 Y L R 37

Syed QALANDAR HUSSAIN SHAH — Appellant Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore (Bahawalpur Bench)
PLD 1976
Constitutional Petition No. 81 of 1974, decided on 22nd December 1975.

P L D 1976 Karachi 506

Mst. KHATIJA KHATOON‑Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Court: ‑‑ Ss. 10 & 25 read with Guardians and Wards Act (VIII of 1890), S. 25‑Guardian, appointment of‑Court's powers and duties in appointment of guardian or custody of minors‑In nature of parental jurisdiction‑Main question to be considered by Court‑Welfare of minor‑‑Court could consider personal law of minor but paramount consideration minor's welfare and protection of his interests‑No case under Guardians and Wards Act, 1890, regarding custody or guardianship of minor could be decided merely by consent of parties or on compromise‑Pre‑trial hearing to induce parties to effect a compro mise on such matters not only unnecessary but even undesirable Mere technicalities of procedure‑Cannot affect decision of Guardian Judge based on broad principles in interests of minor.‑Custody of minor.