Defining features
Defining features legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Defining feature of a democratic governance was complete dedication and adherence in everyday life to the seminal principles of equity, justice and inclusion of all irrespective of their colour, creed, caste, sex or faith
Sustainability of democracy depended on how best said challenges were met.
"Defining features", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945678
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Defining features"
1968 P Cr
MALI, ETC.-Appellants Versus TKB STATE-Respondent
Court: Baghdad-ul-Jadid2016 Y L R Note 1
JEHANGIR and others — Appellants Versus The STATE and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore (Multan Bench)P L D 2012 Supreme Court 664
— Ss. 163/383/415/420 — Constitution of Pakistan, Art.184(3) — National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), S.9 — Taking gratification, for exercise of personal influence with public servant, extortion, cheating, cheating and dishonestly inducing delivery of property, corruption and corrupt practices — Suo motu action by the Supreme Court under Art.184(3) of the Constitution regarding allegation of business deal between a businessman and son of the serving Chief Justice of Pakistan attempting to influence the judicial process — Alleged flow of money and valuables between individuals concerned in exchange for promises of illegal favours to obstruct the course of justice — Legality and effect — Attempts by individuals to obstruct the course of justice were a matter of serious and grave concern and imperiled the reputation of the justice system at large — Exchange of bribes with the attempt, even a failed one, to influence the course of justice, had been declared illegal and punishable under various laws and if proven guilty by a court of competent jurisdiction, the parties involved might be punished under S.163, P.P.C. (illegal gratification using personal influence over public servant), S.383, P.P.C. (extortion), S.415, P.P.C. and S.420, P.P.C. (cheating), and S.9 of the National Accountability Ordinance, 1999 — Supreme Court observed that court need not delve deeply into the contours of the various legal provisions or determine the manner of their applicability to the facts of the present case, as that was a job best left to investigating agencies and the trial court, to be decided on the basis of evidence, and that it expected that the Attorney General would set the machinery of the State in motion so that all those who might have committed any illegal acts, including the individuals concerned were pursued and brought to book with the full force and rigour of the law.
Court: High Court2018 S C M R 1908
OHIO, ET AL — Petitioner Versus AMERICAN EXPRESS COMPANY, ET AL — Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of the United StatesP L D 1961 W
COMPANY GROUP 'B', LYALLPUR‑Appellant Versus REGIONAL TRANSPORT AUTHORITY, LAHORE.
Court:1993 S C M R 1996
Messrs GRAIN SYSTEMS (Pvt.) Ltd. and 10 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2007 C L D 1181
Messrs SUPER ASIA M.D. (PVT.) LTD. Through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus Messrs ANWAR INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Through Chief Executive and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2011 CLD 285
Messrs TEAM NAYYER (PVT.) LIMITED through Authorized Attorney — Appellant Versus SUI SOUTHERN GAS COMPANY LIMITED and another — Respondents
Court: Karachi1988 C L C 1604
HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Decree‑Holder Versus Messrs KOHINOOR COTTON MILLS Ltd. and 4 others‑‑Judgment‑Debtors
Court: Lahore