Deficiencies
Deficiencies legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Agreement not specifying details about 'metes and bounds' and khasra number, khewat number etc. of the property nor its sale consideration
Held, that Trial Court had totally ignored the law on the subject of specific performance while decreeing the suit on the basis of such an agreement
Trial Court ought to have given convincing reasons for decreeing the suit by allowing specific performance and for ignoring all the deficiencies in the agreement as well as in the plaint.
Whether prosecution should be allowed re-testing of samples in case of a deficient report prepared by the Government analyst
Held, that re-testing of the drug, in case of a deficient report would amount to giving a premium to the prosecution for its mistakes and lapses
Any flaw in the case of the prosecution must only benefit the accused
Sending the alleged drugs for re-testing would be giving another chance to the prosecution to build its case, which was not the role or business of the court
Besides there was a likelihood that the chain of custody of the alleged drug was compromised with the passage of time.
Recommendations and proposals for legislative reforms outlined.
"Deficiencies", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124953549
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Deficiencies"
1991 S C M R 1351(1)
Haji Syed ABDUL HALEEM SHAH — Petitioner Versus WALI DAD and 6 others — Respondents
Court: ----Art.185(3)---Leave to appeal was granted in view of the fact that Majlis-e -Shoora had found evidence on "Talab-e-Mowasibat" deficient while High Court had found evidence on Talab-e-Ishhad deficient---Petitioner, however, had referred to the evidence on record to establish that there was deficiency in neither.---Pre-emption---Evidence.L D 1989 Lahore 533
MUHAMMAD SHAFI and another‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD DIN‑‑Respondent
Court:2000 Y L R 2842
MANZOOR AHMAD NAQSHBANDI‑‑‑Appellant Versus M.A. FAROOQ and another ‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K) J2001 M L D 241
SHARBAT KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus WAPDA and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)P L D 1981 Supreme Court 489
Present : Adam Riaz Hussain and Nasim Hasan Shah, JJ Versus MUHAMMAD RIAZ AND OTHERS‑‑Respondents..
Court: S. 149‑Deficiency of court‑fee‑Power to make up‑‑Time for making up deficiency in court‑fee‑‑‑Can indeed be extended by trial Court as well as by appellate Court‑Discretion in such regard, however, to be exercised very carefully‑Order should neither be unduly harsh on plaintiff by giving him opportunity to make up deficiency nor harsh on defendant by easily taking away valuable right of limitation.‑Court‑fee‑Limitation.1984 C L C 1469
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AMIR AND AN07HER‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1988 S C M R 1210
REHMAT ALI and 4 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE‑‑Respondent
Court: High CourtP L D 1987 Lahore 272
MUBARIK ALI AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus GULZAR AHMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: 0. VII, R. 11‑Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913), S. 21‑Pre emption suit‑Deficiency in court‑fee‑Rejection of plaint‑Exact amount of deficiency not worked out by Trial Court at any tage of proceedings but Trial Court gave direction, in general terms, in regard to the payment of proper court‑fee by specified date‑Plaintiff did file statement of net profits and also made good deficiency in court fee before his suit was dismissed‑Held, plaint could not be rejected on the ground that plaintiff had not complied with direction given by Trial Court in general terms, in regard to the payment of proper court‑fee by specified date, after filing statement of net profits Plaintiff was entitled to at least one opportunity for making good the deficiency in court‑fee after same had been determined with exactitude, but since it was not so determined nor opportunity was afforded to plaintiff after determination thereof, plaintiff could not be non‑suited for non‑payment of proper court‑fee at the time of filing suit or before the date by which the plaintiff was directed to make up the deficiency in court‑fee after obtaining the statement of net profits‑When a suit is brought within time, it cannot be dismissed on the ground of limitation for the reason that proper court‑fee was not paid within period of limitation prescribed for filing suit. Court‑fee.1986 C L C 801
MUHAMMAD FAROOQ‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD ABDULLAH‑‑Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1981 Lahore 261
SOHARA‑Appellant Versus RASHID AHMAD AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: S. 149 read with O. VII, r. l l(c)‑‑Court‑fee‑Deficiency‑Order to make good‑Word "contumacy" and mala fides‑Connotation ‑‑ "Contumacy" involves obstinate resistance to authority of Court Question of contumacy cannot arise where deficiently stamped plaint filed and could be brought home to plaintiff in case of disobedience of orders of Court made after entertainment of plaint‑Court having to make up its mind at initial stage whether plaintiff be given time to deposit court‑fee‑Has to determine only question of mala fides and "mala fides" includes dishonesty as well as negligence of a greater degree.‑‑Words and phrases‑Court‑fee.