Home Maxims & Terms Theory meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Theory

Theory legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2015 PLD 522 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
"Regulatory capture", theory ofDefinition and meaningRegulatory capture was defined as the capture of 'regulators' by the regulated

Regulatory capture was the process by which regulatory agencies eventually came to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating

Term regulatory capture referred to the subversion of regulatory agencies by the firms they regulated

Regulatory capture happened when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acted in ways that benefitted the industry it was supposed to be regulating, rather than the public

Public interest agencies that came to be controlled by the industry they were charged with regulating were known as captured agencies

Regulatory capture was an example of gamekeeper turned poacher; in other words, the interests the agency set out to protect were ignored in favour of the regulated industry's interests.

2015 CLD 983 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
"Regulatory capture", theory ofDefinition and meaningRegulatory capture was defined as the capture of 'regulators' by the regulated

Regulatory capture was the process by which regulatory agencies eventually came to be dominated by the very industries they were charged with regulating

Term regulatory capture referred to the subversion of regulatory agencies by the firms they regulated

Regulatory capture happened when a regulatory agency, formed to act in the public's interest, eventually acted in ways that benefitted the industry it was supposed to be regulating, rather than the public

Public interest agencies that came to be controlled by the industry they were charged with regulating were known as captured agencies

Regulatory capture was an example of gamekeeper turned poacher; in other words, the interests the agency set out to protect were ignored in favour of the regulated industry's interests.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Theory", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124954287

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Theory"

CLC 2005
2005-June-8

2005 C L C 1632

RIZWAN RABBANI — Petitioner Versus UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES — Respondent

Court: Lahore
MLD 2007
N/A

2007 M L D 447

JOHRA SAEED and another — Petitioners Versus UNIVERSITY OF HEALTH SCIENCES through Vice-Chancellor and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 2001
2000-October-23

2001 M L D 573

SHAHID BASHIR — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB BOARD OF TECHNICAL

Court: Lahore
MLD 1987
Writ Petitions Nos. 2389 and 2390 of 1986, decided on 21st December, 1986.

1987 M L D 6

FAROOQ AHMAD and another — Petitioners Versus PUNJAB UNIVERSITY — Respondent

Court: Lahore
MLD 1996
Writ Petition No.744 of 1995, decided on 9th October 1995.

1996 M L D 1136

ATTIQ‑UR‑REHMAN‑‑Petitioner Versus V.C. UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
PTD 1998
Civil Appeals Nos.2361 and 2362 of 1980, decided on 18th February, 1997.

1998 P T D 2678

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus K.T. DOCTOR

Court: 1230 I T R 744
PTD 2000
Income Tax application No.2 of 1995, decided on 1st April, 1997.

2000 P T D 2076

SWAROOP CHAND KOJURAM Versus IISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX

Court: 235 I T R 732
PLD 2003
Constitutional Petition No.D‑1977 of 1995, decided on 23rd July, 2003.

P L D 2003 Karachi 667

COLLEGE OF PHYSICIANS AND SURGEONS PAKISTAN‑‑‑Petitioners Versus WAFAQI MOHTASIB and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
PLD 1977
Criminal Special Appeal No. 5 of 1977, decided on 4th August 1977.

P L D 1977 Karachi 1049

NICK KAJTAZI‑Applicant‑Accused Versus THE STATE‑Opponent

Court: ‑‑ S. 156(1), cl. (3)‑Attempt to smuggle charas‑Sentence‑Extent of Accused, a foreigner, pleading guilty to charge‑Such plea a mitigating circumstance‑Sentence of six months' R. I. and fine of Rs. 30,000 reduced to three months' simple imprisonment and fine of Rs. 30,000. Sentence.
YLR 2006
Writ Petition No.912 of 2006, decided on 16th March, 2006.

2006 Y L R 2393

RASIKH AJMAL — Petitioner Versus UNIVERSTIY OF HEALTH SCIENCES, LAHORE through Vice-Chancellor

Court: Lahore