Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Meaning and applicability meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Meaning and applicability

Meaning and applicability legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2021 CLD 578 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
"Allegans contraria non est audiendus"Meaning and applicability

Taking divergent stances and raising contradictory pleas offended principle of maxim "allegans contraria non est audiendus" and undermined foundations of defence sought to be raised by a litigant.

2016 SCMR 733 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 69 & 76A(1)Ground for declaring a person other than a returned candidate electedConcept of 'throw away votes'Meaning and applicability

When the Election Tribunal was considering deseating a returned candidate and declaring the runner up or any other candidate as elected, it should determine whether the votes cast in favour of the returned candidate had been thrown away

Concept of thrown away votes meant that voters intentionally cast votes in favour of a candidate who was known to the voters to be manifestly disqualified, resultantly the votes so cast may be treated to have been thrown away

Where the returned candidate was not disqualified to contest elections, the votes polled by him/her, which would be the majority of the votes, could not be disregarded (under the concept of throw away votes) nor could it be presumed that the runner up would have got the returned candidate's votes.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Meaning and applicability", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124955534

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Meaning and applicability"

PLD 1964
Letters Patent Appeal No. 27 of 1962, decided on 5th May 1964.

P L D 1964 (W

NAJMUDDIN AHMAD MULLA‑Appellant Versus THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER, KARACHI

Court: (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXV111 of 1958), S. 16(l)(b)‑Instructions by Chief Settlement Commissioner for transfer of houses and shops in possession of more than one person, para. 2 (2) (b)‑Instructions not of prohibitory or mandatory nature but only directory---‑Word "bungalow" ‑Meaning and application‑Settlement Manual, pp. 68 & 69.
MLD 2000
Civil Revision No. 1732 of 1995, decided on 26th January, 2000.

2000 M L D 1581

MUHAMMAD ASLAM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SENIOR CIVIL JUDGE, GUJRAT (MIAN NISAR HUSSAIN) and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PTD 1960
Privy Council Appeal No. 57 of 1946, decided on 18th December 1947, from the High Court of Australia.

1960 P T D 954

THE PRODUCERS CO‑OPERATIVE DISTRIBUTING SOCIETY, LID. — Appellants, Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION — Respondent

Court: Privy Council
PCRLJ 1995
1995-March-15

1995 P Cr

Raja SHAZAD KAYANI — Petitioner Versus SENIOR SUPERINTENDENT, POLICE, ABBOTTABAD and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
SCMR 1990
Civil Appeal No.24‑Q of 1986, decided on 27th September, 1989.

1990 S C M R 1246

QUDRATULAH‑‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF BALOCHISTAN and another‑‑Respondents

Court: High Court
MLD 2004
"Qasama"---"Qasama" was the third mode to be adopted in a criminal case under 'Sharia' when no direct or circumstantial evidence was available---Under Sharia when State was burdened with payment of Diyat amount in an un-traced case of murder, certain essential conditions were, to be fulfilled by the Trial Court before passing an order of such like nature---Such conditions were as to whether place where dead body was found was a thoroughfare and whether in such conditions the voice of deceased could not be heard/could be heard by residents of nearby area and whether place where dead body was found, had got some beneficiary value to local residents---Except the fact that alleged occurrence took place on a general thoroughfare, no other condition had been satisfied by Trial Court---Each and every case which was either untraced or in which legal heirs of deceased would not intentionally charge an assailant, could not be treated a case in which Diyat amount should be paid by the State---Occurrence in the present case had taken place in a broad-daylight in presence of so many people, injured witnesses had seen the occurrence with their own eyes, they could identify the culprits if brought before them, how the State could be directed in such a situation to pay Diyat amount---Decision of Trial Court being not in conformity with relevant provisions of law, same was set aside

2004 M L D 1944

THE STATE through Advocate-General N.-W.F.P. — Petitioner Versus KOTAY — Respondent

Court: Peshawar
PLC(CS) 2000
Writ Petition No. 1284 of 1996, decided on 15th June, 1999.

2000 P L C (C

SHAFIUL MULK Versus CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT

Court: Peshawar High Court
CLC 1999
Writ Petition No. 1284 of 1996, decided on 15th June, 1999.

1999 C L C 1892

SHAFIUL MULK‑‑ h:r0ioriflr' Versus CHAIRMAN, AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF

Court: Peshawar
PLD 1947
Privy Council Appeal No. 57 of 1946, decided on 18th December 1947, from the High Court of Australia.

P L D 1947 Privy Council 206

THE PRODUCERS CO-OPERATIVE DISTRIBUTING SOCIETY, LTD.-Appellant Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF TAXATION- Respondent

Court:
MLD 2008
2008-April-3

2008 M L D 1002

ROOH-ULLAH and 2 others — Appellants Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Peshawar

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library