Jurisdiction by consent
Jurisdiction by consent legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
By staying the proceedings, Court retained its jurisdiction as well as has respected the agreement between parties as being permissible to choose a forum of their convenience to settle the dispute
By dismissing the suit as not maintainable, Court had ousted itself from lawful jurisdiction it had
Dealership agreements in question were signed outside Pakistan and there was always a likelihood that a part of cause of action could accrued within territorial jurisdiction of Pakistan
Division Bench of High Court modified order passed by Single Judge of High Court as suit could not be dismissed and it was more appropriate to keep it pending by staying proceedings till such time issue was resolved by parties from the forum chosen by them for settlement of dispute in agreement or otherwise
Intra-court appeal was allowed accordingly.
"Jurisdiction by consent", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124963215
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Jurisdiction by consent"
2001 C L C 1741
ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Messrs CONFORCE LIMITED and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2001 Y L R 1917
SHAFI MUHAMMAD MAGSI — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Karachi1999 C L C 1883
SHAH NAWAZ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus UMAR DARAZ and 9 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Peshawar1992 S C M R 1174
Messrs KADIR MOTORS (REGD). RAWALPINDI — Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL MOTORS LTD., KARACHI
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2002 C L C 492
Messrs UMAR KHAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus CHIEF ENGINEER, ROADS AND BUILDINGS, GOVERNMENT OF
Court: Karachi1998 M L D 431
Mian YAMIN UL HAQUE — Petitioner Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, ABBOTTABAD through Chairman,
Court: Peshawar1983 P T D 298
SWAP AN YASH Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Court: Delhi High Court (India)2017 C L C 1697
MUHAMMAD IRFAN GHAZI — Appellant Versus IZO (SPA) and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh1994 C L C 1530
Chaudhry HAQ NAWAZ CHOHAN‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Chaudhry TARIQ AZAM and 43 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1964 Supreme Court 829
GHULAM MOHI-UD-DIN-Appellant Versus (1) CHIEF SETTLEMENT COMMISSIONER (PAKISTAN), LAHORE
Court: (a) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 21 (1) proviso (c)-Proviso in nature of exception to opening words of' section-Excludes jurisdiction of review where appeal or revision has already been preferred-Knowledge of Settlement Authority of pendency of appeal or revision not necessary-Such knowledge irrelevant-Mere pendency of appeal or revision creates bar to jurisdiction-Order of Settlement Authority in contravention of proviso a nullity-Certiorari, however, will not issue "as a matter of course" to quash such order-Failure to have raised objection as to jurisdiction before Settlement Authority concerned at earliest opportunity disentitles party to relief by certiorari-Such relief discretionary-Refusal of certiorari not based on any principle of waiver or acquiescence in jurisdiction on behalf of such party-Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958), Art. 2 (4).