Binding nature of decision
Binding nature of decision legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Contention of petitioner was that principles laid down by Supreme Court were not applicable because it would have prospective effect and not retrospective effect and that judgment was delivered by Supreme Court in the year 2015 but present case was decreed by Trial Court on 2006, therefore, petitioners could not be non-suited
Validity
Such contention had no substance.
"Binding nature of decision", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124963708
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Binding nature of decision"
1980 P T D (Trib
N/A
Court: Income‑tax Appellate Tribunal1988 C L C 1877
SIDDIQUE AHMED KHAN‑‑Petitioner Versus THE SECRETARY, HOUSING, TOWN PLANNING,
Court: KarachiP L D 1982 Supreme Court 146
Present : Anwarul Haq, C. J. and Muhammad Afzal Zullah, J Versus ABDUL GHAFOOR KHAN AND OTHERS Respondents
Court: S. 11 read with Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199‑Writ Res judicata‑Contentions raised by appellants in Letters Patent Appeal not upheld by High Court‑Plea that by passage of time decree became unexecutable although could be raised by appellants during coup a of hearing of Letters Patent Appeal but they failed to do so Appellants, held, cannot raise a new action on basis of such plea and fact of decision given in Letters Patent Appeal having related to a writ matter cannot constitute a valid ground for not applying general principles of res judicata to suit brought by appellants with a view to avoiding effect of decree which stood test of scrutiny by High Court, firstly on civil side and then on writ side.‑Res judicata.P L D 1947 Privy Council 32
EMPEROR Versus SADASHIV NARAYAN BHALERAO — Respondent
Court:1969 P T D 423
A. S. S. R. GURUSWAMI CHETTIAR Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, MADRAS
Court: Madras (India)P L D 1968 Supreme Court 101
MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑Appellant Versus (1) THE CHIEF SETTLEMENT AND REHABILITATION COMMISSIONER, PAKISTAN, LAHORE AND
Court: (b) Displaced Persons (Compensation and Rehabilitation) Act (XXVIII of 1958), S. 2(4) read with S. 31(3) as amended by Displaced Persons Laws Amendment Ordinance (XVIII of 1965), S. 3 & Sch.‑Effect‑Divisibility or otherwise of house Cannot be challenged under Art. 98, Constitution of Pakistan (1962).P L D 1987 Peshawar 68
GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN‑Appellant Versus SIKANDAR KHAN AND OTHERS ‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑ Ss. 4 & 18‑Acquisition of land‑Material date for purpose of compensation‑Assessment of compensation how made‑In acquisi tion cases, material date 'for purpose of compensation to be paid to landowners for the acquired land, held, would be the date of notifi cation under S. 4‑For determination of such compensation one year's average of land sold in the vicinity before date of notification is to be taken into consideration as criterion for assessing price of acquired land.‑Compensation.1982S75
BEGUM DARAB SULTANA ETc.‑Appellants Versus CUSTODIAN ETc.‑Respondents
Court: High Court1997 P L C (C
Ch. MUHAMMAD HUSSAN Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND KASHMIR through Chief Secretary, Muzaffarabad and 2 others
Court: Supreme Court (Azad J&K)2016 P T D (Trib
Messrs SHELL (PAKISTAN) LTD., KARACHI Versus C.I.R. ZONE IV, LTU, KARACHI
Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal