High Court Judge
High Court Judge legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Advocate appointed permanent Judge of High Court-Bar against legal practise after retirement-Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Art. 166 (3) read with High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order (XIX of 1955), Art. 6-Permanent Judge of High Court-Not entitled to practise, after retirement or removal, in such High Court or any Court or authority within its jurisdiction Bar of Art. 166 (3) in essence same as undertaking obtained from permanent Judges before promulgation of Constitution-Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (1 of 1958), Art. 6-High Court Judges to continue in office "on same terms and conditions" as before Constitution of Pakistan (1956), Third Sched., para. 7-Advocates' right to practise-Provision of general nature, subject to all "special" legal provisions on same subject, e.g. Art. 166 (3).
Suspended-No rules in existence re furnishing of charge relinquishment report with bill for monthly allowance during period of suspension-Rules governing Secretary to Government of Province may be resorted to under High Court Judges Order, 1937, para. 26-Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I, r. 6.2 whether applicable.
"High Court Judge", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/13324
Precedents & Case Laws citing "High Court Judge"
P L D 1957 (W
HASSANALLY KHAN G. AGHA-Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN-Respondent
Court:P L D 1958 Supreme Court (Pak
HASSANALLY KHAN G. AGHA‑ — Appellant Versus PROVINCE OF WEST PAKISTAN‑ — Respondent
Court:1979 S C M R 384
Sheikh KHURSHID AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL AZIZ (THROUGH LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES). — ‑Respondent
Court: High Court1989 C L C 1369
M.D. TAHIR‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT and 12 others‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2023 C L C 1201
MAZHAR RASOOL HASHMI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB and others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1961 Supreme Court 431
Present: A. R. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle Akbar, B. Z. Kaikaus and Hamoodur Rahman, JJ Versus THE JUDGES OF THE HIGH COURT OF WEST PAKISTAN ‑Respondents
Court: High Court1985 S C M R 540
BASHIR AHMAD‑‑Petitioner Versus RENT CONTROLLER and others‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court1988 S C M R 45
ALI SHER — Petitioner Versus Mst. BILQEES BEGUM — Respondent
Court: High Court1987 S C M R 1301
Mst. NAZIR BEGUM and others‑‑Appellants Versus KHAN MUQARRAB KHAN and others Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak
Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: In the case in question, the Accountant-General's office had maintained that. a relinquishment report was necessary under rule 6.2, Punjab Financial Rules, Vol. I, but the High Court had held that neither rule 6.2 nor para. 67, Audit Manual made it necessary for a report to be "signed". So the matter remained inconclusive. It was disposed of by the Supreme Court as set out above.