Home Maxims & Terms An act of court shall prejudice no man meaning in Urdu
Maxim Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

An act of court shall prejudice no man

An act of court shall prejudice no man legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1984 CLC 3253 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Maxim

"An act of Court shall prejudice no man"-Sind Rented Premises Ordinance (XVII of 1979), S. 16 (2)-Applicability of maxim-Default in compliance of tentative order-Tenant having two options before him-Either to deposit arrears of rent in cash or getting previously deposited arrears in another Court transferred to Rent Controller concerned-Tenant moving leisurely in matter and showing no anxiety-Maxim that an act of Court shall prejudice no man, held, had no application.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "An act of court shall prejudice no man", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/13346

Precedents & Case Laws citing "An act of court shall prejudice no man"

PLD 1984
First Appeal from Original Order No. 67 of 1983, decided on 10th March, 1984.

P L D 1984 Quetta 99

Mst. RABIA BEGUM‑Appellant Versus Mian KHAN TALWALA‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑ Ss. .3 & IS‑Ejectment application‑Examination of witnesses Record showing that case adjourned by Rent Controller on some occasions when witnesses of landlady present and Rent Controller making observation that landlady failed to produce witnesses ‑Obser vation of Rent Controller, held, unjustified‑Held further, it was duty of Rent Controller to see record himself in order to ascertain if his orders on various applications made by landlady for summoning witnesses through Court have been complied with‑Presiding Officer of a Court of law entrusted with settlement of disputes is under obligation to do justice and he is not absolved of that obligation by inadvertent admission of counsel even regarding a matter which is not borne on record‑Such duty if kept in view, unnecessary litigation resulting in unnecessary loss of time and money of parties might be avoided. Principle of law that an act of Court shall prejudice no man, held further, is founded upon justice and good sense and affords a certain guide for administration of law.‑Witness‑Maxim.
CLC 1984
First Rent Appeal No. 1181 of 1982, decided on 24th April, 1984.

1984 C L C 3253

Dit. BURJOR M. AN KLESARIA ‑Appellant Versus Mrs. ZENOBI A AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
CLC 1983
Second Appeal from Original Order No. 579 of 1977, decided on 11th July, 1978.

1983 C L C 2853 (2)

INSHALLAH BEGUM‑Appellant Versus SHAMIM AKHTAR‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
CLC 1994
Civil Revision No. 1016‑D of 1993. decided on 2nd November, 199:

1994 C L C 1018

MUHAMMAD BOOTA and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Sh. ABDUL WAHID‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
SCMR 2001
Civil Appeal No. 1126 of 1997, decided on 30th November, 2000.

2001 SCMR 533

LADHA KHAN and others — Appellants Versus Mst. BHIRANWAN — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PTD 2019
Appeal No. AT-55 of 2018, decided on 5th September, 2018.

2019 P T D (Trib

Messrs FALCON (PVT.) LTD. Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, SRB, KARACHI

Court: Inland Revenue Appellate Tribunal
PLD 1989
Civil Appeals Nos.. ill and 112 of 1979, decided on 3rd January, 1989.

P L D 1989 Supreme Court 146

RASHAD EHSAN and others‑‑ Appellants Versus BASHIR AHMAD and another‑‑Respondents

Court:
CLC 2020
2019-June-28

2020 C L C 1716

Dr. MUHAMMAD JAMAL and another — Petitioners Versus SULTAN MUHAMMAD — Respondent

Court: Balochistan
YLR 2017
Cr. Appeal No.24-A of 2016, decided on 1st September, 2016.

2017 Y L R 971

IMTIAZ — Appellant Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Peshawar (Abbottabad Bench)
CLC 1984
First Rent Appeals Nos.784 and 824 of 1982, decided on 8th April,1984.

1984 C L C 2769

ZOHRA BEGUM‑‑Appellant Versus PAKISTAN BURMAH‑SHELL Ltd.‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi