Commencement of Act
Commencement of Act legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Definition not found in search database.
"Commencement of Act", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/13941
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Commencement of Act"
1981 C L C 11
FEROZE‑Appellant Versus LAL AND 3 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1996 M L D 235
FAQIR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus Mst. AMIR JAN and 4 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar1977 P L C [C
N/A
Court: 1977 P L C C. S. T. 1401993 C L C 295
BARADAR ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus Haji MUHAMMAD RAFIQ‑‑‑Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1968 Lahore 897
Mst. MAQSOODA BEGUM‑Appellant Versus Maulvi ABDUL HAQ AND OTHER — Respondents
Court: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)----S. 7‑Pre‑emption, right of‑Recognised only where custom existed before commencement of Act‑Right not extended to towns or outgrowths or suburbs of town, coming into existence after passing of Act notwithstanding such existence of custom in such areas‑Custom existing in Pakpattan town not extended to its new extension‑Umar Bakhsh v. Abdul Karim and others 70 P R 1898 ; Muhammad Din v. Shah Din and another 90 P R 1907 ; Imperial Oil, Soap and General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi v. M. Misbah‑ud‑Din and others I L R 2 Lah. 83 ; Vaishno Das v. Hem Raj and others A I R 1921 Lah. 279 ; Lekh Raj and Ramji Das v. Inder Mal and Sain I L R 4 Lah. 176 ; Lai Chard v. Kartar Singh and another A I R 1947 Lah. 265 and Ram Lal v. Municipal Committee, Bhera and another A I R 1947 Lah. 386 rel. and Miran Bakhsh v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another A I R 1937 Lab. 167 not fol..P L D 1987 Lahore 205
MUHAMMAD DIN‑Petitioner Versus Sh. FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑ S. 7 ‑ Existence of custom of pre‑emption ‑ Proof ‑ Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1905 superseded by Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 Existence of custom of pre‑emption at the time of enforcement of Act I of 1913, held, would require a plaintiff to prove existence of such custom from the year 1905, without which he could not succeed because even in the Pre‑emption Act of 1905, requirement for proof of custom was the same‑Custom which was not in existence during the currency of Act of 1905, could not conceivably be held to have existed at the time of commencement of Act I of 1913.‑Custom.1990 C L C 1609
H. GRARIBULLAH ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: PeshawarP L D 1962 Dacca 548
DELBAR alias DALU SARDAR‑Appellant Versus SARADA SUNDARI DEBYA‑Respondent
Court:1991 C L C 217
NOORAHMAD ‑‑‑ Petitioner Versus FAZAL AHMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Board of Revenue PunjabP L D 1987 Lahore 553
Mst. SALMA BIBI‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. JAN and another‑‑Respondent
Court: