Exchange
Exchange legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Onus would lay heavily on defendant to prove that a valid exchange of properties had taken place between parties; that mutation had been attested with consent and at plaintiff's instance; and that a valid title had been passed on to parties vis-a-vis properties subject-matter of alleged exchange.
Factum of exchange was recorded initially in the Jamabandi, but the entry was scored off and substituted showing predecessor of plaintiff as tenant
Neither any order of Competent Authority was placed on record in support of said substitution of the entry nor there was any order to the effect that. mutation of exchange was cancelled
Effect
No doubt, was left, in circumstances, that two mutations of exchange were duly entered and attested and possession was transferred in favour of the parties.
Ss. 4 & 15-Pre-emption-Sale-Exchange-M transferring his land to H ostensibly in exchange for another land-Simultaneously with such transaction of exchange sale deed executed by H in respect of their land in favour of F-Both exchange deed and sale deed executed and presented for registration together-Price of land transferred by H to F paid by F on behalf of H to M-M on making offer of sale of his land also found to have been advised by H to enter into exchange to ward off future pre-emption-Transfer of land by M, held, a sale and not an exchange and transactions camouflaged as independent of each other to defeat plaintiff's right of pre-emption.-[Pre-emption].
S. 118-ExchangeOral exchange of land-Exchange not effected by registered instrument-Does not create any interest or valid title.
"Exchange", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15277
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Exchange"
2001 P T D 2679
STOCK EXCHANGE, AHMEDABAD Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Court: 248 I T R 2092006 C L D 988
LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE — Appellant Versus LAHORE APPELLATE BENCH S&EC — Respondent
Court: Lahore1986 C L C 222
AGHA BROTHERS Ltd.‑‑Applicant Versus HABIB BANK Ltd.‑‑Respondent
Court: Karachi1992 C L C 1213
Court: Corporate Law Authority
2000 M L D 1576
Agha FAQIR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and another‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi2000 C L C 769
MUHAMMAD BIBI and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through
Court: LahoreP L D 1983 Peshawar 13
MUHAMMAD AMIN — ‑Petitioner Versus GHULAM YASIN‑ — Respondent
Court: -‑‑ S. 12‑--Pre‑emption Suit‑Question whether transaction a sale or exchange‑Essentially a question of fact not open to interference in revisional jurisdiction of High Court‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115.‑Question of fact.P L D 1988 Lahore 419
Ch. ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑Petitioner Versus KARAM, ELLAHI and 4 others‑ ‑Respondents
Court:1999 P T D (Trib
N/A
Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal PakistanP L D 1995 Lahore 572
TARIQ MAJEED CHAUDHRY‑‑‑Petitioner Versus LAHORE STOCK EXCHANGE (GUARANTEE) LTD.
Court: ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2(1) & 9‑‑‑Securities and Exchange Ordinance (XVII of 1969); Ss.3 & 4‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199‑‑‑Power and jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib to deal with complaints of maladministration in relation to internal affairs of Stock Exchange‑‑‑Stock Exchange‑‑‑Expression "agency" as defined in S.2(1), Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983, whether applicable to "Stock Exchange"‑‑‑Vires of order of Wafaqi Mohtasib requiring Stock Exchange to resolve dispute between two contestants for membership of Stock Exchange‑‑‑Stock Exchange was admittedly a company established by private individuals and not by Federal Government which had been registered under laws relating to registration of companies‑‑‑Federal Government was not holding any shares muchless controlling shares in such company entitling it to exercise administrative control through its employees, officers or nominated or elected directors or members of management over the affairs and functions of Stock Exchange‑‑ Merely because provisions in Securities and Exchange Ordinance, 1969 had been made to supersede governing body of Stock Exchange as a matter of penalty in the event of contravention of any of the provisions of Ordinance, same would not make Stock Exchange as an institution controlled by Federal Government‑‑‑Main object of establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib was to undertake investigation as regards maladministration in departments of Federal Government by public functionaries, i.e. employees and officers and statutory corporation and other institutions established or controlled by Federal Government‑‑‑Stock Exchange was an institution which was not controlled by Federal Government in the sense as such expression had been used in definition of "Agency" as used in Establishment of the Office of Wafaqi Mohtasib (Ombudsman) Order, 1983‑‑‑Wafaqi Mohtasib thus, had no power to interfere in the internal affairs of private institutions‑‑‑Besides inherent defect in the jurisdiction of Wafaqi Mohtasib in the matter in question, petitioner was not heard before order in question was passed against him, therefore, same also suffered from violation of principle of natural justice ‑‑Order of Wafaqi Mohtasib suffering from lack of jurisdiction was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect.‑‑Natural justice, principle of.