Municipal Account Code 1930
Municipal Account Code 1930 legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Ch. V, rr. 13 & 32-A-Municipal Administration Ordinance (X of 1960), S. 33-Sale of Goods Act (III of 1930), Ss. 4, 18, 23, 24, 25 & 62-Oil Company having Regional Office at L bringing goods within municipal limits of F and re-exporting to Company's own premises outside municipal limits of F-Levy of octroi Nothing on record showing any inquiry having been made by municipal authorities at F to ascertain as to terms and conditions of sale transaction made at Regional Office in pursuance whereof re-export was done-Municipal authority at F initiating proceedings for recovery of octroi amount on basis of Goods supplied to "non company's premises"-"Contract of sale" and "actual sale "Distinction-Test for determining passing of ownership-Parties to agreement can exclude any of terms or conditions which law usually attaches to contract of sale and create for themselves any special rights and obligations that they please - Held, question of fact cannot be determined without reference to actual term of contract where
Arts. 185(3) & 280-Constitution of Pakistan (1972), Art. 281West Pakistan Private Colleges (Management and Control) Ordinance (XX of 1970), S. 8(1) - Gordon College, Rawalpindi Order, 1972 [M. L. A. Zone `C'] No. 234, para. 8 [as amended by Gordon College, Rawalpindi (Amendment) Order, 1972 [M.L.A. Zone `C'] No. 234, para. 3 - Leave to appeal granted to consider contentions (1) that order of suspension of College teacher bad been merely a repetition of earlier order which was illegal and as such same could not have beers revived (2) that Martial Law Order, 1972 [Zone `C'] Nos. 234 & 255 though given general protection by Art. 281, Constitution of Pakistan (1972) were deemed repealed by Art. 280, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) and as such even if they retained position of sub-constitutional legislation, their virus could be questioned in Courts of law, (3) that Martial Law Order, 1972 [Zone `C'] Nos. 234 & 255 were ultra vires of legal norm as they placed unqualified discretion in hands of Administrator of
Ground rent payable to Committee-Power to enhance-Rests in the Committee and not the Executive Officer or Lands Officer-S. 173 inapplicable,
"Municipal Account Code 1930", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15299
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Municipal Account Code 1930"
P L D 1958 (W
Hafiz GHULAM RASOOL and others‑Petitioners Versus MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, JHANG and another‑Respondents
Court:1984 S C M R 80
MUNICIPAL COMMITTEE, LYALLPUR-Appellant Versus BURMAH SHELL OIL STORAGE & DISTRIBUTION COMPANY LTD-Respondents
Court: High Court1975 S C M R 368
Appellant Versus KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION-Respondent
Court: High Court1971 P T D 55
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX, WEST BENGAL Versus NAWN ESTATES (PRIVATE) LTD.
Court: Calcutta (India)P L D 1969 Peshawar 77
KHITAB GUL‑Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
Court: Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), Ss. 145(1) & 537‑Non‑compliance with provision regarding making of preliminary order under S. 145(1) ‑ Vitiates proceedings ‑‑ Omission, an illegality, not curable under S. 537‑Mg. Po Lon v. Mg. Ba On and another (1925) Rang. 111 ; Kapoor Chand and another v. Suraj Prasad A I R 1933 All. 264 ; Municipal Committee, Kohat v. Mst. Piari A I R 1947 Pesh. 8 ; The State v. Muhammad Azam P L D 1960 Pesh. 47 ; Noor Nuhammad v. Rajah Ali P L D 1965 Dacca 410 and Arshad Mahmood v. Masood Khan P L D 1969 Lah. 74 ref..1983 C L C 865
LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER (B & R), HYDERABAD ‑Appellant Versus Seth ALLAH DI NO‑Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1959 (W
Mst. AMTULLBAI and others‑Appellants Versus M. S. M. BAKHTIYARI‑Respondent
Court:of the agreement had taken place at Rawalpindi, and as the plaintiffs had received the reply to their notice at Rawalpindi, th
MESSRS. S. M. QASIM & Co.‑Petitioner Versus MESSRS. Sh. AZIMUDDIN‑Respondent
Court: (c) Advocate‑Authorised to "act", without any "express" authority to refer case to arbitration‑Advocate's authority, held, included power to refer case to arbitration‑Arbitration Act (X of 1940), S. 21‑Din Muhammad and other v. Farooq Mirza P L D 1955 Sind 62 dissented from.1985 C L C 1259
SALEH SHAH-Appellant Versus S.I.T.E. and others-Respondents
Court: Karachi2022 C L C 668
JAVED AHMED MIR — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD AFZAL and others — Respondents
Court: Islamabad