Home Maxims & Terms Satisfaction meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Satisfaction

Satisfaction legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1996 CLC 293 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases Terms "satisfaction" and "opinion"

Comparison.

1994 CLC 2041 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent
"Satisfaction"Connotation"Satisfaction" means the existence of a state of mental persuasion much higher than mere opinion

Word "satisfaction" when used in the context of judicial proceedings has to be arrived at with the prescribed statutory provisions

To be satisfied means to be honestly covinced.

1988 PTD 723 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
'Consider''Satisfaction'

Connotation of.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Satisfaction", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/1547

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Satisfaction"

CLC 1993
C.O. No. 60 of 1992, decided on 15th December, 1992.

1993 C L C 1398

M/s. HILAL TANNERIES LIMITED‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN,

Court: Lahore
PTD 2000
Income-tax References Nos. 150 of 1995 and 21 to 26 and 115 of 1996, decided on 8th July, 1998.

2000 P T D 2519

COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus Smt. P. M. CELINE

Court: 236 I T R 988
PLD 1970
Writ Petition No. 25 of 1967, decided on 8th August 1968.

P L D 1970 Dacca 422

FARID AHMED‑-Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL DEPUTY COMMISSIONER (GENL.), DACCA AND 2 OTHERS‑-Respondents

Court:
CLC 1992
First Rent Appeal No.641 of 1989, decided on 4th February, 1992.

1992 C L C 1211

IBRAHIM ‑‑‑ Appellant Versus NOOR MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
PTD 1999
C. W. P. No.7371 of 1998, decided on 20th January, 1999.

1999 P T D 3308

JOGINDER SINGH SODHI Versus HUTESH DOGRA and others

Court: 236 I T R 817
PLD 1994
Civil Appeal No.111 of 1992, decided on 28th October, 1993.

P L D 1994 Azad J&K 8

ABDUL GHANI‑‑‑Appellant Versus RASIB KHAN and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: ---O. XXI, R. 2‑‑‑"Decree" as used in O. XXI, R. 2, Civil Procedure Code, 1908‑‑‑Connotation‑‑‑"Decree" in O.XXI, R.2, C.P.C. refers to all kinds of decrees and not only to money decrees‑‑Decree of any kind" used in R.2 of O.XXI, C.P.C. would be construed in comprehensive manner so as to include all decrees, not expressly provided anywhere else in Civil Procedure Code, 1908---Words and phrases.
PLD 1978
Writ Petition No. 1393 of 1977, decided on 3rd August 1977.

P L D 1978 Lahore 214

MUHAMMAD ASHRAF-Petitioner Versus PROVINCIAL GOVERNTAENT OF PUNJAB AND 3 others — Respondents

Court: -- S. 3(1)(2) read with S. 26-Reference to Provincial Government-Satisfaction- Delegates District Magistrate (delegated power under S. 26) not required to refer matter to Provincial Government with regard to prejudicial activity of a person before passing detention order against such person-Question of satisfaction-Cannot be considered strictly separate from power to arrest a person-Satisfaction of District Magistrate-Condition precedent to making order for detention-District Magistrate, held, fully empowered to make arrest matter of satisfaction exclusively within his jurisdiction, and no legal obligation to refer matter for satisfaction of Government -Liaqat Ali v. Government of Sind P L D 1973 Kar. 78 dissented from.-Preventive detention -Delegation of authority.
SCMR 2011
Civil Petitions Nos. 1739-L and 1745-L of 2006, decided on 15th November, 2006.

2011 SCMR 318

Mst. NAJMA BEGUM and others — Petitioners Versus REHMAT ALI (decd) through L.Rs. and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1974
Criminal Reference No. 29 of 1972, decided on 11th October 1973.

P L D 1974 Quetta 21

MUHAMMAD ZARIF KHAN-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN-Respondent

Court: ---S. 145 (I)-Expression "he shall make an order in writing, stating the grounds of his being so satisfied"-Satisfaction of Magistrate about apprehension of peace-Condition precedent for assuming jurisdiction-Such satisfaction cannot be proved by subsequent event nor can be based on something not on record---Magistrate failing to record his satisfaction under S. 145 (1)---Not easy, in such circumstances, for superior Court to discover whether essential condition of his being satisfied that apprehension of breach existed had been fulfilled-Save in some very unusual and exceptional circumstances, Magistrate's satisfaction under S. 145 (I) cannot be proved in absence of express statement in that respect in his order-Proceed ings under S. 145 are of criminal nature and accused never estopped from pleading bar of jurisdiction in criminal cases-Mere fact that a person had joined proceeding under S. 145 and participated in it-----No bar to his pleading bar of jurisdiction before superior Court---Gujarkhan---Rawalpindi Muslim Transport Co v. Asghar Ali P L D 1966 Lah. 435 dissented from.
MLD 1999
1998-December-4

1999 M L D 2924

Jam MUNIR AHMAD — Petitioner Versus INCHARGE, CIVIL PRISON, SADIQABAD, DISTRICT RAHIMYAR KHAN and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore