Law non cogit ad impossibilia
Law non cogit ad impossibilia legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Individual or an institution representing individuals including a Government cannot be required or expected to do anything which is factually not possible.
Parameters within which maxim operates recorded.
Law non cogit ad impossibilia (law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform).
"Law non cogit ad impossibilia", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/15740
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Law non cogit ad impossibilia"
1989 P L C 252
DIRECTOR OPERATION, KARACHI TRANSPORT CORPORATION Versus ABDUL QAYYUM and 3 others
Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal SindP L D 2004 Supreme Court 690
SAFEER TRAVELS (PVT.) LTD., through Chief Executive Safeerul Islam — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD KHALID SHAFI through Legal Heirs — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1993 Lahore 673
Miss SOBIA HADI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE PRINCIPAL, K.E. MEDICAL COLLEGE CHAIRMAN,
Court: .... Prospectus for Admission in Punjab Medical Colleges for the year 1992, R.12(f) ‑‑‑ Admission in first year class of M.B.B.S. ‑‑‑Last date for submission of Admission Forms was 25‑10‑1992 ‑‑‑ Petitioners' result of F.Sc., having been declared on 31‑10‑1992, they applied after the last date for submission of Forms had expired ‑‑‑ Petitioners, thus, could not get admission and their forms were not entertained‑Validity ‑‑‑ Right of candidate for admission and his/her merit has to be determined on the date when final selection was to be made‑‑ Final selection of candidates having We . n made and finalized on 3‑11‑1992, i.e. after 31‑10‑1992 (when petitioners' result was declared), petitioners could not be denied admission on the ground that result card was not produced on or before 25‑10‑1992 ‑‑‑ Publication of result and issuance of result card was not within the control of petitioners but within the domain of Educational Authorities ‑‑‑ Petitioners were, thus, entitled to the benefit of maxim "Lex non cogit ad impossibilia" law does not compel a man to do that which he cannot possibly perform ‑‑‑ Plea of respondents treating petitioners as ineligible for admission on the basis of R. 12(f) of the Prospectus for Admission in Medical Colleges thus, could not prevail ‑‑‑ Petitioners had obtained marks higher than the merit list and consequently were entitled to admission in one of the Medical Colleges ... Respondents were directed to admit petitioners without disturbing any other candidates already' permitted admission.‑‑Maxim.1990 P T D 691
MUHAMMAD SARWAR KHAN Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME‑TAX
Court: Lahore High Court2017 C L C Note 155
Mst. AMTUL FATIMA and 3 others — Plaintiffs Versus Syed TAHIR ALI JAFRI and 3 others — Defendants
Court: Sindh1981 P T D (Trib
N/A
Court: Income‑tax Appellate TribunalP L D 1954 Lahore 172
MUHAMMAD BAQIR‑Petitioner Versus THE GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB — Respondent
Court:P L D 1985 Supreme Court 28 Present
GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB-Appellants Versus DR. IJAZ HASAN QURESHI-Respondents
Court:2014 Y L R 884
Messrs INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MANAGEMENT through Sole Proprietor — Petitioner Versus S. AZIZ AHMED through legal Representatives and 5 others — Respondents
Court: Sindh1997 P T D 576
LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF INDIA Versus COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX
Court: 219 I T R 410