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

Ordinary

Ordinary legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1997 MLD 3244 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases

"Ordinary Meanings.

1979 PLD 188 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

"Ordinary"-Meaning.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Ordinary", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2091

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Ordinary"

CLD 2016
2015-May-12

2016 C L D 828

C.O. No. 44 of 2014

Court: Lahore
PCRLJN 2018
2017-March-7

2018 P Cr

NADEEM SHAH and another — Petitioners Versus The STATE — Respondent

Court: Gilgit-Baltistan Chief Court
PLD 1980
Civil Revision No. 424 of 1978, decided on 8th April 1979.

P L D 1980 Lahore 61

Sh. MUHAMMAD RASHID-Petitioner Versus Mst. ZARNIGAR QAISER SHEIKH-Respondent

Court: -- S. 9-Guardianship--"Ordinary residence" -"Dual residence" Concept of dual nationality, dual citizenship, or dual domicile May at most be extended to dual residence-Residence in one country, in case of dual residence, may be notional and real or ordinary in case of other country-Ordinary residence-Means residence in fact and not merely in law-Even animus residendi may not be necessary-Person, held, cannot be treated simultaneously to be "ordinary resident" of both countries within meaning of such expression is S. 9, Guardians and Wards Act, 1890.-Words and phrases.
PLD 1961
L. P. A. No. 35 of 1960, decided on 24th April 1961.

P L D 1961 (W

FIRDOUS TRADING CORPORATION AND OTHERS (Defendants) Appellant: Versus JAPAN COTTON & GENERAL TRADING Co. LTD. (Plaintiffs) Respondents

Court:
PLC 1981
Appeal No. KAR‑140 of 1980, decided on 6th April 1980.

1981 P L C 19

MESSRS KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD. Versus EMPLOYEES' UNION

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sind
CLD 2009
2007-September-24

2009 C L D 880

J.M. No.22 of 2007

Court: Karachi
CLD 2017
2016-December-22

2017 C L D 1028

FAYSAL BANK LIMITED through VP/Regional Manager SAM (N) — Plaintiff/Decree Holder Versus KNIT KNOT (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive and 4 others — Defendants/Judgment Debtors

Court: Lahore
PLD 1972
Civil Revision No. 263 of 1966, decided on 14th October 1971.

P L D 1972 Lahore 311

MESSRS FARID SONS LTD., KARACHI — Petitioner Versus MESSRS GHULAM FARID MOHAMMAD SAEED AND 13 OTHERS ‑Respondents

Court:
PTD 1972
Civil Revision No. 263 of 1966, decided on 14th October 1971.

1972 P T D 453

MESSRS FARID SONS LTD., KARACHI‑ Petitioner Versus MESSRS GHULAM FARID MOHAMMAD SAEED AND 13 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Lahore (Pakistan)
PLD 1966
Writ Petition No. 230 of 1964, decided on 2nd June 1965.

P L D 1966 (W

MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑-Petitioners Versus DIVISIONAL COMMISSIONER, HYDERABAD

Court: (a) West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Act (VII of 1963)----S.3 as amended‑Provision to be strictly construed Opinion of Commissioner that "it is expedient that case be referred to Jirga "‑Not same thing as saying that "it is inexpedient in interest of justice that case be tried by ordinary Courts " Magistrate passing order under S. 3 holding "it is expedient in interest of justice that case be referred for decision of tribunal"‑Order, not in accordance with provisions of S. 3 and so, held, illegal ‑Commissioner, despite omission of words "for reasons to be recorded in writing" from S. 3(1) must give reasons in writing whether in given case it be "inexpedient in interest of justice that case be tried by ordinary Courts"‑West Pakistan Criminal Law (Amendment) Ordinance (XLIV of 1963), S. 3.