Home Maxims & Terms De Facto Government meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

De Facto Government

De Facto Government legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1988 PTD 277 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
RecognitionDoctrine of retroactivityEffect

True effect of the doctrine of retroactivity is that it applies to validate only those acts done by the newly recognized de jure Government at a time when it was the de facto Government and which were done within its own jurisdiction and within the sphere of its own sovereignty.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "De Facto Government", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21173

Precedents & Case Laws citing "De Facto Government"

PTD 1988
I.T.Rs. Nos. 18, 19, 23 and 97 of 1979 6 of 1980, 15 and 24 of 1981, 45, 46 and 68 of 1982 and 11 and 22 of 1983, decided on 4th November, 1987.

1988 P T D 277

Messrs UNITED LINER AGENCIES OF PAKISTAN LTD., KARACHI Versus THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX, CENTRAL ZONE, KARACHI

Court: Karachi High Court
PLD 1977
10th November 1977

P L D 1977 S C 657

BEGUM NUSRAT BHUTTO-petitioner Versus CHIEF OF ARMY STAFF AND FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN-Respondents .

Court: High Court
PLD 2005
2005-March-10

P L D 2005 Karachi 498

ABDUL KARIM BROHI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: High Court
PLC 1997
Constitutional Petition No. 254 of 1996, decided on 29th October, 1996.

1997 PLC 81

PAKISTAN WAPDA HYDRO ELECTRIC CENTRAL LABOUR UNION through its General Secretary, Lahore Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Labour, Manpower and Overseas Pakistanis (Labour Wing), Islamabad and 10 others

Court: Quetta high Court
CLC 1981
Writ Petition No. 1205 of 1979, decided on 17th March, 1979.

1981 C L C 716

Malik GHULAM JILANI‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 6 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1984
Constitutional Petition Nos. D‑24 of 1983, decided on 8th May, 1984.

P L D 1984 Karachi 462

ABDUL SALAM QURESHI AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT OF BANKING FOR SIND

Court: ‑‑ S. 5‑General Clauses Act (X of 1891), S. 3(15)‑District Judge Definition‑Qualification for appointment as Judge Special Banking Court‑Word "is" used in S. 5, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, to be construed liberally and should be read as "has been" as having the meaning in the past tense‑Person to be appointed as Judge Special Banking Court, Held, not necessarily should have been Judge of Principal civil Court of original jurisdiction on date of his appointment‑Person once actually acted as District Judge but con tinued to remain in that cadre was, therefore, qualified to constitute special Court‑Definition of District Judge in General Clauses Act, 1897, lost its significance in circumstances‑Orders, judgments and decrees were saved by de facto doctrine.‑Words and phrases‑Interpre tation of statutes.
PLD 1998
N/A

P L D 1998 Lahore 239

MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: High Court
PLD 1950
Civil Revision, decided on 26th January 1948, from the order of the Additional District Judge, Peshawar, dated 28th March 1947.

P

ZIARAT GUL‑Petitioner Versus MIAN KHAN‑Respondent

Court:
CLD 2002
First Appeal No.38 of 1999, decided on 15th September, 2001.

2002 C L D 46

ABDUL BASIT ZAHID and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus MODARABA AL‑TIJARAH and another‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
PLD 1973
Civil Appeal No. 121 of 1972, decided on 27th February 1973.

P L D 1973 Supreme Court 160

Khan MUHAMMAD YUSUF KHAN KHATTAK‑Appellant Versus S. M. AYUB AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: (c) Legal Framework Order (No. 2 of 1970), Art. 9(2)(h)-- Public limited company having subsisting contract with Government for supply of goods‑Person, a Director to such company, tendering his resignation before filing his nomination papers and before scrutiny of same‑Whether such person could still be held disqualified to be elected to National Assembly on ground that despite resignation he had continued to be de facto Director for sometime after his resignation and after he had filed his nomination pipers‑ Held (per majority) no disqualification attached to him after his resignation even if he continued to be a de facto Director of such Company Hamoodur Rahman, C. J. contra.