Home Maxims & Terms Questions Involved meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Questions Involved

Questions Involved legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1999 YLR 469 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases"Questions involved"

Connotation.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Questions Involved", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21440

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Questions Involved"

CLC 1992
Suit No.408 of 1990, and Civil Miscellaneous Application No.1426 of 1991, decided on 22nd December, 1991.

1992 C L C 700

ALTAF PAREKH‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus DELMENTS CONSTRUCTION COMPANY‑‑‑Defendant

Court: Karachi
CLC 1991
Civil Revision No.793 of 1990, decided on 18th September, 1990.

1991 C L C 302

Director‑General‑‑‑Petitioner Versus Mst. RUBI NASREEN‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Lahore
PTD 2007
C.P. L. A. No. 693-K of 2004, decided on 20th October, 2005.

2007 P T D 2345

PROVINCE OF SINDH and others Versus Messrs CRESCENT BOARD LIMITED, KARACHI

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 1990
Civil Petitions Nos. 490‑R and 511‑R of 1989, decided on 13th January, 1990.

1990 S C M R 952

TILLA GUL and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus DEPUTY COLLECTOR OF CENTRAL EXCISE & LAND CUSTOMS,

Court: ‑‑‑‑S.220 as repealed by Customs Act (IV of 1969)‑‑‑Tribal Areas (Application of Acts) Regulation, 1965‑‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)‑‑‑Leave to appeal‑‑‑Question involved was whether Act VIII of 1878 was applicable to Khyber Agency and Torkham Land Customs Station despite its repeal‑‑‑High Court had found that Custom officers in Tribal areas, notwithstanding repeal of Act, would continue to exercise power conferred upon them under said Act in pursuance of Regulation 1965‑‑‑View taken by High Court had been contended on ground that Regulation was of no avail after repeal of Act, 1878‑‑‑Question involved in case being one of law and of considerable general importance, leave to appeal was granted.
PLD 1997
Civil Miscellaneous Application No.4459 in Suit No.844 c 1997, decided on 13th August, 1997.

P L D 1997 Karachi 659

Mst. SHAHEEN .Plaintif Versus KARACHI BUILDING CONTROL AUTHORITY ‑Defendant

Court:
CLC 1979
Civil Revision No. 297 of 1970, decided on 18th September 1972.

1979CLC891

SANAULLAH KHAN-Petitioner Versus LAHORE MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, LAHORE

Court: Lahore
PLD 1991
Civil Revision No.233 and Civil Misccllaraeous Application No.985 of 1990. decided on 26th February, 1991.

P L D 1991 Karachi 205

ZAHOORUDDIN‑‑Applicant Versus HAJI HUSSAIN through his Legal Heirs

Court: ‑‑‑‑0. XLI, R.1‑‑‑Application filed before Appellate Court touching question involved in appeal‑‑‑Court's duty‑‑‑Court would be under obligation to entertain all or any applications/matters filed before it‑‑‑Court could not altogether ignore any application filed before it touching the question involved in appeal and proceed to decide the same without so much as even taking note of such application‑‑‑Court was also fixed with a further duty to take up and dispose of a matter brought before it in accordance with law viz. either to accept or reject the same but in accordance with law.‑‑Duty of Court. p. 207 A & B
CLC 1981
Miscellaneous Civil Appeal No. 5 of 1979, decided on 1st November 1980.

1981 C L C 409

Mst. KHATOON AND 3 OTHERS‑Appellants Versus SIDDIQ MUHAMMAD AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
SCMR 1982
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 120-P of 1980, decided on 22nd September, 1980.

1982 S C M R 433

SYED SHAH — Petitioner Versus POLITICAL AGENT, BAJAUR AND ANOTHER-Respondents

Court: ----Art. 185 (3) read with Art. 247 (7)--Leave to appeal-Petitioner obtaining admission in Medical College on basis of domicile certificate issued by competent authority but such certificate later revoked on ground of having not been issued after proper inquiry-Constitutional' petition being filed by petitioner challenging such revocation Judges of High Court divided in opinion whether constitutional petition could lie in matter in view of bar contained in Art. 247 (7) of Constitution (1973)-Matter referred to third Judge and such Judge holding lack of jurisdiction in superior Courts and constitutional petition being not maintainable-Question involved concerning jurisdiction of superior Courts, High Court being divided in opinion and matter having to be referred to a third Judge, and direct effect of revocation of domicile certificate being cancellation of admission of petitioner in an institution located in a territory falling within jurisdiction of superior Courts, questions involved held, questions of general public importance---Leave to appeal granted.-Leave to appeal.
CLC 1984
1983-December-22

1984 C L C 2452

HUSSAIN MILLS LTD.‑Applicant Versus Revision Application No. 175 of 1983, decided on 22nd December, 1983.

Court: Karachi