State
State legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
State -Acts of, relating to Municipal law-Subject to jurisdiction of Courts-[Eshughayi Eleko v. Officer Administering the Government of Nigeria and another A I R 1931 P C 248 and Wade's Constitutional Law ref.].
Whether owner of all property not proved to belong to any person.
"State", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/21896
Precedents & Case Laws citing "State"
P L D 1997 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 1
Court: ‑‑‑‑S. 2‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Act, 1980, S.9‑‑‑Azad Jammu and Kashmir State Subject Rules, 1980, R.5‑‑‑Jammu and Kashmir Alienation of Land Act, 1995 (B.K.), S.4‑‑‑Sir Partap Jammu and Kashmir Laws (Consolidation) Act, 1977 (B.K.), S.4‑‑‑State Subject ‑‑‑Status‑‑‑Woman‑‑ Inheritance‑‑‑If immovable property devolves on a State Subject woman who has left the State after her marriage with non‑State Subject, it will be her lawful property and there is nothing to deprive her from her share in inheritance. ‑‑Muhammadan Law.
1996 M L D 1377
Syed ABBAS HAIDER GILANI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AZAD KASHMIR UNIVERSITY through Vice‑Chancellor
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)P L D 2001 Azad J&K 33
ALI ASGHAR ABBASI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR COUNCIL through
Court:P L D 1968 Karachi 443
A. M. QUERSHI‑Plaintiff Versus UNION OF SOVIET SOCIALIST REPUBLICS Through
Court: (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 84 to 87‑Bar con tained in S. 86 applies not only to foreign Rulers, ambassadors and envoys but to foreign State itself ‑ Provisions of Ss. 34 :0 87 supersede rules of International Law‑Suit against foreign State not maintainable without consent of Central Government‑Gammon‑Layton v. Secretary of State, U. S. A. P L U 1965 Kar. 425 dissented from.2005 Y L R 1531
NABI BUX alias NABU — Applicant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 2025 Islamabad 1
The STATE OF LIBYA through Head of Mission in Pakistan — Petitioner Versus CIVIL JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1993 Azad J & K 153
GHULAM HUSSAIN and 2 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Director‑General, ISI Islamabad and 20 others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑Ss. 2 & 4‑‑‑Foreigners Act (XXXI of 1946), S.2(a) as adapted in Azad Jammu and Kashmir through Azad Jammu and Kashmir Adaption of Laws Act (I of 1959), S.3‑‑‑State subject holding Indian or Pakistan passport whether loses his status of being a State subject and becomes a foreigner by holding a passport of any of the two countries‑‑‑Being a State subject is a status, not a nationality, stricto senso, under the contemporary circumstances and such status was not lost by a State subject by possessing passport of any country much less of India and Pakistan, who are in de facto control of different parts of the State of Jammu and Kashmir‑‑‑State subjects living in either part of the State have no means of travelling around the world except through passport of the country where part of their territory actually falls, without prejudice to their status of being State subjects‑‑‑Passport, thus, would not determine nationality of the State subject, but a document which would legalize his international travel, without affecting his status of being State subject‑‑‑Passport could not even be treated as a proof of the nationality of a person whose residence admittedly falls in the settled territories forming part of India or Pakistan‑‑‑State subject could not be deprived of his right to reside and settle in any part of the State as guaranteed by the Interim Constitution subject to reasonable restrictions‑‑‑Resident of Indian‑held Kashmir is as good a State subject as one residing in Azad Jammu and Kashmir, as none of the two parts of the State is a foreign territory for the other‑‑‑State subject would need‑ no certificate of his being a State subject from Ministry of Interior, Government of Pakistan, as the subject related to Azad Jammu and Kashmir Council which being a part of Azad Jammu and Kashmir State would be subject to jurisdiction of Azad Kashmir Courts in all respects.1960 P T D 599
P. ABDUL SUBHAN & Co. Versus THE STATE OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER
Court: Madras (India)2004 Y L R 2275
MAQBOOL AHMED — Petitioner Versus THE STATE through Bakht Ali — Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1972 Karachi 105
MESSRS BOKHARA PALACE LTD.‑Plaintiff Versus BRIGADIER HIS HIGHNESS MUHAMMAD ABBAS KHAN ABBASI‑Defendant
Court: (a) Ruler (Recognition of Successors) Order P. O. No. 15 of 1960-----