Home Maxims & Terms Coram Non Judice meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Coram Non Judice

Coram Non Judice legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2021 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
AdjudicationPrinciplesCoram non judiceScope

Obligatory duty of a Judge/Court was to apply correct law to a lis and it was not upon litigant to point out which law that was appliable

Primary duty of Court was to do justice and to apply correct law to facts of a case and same was exclusively the duty of the Judge/Court

To perpetuate an error was no virtue but to correct the same was compulsion of judicial conscience and legal maxim "coram non judice" indicated a proceeding which was outside authority of a Judge or without legal jurisdiction.

2020 PLD 285 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Whenever court was not properly constituted, proceedings carried out by it were nothing but coram-non-judice.

2020 YLR 578 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Object, purpose and scope

Coram non judice is a legal term typically used to indicate a legal proceeding that is outside presence of a judge, with improper venue or without jurisdiction

Any indictment or sentence passed by a court which has no authority to try an accused of that offence is violation of law and would be coram non judice and a nullity

Jurisdiction cannot be conferred by consent nor can it be fettered unless there is a choice between more than one place in terms of jurisdiction

If order or judgment is suffering from vice of coram non judice it may be quashed and set aside by a court when a special statute gives a right and also provides for a forum for adjudication of rights.

2017 SCMR 1249 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
"Coram non judice"

Definition.

2017 SCMR 1249 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Scope

'Coram non judice' was a fatal flaw germane to the very constitution of the judicial forum rendering its proceedings non est in the eye of law

Forum may be vested with the jurisdiction yet its actions may be invalid, if such forum had been set up in clear and absolute violation of the law applicable in such behalf.

2017 SCMR 1249 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Ss. 2(1)(d)(iii) & 97

Member of a religiously motivated terrorist organization, attacking Armed Forces with deadly weapons, causing death of Army personnel

Conviction and sentence awarded by Field General Court Martial (FGCM)

Coram non judice

Scope

Accused persons never contended that FGCM was not duly convened and constituted in terms of the Pakistan Army Act, 1952

No illegality or infirmity, in such behalf, was pointed out or noticed

In the circumstances, the conviction and sentence of accused persons could not be said to be coram non judice.

2016 PLD 121 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Any determination made and decision given by a court or other forum performing judicial functions (or even quasi-judicial functions) having no jurisdiction was a nullity in the eyes of law.

2014 PLD 583 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 37National Tariff Commission Act (VI of 1990), S. 6Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionProvisional Anti-Dumping Duty, imposition ofCoram non judiceConstitution of National Tariff Commission defective and irregular

At the time of the Preliminary Determination made by the National Tariff Commission, term of office of one of its Members had lapsed therefore, the constitution of the Commission was defective and irregular

Legality of the Commission's constitution was pivotal to the exercise of its jurisdiction

No provision in the National Tariff Commission Act, 1990 existed that protected the decisions or determinations of the Commission in case the constitution of the Commission was irregular or defective

Preliminary determination made by the Commission in the present case had not been issued by the Commission as mandated under S.37 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000, therefore the same was set aside being coram non judice

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2014 PLC(CS) 1326 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
S. 37National Tariff Commission Act (VI of 1990), S. 6Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199Constitutional petitionProvisional Anti-Dumping Duty, imposition ofCoram non judiceConstitution of National Tariff Commission defective and irregular

At the time of the Preliminary Determination made by the National Tariff Commission, term of office of one of its Members had lapsed therefore, the constitution of the Commission was defective and irregular

Legality of the Commission's constitution was pivotal to the exercise of its jurisdiction

No provision in the National Tariff Commission Act, 1990 existed that protected the decisions or determinations of the Commission in case the constitution of the Commission was irregular or defective

Preliminary Determination made by the Commission in the present case had not been issued by the Commission as mandated under S.37 of the Anti-Dumping Duties Ordinance, 2000, therefore the same was set aside being coram non judice

Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

2010 MLD 1015 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
O. VII, R.10Return of plaintCoram non judiceScopeProvision of O. VII, R.10, C. P. C. was mandatory in natureAdjudication by a court without jurisdiction was a determination coram non judice

Plaint was to be returned for presentation to the proper court.

1992 PLD 21 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent
____"Coram. non judice"Act not done in the manner in which it had to be doneLimitation

Legislative authority for ratifying the acts, omissions and orders which are "corain non judice", has no limitation/restriction.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Coram Non Judice", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2477

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Coram Non Judice"

MLD 1991
N/A

1991 M L D 2364

MUHAMMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1973
Cr. R. P. No. 2 of 1973

P L D 1973 Supreme Court 614

DR. IJAZ HASSAN QURESHI AND 2 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER‑Respondents

Court:
PLD 2006
2005-November-25

P L D 2006 Supreme Court (AJ&K) 5

MUHAMMAD RIAZ and 8 others — Petitioners Versus PERVAIZ MEHANDI and 72 others — Respondents/Pro forma Respondents

Court: High Court
YLR 2020
Constitutional Petitions Nos. D-6641, 6642, 6643, 6644 and 6645 of 2015, decided on 5th December, 2019.

2020 Y L R 578

MUHAMMAD YOUSAF and others — Petitioners Versus TRUSTEES OF THE PORT OF KARACHI through Estate Manager and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
SCMR 2005
Civil Appeals Nos. 1251 to 1255 of 2001, decided on 9th December, 2004.

2005 S C M R 558

FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Cabinet Secretariat, Establishment Division, Islamabad and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus ISRAR‑UL‑HAQUE and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 1994
1991-May-11

1994 P Cr

Mst. NEELAM MAWAZ — Petitionei Versus THE STATE — Respondent,

Court: Lahore
SCMR 2007
Civil Appeal No.24 of 1997, decided on 3rd June, 2003.

2007 S C M R 1126

Hafiz MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE ANWAR — Appellant Versus FAISALABAD DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 1991
N/A

1991 P Cr

ABDUL RAUF — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: Lahore
PLC(CS) 2002
Constitutional Petition No.D‑2201 of 2001, decided on 24th October, 2001.

2002 P L C (C

AZHER JAMEEL Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others

Court: Karachi High Court
PLD 1988
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal Nos. 88‑R, 89‑R and 91‑R of 1986, decided on 31st October, 1987.

P L D 1988 Supreme Court 35

Sheikh ABDUL HAMEED and 2 others‑Petitioner Versus WA PDA‑‑Respondent

Court: ‑‑‑S.17(1‑A)‑‑West Pakistan Water and Power Development Authority Employees (Efficiency and Discipline) Rules, 1978‑‑Service Tribunals Act (LXX of 1973), Ss. 4 & 6‑‑Service Tribunal's powers to confirm, set aside, vary or modify orders impugned before it including powers of varying the order of removal and converting same into one of retirement‑‑Every case of irregularity committed by an employee must not be followed by a departmental inquiry under the WAPDA Employees Efficiency and Discipline Rules, 1978 and action under S.17(1‑A) is permissible even without such inquiry‑‑Such an action under S. 17 (1‑A) of the Act is permissible even where departmental inquiry had been started and only ground on which such an order could be challenged was of mala fide and coram non judice. p. 36 A