De Facto Judge
De Facto Judge legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Appointment of a Judge or a member of Tribunal 'cannot be challenged in a proceeding between the two litigant parties in which an order passed by the Judge or the Member of a Tribunal is impugned as the question of any alleged defect in the appointment of such a Judge or a member of Tribunal is foreign to the dispute between the litigant parties, which is the subject matter of such proceedings.
Appointment of a Judge or a member of Tribunal cannot be challenged in a proceeding between the two litigant parties in which an order passed by the Judge or the Member of a Tribunal is impugned as the question of any alleged defect in the appointment of such a Judge or a member of tribunal is foreign to the dispute between the litigant parties, which is the subject matter of such proceedings.
"De Facto Judge", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2527
Precedents & Case Laws citing "De Facto Judge"
1991 P Cr
AMJAD HUSSAIN and 4 others — Appellants Versus GHULAM RASOOL MIR and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)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 CourtP L D 1998 Lahore 239
MANZOOR HUSSAIN — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: High CourtP L D 1990 Karachi 362
ATLAS AUTOS LIMITED and 5 others‑‑Petitioners Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION,
Court:1990 P L C (C
ATLAS AUTOS LIMITED and others Versus NATIONAL INDUSTRIAL RELATIONS COMMISSION,
Court: Karachi High CourtP L D 1976 Supreme Court 315
ABRAR HASSAN‑Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1985 M L D 951
SHAMIM SIDDIQUI — Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: KarachiP 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.P L D 1979 Lahore 564
Malik GHULAM JILANI-Appellant Versus THE PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- Read with Laws (Continuance in Force) Order, 1977 C. M. L. A's-No. I of 1977, Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 45, 49, 53 & 61 and Proclamation of Martial Law 5th July 1977-Assumption of office of President by Chief Martial Law Administrator- Vires of statutes-Proclamation dissolving National Assembly, Senate, Provincial Assemblies and removing Prime Minister, Federal Ministers, Ministers of State, Speaker, Deputy Speaker of National Assembly, Chairman and Deputy Chairman of Senate etc. from their offices having been declared to be valid by Supreme Court, such representative offices no more in existence and Speaker and Chairman no more holding their respective offices-Offices of Speaker of Assembly and Chairman of Senate also becoming vacant on resignation or otherwise ceasing to be members of Assembly or Senate-Speaker and Chairman being part and parcel of National Assembly and Senate, respectively, not capable of holding their respective offices after dissolution of both Houses--Speaker and Chairman having also ceased to be members of respective houses after dissolution of such Houses, no more holding their respective offices-Articles 49, 53 & 61 of Constitution not implementable in circumstances and there being no further provision in Constitution to meet situation arising on resignation of ex-President, promulgation of President's Order 13 of 1978 necessary to fill vacuum--Chief Martial Law Administrator being entitled to perform all such acts and promulgate all legitimate measures consistently required by judicial authorities as falling within scope of law of necessity, President's Order No. 13 of 1978 being an ad hoc one and an extra-constitutional step for enabling Martial Law regime to achieve its declares objectives in public interest as well as for running country in orderly manner, its issuance, held, fully justified in circumstances.-Vires of statutes.P L D 2005 Karachi 498
ABDUL KARIM BROHI — Appellant Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: High Court