Divine Law
Divine Law legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
(c) Divine Law - Steps to be taken to find out,-[Muhammadan Law-Sources]. Not a priest dominated theocracy-Principles of Islam-Neither hidden, nor complicated or involved, nor impracticable-Islamic law capable of being practised, enforced, applied, and adopted at all times and places only if understood and interpreted in its true spirit keeping in view environments and circumstances of situation at relevant time.[Muhammadan Law].
"Divine Law", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2560
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Divine Law"
P L D 1981 Supreme Court 120
[Shariat Bench] Versus Mst. FARISHTA‑Respondent
Court: Shariat Bench2008 S C M R 1204
LIAQAT ALI — Petitioner Versus Mst. KHALIDA PARVEEN and Others-Respondents
Court: Shariat Appellate Jurisdiction2002 C L C 2001
Mst. SHARAM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus TAJ MUHAMMAD and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore1985 P Cr
EID WALI‑‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court (A J & K)2017 C L C 436
Mst. JANAT BIBI through L.Rs. — Petitioner Versus ASLAM KHAN and 13 others — Respondents
Court: Peshawar (D.I. Khan Bench)1983 C L C 370
Mst. NARGIS BIBI AND OTHERS-Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM AND ANOTIIER-Respondents
Court: S C (A J & K)P L D 2003 Peshawar 169
FAZLI-E-SUBHAN — Petitioner Versus Mst. SABEREEN and 3 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 2010 Peshawar 105
Mst. IQBAL BIBI — Petitioner Versus Mst. MARYAM BIBI and 5 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1994 Supreme Court 621
Syed WASEY ZAFAR and 4 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Finance
Court: ‑‑‑‑Art. 184 (3) & Part II, Chap. 1‑‑‑Customs Act (IV of 1969), S. 19‑‑‑S.R.O. No.1046(I)/91 dated 14‑10‑1991‑‑‑S.R.O. No.251(I)/93 dated 3‑4‑1993‑‑ S.R.O. No.493(I)/93 dated 14‑6‑1993‑‑‑S.R.O. No.815(I)/93 dated 16‑9‑1993‑‑ S.R.O. No.825(I)/93 dated 20‑9‑1993‑‑‑Customs General Order No. 13 of 1993‑‑‑Constitutional petition before Supreme Court‑‑‑Maintainability‑‑‑Relief which the petitioners had asked against the Government and the Banks was on the basis of the rights which they claimed to have acquired as a result of the representation made to them by a scheme of the Government and on which they acted in good faith‑‑‑Petitioner thus claimed that Banks be compelled to contribute 90 per cent. of loan component promised under the said Government scheme and on account of Government's representation in the form of said scheme petitioner acquired a vested right to avail the concession in accordance with said scheme‑‑‑H 1 grant of reliefs prayed for did not require enforcement of any of Fundamental Rights mentioned in Chap. I of Part II of the Constitution of Pakistan and as such to the extent of such reliefs, Constitutional petitions under Art. 184(3) of the Constitution before Supreme Court were not maintainable. p. 631 A2016 Y L R 383
MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE and others — Petitioners Versus Mst. AYESHA BIBI and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore