Existing
Existing legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Connotation.
''Existing"; "present" and "owner"??Meaning.
"Existing", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2613
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Existing"
P L D 1987 Lahore 205
MUHAMMAD DIN‑Petitioner Versus Sh. FAQIR MUHAMMAD‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑ S. 7 ‑ Existence of custom of pre‑emption ‑ Proof ‑ Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1905 superseded by Punjab Pre‑emption Act, 1913 Existence of custom of pre‑emption at the time of enforcement of Act I of 1913, held, would require a plaintiff to prove existence of such custom from the year 1905, without which he could not succeed because even in the Pre‑emption Act of 1905, requirement for proof of custom was the same‑Custom which was not in existence during the currency of Act of 1905, could not conceivably be held to have existed at the time of commencement of Act I of 1913.‑Custom.1970 P Cr
MANSUR ALI RARI AND 7 OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus CHINTA HARAN DAS AND 7 OTHERS‑Opposite‑Parties.
Court: High Court Dhaca1991 M L D 216
MUHAMMAD HANIF and another — Appellants Versus ABDUL AZIZ and 6 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1968 Lahore 897
Mst. MAQSOODA BEGUM‑Appellant Versus Maulvi ABDUL HAQ AND OTHER — Respondents
Court: Punjab Pre‑emption Act (I of 1913)----S. 7‑Pre‑emption, right of‑Recognised only where custom existed before commencement of Act‑Right not extended to towns or outgrowths or suburbs of town, coming into existence after passing of Act notwithstanding such existence of custom in such areas‑Custom existing in Pakpattan town not extended to its new extension‑Umar Bakhsh v. Abdul Karim and others 70 P R 1898 ; Muhammad Din v. Shah Din and another 90 P R 1907 ; Imperial Oil, Soap and General Mills Co. Ltd., Delhi v. M. Misbah‑ud‑Din and others I L R 2 Lah. 83 ; Vaishno Das v. Hem Raj and others A I R 1921 Lah. 279 ; Lekh Raj and Ramji Das v. Inder Mal and Sain I L R 4 Lah. 176 ; Lai Chard v. Kartar Singh and another A I R 1947 Lah. 265 and Ram Lal v. Municipal Committee, Bhera and another A I R 1947 Lah. 386 rel. and Miran Bakhsh v. Muhammad Akram Khan and another A I R 1937 Lab. 167 not fol..1998 P T D 428
COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX Versus INDIA CARBON LTD.
Court: 221 ITR 264P L D 2009 Lahore 160
ABDUL GHANI — Appellant Versus RANA M. BASHIR — Respondent
Court: High Court1987 C L C 2156
Hakim MUHAMMAD ASHRAF and 7 others‑ ‑Appellants Versus Haji AHMAD BAKHSH‑‑Respondent
Court: LahoreP L D 1977 Lahore 394
PERVEZ AKHTAR-Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF-Respondent
Court: ---Ss. 7 & 15-Pre-emption-Custom, proof of-Mohalla under consideration not existing at time of commencement of Punjab Pre-emp tion Act, 1913-Question of prevailing of custom of pre-emption in such Mohallah may not arise-Lower Court without discussing whether Mohalla under consideration was synonymous with sub-division or not, and whether such Mohalla was recognised unit for pre-emption law as defined in judgment relied upon Karim Ahmad v. Rehmat Elahi A I R 1946 Lah. 432 straight away concluding existence of .such custom in such Mohalla on ground of its existing generally in town containing property in suit-Inquiry in circumstances necessary to find whether Mohalla in question exited at time of enforcement of Punjab Pre-emption Act. 1913, if not whether thereafter it assumed character of recognized unit-Judgment and decree of lower Court in circumstances set aside and case remanded for fresh decision in accordance with law in light of above observations.-Pre-emption.P L D 1991 Lahore 217
MUHAMMAD MISKEEN — Petitioner Versus SUMMANDAR KHAN and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1956 Lahore 528
Mst. LADO and another‑Appellants Versus KARAM DAD and others‑Respondents
Court: