Hoarding
Hoarding legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
"Hoarding"-Meaning of-West Pakistan Foodstuffs Control Act (XX of 1958), Ss. 3 & 6.
"Hoarding", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2719
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Hoarding"
2000 P Cr
KHALID IQBAL GHAURI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH DITTA, MAGISTRATE, FIRST CLASS, MANDI BAHAUDDIN and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2011 M L D 1006
MUNAWAR YOUNUS and 3 others — Petitioners Versus KARACHI CANTONMENT BOARD, through Cantonment Executive Officer and 2 others — Respondents
Court: KarachiP L D 1979 Karachi 691
AKBAR-Petitioner Versus SUMMARY MILITARY COURT, HYDERABAD —
Court: -- Art. 3, Sind Foodstuffs Control Act (XX of 1958). Ss. 3 & 6 and Martial Law Order No. 7 M. L. A.'s (Zone C)-Hoarding and black marketing-Hoarding and Black Market Order, 1956-Applic able only to Karachi and not to any other area-Conviction under such order for an action allegedly taken in area other than Karachi, held, illegal.2019 C L C 1253
PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD. — Plaintiff Versus CANTONMENT BOARD CLIFTON and another — Defendants
Court: Sindh1979 P Cr
MUHAMMAD ASLAM — Petitioner Versus THE STATE AND ANOTHER — Respondents
Court: Art. 199-Trial by Summary Military Court-Petitioners tried and sentenced by Summary Military Court for offences of Hoarding and Blackmarketing as punishable under Ss. 3 & 6 of Hoarding and Black Market Act, 1948-Allegations against petitioner, however, not of extraordinary nature, necessitating trial by Military Court---Gravity of crime being minimized, petitioner, held, should have been tried by ordinary Court-Conviction and sentence set aside, in circumstances-Hoarding and Black Market Act (XXIX of 1948), Ss. 3 & 6.-Criminal trial.P L D 1958 Dacca 188
DALURAM BAHANI‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Opposite‑Party
Court: The very fact that the petitioner had been found to be in possession of, a quantity of rice much beyond his normal requirement would lead to the presumption that he had the requisite mens rea. pp. 194, 195,'196B, C & D Srinivas Mall Bairoliya and another v. The King‑Emperor 51 C W N 900 (906) ; Sherras v. De Rutzen (1895) 1 Q B 918 (921) `; Isak Solomon Macmull v. Emperor A I R 1948 Bom. 364 and Moslemuddin v. Chief Secretary P L D 1957 101 ref2006 Y L R 2277
PARKS AND HORTICULTURE AUTHORITY through Director-General — Petitioner Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, LAHORE and 2 others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1961 Dacca 126
SADEK ALI BISWAS AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus S. N. AHMED, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE (FOOD) RAJBARI, DISTRICT FARIDPUR‑Respondent
Court: High CourtP L D 1960 Dacca 943
MUHAMMAD MUZAMMIL ALI‑Petitioner Versus A. F. M. A. MAJID, SPECIAL MAGISTRATE (FOOD) SYLHET‑Respondent
Court:P L D 1959 (W
MUHAMMAD AYUB‑Applicant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: