Acted without Material Irregularity
Acted without Material Irregularity legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Definition not found in search database.
"Acted without Material Irregularity", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/28691
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Acted without Material Irregularity"
2006 M L D 1443
RAEES KHAN and 3 others — Petitioners Versus NASEEB KHATOON — Respondent
Court: Lahore2003 M L D 1666
MUNSHI KHAN — Petitioner Versus KHAN ZAMAN and another — Respondents
Court: Lahore2002 M L D 632
GHULAM QADIR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus AHMAD ALI and 8 others ‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2002 Y L R 1700
HASHIM ALI and others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus Mst. BHIRAWAN and others ‑Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1961 (W
MEHR ALLAHYAR‑Petitioner Versus Syed HASAN JAHANIAN SHAH GARDEZI AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: The exclusion in this case was grounded merely on the fact that the place of residence of the member excluded was incorrect as given in the Gazette.P L D 1960 (W
MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN AND OTHERS‑Petitioners Versus Pir SALAH‑UD‑DIN, ELECTION TRIBUNAL, (ADDITIONAL
Court:P L D 1979 Karachi 179
HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI-Petitioner Versus ZAKI MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUIE AND 2 OTHERs-Respondents
Court: -- S. 115 read with O. XXXVII, r. 2(2)-Revision-Jurisdiction under S. 115, C. P. C.-Limited in nature-Exercise of jurisdiction by District Judge in granting leave to defend suit under O. XXXVII, r. 2(2)-Held, would not attract provisions of S. 115 even if such exercise of power erroneous-Such order of District Judge cannot be said to have been passed without jurisdiction-Question whether order of Court proceeds on illegality or with material irregularity-Depends upon provisions of law so disregarded. -Revision (civil).P L D 1961 (W
Haji ABDULLAH PATEL‑-Petitioner Versus THE ADMINISTRATOR, KARACHI AND OTHERS — Respondents
Court:P L D 1980 Peshawar 22
FAZAL NOOR AND ANOTHER‑Plaintiffs/Petitioners Versus AKHTAR MUNIR‑Defendant/Respondent
Court: ‑‑ S. 115‑Revision‑High Court's jurisdiction‑Limit of interference on High Court's powers to interfere in revisional jurisdiction‑Confined to non‑exercise of jurisdiction where jurisdiction exists, exercise of jurisdiction where such non‑existent, and to irregular exercise of juris diction by subordinate Courts‑Courts below having had power to make impugned decision, to deal with parties before them, and also with subject matter before them, such Courts could not thus be said to have either exercised jurisdiction not vested in them or to have failed to exercise jurisdiction so vested‑Case in hand, held, does not in circumstances come within purview of cls. (a) & (b) of S. 115, Civil Procedure Code, 1908.‑Jurisdiction.1985 C L C 2956
ATTA MUHAMMAD-Petitioner Versus ELECTION TRIBUNAL and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore