Home Maxims & Terms Law meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Law

Law legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)

2017 SCMR 1218 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
'General' and 'Special' lawScope and distinction

General law was one that was unrestricted in terms of its applicability to all issues covered by its subject matter, whereas special law may be restricted to certain localities, persons or types of cases

Whether a law was general or special depended on the particular features of the statute in issue and was ultimately a question of relativity between two or more statutes on the common subject matter.

2017 CLD 1198 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
'General' and 'Special' lawScope and distinction

General law was one that was unrestricted in terms of its applicability to all issues covered by its subject matter, whereas special law may be restricted to certain localities, persons or types of cases

Whether a law was general or special depended on the particular features of the statute in issue and was ultimately a question of relativity between two or more statutes on the common subject matter.

2017 PLD 231 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

No law could be made inoperative through obsolescence as long as it was in the field.

2016 PLD 581 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
ConceptLaw was a set of commands of the sovereign

Law could endure and stay efficacious if it was not abstract and socially unrelated; it became all the more enduring and efficacious if it pulsated from the soil and reflected indigenous conditions around

Law, thus, evolved not only catered for what people needed for their peaceful co-existence but also endured till the time the conditions around changed

On the contrary a law which was a patchwork of imported patches could neither cater for the legitimate needs of the people nor stay efficacious because of its feeble basis and frequent violation.

2014 PLD 89 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
LawProcedural law, adherence toPurpose and significance

Procedural law had immense significance and the true purpose and object of such law, was not merely a technical aspect of the law which should be reckoned as a mere formality, rather procedural law was meant to cause uniformity, discipline, parity and systemization in conducting the trial of the case, in the absence whereof, it shall not be possible for the courts of law to adjudicate the matter in accordance with law and to do justice according to law

Following the procedure prescribed by law in letter and spirit was bounden duty of the courts and also the litigants, as failure to do the same shall result in indiscipline and disarray in proceedings of the trial of a case.

2012 PLD 923 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Democratic StateLawScope

In a true democratic State, it was in the courts and not in the legislature that the citizens of such a State primarily felt the keen, cutting edge of the law

Actual law, be it enacted or customary, was what the courts interpreted and finally enforced.

2009 PLD 677 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Connotation, emergence and development

Principles.

2006 PTD 2256 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Connotation

Such expression would include legislative Act, subordinate legislation in nature of Rules and notifications issued under authority of legislative Act

Executive directions issued from time to time would not fall within purview of "law".

2003 PLC(CS) 503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Art. 4Term "law" as used in Art. 4 of the ConstitutionApplicability

Such term is of wider import, which includes duty of every public functionary to act in the matter justly and fairly and in accordance with principles of natural justice.

2001 YLR 2542 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
LawMeaning and scope

Term law got only included the provisions of the statutes, but also the judicial principles decided by the Court through case-law

In case an authority would act in violation of principles laid down by a Court in a decided case, the impugned action would be unlawful and without jurisdiction.

1997 PLD 204 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Law Connotation

Word "law" means not only statutory and delegated legislation but also judge-made law.

1996 MLD 1943 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Enactment of law and framing of rulesPurpose and object

Law is enacted and rules are framed to be complied with and not to be violated.

1994 MLD 452 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
LawScheme of codified lawObject of

Whole scheme of codified law was that there should be adjudication of a dispute in one forum, which was necessary to avoid contradictory decisions and to give finality to decisions.

1992 PLD 869 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Law is for the welfare of the people and is not intended to harass and deprive them of what they have unless they were amiss or that was for general good.

1992 SCMR 2450 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Law

Definition.

1992 MLD 2273 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
LawPrivate Law and Public LawConnotationLaw has two separate fields: one of private law, the other of public law

Private law regulates affairs of citizens between themselves; Public Law regulates affairs of citizens vis-a-vis public authorities.

1990 PLD 513 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Law which does not take care of all elements of justice in the problem it deals with, does not command acceptability.

1990 MLD 370 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Law

Law with the passage of time must adopt progressive course, unless expressly or impliedly prohibited.

1989 PTD 887 INCOME-TAX-APPELLATE-TRIBUNAL-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent

Law does not mean only the statute Law but also includes the principles which are laid down by judicial pronouncements of the superior Courts.

1983 PLD 457 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Undue stress on "generality of law" is a legacy left by exponents of Natural Law School who believed law as of "universal application because Laws of Nature are "physical laws" are so, and are by definition without exception.

1972 PLD 497 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Art. 98-Writ-LawValidity-Argument that validity of a law could be called into question only by a writ petition - Held, without substance.

1963 PLD 422 DHAKA-HIGH-COURT Judicial Precedent

Law -Source-Force as source of law-Revolution of 71h October 1958-[The State v. Dosso and another P L D 1958 S C (Pak.) 533; Willoughby "Government of Modern States" pp. 118-119; "Modern Constitutions" p. 75 and "Social Contract" by Rousseau ref.]

1957 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Law Amendment of, pending judicial interpretationdeprecated.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Law", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/2968

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Law"

SCMR 2018
Constitutional Petition No. 134 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Application No.1864 of 2010 in Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2005 and Civil Misc. Applications Nos. 1939 of 2014, 5959 of 2016, 4095, 1793, 2876, 2996, 3014 and 6672 of 2018 in Constitutional Petition No. 134 of 2012 and Civil Misc. Applications Nos. 3034, 3048, 3051 and 6247 of 2018 in Civil Misc. Application No. 1864 of 2010, decided on 31st August, 2018.

2018 S C M R 1891

PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL through Chairman and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Establishment Division and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2019
Constitutional Petition No. 134 of 2012, Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1864 of 2010 in Constitutional Petition No. 9 of 2005, Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 1939 of 2014, 5959 of 2016, 4095, 1793, 2876, 2996, 3014 and 6672 of 2018 in Constitutional Petition No.134 of 2012 and Civil Miscellaneous Applications Nos. 3034, 3048, 3051 and 6247 of 2018 in Civil Miscellaneous Application No. 1864 of 2010, decided on 31st August, 2018.

2019 S C M R 389

PAKISTAN BAR COUNCIL through Chairman and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL GOVERNMENT through Establishment Division and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1961
Writ Petition No. 265 of 1961. Reference answered on 26th September 1961.

P L D 1961 (W

GULAB DIN‑Petitioner Versus MAJOR A. T. SHAUKAT AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: (d) Martial Law‑Only "Martial Law Authorities" not subject to writ jurisdiction of High Court‑Orders of other members of 9' Armed Forces not Immune to scrutiny by Court‑Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958), Art. 2 (5)‑That High Court orders might possibly be ignored not a relevant consideration in taking decisions permissible under law‑Zahid Umar & Company v. Chief Secretary, West Pakistan P L D 1959 Lah. 764 ref:
PLD 1981
Shariat Appeal No. 2‑P of 1980, decided on 20th January 1981.

P L D 1981 Supreme Court 120

[Shariat Bench] Versus Mst. FARISHTA‑Respondent

Court: Shariat Bench
PLD 1969
Criminal Miscellaneous No. 2952 of 1969, decided on 30th June 1969.

P L D 1969 Lahore 786

Malik MIR HASSAN AND ANOTHER‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court: (c) Martial Law Regulation (1969) C. M. L. A.'s No. 42 read with Proclamation of Martial Law, 1969, para. S and Provisional Constitution order, 1969, Art. 6, cl. (2)‑High Court's jurisd4ction to entertain petitions under S. 561‑A, Cr. P. C.‑Intact ---Power or jurisdiction of High Court‑Neither whittled down nor curbed by Regulation No. 42.
PLD 1978
Writ Petition No. 1386 of 1978, decided on 4th April 1978.

P L D 1978 Lahore 766

MAPAL KHAN-Petitioner Versus MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR. ZONE "A", LAHORE AND 3 OTHERS-Respondents.

Court: (a) Martial Law Order (C. M. L. A.'s) 3 of 1977-
PLD 1978
9th March 1978

P L D 1978 Quetta 177

KHUDIADAD-Petitioner Versus DEPUTY MARTIAL LAW ADMINISTRATOR, ZONE `D',

Court: (a) Laws (Continuance in Force) Order C. M. L. A.'s Order No. 1 of 1977
PLD 1960
Criminal Appeals Nos. 1 and 2 of 1960, decided on 19th April 1960.

P L D 1960 Supreme Court (Pak

MUHAMMAD AYUB KHUHRO-Appellant Versus PAKISTAN, THROUGH THE MINISTRY OF INTERIOR GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN AND TWO OTHERS

Court: (c) Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958), Art. 3 (if) read with Art. 2-Court cannot declare a Martial Law Regulation or Martial Law Order invalid or ultra vires-Questioning an order made under a Martial Law Order-Whether or not amounts to questioning Martial Law Order itself-Chowdhury Manzur Elahi v. The State P L D 1959 Lah. 243 not approved.
PLD 1959
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 1958, decided on 19th March 1959.

P L D 1959 Baghdad﷓ ul﷓Jadid 7

ALLAH DIWAYA‑Appellant Versus THE STATE‑Respondent

Court:
PLD 1993
C. P. No.D‑529 of 1990, heard on 9th September, 1992.

P L D 1993 Karachi 93

Messrs NAJIB ZARAB LIMITED‑‑Petitioner Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary

Court: