Home Maxims & Terms Matter meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Matter

Matter legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2002 PCRLJ 1765 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases"Matter"

Meaning

2002 PTD 1470 FEDERAL-TAX-OMBUDSMAN-PAKISTAN Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases"Matter "

Connotation.

1993 PLC(CS) 1331 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

An employee of Government by statutory Rules and Regulations would not be governed by rule of Master and Servant:

1988 PLD 60 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

Words "matter" and "issue"??Connotation of. Words "matter" and "issue"??Connotation of.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Matter", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3116

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Matter"

PLC 1998
Application in Appeals Nos. HYD493 of 1996, HYD-494 of 1996, YD495 of 1996, HYD-496 of 1996, HYD-497 of 1996, HYD-498 of 1996 and Appeal No. HYD-503 of 1996, decided on 22nd December, 1996.

1998 P L C 389

Messrs BAWANY SUGAR MILLS LTD Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and others

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
PLD 2026
CUO No. 1 of 2025 in C.P.L.A. No. Nil of 2025, decided on 12th December, 2025.

P L D 2026 Supreme Court 291

Messrs MOON DENTAL CLINIC, ISLAMABAD and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, ISLAMABAD-WEST and another — Respondents

Court: ----Arts.175-F(1)(c) inserted through Constitution (Twenty-seventh Amendment) Act (XXXII of 2025) & 185(3)---Civil petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court---Maintainability Post---Twenty-seventh Constitutional amendment---Office objection---Matter relating to rent proceedings---No appeal lay before Supreme Court in rent matters, objection of---Legality---Rent matter not being expressly excluded from appellate jurisdiction of Federal Constitutional Court---Effect---Overruling of objection---Scope---Briefly, present petition for leave to appeal was filed against the High Court judgment passed under Article 199 of the Constitution in a rent matter, where the office objected that after Article 175F (27th Amendment), the High Court was the final forum and no appeal lay to the Supreme Court---Held: The proviso to Article 185(3), which provided that "no appeal shall lie to the Supreme Court in cases to which clause (1) of Article 175F applies", made it evident that the bar on the appellate jurisdiction of Supreme Court was confined only to those cases which, in fact, fell within the ambit of Article 175F(1)---Since rent and family matters stood expressly excluded from the applicability of Article 175F(1)(c), such cases could not be regarded as cases to which Article 175F applied---Consequently, petitions arising out of rent and family matters were not barred from the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court under Article 185(3), subject to the grant of leave---The objection raised by the Office, premised on the petition arising out of a rent matter, was misconceived and was rightly overruled---In view of the express exclusion of rent matters from the scope of Article 175F(1)(c), such cases could not be regarded as falling within Article 175F(1)---The proviso to Article 185(3) was, therefore, not attracted, and the present petition was maintainable, in circumstances.
PTD 2001
Income‑tax Reference No. 65 of 1996, decided on 20th July, 1999.

2001 P T D 974

Smt. ARUNADEVI BAHETI Versus COMMISSIONER OF WEALTH TAX

Court: 241 I T R 622
PLC(CS) 1994
Writ Petition No. 1279‑S of 1992/BWP, decided on 5th October, 1992.

1994 P L C (C

MUHAMMAD MOEZZEM TANVEER Versus GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB

Court: Lahore High Court
CLC 2001
Writ Petition2688 of 1987, decided on 22nd December, 2000

2001 C L C 702

MUHAMMAD AZAM and another‑‑‑Petitioners Versus TARIQ TRANSPORT COMPANY LTD.

Court: Lahore
CLD 2025
2024-May-20

2025 C L D 133

The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Appellants Versus Messrs HMA PUMPS (PVT.) LTD. PESHAWAR CANTT. and another — Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PLD 2025
2024-May-20

P L D 2025 Peshawar 41

The GOVERNMENT OF KHYBER PAKHTUNKHWA through Chief Secretary, Peshawar and others — Appellants Versus Messrs HMA PUMPS (PVT.) LTD. PESHAWAR CANTT. and another — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 2018
Decided on 23rd March, 2018.

2018 S C M R 1139

BRUCE CARSON — Appellant Versus HER MAJESTY THE QUEEN — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Canada
SCMR 1983
Criminal Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 3-R of 1982, decided on 6th July, 1982.

1983 S C M R 22

AJAIB KHAN-Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent

Court: ----Art. 212-Jurisdiction of Supreme Court-Federal Shariat Court-- Not an Administrative Court or Tribunal-Appeals to Supreme Court under Art. 212 (3) of Constitution, held, can only be filed in respect of orders passed in connection with matters specified in Art. 212 and in no other matters.-Jurisdiction.
CLC 1987
Constitutional Petition No. 169 of 1978, heard on 19th June, 1978.

1987 C L C 182

Malik MUHAMMAD HASAN‑‑Applicant Versus ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER, QUETTA

Court: Quetta