Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius
Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Art. 199-Maxims : Fraus et jus num quam cohabitant (fraud and justice never dwell together) and Frau et doles nemini patroeenari debut (fraud and deceit ought not to benefit any one)-Writ jurisdiction-Fraud vitiates most solemn proceedings-No- party can be allowed. to take advantage of his own fraud=Discretionary relief of High Court, as consistently, held, cannot,be granted to help retention of i!1-gotten gains even if Tribunars,~ord&; for any technical reason, not justifiable.-[Fraud-Maxim].
Expressio untus est excluito altertus (mention of one thing implies exclusion of another thing)-Maxim based on probable intention of Legislature
Intention clearly revealing lave-makers not meaning to exclude all others by mentioning ore thing
Principle of maxim not applicable-Statutory language plain and meaning clear-No implied exclusion deducible.
Maxim : "Expressio unless exclusio alterius" (express mention of one thing of a particular class excludes all other members of that class)Whether can be relied on to interpret an Explanation to statutory provision- [Quaere],
Ss. 4 & 5 read with Income-tax Act (XI of 1922), S. 4(3)-Maxim : expressio unius est exclusio alterius (mention of one is exclusion of another)-Express mention of exemption from payment of excess profits tax in S. 4 of Act XV of 1940 in respect of profits exempted from income-tax-Gives clear indication of Legislature's intent not to allow any other kind of exemption from payment of excess profits tax.
"Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3127
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Expressio Unius Exclusio Alterius"
P L D 1981 Lahore 244
ZAFARULLAH‑Petitioner Versus BOARD OF INTERMEDIATE AND SECONDARY
Court: Art. 199‑Writ petition, maintainability of‑Student petitioner's case finding him guilty of adopting unfair means at examination under consideration on appeal before Appellate Committee‑Writ petition against order holding him guilty nevertheless, held, maintain able.‑Educational Institutions.P L D 1991 Lahore 268
THE STATE — Appellant Versus NAVID ASIF and others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1978 Karachi 760
SHAUKAT ALI‑Appellant Versus DISTRICT COUNCIL, HYDERABAD‑Respondent
Court: ‑‑ O. I, r. 8 & O. XLI, r. 14 (3)‑‑Representative suit‑Appeal Notice---Object of representative suit to be largely lost if after effecting proper service on all parties in original suit, service of notice on various representative components becomes necessary at every stage of proceedings‑Proceedings in appeal‑Proceedings in continuation of suit‑Not necessary, held, to serve notice of appeal individually on other appellants.‑Appeal (civil).1987 C L C 2516
MUHAMMAD, YUSUF‑‑Applicant Versus ASGHAR ALI and 5 others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑Ss. 4(3) & 20‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 24‑‑Maxim; Expressio unius est exclusio alterius (the express mention of one thing implies the exclusion of another) ‑‑Neither the Rent Controller nor the Appellate Authority has power under C.P.C. to transfer a case from one Rent Controller to another Rent Controller‑ ‑Govern men t and not the High Court is empowered to authorise District Judge or Deputy Commissioner to transfer a case from one Rent Controller to another within the District‑ ‑Non ‑issuance of notification by Government authorising District Judge/Deputy Commissioner in that regard, would .not confer any power on the High Court. ‑‑Maxim.P L D 1976 Lahore 392
UNITED BANK LTD.‑Petitioner Versus ABDUL KHALIQ AND OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: --S. 15(4), Explanation read with Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 24, 151, 4(1), 96 & 100 and Maxim : Expressio unius est exclusio alterious‑Transfer of proceedings‑Sections 96 and 100, C. P. C., alone having been made applicable to proceedings under Ordinance VI of 1959, and section 4(1), C. P. C. not affecting any special or local law or any special form of procedure prescribed by any other law, maxim "Expressio unius est exclusio alterius", held, steps in and other provisions of C. P. C. including Ss. 24 & 151 rendered inapplicable to proceedings before Rent Controller‑High Court in circumstances, not to transfer proceedings pending before Rent Controller under S. 24 or 151, C. P. C.‑Maxim.P L D 1971 Lahore 217
Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD DIN AND ANOTHER‑Respondents
Court: High Court1987 C L C 1397
PAKISTAN RAILWAYS, LAHORE‑‑Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, PUNJAB LABOUR APPELLATE TRIBUNAL,
Court: LahoreP L D 1975 Supreme Court 32
SINDH EMPLOYEES' SOCIAL SECURITY INSTITUTION AND ANOTHER Appellants Versus ADAMJEE COTTON MILLS LTD. Respondent
Court:P L D 1979 Karachi 204
MESSRS RASHID TEXTILE MILLS LTD., KARACHI-Petitioner Versus BAKHT ZAMAN AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- S. 0.12(5) read with S. O.'15-Termination of service on allegation of misconduct-Mention of only permanent and temporary workmen and total omission of probationer and badli workman in S. O. 12(5)- Held, clear indication that provisions relating to enquiry were not applicable to probationer and badli workman-Maxim: expressio unius est exclusio alterius (mention of one is exclusion of another). Industrial dispute-Maxim.P L D 1977 Lahore 1437
GHULAM MUHAMMAD MUSTAFA KHAR‑Petitioner Versus ELECTION COMMISSIONER OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents
Court: (a) Homes of Parliament and Provincial Assemblies (Elections) Order, 1977 President's (Post Proclamation) Order 5 of 1977‑