Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant
Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
This is a routine tenet of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that where there is a conflict between general and special law, the special law prevails.
Interpretation.
Said principle cannot be extended to the cases not before the Court and relinquishment of right attributed to a person who sought redress of his grievance through judicial review later on.
Opening words of S.14, "notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force", held, embody principle contained in maxim "Generalia specialibus non degogante"
Maxim would imply that each enactment must be construed according to subject-matter and terms embodied therein-Opening words of S.14, also would not destroy other provisions of statute but modify rights conferred on landlord by S. 15 (Ordinance XVII of 1979), which is of general application
Said opening words contemplate that any provision of Ordinance or any other law which is inconsistent with rights and procedure provided therein would not override section 14 of Ordinance XVII of 1979.
:[Maxim].
S. 10 (2) (iii), (xvi)-Admissible deduction -Scope of cis. (iii) & (xvi)-Interpretation of statutes-Maxim: Generalia specialibus non derogant (things special derogate from things general)-Rule applies only if scope between special and general clauses same-[Interpretation of statutes-Maxim].
Whether or not Kharif begins in February-March or in May-Essentially a question of fact, not open to challenge if'. writ jurisdiction-Revenue authorities, held, know better and their point of view on subject to be reasonably accepted as correct.-[Question of fact].
Generalia specialibus non derogant (general words do not derogate from special)-Enunciation of rule.
Generalia specialibus non derogant (a general law does not abrogate the special law)?Special law conferring jurisdiction prescribing special procedure?Such special jurisdiction not affected by anything contained in Criminal Procedure Code, 1898.
Maxim: Generalia speclalibus non derogate (general provisions do not derogate from special provisions)-Provisions of special Act-Override provisions of general Act unless otherwise expressly indicated and notwithstanding general Act having been introduced later in time.
Statute containing both general provisions as well as special provisions for meeting particular situation-Special provision applicable to particular situation
Maxim Generalia specialibus nor derogant (General words do not derogate from special).
Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant Maxim-Generalia specialibus non derogant "General words or provisions do not affect special words or provisions".
-Two provisions absolutely contradictory-Earlier should give way to later-Maxim: leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.
"Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3134
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant"
P L D 1988 Supreme Court 269
MUHAMMAD ARSHAD SAEED‑‑Petitioner Versus PAKISTAN through Secretary, Establishment
Court: ‑‑‑0. XXV I, R.7 et 0 . XXIV‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973) , Arts.212(3) & 188‑‑Maxim: Generalia specialibus non derogant‑‑Review petition‑‑Service matter‑‑Cash security of Rs.2,000 has to be deposited by petitioner.‑‑Maxim.1981 S C M R 1029
THE COMMISSIONER OF INCOME-TAX-Appellant Versus MESSRS M. BAHAR AHMAD & SONS-Respondents
Court: S. 10 (2) (iii), (xvi)-Special leave to appeal-Granted to consider contention that cl. (iii) of S. 10 (2), being a special provision dealing with payment of interest, excludes application of S. 10 (2) (xvi), a pro vision of general nature and that if allowance on account of interest not admissible under cl. (iii), same not admissible at all.-Leave to appeal1988 P C r
JAMSHED ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1991 Supreme Court 258
PACKAGES LIMITED through its General Manager and others‑‑Appellants Versus MUHAMMAD MAQBOOL and others‑‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑‑ S. 25‑A(6) subsection added by Industrial Relations (Amendment) Act (XXIX of 1973), S.16 ‑‑‑ Termination of service ‑‑‑ In case of grievance caused to the workman by termination of his employment, a speedier remedy is provided by S.25‑A(6) namely that he may make an application directly to the Labour Court within a period of two months of the termination of the employment.P L D 1978 Karachi 952
MESSRS VALIKA TEXTILE MILLS LTD.‑ — Petitioner Versus CHAIRMAN, IST SIND LABOUR COURT, KARACHI
Court: ‑‑ Conflict between two statutes‑Court will avoid reading an Act of Parliament in manner to make nugatory another enactment unless two enactments totally irreconcilable‑Maxim‑Generalia specialibus non derogant (generalitics do not derogate from particular provi sions).‑Maxim.1974 P L C 201
EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY, LANDHI AND 2 OTHERS
Court: Karachi1990 M L D 1214
POLICE DEPARTMENT‑-Appellant Versus JAVED ISRAR and others‑‑Respondents
Court: PeshawarP L D 1990 Lahore 269
TAJ DIN and 4 others ‑‑‑ Appellants Versus ZILLA COUNCIL, KASUR and 3 others ‑‑‑ Respondents
Court: ‑‑‑ Ss. 51(xxv), (xxxix‑a), (mix‑b) & 62‑‑‑Functions of Zila Council ‑‑‑ Holding of cattle fairs, shows and markets in . the limits of area ‑‑‑ Maxim: Generalia specialibus non derogant, application of maxim ‑‑‑ Provisions contained in S. 51 (xxxix‑a) and (xxxix‑b) are not to be read in isolation, but as a whole and along with the other relevant provisions of the Ordinance ‑‑‑ Subject‑matter of both S. 51 and S. 62 having been clearly defined and there being no repugnancy between the two maxims would nor apply ‑‑‑ Provisions of S. 51 would not prevail over the provisions of S. 62, in so far as the rights of Urban Council in regulating the markets were concerned ‑‑‑ Zila Council is empowered to hold cattle fairs/markets within the limits of Urban Local Council, whereas a Municipal Committee can regulate the setting up and maintenance of a private market under a licence and provision of S. 51 does not create monopoly in Zila Council to establish cattle fairs/markets as subject of private markets has been specifically excluded from the functions of Zila Council.‑‑‑MaximP L D 2016 Islamabad 91
MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents
Court: High Court2025 SCMR 570
SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. (SNGPL), ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus Messrs S.K. PVT. LIMITED and others — Respondents
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan