Home Maxims & Terms Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant meaning in Urdu
Maxim Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant

Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2025 SCMR 570 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Generalia specialibus non derogantConnotationLatin maxim "generalia specialibus non derogant" means "things general do not derogate from things special"

This is a routine tenet of statutory interpretation, emphasizing that where there is a conflict between general and special law, the special law prevails.

1991 PLD 258 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Generalia specialibus non derogant"Special provisions will control general provisions

Interpretation.

1987 PLD 336 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
"Delay defeats equity"Principle has got to be applied to each case, in the light of facts thereof

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.

1986 CLC 905 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
S. 14Maxim: "Generalia specialibus non derogante"

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].

1981 SCMR 1029 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
o

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].

1981 SCMR 1027 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
And Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 199 & 185 (3)"Kharif" commencement of

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].

1975 PLD 1181 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Generalia specialibus non derogant (general words do not derogate from special)-Enunciation of rule.

1974 PLD 459 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

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.

1974 PLC 201 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

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.

1973 PLD 49 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent
Interpretation of statutes

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).

1957 PLD 219 SUPREME-COURT Judicial Precedent

Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant Maxim-Generalia specialibus non derogant "General words or provisions do not affect special words or provisions".

1956 PLD 807 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

-Two provisions absolutely contradictory-Earlier should give way to later-Maxim: leges posteriores priores contrarias abrogant.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3134

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Generalia Specialibus Non Derogant"

PLD 1988
Civil Review Petition No.57‑R of 1986, decided on 2nd April, 1988.

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.
SCMR 1981
Civil Appeal No. 32!P to 34/P of 1972, decided on 16th March, 1981.

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 appeal
PCRLJ 1988
Special Criminal Revision No.9 of 1986, decided on 6th March, 1988.

1988 P C r

JAMSHED ALI‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi
PLD 1991
Civil Appeals Nos. 143 and 228 of 1979 and 311 to 313 of 1980, decided on 10th November, 1990.

P 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.
PLD 1978
Constitutional Petition No. 607 of 1.973, decided on 16th May 1978.

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.
PLC 1974
Constitutional Petitions Nos. 670 and 671 of 1973, decided on 19th March 1974.

1974 P L C 201

EMPLOYEES' UNION Versus PAKISTAN MACHINE TOOL FACTORY, LANDHI AND 2 OTHERS

Court: Karachi
MLD 1990
First Appeal from Order No. 9 of 1989, decided on 19th March, 1990.

1990 M L D 1214

POLICE DEPARTMENT‑-Appellant Versus JAVED ISRAR and others‑‑Respondents

Court: Peshawar
PLD 1990
Intra‑Court Appeals Nos.148, 151 and 152 of 1987, decided on 25th February, 1990.

P 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.‑‑‑Maxim
PLD 2016
2016-March-7

P L D 2016 Islamabad 91

MUHAMMAD ZULFIQAR and another — Petitioners Versus ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE (WEST), ISLAMABAD and others — Respondents

Court: High Court
SCMR 2025
Civil Petitions Nos.3589, 3590 and 3602 of 2022, decided on 29th October, 2024.

2025 SCMR 570

SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LTD. (SNGPL), ISLAMABAD — Petitioner Versus Messrs S.K. PVT. LIMITED and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan