Prejudice
Prejudice legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Order passed against a person by a forum against express provisions of law on the subject, if allowed to stay intact, cause serious prejudice to legal right of citizens.
Contention that application for comparison of thumb impression was not decided by Trial Court, had prejudiced case of the party
Suit was in its initial stages and the question of genuineness of the signatures/thumb impression would be decided by the Trial Court after recording evidence at the appropriate stage
Plea of prejudice was repelled.
Plea whether a party could claim to be prejudiced by mere mentioning incorrect name of a witness, was beyond comprehension and untenable as that fact by itself would not be enough to cause prejudice.
Where the petitioners remained unsuccessful up to Supreme Court after having full opportunity of hearing and the Settlement Authorities had only implemented the orders of High Court and Supreme Court, no prejudice was caused to the petitioners by Settlement Authorities while passing the orders of Permanent Transfer Deeds in compliance with the orders of the High Court and Supreme Court.
Any Officer or member of Trade Union could apply or appeal where there was a dispute in relation to the change of the officers of a Trade Union to Labour Court duly established under S. 35 of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969
National Industrial Relations Commission which had been constituted and enjoyed its powers under provisions of Ss. 22-A to 22-F of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969, did not qualify the definition of Labour Court, thus jurisdiction of National Industrial Relations Commission could not be invoked in application filed under S. 8(7) of Industrial Relations Ordinance, 1969 because such jurisdiction had been vested in Labour Court
Petition was dismissed as without jurisdiction and not maintainable.
Merely contending that defence of the party was prejudiced without pointing out particular reason for the alleged prejudice, is riot sufficient.
Non-production of some document merely, in circumstances, held, not itself sufficient to show that any prejudice caused to accused.
"Prejudice", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3294
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Prejudice"
P L D 1976 Supreme Court 555
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ — Appellant Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: -- S. 439 read with S. 440-Revision-Opportunity of being heard Prejudice--Section 440 specifically provides for no party to have any right to be heard either personally or by pleader in revisions-Order passed by High Court in dismissing revision petitions-Does not operate to prejudice of accused-Order which accused feels aggrieved with is one passed by Courts below and High Court simply declines to interfere-Section 439(2) applicable to cases where Court in exercise of revisional powers either sets aside acquittal and orders retrial or enhances sentence or itself passes any order prejudicial to accused, and not to cases where in revisional jurisdiction Court does not interfere.-Revision (criminal).2012 S C M R 1112
OCEANBULK SHIPPING AND TRADING SA — Appellant Versus TMT ASIA LTD. and others — Respondents
Court: 2010 UKSC 44 = 2010 4 All ER 1011P L D 1985 Karachi 18
Before Haider Ali Pirzada and Ajmal Mian, JJ Versus ABDUL KADIR AND 2 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: S. 11-Deficiency in court-fees leviable in suit-Words "unless the over-valuation or under-valuation thereof have prejudicially affected the disposal of the suit or appeal on its merits" show that decrees passed in such cases were liable to be interfered with in appellate Court, not in all cases and as a matter of course, but only if prejudice such as mentioned in S. 11 resulted-Prejudice on merits must be directly attributable to over-valuation or under-valuation and error in a finding of fact reached on a consideration of evidence could not be possibly said to have been caused by over-valuation or under-valuation---Mere errors in conclusions on points for determination would therefore, be clearly precluded by language of S. I 1-Decree of trial Court was liable to be reversed only on proof of prejudice on merits and prejudice could be established by going into merits of decision both on question. of fact and law-For determination whether there was prejudice or not, there must be an enquiry on merits of decision on question of fact.Interpretation of statutes-Court-fee.P L D 1956 Supreme Court (Ind
KIRAN SINGH and others Versus CHAMAN PASWAN and others
Court:P L D 1979 Lahore 436
QAMAR-Petitioner Versus THE STATE-Respondent
Court: -- S. 439 read with S. 537, Explanation-Criminal trial-Witness Examination of Investigating Officer-Legal and moral duty of prosecution-Failure of prosecution to examine Investigating Officer other than for cogent reasons-Held, not only a violation of fundamental character as can lead to a mockery of trial but most abhorent injustice prosecution can perpetrate-Non-appearance of Investigating Officer, however, does not ipso facto cause prejudice to accused unless it can be shown or reasonably demonstrated from material on record that his presence was necessary and actual prejudice has been caused by his non-appearance-Failure on part of accused to raise objection at an earlier stage-Can prevent him from seeking relief of reversal of his conviction unless delay due to negligence of prosecution-Evidence Act (I of 1872), Ss. 32 & 114.Criminal trial-Witness-Investigating Officer-Prejudice.1987 P Cr
MUHAMMAD AMIN and another‑‑Petitioners Versus THE STATE‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1976 P Cr
Ch. KHURSHID AHMAD CHAUHAN‑ — Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1986 P Cr
STATE- Petitioner Versus ABRAR HUSSAIN SHAH and 2 others — Respondents
Court: Shariat Court (AJ & K)2016 C L C 1164
GHULAM SAKINA and another — Petitioners Versus Mst. MUMTAZ BEGUM — Respondent
Court: Lahore1985 S C M R 1011
Sheikh MUHAMMAD YOUSUF‑‑Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD FAZIL and another‑‑Respondents
Court: High Court