Home Maxims & Terms Principle of meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Principle of

Principle of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2001 YLR 1766 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Principle ofPrinciples of

Subject to all just exceptions, the cases should be decided on merit.

1998 PLD 307 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
S. 14Natural justice, principles ofDangerous buildingDefective service ofNotice of Authority to that effectEffectNo person should be condemned unheard

No order adverse to the interest of any person should be passed without giving him opportunity of explaining his position

Principle of natural justice must be read in every statute and applied in its enforcement.

1998 PLD 28 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent
Principle of S. 161Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199Constitutional petitionNatural justice, principles ofViolation of such principlesEffectWhether Constitutional jurisdiction could be invoked ignoring available statutory remedy

Mutation of safe set aside by Assistant Commissioner without issuing show-cause notice to petitioners and without affording them opportunity of being heard

Validity

Respondent's claim that other remedies. of filing suit and revision being available, Constitutional jurisdiction could not be exercised, such contention was of no effect

Where Tribunal or Court had acted in violation of principles of natural justice by not affording opportunity of hearing to petitioners and had exceeded its jurisdiction by condoning delay of seven years in entertaining appeal against mutation without assigning any reasons, such order could not be deemed to have been passed with lawful authority

Constitutional jurisdiction would be more effective and efficacious remedy in such cases than other remedies available under the law

Respondent's contention that mutations in question being fraudulent and forged were rightly set aside by Assistant Commissioner had no bases as no such finding had been recorded by Assistant Commissioner

Such contention, being a disputed question of fact, could not be gone into by the High Court

Order of Assistant Commissioner whereby mutations of sale were set aside, having been passed in derogation of principles of natural justice, was declared to be without lawful authority and of no legal effect

Parties were, however, would be at liberty to agitate their rights before proper forum, if so advised.

1995 PLD 320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Principle of No adverse order can be passed against a party behind its back as the same would be violative of the principles of natural justice, one of fundamental rights of the citizens.

1994 PLD 353 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

No show-cause notice was issued to petitioners prior to taking action against them whereby plot allotted to them was cancelled

Action against petitioners having been taken at their back without affording them opportunity of being heard was violative of the principles of natural justice and, thus, void ab initio.

1993 PLD 237 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Appreciation. The principles of the natural justice requiring a hearing to be granted to a person before being condemned, applies not only to judicial or. Quasi judicial proceedings but also to administrative proceedings provided that the relevant statute does not exclude its application and requires the administrative authority concerned to base its decision on an objective determination of facts.

1991 PLD 321 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Right of hearing

Such right will depend on the nature of powers, order made and the statute.

1982 PLD 166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 3-Natural justice, principle of-Show-cause notice, requirement of-Petitioners depot/authorisation cancelled by District Magistrate under S. 3 of Ordinance on account of alleged irregularities and mal-practices committed by him-Order, held, not being an order of cancellation simpliciter but containing stigma to petitioner, he was entitled to opportunity of showing cause against proposed action, in circumstance.-[Natural justice, principle of].

1982 PLD 671 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Opportunity of hearing-Notwithstanding statute not providing for hearing to person likely to be affected, and notwithstanding matter of determination of net worth value being dependent on calculations. parties to be affected, held, to be afforded opportunity of being heard and no person to be affected in his person or property without being afforded opportunity of hearing.

1981 PLD 622 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss. 14 & 15-`Principle of natural justice'-Application of.

1981 PLD 329 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Manner of holding inquiry or conducting proceeding, held, entirely left to authority concerned even when principles of natural justice pressed, affected party nevertheless to be given a fair opportunity.

1980 PLD 29 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN Judicial Precedent

A vested right, in contrast to a contingent right, is a right ready to take effect immediately, to be enjoyed in the present or future. A contingent right is by its nature uncertain and contingent upon the happening of a certain thing or event. A recipient of a local certificate becomes entitled to the enjoyment of certain rights immediately on the grant of such certificate. Most obvious of such rights is consideration for admission to Professional Educational .Institutions. A cancellation of a certificate of this nature deprives the students of such rights. The notice is therefore all the more necessary in case a local certificate is desired to be cancelled.

1980 PLD 176 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Chap. 6, r. 17(iv)-Appeal-Right to be heard

Expression "if he so desires" in r. 17(iv)-pule 17 itself presupposing grant of right of hearing, expression "if he so desires, held further, affords an opportunity of appearance before Appellate Authority and cannot by itself be interpreted to have taken away right of opportunity of appearance at time of hearing of appeal.-[Appeal (civil)].

1980 PLD 82 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Audi alteram partem-Natural justice, principles of-Termination of services-Services of employee terminated, being no longer required No stigma of any sort attached nor employee dismissed or removed from service-Principle of maxim audi alteram partem, hence, held, not attracted to case.-[Industrial dispute]

1980 PLD 490 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Maxim : Audi alteram partem-Expelling petitioner from University for -misconduct, indiscipline, and illegal activities without issuing notice to him and without hearing - him-Order of rustication, held, without lawful authority-Rule of audi alteram partem, held further, to be read into relevant law unless expressly excluded by such law.-[Maxim].

1980 PLD 122 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Gift-Minor donees need not establish possession being transferred to them much less of acceptance of gift having been recorded.

1978 PLD 273 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Principle of audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)

To be read in relevant law unless its application excluded by express words.

1978 PLD 1370 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

S. 24 read with ejected Tenants Scheme, 1952-Natural justice, principle of-Maxim "audi alterampartem"-Resumption order passed without notice to allottee of tenancy-Order, held, violative of mandatory provision of S. 24 as well as principle of natural justice and allottee entitled to proprietary rights in land.

1978 PLD 1355 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Principle of-Orders passed in violation of principle of natural justice-Unlawful

Principle of natural justice requiring person proceeded against to be given reasonable opportunity of being heard-To be read into every law including martial law instructions unless shown to be specifically dispensed with-Martial Law Instruction (Zone B) No. 131.-[Martial law]

1978 PLD 1166 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Petitioner's plea rejected outright without affording him any reasonable and adequate opportunity of hearing - Order dismissing petitioner's claim in limine, held, illegal.

1976 PLD 183 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Principle of Order detrimental to interests of a person-Can be passed only after affording such person opportunity of hearing-Maxim : Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard).-[Maxim].

1976 PLD 1304 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Principle of

Art. 199-Writ proceedings-Writ petition abating due to death of petitioner-Can be dismissed if legal representatives of deceased petitioner not brought on record within time and abatement not set aside-Contention that penal provisions of Civil Procedure Code. 1908 do not apply to writ proceedings, held, incorrect.-[ Writ].

1976 PLD 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

O. IX, r. 4-Application for restoration-Natural justice, principles of-Maxim: Audi alteram partem (no one should be condemned unheard)-Whether applicable to such application-Application for ejectment of tenant under West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance, 1959-No finality attaches to order of dismissal of such application in default-Landlord can file another application on same cause of action-West Pakistan Urban Rent Restriction Ordinance (VI of 1959), S. 13.-[Suit, restoration of-Cause of action-Natural justice, principles of].

1975 PLD 1115 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

CI. 6(3)-Natural justice, principles of-Petitioner's Ration depot cancelled without affording him opportunity of hearing-Order, held, without lawful authority and of no legal effect.

1974 PLD 375 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

To be read as part and parcel of every statute.

1970 PLC 538 SUPREME-COURT-INDIA Judicial Precedent
Resjudicata

Principle of Whether applicable to industrial adjudication or proceedings for certification of standing orders-Doubtful-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), .S.11 and Industrial Employment (Standing Orders) Act (XX of 1946), Ss. 6 & 10.

1969 PLD 1 SUPREME-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR Judicial Precedent
S. 11-Res judicata

Principles of - Do not apply to departmental proceedings Secretary-General of Azad Kashmir Government designated as Special Judge and delegated with Government's powers to hear departmental appeals-Not a Court-Proceedings before Secretary-General, held, do not constitute res judicata.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Principle of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3303

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Principle of"

SCMR 1996
decided on 27th September, 1994.

1996 S C M R 973

Mst. NUSRAT‑‑‑Petitioner Versus THE STATE‑‑‑Respondent,

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
CLC 1990
Writ Petition No. 377 of 1983, decided on 25th October, 1989.

1990CLC310

Syed AHMAD FAROOO and 3 others‑‑Petitioners Versus MUHAMMAD ARIF through L.Rs. and 3 others‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
YLR 2004
Writ Petition No. 14626 of 2003,. decided on 20th October, 2003.

2004 Y L R 471

Sardar MUHAMMAD ASHIQ DOGAR — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary and another — Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLC 1982
Appeal No. F.D,‑763 of 1979 Punjab, decided on 16th December, 1981

1982 P L C 448

SHAFQAT IJAZ AHMAD KHAN Versus RAHMAN MAIZE Co. LTD. AND OTHERS

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Punjab
CLC 2001
Writ Petition No.7979 of 2000, decided on 26th July, 2000.

2001CLC9

YAHYA GULZAR‑‑‑Petitioner Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through

Court: Lahore
PLD 2011
Writ Petition No. 14248 of 2010. decided on 23rd March, 2011

P L D 2011 Lahore 441

MUHAMMAD NAZIM-UD-DIN and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERAL SECRETARY and others — -Respondents

Court: ---Preamble---publication of Holy Quran (Elimination of Printing and Recording Errors) Rules, 1973, R.4---Constitution of Pakistan, Part-II, Chapter 2 Arts. 8 to 28, Arts. 29, 31 & 199---Constitutional petition-Principles of policy-Implementation-Publication of the Holy Quran---Grievance of petitioners was that authorities had not ensured printing of the Holy Quran on the best quality of paper and no arrangements were made for proper disposal of damaged papers of the Holy Quran--Plea raised by authorities was that correct printing of the Holy Quran was only a matter of Principle of Policy as envisaged in Art.31 contained in Part II, Chapter 2 of the Constitution and not enforceable by judicial process---Validity---Principles of Policy set out in Chapter 2 of Part-II of the Constitution were in fact the aspirations of the Constitution makers, which were intended to be considered as guiding principles of policy of the State---According to Art.31 of the Constitution, the State was to endeavour to secure correct and exact printing and publishers of the Holy Quran---Every organ of the State, under Art.29 of the Constitution, was conferred responsibility to act in accordance with Principles of Policy enshrined in Part-II, Chapter 2 of the Constitution---Constitutional obligation and commitment must be honoured to consolidate public confidence and non fulfilment of liabilities and obligations by the Government was violative of fundamental principles of policy guaranteed under the Constitution---Authorities were under a constitutional duty to secure correct and exact printing and publishing of the Holy Quran as provided in Art.31 of the Constitution--Law titled Punjab Holy Quran (Printing and Recording) Act, 2001, was enacted in the recent past and the rules under the same were yet to be made---High Court directed the Provincial Government to consider the proposals of petitioners in the Rule Framing process in the committee constituted by Chief Minister---Petition was disposed of accordingly.
SCMR 1999
Appeal No.3-S of 1994, decided on 9th March, 1999

1999 S C M R 2713

AKBAR KHAN alias SALEEM MEHMOOD CHEHI -Appellant Versus GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB — Respondent

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
YLR 2003
Writ Petition No. 18961 of 1998, decided on 31st October, 2002.

2003 Y L R 360

MUHAMMAD TUFAIL‑‑‑Petitioner Versus DEPUTY COMMISSIONER/DISTRICT COLLECTOR, SHEIKHUPURA and

Court: Lahore
PLC(CS) 1992
Writ Petition No. 4855-S of 1991, decided on 23rd November, 1991.

1992 P L C (C

MUSHTAQ AHMAD ALEEM Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN

Court: Lahore High Court
PLD 2005
Writ Petition No.6644 of 2005, decided on 26th April, 2005.

P L D 2005 Lahore 399

Mst. IRSHAIJ BEGUM‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Human Rights Division, Islamabad and 2 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: