Home Maxims & Terms Katcha Peshi meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Katcha Peshi

Katcha Peshi legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1986 PLD 301 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Enactment containing general provisions and special provisions in respect of same subject?Special provisions, held, were to be considered as exception and if a person wished to take advantage of special provisions and, if any condition was imposed by special provisions, he must strictly comply with same.When a statute creates new rights and obligations and prescribes mode of their enjoyment or enforcement, such provisions, held, were to be construed mandatory as Legislature intended compliance of such provisions to be essential to validity of facts or proceedings.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Katcha Peshi", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3335

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Katcha Peshi"

CLC 2006
2006-March-20

2006 C L C 1434

Messrs TEXZONE — Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXPORT COLLECTORATE, CUSTOM HOUSE, KARACHI and another — Respondents

Court: Karachi
YLR 2012
Constitutional Petition No.S-818 of 2010, decided on 22nd December, 2011.

2012 YLR 2246

MUHAMMAD IQBAL — Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD ZUBAIR and 2 others — Respondents

Court: Sindh
PLD 1998
1997-December-12

P L D 1998 Karachi 127

LIMITED, KARACHI and 3 others — Co-Petitioners Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE UNIONS, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH,

Court: High Court
PLD 1972
Letters Patent Appeal No. 62 of 1971, decided on 18th Octo. ber 1971.

P L D 1972 Karachi 471

Before Qadeeruddin Ahmed, C. J. and Agha All Hyder, J Versus Mst. ALLAH RAKHI BEGUM‑Respondent

Court: Held: The Sind Chief Court Rules (A. S.) do not apply to this Court. Moreover, if the above argument is accepted, then it would extend to every Letters Patent Appeal irrespec tive of whether it is barred by time or has been filed without paying proper court‑fee. Additionally, the argument does away with the distinction between a preliminary hearing and fulleso hearing in the absence of the opposite‑party because the emphasis is not on the nature of hearing but on notice to the opposite side or his pleader. This aspect of the view shows that the argument is capable of being stretched too far. p. 474A
CLC 1981
Constitutional Petition No. 1235 of 1974, decided on 9th December, 1979.

1981 C L C 111

IRSHAD ALI‑Petitioner Versus ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN AND 2 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: Karachi
PLD 1991
Civil Appeal No. 337 of 1989, decided on 12th June, 1991.

P L D 1991 Supreme Court 1082

PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB ‑‑‑‑ Appellant Versus Messrs Syed SHAFIQUE AHMED (Registered) ‑‑‑‑ Respondent

Court:
CLD 2008
N/A

2008 C L D 326

SIKANDER TRADING COMPANY PRIVATE LIMITED and 6 others — Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED — Respondent

Court: Karachi
PCRLJ 1999
1998-September-28

1999 P Cr

Hyderabad — Appellant Versus LESLIE FREDRICKS — Respondent

Court: Karachi
PLC 1999
Appeal No.HYD-430 of 1997, decided on 10th March, 1998.

1999 P L C 435

SHAUKAT ALI Versus Messrs ZEAL PAK CEMENT FACTORY and another

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal Sindh
MLD 1986
First Rent Appeal No. 195 of 1986, decided on 5th May 1986.

1986 M L D 1621

ZAFARUDDIN‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. QAISER JAHAN alias NOOR JAHAN‑‑Respondent

Court: Karachi