Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Sufficient meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Sufficient

Sufficient legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2001 CLC 1689 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases ......Sufficient" and "sufficient cause"

Meaning.

1982 PLD 260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

S. 26-A-Words and phrases-Word "sufficient" used in S. 26-A Not having been defined in Act, to be construed according to its ordinary literal meaning

Definitions as given in dictionaries stated [Words and phrases]

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Sufficient", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3684

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Sufficient"

PTD 2001
I.T.A. No. 809(IB) of 1997-98, decided on 16th October, 2000.

2001 P T D (Trib

N/A

Court: Income-tax Appellate Tribunal Pakistan
PLD 1982
Suit No. 456 of 1975, decided on 11th August, 1981

P L D 1982 Karachi 260

MESSRS INDHARA INDUSTRIES LTD.; KARACHI‑‑Plaintiffs Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN‑Defendant

Court: S. 26‑Ar‑Award, reasons for‑Reasons for award‑To be stated by arbitrators in sufficient detail to enable Court to consider any question of law arising out of award‑Provision mandatory and in case of reasons being trot stated in sufficient detail Court bound to remit award to arbitrators but award cannot be straightway set aside on such ground‑Mere giving reasons in sketchy or summary manner, held, does not amount to compliance with provision of S. 26‑A.‑Award.
CLC 2001
Regular First Appeals Nos.471 and 472 of 1998; heard on 14th March, 2001.

2001 C L C 1689

WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Chairman, WAPDA, WAPDA House, Lahore‑‑‑Appellant Versus GULF COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 1992
Criminal Revision No. 14 of 1991, decided on 16th November, 1991.

1992 M L D 235

MUHAMMAD YUSUF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAZIA BIBI‑‑‑Respondent

Court: Azad J & K
CLC 2020
merits instead of knocking out the parties on the basis of technicalities but whenever a suit was dismissed in default then plaintiff should mention a cause for such lapse---Provisions of O.IX, R.9, C.P.C. could not be dispensed with merely on the ground that suit was to be decided on merits---Court had to keep the scale of justice equal and provisions of O. IX, R.9, C.P.C. could not be used for the advantage of one party and disadvantage of the other---Parties should be vigilant while prosecuting their cause---Trial Court had rightly applied the law to the subject and application for restoration of suit was dismissed through a well-reasoned order---Impugned order passed by the Appellate Court was set aside and that of Trial Court was restored---Application for restoration of suit was dismissed, in circumstances---Revision was allowed accordingly

2020 C L C 1652

EJAZ AHMAD through Attorney — Petitioner Versus RAI MUHAMMAD RIAZ (DECEASED) through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents

Court: Lahore
MLD 2022
2021-September-22

2022 M L D 831

MUHAMMAD KHALID MUNIR — Petitioner Versus NAZAR SADIQ and another — Respondents

Court: Islamabad
PLD 1969
Appeal from Appellate Decree No. 162 of 1962, decided on 29th June 1966.

P L D 1969 Dacca 406

KABIR ARMED MASTER AND OTHERS‑Appellants Versus LOKMAN ARMED AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: (a) Bengal Land Revenue Sales Act (XI of 1859), S. 37 --Under tenure ‑ Annulment of. by auction ‑ purchaser at revenue sale‑Prerequisites‑Expression of intention to avoid incumbrance and bringing such intent‑on to knowledge of incum brancer‑Formal written notice expressing such intention not essential‑Unequivocal act indicating such intention, sufficient -Institution of suit for ejectment held, positive indication and sufficient notice of intention to annul "when summons is served on defendant"‑Khalil Ahmed Chowdhury v. Muhammad Shamsul Anwar Choudhury and others P L D 1959 Dacca 509; Monmohan Chowdhury v. Messrs Turner Morrison & Co. 33 C W N 930; Shahodra Mudiali v. Nabin Chand Poral 19 C W N 1030 and Srimati Krishna Kalyani v. R. Braunfeld 20 C W N 1028 ref..
PLD 1961
Writ' Petition No. 644 of 1960, decided on 6th January, 1961.

P L D 1961 (W

MEHR ALLAHYAR‑Petitioner Versus Syed HASAN JAHANIAN SHAH GARDEZI AND OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: The exclusion in this case was grounded merely on the fact that the place of residence of the member excluded was incorrect as given in the Gazette.
CLC 1980
Civil Revision No. 73 of 1975, decided on 23rd January, 1980.

1980 C L C 1446

MIR AFZAL AND 6 OTHERS-Petitioners Versus SAMIUR REHMAN AND 34 OTHERS-Respondents

Court: Peshawar
YLR 2022
2022-April-7

2022 Y L R 2446

MUHAMMAD AYAZ — Applicant Versus AZHAR MEHMOOD — Respondent

Court: High Court (AJ&K)

Dictionary Search

Advertisement

Explore Legal Library

Pakistan Law Portal is an advanced digital repository of legal precedents, statutes, and judicial terms. Utilize citation search or keywords to discover relevant case law.

Back to Library