Trichotomy of Sovereign Powers
Trichotomy of Sovereign Powers legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Powers of Executive-Executive to function within ambit and scope of laws made by Legislature, interpretation whereof to be made by judiciary-Executive not empowered to override Courts or to take away their jurisdiction or effect or any executable decree or order passed by Courts-Such actions or orders, held, must be struck down as wholly without jurisdiction.
"Trichotomy of Sovereign Powers", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3744
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Trichotomy of Sovereign Powers"
2021 C L C 1583
MISS MAHNUM HUSSAIN and other — Petitioners Versus BRITISH COUNCIL PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 2018 Islamabad 285
ARY MEDIA COMMUNICATIONS — Applicant Versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Cabinet Division, Islamabad and 4 others — Respondents
Court: High CourtP L D 1978 Lahore 87
Before Aftab Hussain, 1 Versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB AND 5 OTHERS-Respondents
Court: -- S. 3-Words and phrases --Word "requisition"-Meaning.-Words and phrases.1989 C L C 2456
Parliamentary Affairs, Government of N.‑W.F.P.‑‑Petitioner Versus THE FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through the Secretary, Ministry of Justice
Court: Peshawar1997 S C M R 141
ISLAMABAD‑‑‑Appellant Versus Qazi WALI MUHAMMAD ‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan1997 P L C (C
REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD Versus Qazi WALI MUHAMMAD
Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan2005 P Cr
MUHAMMAD TARIQ QURESHI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SHAHID KHAN, DIRECTOR‑GENERAL LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Lahore2024 C L C 1359
ARZOO TEXTILE MILLS LTD. and others — Petitioners Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1994 M L D 492
Sardar WAJID ALI — Appellant Versus HAMID NASIR CHATTHA — Respondent
Court: Election Tribunal Punjab1999 M L D 1986
NOOR MUHAMMAD — Petitioner Versus THE STATE — Respondent
Court: Lahore