Register
Home › Maxims & Terms › Estoppel, rule of meaning in Urdu
Legal Term Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Estoppel, rule of

Estoppel, rule of legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

2004 PLD 404 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent

Representation, in order to attract the rule of estoppel, need not always be a representation of a physical fact, but may as well be the representation of an attitude or a state of mind

State of a man's mind was as much a matter of fact as the state of his digestion.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Estoppel, rule of", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/38932

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Estoppel, rule of"

SCMR 2016
Civil Appeal No.663 of 2010, decided on 7th October, 2015.

2016 S C M R 24

NAZIM-UD-DIN and others — Appellants Versus Sheikh ZIA-UL-QAMAR and others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLD 1990
Regular Second Appeal No. 5 of 1985, heard on 25th March, 1989.

P L D 1990 Lahore 365

Mst. NASREEN AKHTAR‑‑Appellant Versus ASMAT ULLAH PEHLAWAN‑‑Respondent

Court: of proof of estoppel in pre‑emption matters stated. Estoppel.
CLC 2005
W.P. No.344 of 2003, decided on 30th October, 2003.

2005 C L C 564

ARFAN HAMEED, S.D.O. MIRPUR and 42 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus SECRETARY, EDUCATION, AJ&K GOVERNMENT CIVIL SECRETARIAT, MUZAFFARABAD and 3 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Azad J&K
PTD 2011
Income Tax Reference Application No.177 of 1997, decided on 13th January, 2011.

2011 PTD 925

RAJAB ALI HAMANI, KARACHI Versus COMMISSIONER INCOME TAX. KARACHI

Court: Sindh High Court
CLC 1989
Civil Appeal No.21/Mirpur of 1988, decided on 19th June, 1989.

1989 C L C 1850

MUHAMMAD AFSAR‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD SHARIF and 8 others‑‑Respondents

Court: Supreme Court (A J & K)
PLD 1955
Execution First Appeal No. 57 of 1954, decided on 8th March 1955, from the order of Muhammad Ishfaq Ali, Civil judge, 1st Class, Lahore, dated the 15th June, 1954.

Laws like the Punjab Registration of Money﷓lenders Act (III of 1938) are enacted not for the benefit of any particular individ

Ch. BARKAT ALI Defendant — ‑Appellant Versus CHANAN DIN‑Plaintiff‑ — Respondent

Court:
PTD 1981
It does appear to us that this was a case decided on the principle of promissory estoppel. The representative of the Arun District Council clearly gave assurance to Crabb that they would give him access to the new road at point B to serve the southern portion of his land and the Arun District Council in fact constructed a gate at point B, and in the belief induced by this representation that he would have the right of access to the new road at point B, Crabb agreed to sell the northern portion of his land without reserving for himself as owner of the southern portion any right of way over the northern portion for the purpose of access to the new road. This was the reason why the Court raised an equity in favour of Crabb and held that the equity would be satisfied by giving Crabb "the right of access at point B free of charge without paying anything for it". . Arun District Council was held bound by its promise to provide Crabb access to the new road at point B and this promise was enforced against Arun District Council at the instance of Crabb. The ease was one which fell within the category of promissory estoppel and it may be regarded as supporting the view that promissory estoppel can be the basis of a cause of action. It is possible that the case also came within the rule of proprietary estoppel enunciated by Lord Kings-down in Ramsden v. Dyson 1866 L R 1 H L Cas. 129 (H L):

1981 P T D 277

MOTILAL PADAMPAT SUGAR MILLS Co. LTD. Versus STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH AND OTHERS

Court: Supreme Court of India
MLD 1996
Writ Petition No. 1078 of 1995, heard on 28th September 1995.

1996 M L D 980

RAJA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. Through General Manager‑‑‑Petitioner Versus CENTRAL BOARD OF REVENUE, GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, ISLAMABAD through Chairman and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents

Court: Lahore
PLD 1972
N/A

P L D 1972 Karachi 571

KARACHI MUNICIPAL CORPORATION -Appellant Versus MOOSA M. ADAM AND 4 OTHERS‑Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 1950
Regular Second Appeal No. 188 of 1948, decided on 16th February 1950, from the order of the Additional District judge, Gujrat, dated 12th April 1948.

P

LAL KHAN‑Defendant‑Appellant Versus ALLAH DITTA and others‑Respondents

Court:

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