Home Maxims & Terms Existing laws meaning in Urdu
Word Pakistani Jurisprudence Reference

Existing laws

Existing laws legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.

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

1996 PLD 687 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE Judicial Precedent
Words and Phrases Existing laws" occurring in Art. 268, Constitution of Pakistan (1973)

Connotation.

Sponsored Content / تشہیری مواد
How to cite this page: "Existing laws", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/3962

Precedents & Case Laws citing "Existing laws"

PLD 2003
Writ Petition No. 1959 of 1996, heard on 4th April, 2003.

P L D 2003 Lahore 531

Messrs FECTO CEMENT LTD. ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN and others‑‑‑Respondents

Court:
PLD 1985
Writ Petition No. 3574 of 1983, decided on 6th March, 1985.

P L D 1985 Lahore 358

ZAH00R MAHMOOD FAROOQI — Petitioner Versus THE PUNJAB PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION, LAHORE Respondent

Court: --Art. 9-Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance (XXXII of 1962), S. 33(2)(d)-Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979-Punjab Civil Servants Act (VIII of 1970, S. 23-Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 268(7), 142 & 143-Regulations published by a Federal Authority and Rules promulgated by Provincial Government = Question whether two standing provisions of viz. Pakistan Medical and Dental Council Ordinance, 1962, S. 33 and Punjab Health Department (Medical and Dental Teaching Posts) Service Rules, 1979 could co-exist-Federal law, held, prevailed, and provincial law to the extent of repugnancy was void -Two competing laws when enact two divergent provisions, Federal law must prevail -Two provisions when entirely irreconcilable, repugnancy could be deemed to exist-- New law when abridges some right conferred by existing law or directly or indirectly interfered with such right, repugnancy could be said to be in existence-Regulations framed by Federal Government being existing law must take precedence over Rules of Provincial Government, therefore, Rules 1979 must give way to Regulations 1962-Irreconcitable conflict and repugnancy-Principles to be applied.-Interpretation of statutes.
PLD 1963
(2) THE ESTATE OFFICER, LAHORE

P L D 1963 Supreme Court 401

MUHAMMAD AFZAL‑Appellant Versus (1) THE COMMISSIONER, LAHORE DIVISION AND

Court: Martial Law Order (M. L. A. Zone B) No. 111 (regarding removal of timber and bamboo shops from their respective sites in Lahore to a specified market)‑Martial Law Order (M. L. A. Zone B) No. 118 (regarding removal of cows and buffaloes from limits of Lahore Municipal Committee)‑West Pakistan Martial Law Orders (Continuance in Force) Ordinance (XXI of 1962)‑Martial Law Orders Nos. 111 and 118, held to be incompetent "to extent of repugnancy to existing laws" by reason of provision of Arts. 2 (1) and 4 (1), Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (1 of 1958)‑Court's power to pronounce upon competence of aforesaid Martial Law Orders not affected by Art. 3, Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958) or by Art. 250, Constitution of Pakistan (1962), or by cl. 3, Martial Law Orders (Repeal) Order (29 of 1962)‑Martial Law (Pending Proceedings and Protection) Order (26 of 1962) not applicable to "executive action proposed to be taken"‑Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958), "fundamental law of country and instrument of constitutional nature"‑Muhammad Ayub Khuhro v. Pakistan and others P L D 1960 S C (Pak) 237; State v. Dosso and another P L D 1958 S C (Pak) 533 and Iftikhar‑ud‑Din and another v. Muhammad Sarfraz and another P L D 1961 S C (Pak.) 585 ref.‑West Pakistan Martial Law Orders (Continuance in Force) Ordinance (XXI of 1962), an "existing law" within meaning of Art. 225(7), Constitution of Pakistan (1962) (Per Hamoodur Rahman, J. Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle‑Akbar, JJ., being signatories to Judgment; Kaikaus, J. contra)‑Ordinance held to be "in force" "immediately before commencing day" though it was not "in operation" (Per Hamoodur Rahman, J., Cornelius, C. J., S. A. Rahman, Fazle‑Akbar, JJ., being signatories to judgment ; Kaikaus, J. contra)‑Province of East Pakistan v. Md. Mehdi Ali Khan and others P L D 1959 S C (Pak.) 387 ref. Ordi nance, however, not competently or validly made" under Art. 5, Laws (Continuance in Force) Order (I of 1958)‑Martial Law Orders Nos. Ill, 118 not validly continued by Ordinance (XXI of 1962) Court's power to pronounce upon competence of Ordinance not taken away by Arts. 6 and 7, Constitution of Pakistan (1962)‑Ordinance repugnant to certain existing laws‑Per Kaikaus, J. : "a law comes into force only when it takes effect or comes into operation..
PLC 1982
N/A

1982 P L C 161

Syed ABID ALI SHAH AND 2 OTHERS Versus THE CHAIRMAN SIND ROAD TRANSPORT CORPORATION AND 2 OTHERS

Court: Labour Appellate Tribunal, Sind
PLC 2021
Civil Appeals Nos. 65-K to 117-K of 2019, decided on 11th March, 2021.

2021 P L C 157

Messrs SHAHBAZ GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department, Karachi and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PLC(CS) 2021
Civil Appeals Nos. 65-K to 117-K of 2019, decided on 11th March, 2021.

2021 P L C 157

Messrs SHAHBAZ GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and others Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department, Karachi and others

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
SCMR 2021
Civil Appeals Nos. 65-K to 117-K of 2019, decided on 11th March, 2021.

2021 S C M R 1088

Messrs SHAHBAZ GARMENTS (PVT.) LTD. and others — Appellants Versus GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Secretary Labour and Human Resource Department, Karachiand others — Respondents

Court: Supreme Court of Pakistan
PCRLJ 1993
1992-May-14

1993 P Cr

MUHAMMAD NISAR KHAN and 2 others — Appellants Versus AZAD GOVERNMENT OF THE STATE OF JAMMU AND

Court: Supreme Court (AJ&K)
PLD 2008
2008-June-17

P L D 2008 Islamabad 30

Messrs FECTO CEMENT LIMITED, SANGJANI, ISLAMABAD — Appellant Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Water and Power, Islamabad and 5 others — Respondents

Court: High Court
PLD 2001
2000-July-24

P L D 2001 Supreme Court 18

Haji Rana MUHAMMAD SHABBIR AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Attorney-General for Pakistan and another — Respondents

Court: High Court