Find a Lawyer

NAVEED NAWAZISH MALIK versus GHULAM RASOOL BHATTI

The contempt of court 1976 section 4 constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 204, the respondent's Supreme Court passed the order, assuring the court to vacate the court on a certain date, not just the promise. But the court passed the verdict based on the promise that the respondents had an effect and the violation of such order could not be shown by the contempt of court order that the defendants had given the applicants (the landlord) their own The promise was made and not to the court, even if no upgrade was given to the court by the respondents, so the fact remains. The court had passed the order covered with vacant possession and guidance to the applicant before the due date or before. Violation of which can lead to the delivery of the contempt of court Act, 1976. The evidence available on the record has been fully established that the respondents acted in the intention of Malala, another respondent who admitted that she had obtained this order by openly violating the order by forging documents and giving false evidence. Helped a device to disappoint and deliberately disobeyed and humiliated the Supreme Court. Respondents who tried to pollute the fountain of justice and obstruct the administration of the law easily were convicted of contempt of court and were convicted under Section 4 of the contempt of court Act 1976. The respondent was sentenced to 6 months imprisonment. 5000 while the second respondent was sentenced to three months. Section I inheritance advocates near Larkana lawyer