Find a Lawyer

REHMAN FLOUR MILLS versus WAPDA

Electricity Act 1910 Section 23 = Civil Code of Conduct (v. 1908), Section 100 Second Appeal Interference Jurisdiction Claims by the Controversial Claimant Claims for Use of Electricity by Controversial Bio Was Not Recognized by the Courts Below, it is shown that apart from the plaintiff's bald statement, there was no other evidence to support the plaintiff's version that the money on the disputed bill was not in the plaintiff's request that the meter in question was incorrect. ? The trial court, in its judgment, dealt with it in detail, in which the meter error was deemed to be indispensable for component devices and the meter was determining the factor of such a situation and that the second way of charging for the power supply was power consumption. Which is the reason given by the courts below. The second appeal was not affirmed by the rejection claim, so, no justification for this was separately reached conclusions by the courts below online advocate from Karore Lalisan lawyer