Find a Lawyer

LIAQAT ALI versus TOWN COMMITTEE

Section 3 Contempt of Court Ordinance (X of 1998), Sections 21 and 23 of the Court of Appeal admitting that the court registered cell deed did not act in favor of the appellants despite the statement of the defendant's chief officer's favor in his favor , The appellants filed criminal origin in their pending constitutional petitions, which were rejected by the appellants of the High Court, filed intra-court appeals against the High Court order stating that they were contemptuous. Intra-Court appeals have been filed under Section 21 of the Court Ordinance, 1998 as this ordinance reverses contempt of court Have given. In lieu of the Court Act, 1976, and through the appellants it was claimed that the appeals filed by him were also applicable under Section 3 of the contempt of court Reform Ordinance, 1972, the contempt of court Ordinance, 1998, for four months' life. Couldn't just because they could. Because of an Act of Parliament and Article 89 of the Constitution, it ceased to exist because it is representative of Apple was unable to retain the appeals filed by the appellants under the 1998 Ordinance of Ordinance, such appeals as the Law Reform Ordinance 1972. Was also not applicable under section 3 of the Act as this law can be sustained in two instances. First, if a decree or final order was passed by the High Court using its original civil jurisdiction and second, if a judge of a High Court under Article 199 (1) of the Constitution If a decree was passed by the government, it does not matter. Under Section 3 of the Law Reforms Ordinance 1972 female advocates from Ranipur lawyer