SULTANA AHMED versus SINDH INDUSTRIAL TRADING ESTATE LTD
Claims for Articles 42 and 55, Dismissal, Procedure Cancellation, Occupation, Profit and Loss Case Formally Leased by Lease Authority: No show cause notice was issued to the leasee person prior to the lease termination Was. The leasing authority was allowed to complete the leased land and after that the lease of the land to the other party by the leasing authority was not legal and valid, the current case was leased by the leasing authority officers. Had misused his powers to be a public worker by hiding the record from the court, which was subsequently brought to the notice of the court for comment by the public officials who were bound by the law to perform their duties fairly and present Officers have spearheaded the operation. Lawsuit to deprive the plaintiff of their valuable right to enjoy his property, which he had obtained legally on a registered document, and officers in respect of the prosecutorial proceedings in this regard Inappropriate respect was shown by. The plaintiffs suffered mental torture in the Sindh Province Act, 1991, for the mischief of corruption, as defined under Section 2 (2) of the Ombudsman's Office, for which the leasing authority was directed by the court. From the date of cancellation of the lease till now, it will be paid in the amount of Rs 30,000,000 annually. It was directed to send the matter to the Ombudsman under section 9 of the said Act, till the date of the decision till the full amount was paid to the plaintiff's office due to their illegal acts at the proposed bank rate.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
