Find a Lawyer

CHAIRMAN, PESCO versus ASHFAQ AHMAD

Sections 26 (6) and 54C of the Special Relief Act (of 1877), Articles 42 and 54 of the Civil Code (v. 1908), Section 9 of the Declaration and the Permanent Order Jurisdiction to declare the effect of the plaintiffs in the civil courts Had sought that the electricity bill for the relevant month was wrong, wrong and ineffective, the relief order was sought even after the defendant's permanent injunction restrained the defendant from claiming the amount of the disputed bill because the trial And it was permanently rejected by the Court of Appeal. The plaintiffs asserted that the plaintiff's only remedy was to file an application before the electric inspector under section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910, and the lawsuit filed by the plaintiff was applicable and consistent. There were no verdicts and the orders of the courts were imprisoned without guilt. Defendants were first reprimanded because they had never raised an objection by the defendant before the Council, below, the defendants could not allow such an objection to the first amendment stage in the circumstances. Are. Secondly, under section 26 of section 26 of the Electricity Act 1910, only provisions of section 26 (6) of the Electricity Act, 1910 can be followed where the meter, maximum demand or any related licensees And any disputes or disputes between users. In other cases the dispute between the parties was not in relation to the meter, or the maximum demand indicator or other measuring instrument was a simple question in this case. The power was disconnected by the claimant, but so on famous supreme court advocate from Kahuta lawyer