Find a Lawyer

SUO MOTU ACTION REGARDING NON-PAYMENT OF THE COMPENSATION AMOUNT TO THE POOR ELECTRICIAN versus

Section 101010 and 3 amount3 Dietary Payment Method The dispute about the amount of money arose between the parties after the settlement of the crime. The amount of the debt will be determined at the current rate of the date when the settlement was made because it was the accused who actually requested the victim. The party is in favor of it and if consequently such extension has been made, then the payment of compensation should not be made and should be made at the prevailing rate when the clause 101010, PPC. The court was compromised and executed by Word Property. Includes both immovable and immovable property, therefore, the equivalent of existing fortune may also be paid when the value of the applicable and immovable property was compromised after the determination. , The Supreme Court directed the trial court to resolve the matter immediately. Accordingly

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• Mst. GUL JAN v. NAIK MUHAMMAD 2012 PLD 421
• Syed YOUSAF RAZA GILLANI, PRIME MINISTER OF PAKISTAN v. ASSISTANT REGISTRAR, SUPREME COURT OF PAKISTAN 2012 SCMR 424
• ZEESHAN @ SHANI v. State 2012 SCMR 428
• FAZAL-E-RABBI v. NATIONAL AGRICULTURE LIMITED 2012 SCMR 433
• MUHAMMAD AKRAM v. State 2012 SCMR 440
• IMRAN KHAN v. ELECTION COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN 2012 SCMR 448
• Dr. AKHTAR HASSAN KHAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2012 SCMR 455
• CHIEF SECRETARY, GOVERNMENT OF THE PUNJAB v. SHAFIQUE AHMAD CHAUDHRY 2012 PLC(CS) 456

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

jobs for advocates from Saidu Sharif lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes