Find a Lawyer

GHULAM MURTAZA versus PROVINCE OF PUNJAB

Identifying areas after award of R185 mining lease and reducing applicant mining area while increasing the amended impedance boundary notification set by the appellate authority, but applying for the correctness of the High Court. A bid of Rs 81 million and the respondent's recovery of Rs 10 were deposited on the basis of the previous ceiling which proves that the applicant's mining area was larger than that for which the defendant had bid. Was presented. Implementing anonymous notification would be clearly unjust, under which the applicant's mining lease area has declined significantly. The respondent's Supreme Court accepted the appeal, directing the authority to notify the delimitation of disputed areas before auctioning in the future. \ r \ n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2012

• MUHAMMAD WASEEM v. State 2012 SCMR 387
• Mst. ROHAIFA v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Ministry of Defence 2012 SCMR 388
• PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LIMITED v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, EXCISE AND SALES TAX 2012 SCMR 392
• Suo Motu action regarding VIOLATION OF PUBLIC PROCUREMENT RULES, 2004 2012 PLC(CS) 394
• HAFEEZ AHMAD v. CIVIL JUDGE, LAHORE 2012 PLD 400
• TEHSIL MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, MURREE v. PREMIER GAS LINK, LAHORE 2012 SCMR 406
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. MAPLE LEAF CEMENT FACTORY LTD. 2012 SCMR 409
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. FATIMA ENTERPRISES LTD. 2012 SCMR 416

All Supreme Court judgments of 2012 →

solicitors from Gari Mori lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes