Find a Lawyer

NAZEER AHMED versus NEK MUHAMMAD

In section 13 and 6 of the pre-emption case, the plaintiff claimed that the plaintiff's mention of the date, place and time of the incident and failure to mention the date of the student's invention would result in the dismissal. For this reason, the merger failed to meet the prerequisites. The victim and her mere claim that there was no legal consequence of improving the student's performance and evidence was not aware of the plaintiff's alleged superiority of rights because of her expulsion performance to provide details of her location and location. Was not performed. The date of issuance of the Inquiry into the Plaintiff and the issuance of the Student Assessment constituted an impediment to the terms of the law, which led to the dismissal of the Plaintiff's claim. In the circumstances the revision of the ision r \ n was allowed

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2012

• MUHAMMAD MUSHTAQ v. Mian MUHAMMAD IQBAL 2012 YLR 2107
• NASEEM AKHTAR v. MUHAMMAD AMIN and Abdul Majeed 2012 YLR 2118
• AMJAD BAIG v. MUHAMMAD RAMZAN 2012 YLR 2132
• MUHAMMAD AMIR v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, GUJRANWALA 2012 YLR 2181
• MUHAMMAD ANWAR v. THE STATE 2012 YLR 2196
• QASIM ALI v. THE STATE 2012 YLR 2214
• MUKHTAR AHMAD v. THE STATE 2012 YLR 2228
• TALIB HUSSAIN v. State 2012 YLR 2239

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2012 →

immigration advocates email from Feroz Walla lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes