Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD RAFIQUE versus MUKHTAR AHMAD

Section 13 Students' pre-requisite demonstration was a diminished right and must be formally observed for practice and enforcement The plaintiff did not make a bountiful demand that was not without a formal request and the student was not subject to publication. Signatures and thumbs were not tolerated on the notice. The effectiveness of his certified witnesses The witness of the notice of the student publication was not aware of the contents of the notice which signed the blank document which he had not read, Sayed witness was not a certified witness of the notice of publication The requisite requirement was not complied with Section 13 (3) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act, 1991, under which it was fatal to claim pre-arrest, in which case notice of the possession of land was to be submitted to the petitioner. Should. The notice of the first publication was not sufficient and the Emperor was obliged to confirm beforehand that the notice was taken to prove to the constituents that Menda was in this case. Tory was rejected in the circumstances to establish his right to self-determination

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015

• RAJA KHAN v. MURAD SHAH 2015 MLD 1212
• HYUNDAI CORPORATION v. SUI NORTHERN GAS PIPELINES LIMITED 2015 CLC 1216
• ALLAH NAWAZ v. State 2015 PCrLJ 1217
• KOHINOOR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED v. BOARD OF REVENUE, PUNJAB 2015 CLC 1232
• MANNAN FEROZ v. SHOMAILA 2015 YLR 1235
• INFOTECH (PVT.) LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS 2015 PTD 1236
• ITTEFAQ FOUNDRIES (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Law, Federal Secretariat, Islamabad 2015 PCrLJ 1240
• Ch. AKHTAR HUSSAIN v. DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER 2015 CLC 1242

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2015 →

ask a advocate free from Sanghar lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes