IJM CORPORATION versus KARACHI METROPOLITAN CORPORATION
Section 17 of the Pakistan Engineering Council Act (V of 1976), Section 27 (5) was the plaintiff's foreign company, ruling the award of the court bar for jurisdiction which was awarded engineering contract with the City District Government dispute between the parties. Demanding that the court rule for enforcement of the award against the plaintiff, the defendant resisted the award on the request that the plaintiff was not registered in Pakistan, so he should be restored to a court or authority in Pakistan. Can't get legislation behind such tight craftsmanship Pakistan Engineering Council E Section 27 (5) of the Kit, 1976, was merely to ensure that the claimant was registered and should not be denied forever and permanently, which would otherwise entitle him to a termination of the offense. This bar has been terminated and the claimant thereafter if the claim / deciding creditor ID does not otherwise meet the claim / decree even if the claimant is at the time of entering into the contract, or to bring his case. Was guilty (or at the time of initiating another action for the purposes of his claim), and was therefore barred from any recovery. If it is subsequently registered under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act 1976, the state engineering council can be reformed, the recovery of money was stopped under section 27 (5) of the Pakistan Engineering Council. Unless the plaintiff is registered under the Pakistan Engineering Council Act, 1976, the plaintiff, although entitled to this order, will not be able to initiate any enforcement proceedings on that basis, unless Pakistan Angie
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2015
