Find a Lawyer

SAYYED HANAN KHALID GILANI versus DISTRICT JUDGE/PRESIDING OFFICER DISTRICT CONSUMER COURT MULTAN

Sections 2 (c), 25, 28 and 31 (e) (f) claim against the supply of chickens The jurisdiction of the consumer can be considered only in the absence of its meaning in the definition of a word used in a law. Is. Or any other part of the word animal was generally used in section 2 (c) of the Punjab Consumer Protection Act, 2005 and was not confined to the quadruped or the two legs and wings of the bird. The animal was not appreciated in words. According to the meaning of the Act Dictionary, the word animal shall include birds. The provision of breeding agreements between the parties will not mean the supply of any product. Such claim was rejected for non-maintenance of the consumer court.

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2011

• BILAL AHMAD v. ABDUL RAZAQ 2011 YLR 2767
• MUHAMMAD AZAM v. State 2011 YLR 2771
• ALI SHAN v. FAZAL DIN 2011 YLR 2773
• Syed GHAUS MUHAMMAD v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, SAHIWAL 2011 YLR 2778
• FURQAN ALI v. State 2011 YLR 2788
• MUHAMMAD ASLAM v. LAEEQ FAHEEM 2011 YLR 2791
• PLYFO INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD., GUJRANWALA v. ASSISTANT COLLECTOR (AUDIT-I), SALES TAX AND FEDERAL EXCISE, GUJJRANWALA 2011 PTD 2795
• Mst. RUKHSANA BEGUM v. ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, MULTAN 2011 YLR 2796

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocate from Manoabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes