Find a Lawyer

SAEED AHMED versus PERVAIZ AHMED

Section 15 (2) of the landlord's request to the tenant individually that of the two shops, the landlord had emptied one store and was in possession, thus, his removal from the suit shop. Was not valid ) ? Evidence reasonably specified that the shop was vacant for its own use, while the suit shop required the use of the co-owner of the damaged premises, the withdrawal request was accepted in the circumstances \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• MCB BANK LIMITED v. ATLAS RUBBER AND PLASTIC INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. 2011 CLD 1550
• ALI ZAMAN v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1551
• MUHAMMAD ALI v. State 2011 MLD 1555
• SHAHNAWAZ (PVT.) LTD. v. PAKISTAN through the Secretary Ministry of Finance Government of Pakistan, Islamabad 2011 PTD 1558
• DOST MUHAMMAD v. State 2011 PCrLJ 1563
• MUHAMMAD FAISAL v. State 2011 YLR 1570
• HABIB BANK LIMITED v. VICTOR ELECTRONICS APPLIANCES INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. 2011 CLD 1571
• SHEZAN SERVICES (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence 2011 CLC 1573

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

immigration advocates phone number from Thatta lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes