Find a Lawyer

GULZAR AHMED versus YAQOOB KHAN

Section 9 of the Contract Act (IX of 1872), section 188 suits the plaintiff's request that he was doing business as a tenant through a lawyer / agent in a suit shop, without having to pay his debt to the plaintiff. Gave the accused his custody. If the solicitor / agent did not have the authority to occupy the suit shop, the plaintiff was prosecuting the lawyer / agent and not in any case by filing such a case against the unauthorized act of any agent. In any case, it will not be binding. There is nothing on their principal to show that the lawyer is occupying the shop against fraud, misrepresentation or liberty of the plaintiff, or that the defendant was informed that the lawyer / agent was in possession of the shop. No option but suit was dismissed in circumstances. n

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• Haji NASIR MEHMOOD v. Mian IMRAN MASOOD 2010 PLD 1089
• KHADIM HUSSAIN v. State 2010 SCMR 1090
• LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. FIRDOUS STEEL MILLS (PVT.) LTD 2010 SCMR 1097
• PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINES CORPORATION v. S.M. ISMAIL NAQVI 2010 PLC(CS) 1103
• BANK OF PUNJAB v. HARIS STEEL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. 2010 PLD 1109
• SHIFA INTERNATIONAL HOSPITAL LTD. v. CAPITAL DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY 2010 SCMR 1110
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF KHAN v. KHAN SIDDIQUE 2010 SCMR 1116
• Mst. SHAHIDA ZAREEN v. IQRAR AHMED SIDDIQUI 2010 SCMR 1119

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

famous supreme court advocate from Upper Dir lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes