Find a Lawyer

SYED ZAHIR SHAH versus NATIONAL ACCOUNTABILITY BUREAU

The effect of not issuing a notice of not appearing as a defense witness to the plaintiffs owning Binamidar out of the assets affected by the provisions of Sections 9 (v) (vi) and 10 is justified by the trial judge's jurisdiction and the scope of the punishment. Was given and sentenced to prison. The trial court did not direct the alleged defendants on the acquisition of assets beyond known sources of income and allegedly possessing property in the names of the Benedictine Trial Court. Nor were they heard before final approval. The decision was made that the plaintiffs were fully aware and in the knowledge of the proceedings before the trial court regarding the assets and properties in which the accused claimed rights and interests, two of the defendants appeared before the trial court. Defensively the witnesses themselves did not have a valid alternative to the notice for their subpoena indicating that the candidates provided them with an opportunity to be heard and to present evidence if they claimed to be legitimate owners. They are deemed appropriate in support of such hearings as having legitimate interests in such properties. The trial court must issue notices to the alleged defendants during the proceedings and provide them with a hearing. And to allow them to present evidence in support of their alleged claims, if deemed appropriate by them, if the trial court did not follow such and before passing a negative order against any person or property. Negligence of the guarantor right to the hearing in which the claim was entitled or interest

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY v. Mst. SHARIFAN BIBI 2010 PLD 705
• HUFFAZ SEAMLESS PIPE IND. LTD. v. COLLECTOR OF SALES TAX, HYDERABAD 2010 SCMR 707
• MAHBOOB ELAHI v. Mst. HAMIDA BEGUM 2010 PLD 709
• Dr. MUHAMMAD AMIN v. PRESIDENT ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMTED 2010 PLC(CS) 710
• LAND ACQUISITION COLLECTOR v. Mst. IQBAL BEGUM 2010 PLD 719
• SHAHABUDDIN v. State 2010 PLD 725
• SUO MOTU CASE NO.5 OF 2010 2010 PLD 731
• OCEANIC INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED v. LALAZAR ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LIMITED 2010 SCMR 737

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

jobs for advocates from Shahdad Kot lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes