Find a Lawyer

ABDUL KHALID versus PROVINCE OF SINDH

Article 185 (3) Appeal for leave for appeal was granted by the consent of the parties affected by the High Court; however, it is stated that neither the applicants nor their counsel in the High Court agreed on the order of the cell. The affidavit of affidavit was also quoted, two judges of the High Court noted in an anonymous decision that consent was granted on behalf of the applicants, the petitioner's dispute was canceled. That was, the Supreme Court was unable to appeal. Under the circumstances

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2010

• NED UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING AND TECHNOLOGY, KARACHI v. HAFEEZULLAH KHAWAJA 2010 PLC(CS) 579
• ALLAH DAD v. ABDUL GHANI 2010 PLD 580
• THE STATE/ANTI-NARCOTIC through Director-General Petitioner v. RAFIQ AHMAD CHANNA 2010 SCMR 580
• PROVINCE OF PUNJAB through Collector v. MUHAMMAD FAROOQ 2010 PLD 582
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. LAHORE HIGH COURT through Registrar 2010 PLC(CS) 584
• RAHAT ALI v. State 2010 SCMR 584
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. RAHIB 2010 PLD 585
• VICTOR ELECTRONICS APPLIANCES INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD v. HABIB BANK LIMITED 2010 CLD 585

All Supreme Court judgments of 2010 →

immigration advocate from Daulat Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes