Find a Lawyer

MEDHI K. LAVJI versus PROVINCE OF SINDH

Article 199 Constitutional Jurisdiction The rights of a High Court jurisdiction cannot be enforced in such matters relating to disputed facts, accepting such jurisdiction The High Court may not exercise any right to enforce any agreement Test the eligibility of the function where the contract was executed by a competent authority. And because of the factual dispute, it was necessary to record the evidence in order to resolve the factual dispute, then the parties could be entrusted with the civil court to obtain the remedy where the rent in respect of the state land. The monopoly agreement was not properly formed, which appeared to be factual and contentious. The documents are on record, then the High Court can examine the legality of the principles of such agreement.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• Mst. HALIMA TAHIR v. Mst. NAHEED EJAZ 2010 MLD 554
• AKHTAR HUSSAIN v. ABDUL WAHEED 2010 YLR 558
• MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. (M.C.B.) v. WORLD AUTOMOBILES through Proprietor 2010 CLD 558
• ZARYAB v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE, KOTRI 2010 PCrLJ 560
• HAMEED v. JITENDRA 2010 CLC 561
• TARIQ HASHMI v. State 2010 YLR 563
• TARIQ LATIF ANSARI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN 2010 PLC(CS) 569
• MUHAMMAD HASSAN v. State 2010 PCrLJ 572

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

solicitors from Jalozai lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes