Find a Lawyer

MST. SALEEM AKHTAR versus CHAUDHRY SHAUK AHMED

Article 13 (3) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the premature notice demanded by the Supreme Court, whether the Supreme Court had to agree with the trial court's finding. Was not justified. The plaintiff failed to strictly prove the performance of the student property pursuant to Section 13 (3) of the Punjab Pre-Impression Act, 1991. Whether the High Court correctly affirmed the trial court's finding on the evidence of telepathy and whether the High Court was not justified in verifying the trial court's conclusions on the question whether the plaintiff's intent was strictly Was not made. Aliman Begum v. Ali Hussein and Another Error 355 (I) in 1923 and Haji Raja Muhammad Shabir Ahmad Khan v. For example, from the Indian jurisdiction, section 13 (I) (II) of the Punjab Pre-Emission Act 1991 According to. PLD 1994 SC1 of Punjab Province, Lahore (Related on page 20)

Related judgments — Supreme Court, 2009

• NAJAM AZIZ SETHI v. MUHAMMAD AZEEM BUTT 2009 SCMR 652
• DISTRICT COORDINATION OFFICER, DISTRICT DIR LOWER v. ROZI KHAN 2009 SCMR 663
• FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN v. IRFAN TARIQ 2009 PLC(CS) 663
• CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY, QUAID-E-AZAM, INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT, KARACHI v. JAPAK INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED, LAHORE 2009 SCMR 666
• DEPUTY CONTROLLER OF CUSTOMS VALUATION v. ABDUL SHAKOOR ISMAIL KALOODI 2009 PTD 676
• MUHAMMAD SULEMAN v. SHAUKAT ALI 2009 SCMR 678
• CIVIL AVIATION AUTHORITY through Director-General v. JAVED AHMAD 2009 PLC(CS) 679
• Engineer MAJEED AHMED MEMON v. LIAQUAT UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCES, JAMSHORO 2009 SCMR 683

All Supreme Court judgments of 2009 →

famous lower court advocate from Hattian lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes