Find a Lawyer

GHULAM DASTAGEER versus STATE

Sections 516A, 367 and 561A Anti Terrorism Act (XXVII of 1997), sections 7 and 25, confiscated vehicle, vehicle seized under the direction of the Supreme Court of the Supreme Court in relation to the jurisdiction of the High Court, and on its application Denied that his decision to be revoked Val property confiscation order did not come into the definition of judgment as contemplated under section 36767, CCPC Supreme Court filed petitioner before the trial court. And instructed the trial court to entertain the petition and decide the same trial court. The trial court granted the trial court's order dismissing the appeal on such wrong and unjustified and unjustified reason as the trial court was bound to decide on the appellant's entitlement to the vehicle on its own merits. Rejected the request for a decision and remanded the appeal.

Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2014

• JALAL UD DIN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 308
• PAKISTAN WORKERS FEDERATION, BALOCHISTAN v. GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN through Federal Secretary, Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad 2014 PLC 351
• MUHAMMAD KHAN v. MUHAMMAD IBRAHIM 2014 MLD 397
• PAKISTAN PETROLEUM LIMITED v. CHIEF MINISTER, BALOCHISTAN through Principal Secretary Chief Minister House, Quetta 2014 CLC 405
• MRDUMAN-E-MALLE ZAI NIDA KAHOL through Haji Saleh Muhammad v. MARDUMAN-E-KILLI KHUDAI-E-RAHIM SADEZAI (SHAI) 2014 CLC 426
• The STATE through Prosecutor-General Balochistan, Quetta v. ABDUL ALEEM 2014 PCrLJ 432
• KHAN MUHAMMAD v. State 2014 PCrLJ 449
• MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Water and Power, Islamabad 2014 PLC(CS) 467

All Quetta High Court Balochistan judgments of 2014 →

property advocate from Jaffarabad lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes