UMER MUJEEB SHAMI versus CHIEF COMMISSIONER, ISLAMABAD CAPITAL TERRITORY, ISLAMABAD
Section 10 (2) (b), 19 and 20 of the High Court announcing the annulment of daily newspapers in the name of the appellant and transfer of the name of the respondents to the claim of transfer of the name of the respondents, the agreement between the three parties, including the appellant and the defendant. Provided for transfer of such declaration to the respondent. On the basis of this agreement, the respondents' request for transfer of such declaration in its name to the Inquiry Committee Report, created by the old district magistrate, was set aside by the High Court in the Constitution, and The Supreme Court has remanded the Chief Commissioner for Under the new law, its decision is confirmed by the cancellation of such declaration in the name of the appellant and the transfer of the name of the respondents in view of its earlier report by the Commissioner. According to such agreement Was previously condemned for not participating in the inquiry. , Its third party had to pass such declaration and pay the defendant either before the Commissioner nor was it enforced in the constitutional petition, therefore, in his absence such agreement Could not be implemented, the Commissioner did not travel beyond his jurisdiction by making a declaration, even in such a request the Commissioner issued a declaration in the name of the respondents. The High Court accepted the appeal before the cancellation order expired 60 days and set aside the pending order in the circumstances. \ R \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
