Find a Lawyer

Every Lawyer listed in this directory is verified by SJP verification Team

✓ Free WhatsApp lawyer help
Need to speak to a lawyer now?

Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.

💬 Instant WhatsApp chat ⚖ Verified lawyer directory ⏰ Replies in minutes

GHULAM SHAKEEL versus S.H.O., NAULAKHA


Article 3 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 204 of the contempt of court Act 1976, the petitioner station house officer of the contempt court was summoned by the High Court in a writ petition, from which it was remarked that the remarks were to be obtained from the High Court. Instead of seeking an unconditional and unforgivable apology to the court, the law administration's disrespectful, derogatory, and contemptuous court reaffirmed the position that the remarks attributed to them were false, nor did they seriously express any regrets and Neither apologized nor wished to file an apology in writing. To withdraw the objectionable words, however, Kontaminer requested an apology only after the conclusion of the trial, when the decision was reserved for judgment, while Kintynemer committed the first offense of contempt of court, the High Court observing. He was sentenced to court and fined Rs 100

Find a Lawyer Near You

Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.

🔍 Find a Lawyer
Popular cities: Lahore· Karachi· Islamabad· Rawalpindi· Multan· Faisalabad
divorce advocates from Chishtian lawyer

SJP Lawyers DirectorySJP Lawyers Directory

Pakistan's leading legal-technology platform and verified lawyer directory — connecting clients, lawyers, law firms and Bar Associations across the country.

Get in Touch

© 2018–2027 SJP Legnocrats (SMC-Private) Limited. All rights reserved.
Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes
👋 Need a lawyer? Chat with us free on WhatsApp now.