MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NOS. 59 AND 60/LB OF 1990-91, DECIDED ON 29TH MAY, 1991. versus MISCELLANEOUS APPLICATIONS NOS. 59 AND 60/LB OF 1990-91, DECIDED ON 29TH MAY, 1991.
Sections 134 and 135 were only heard to the point of limitation and no arguments were heard on the merits, but when dealing with the appeals, the Tribunal decided on the merits on account of some of the errors, it was also shown that the appellants. The decision was made on merit. But in the above order, the disputes of the parties were not found, and nothing was recorded to show what was the matter of the respective disputes of the parties who also supported the plea that there was no order on the merit tribunal. The argument was not heard, however, as it incorporated the facts and the law on its own and disposed of the appeal, the tribunal overlooked the fact that the arguments were not heard on merit, as well as justice. Has been misunderstood and the party is losing. In this case, he was seriously condemned for violating the principle of the Audi Ultram Partum Tribunal and the tribunal recalled the tribunal's order and further ordered his post. e to ref
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
