Find a Lawyer

ARAB KHAN versus MUHAMMAD AKHTAR JAVED

A. XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), the plaintiff's defendant in the Section 4 counter-exchange device, claimed that the alleged document did not meet the components of the promise caliphate. Judgment was decided by the hearing whether the terms of the promise clause were fulfilled or the execution of the promise note was not challenged by the defendant; the evidence was not fully discussed by the trial court. Was not identified by any misrepresentation, unread or misinterpretation of evidence. The decision was heard on

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUNAWAR SHAH v. State 2014 YLR 523
• SHAKEEL AHMED v. Mst. KAUSAR PARVEEN 2014 CLC 524
• TARIQ NAZIR BUKHARI v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Home Secretary 2014 MLD 524
• NAWAB LIAQUAT ALI v. State 2014 PCrLJ 527
• COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS v. WATER AND POWER DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY (WAPDA) 2014 PTD 535
• QURBAN ALI v. State 2014 PLD 538
• MUHAMMAD SHAF1Q 2014 PLD 541
• SADAM v. State 2014 PCrLJ 542

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

law firms from Liaquat Pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes