Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD FAZAL versus MUHAMMAD ILYAS

The Section 115 Revised Scope version was not endorsed by an affidavit, nor was it born out of the actions of such requests. There were mandatory provisions of the law and the amendment would be eligible for removal on this sole basis. The amendment was rejected.

Related judgments — High Court Azad Kashmir, 2014

• SPINTEX LIMITED through Manager Personal Administration v. EMPLOYEES\' OLD AGE BENEFITS INSTITUTION (E.O.B.I.) 2014 PLC 409
• Ch. MUHAMMAD YOUNAS ARVI v. MUSHTAQ AHMED 2014 CLC 410
• UNITED BANK LIMITED v. DISTRICT JUDGE WITH THE POWER OF LABOUR COURT 2014 PLC 418
• FOREST DEPARTMENT through Secretary Forest, Azad Government of the State of Jammu and Kashmir, Muzaf v. SHABBIR HUSSAIN 2014 CLC 538
• Dr. MUHAMMAD IQBAL v. GOVERNMENT OF AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 585
• MENDI KHAN v. INAYAT ALI 2014 MLD 711
• STATE through Advocate-General Azad Jammu and Kashmir Muzaffarabad v. MUSHTAQ AHMED QURESHI 2014 PCrLJ 729
• Syed SHARAFAT HUSSAIN NAQVI v. PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR 2014 PLC(CS) 754

All High Court Azad Kashmir judgments of 2014 →

power of attorney advocate Khangarh lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes