Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD SIDDIQUE, ADVOCATE versus FARHAT ALI KHAN

The direction of the appointment of the respondents as Arts 193 (2) and 1992 Judicial Member and the Chairman of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal were challenged on the basis of lack of qualification for the appointment, which the Judicial Respondent was judicial. Was appointed a member of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal as an Advocate for Bar Response on 21 3 1971 and joined Foreign Employment on 12 8 1974 and remained accountable till 10 10 1979. ? After joining the job, he abandoned his practice and thus could not claim that he was present as a lawyer in the legal profession during his employment. Respondents request that his name remain on the Bar Council list during employment. Abroad, this period can be regarded as an advocate has no use for the respondents such request was not only against the letter but also against the spirit of the constitutional Art 193 (2). n which requires that an individual must be an Advocate of the High Court for less than ten years, in which it is deemed that if a person was legally appointed as a High Court Judge, May be eligible for Practiced as a professional and a High Court Period lawyer during which the defendant remained in foreign service, therefore, the respondent was not eligible to be a High Court Judge and as a result he was a Member / Income The Chairman of the Tax Appellate Tribunal Respondent shall, in this manner, be elevated to the position of Member / Chairman of the Income Tax Appellate Tribunal. attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Multan lawyer