Register
SCMR 2017

2017 PLP 516 (SCMR)

N/A

Jurisdiction / Court
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Decided Date
N/A
Honorable Judges
Amir Hani Muslim and Dost Muhammad Khan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2017 PLP 516 (SCMR)
Forum / Court Supreme Court of Pakistan
Bench Members Amir Hani Muslim and Dost Muhammad Khan, JJ
Parties N/A
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2017 PLP 516 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2017 PLP 516 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Amir Hani Muslim and Dost Muhammad Khan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2017 PLP 516 (SCMR) (N/A). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Judgment & Decree

Ss. 12 & 22

(c) Administration of justice

(d) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

S. 12

(e) Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)

S. 12

MWA/I-9/SC Petition dismissed.

Legal Tools

Metadata Directory

  • Journal: SCMR
  • Volume Year: 2017
  • Citation Ref: 2017 PLP 516 (SCMR)

Cite & Link (Backlink Generator)

Are you writing a blog or referencing this case? Copy the optimized HTML link below to cite this judgment on your website and create a legal backlink:

HTML Backlink Code:
Text Citation:

Related Judgments

  • 2017 S C M R 1524 JAE LEE — Appellant Versus UNITED STATES — Respondent
  • 2017 S C M R 1489 CHARLES S. TURNER, ET AL and another — Petitioners Versus UNITED STATES — Respondent
  • 2017 S C M R 1887 R (on the application of UNISON) — Appellant Versus LORD CHANCELLOR — Respondent
  • 2017 S C M R 1675 ONUR AIR TASIMACILIK AS — Appellant Versus GOLDTRAIL TRAVEL LIMITED (IN LIQUIDATION) — Respondent
  • 2017 S C M R 1605 KHUJA — Appellant Versus TIMES NEWSPAPERS LIMITED and others — Respondents
  • 2017 S C M R 1116 CAPITA INSURANCE SERVICES LIMITED — Appellant Versus WOOD — Respondent