BR100 Increased By (0.34%)
BR30 Increased By (0.77%)
KSE100 Increased By (0.26%)
KSE30 Increased By (0.25%)
BECO 5.75 Increased By ▲ 0.36 (6.68%)
BML 57.25 Decreased By ▼ -0.21 (-0.37%)
BOP 36.80 Increased By ▲ 0.49 (1.35%)
CNERGY 8.40 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (2.31%)
DCL 12.02 Increased By ▲ 0.19 (1.61%)
FCCL 58.83 Decreased By ▼ -0.45 (-0.76%)
FCSC 5.00 Decreased By ▼ -0.01 (-0.2%)
FFL 17.95 Increased By ▲ 0.10 (0.56%)
FNEL 1.26 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
HUMNL 11.45 Decreased By ▼ -0.05 (-0.43%)
KEL 8.30 Decreased By ▼ -0.03 (-0.36%)
KOSM 6.63 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)
MLCF 108.50 Increased By ▲ 1.07 (1%)
NBP 206.11 Increased By ▲ 1.10 (0.54%)
PACE 11.15 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.45%)
PAEL 45.50 Increased By ▲ 0.08 (0.18%)
PIAHCLA 30.88 Decreased By ▼ -0.88 (-2.77%)
PIBTL 19.03 Increased By ▲ 0.18 (0.95%)
PPL 245.40 Increased By ▲ 1.66 (0.68%)
PRL 36.15 Decreased By ▼ -0.09 (-0.25%)
PTC 72.20 Increased By ▲ 0.13 (0.18%)
SEARL 96.55 Increased By ▲ 1.97 (2.08%)
SSGC 31.97 Increased By ▲ 0.12 (0.38%)
TELE 9.28 Increased By ▲ 0.26 (2.88%)
THCCL 68.20 Decreased By ▼ -0.27 (-0.39%)
TPLP 11.26 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (5.04%)
TREET 25.75 Decreased By ▼ -0.14 (-0.54%)
TRG 67.95 Increased By ▲ 3.64 (5.66%)
WAVES 11.02 Increased By ▲ 0.11 (1.01%)
WTL 1.29 No Change ▼ 0.00 (0%)

ISLAMABAD: Justice Umar Ata Bandial of Supreme Court of Pakistan, on Wednesday recused himself from the Editor-in-Chief of the Jang/Geo Group, Mir Shakilur Rehman’s post-arrest bail application.

Justice Bandial, heading a three-member bench, said he could not hear this case due to personal reason.

He then referred the matter to Chief Justice Gulzar Ahmed for constituting a new bench and fixed the case for hearing next week as Khawaja Haris, representing Mir Shakilur Rehman, requested to fix this case for early hearing.

Mir Shakilur Rehman on September 10th filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the verdict of the Lahore High Court (LHC) denying him bail in a land allotment case.

A division bench of the LHC on 08 July 2020 had dismissed the writ petition of Mir Shakilur Rehman.

The petitioner said, among other things, that the Division Bench had totally misread the contents of the DG LDA’s letter dated 26.09.1990, and, thereby, committed a jurisdictional error in assuming that the petitioner was required to pay market price for the excess land sold to him in 1986, when, as a matter of fact, letter dated 26.09.1990, unambiguously, establishes that prior to 26.09.1990, only reserve price was payable for excess area.—

Copyright Business Recorder, 2020

Comments

Comments are closed for this article.