Find a Lawyer

KHAWAJA AUTO CARS LIMITED versus SHARIF KHAN

Law Evidence Order 1984 Arts 2 (1) and 2 (4) suit for recovery of fixed sum The plaintiff failed to prove that the allegedly specified amount of debt was distributed / received by the plaintiff through voucher and reverse. Was received. Defendant's inspector did not check the signature of the plaintiff's former employee who was inspected by the defendant, suspended by the impression that the specified check was given by the claimant to withdraw cash from the bank and the bank After receiving the money from the plaintiff, the plaintiff's cashier was, therefore, unable to pay the specified amount of money to the defendant as a loan or to the defendant, the plaintiff. The claimant relating to the claim from the plaintiff had failed to contend with the defendant's claim in connection with the claim by the claimant. No other loan was set up by the defendant to pay his income tax, there is no receipt / payment voucher, nor any documentary evidence of any kind, which was allegedly presented by the defendant. To confirm your claim in relation to the loan that the defendant took from the plaintiff for payment of income tax liability, therefore, any of the debt was taken from the defendant and to prove it to the claimant. I failed to get one back list of supreme court advocates from Utror lawyer