HABIB BANK LIMITED versus SHIELDS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
The Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Section 6 Contract Act (IX of 1872), the Section 73 suit for the bank's recovery, claimed that it was marked with debt money as well as financial losses and central excise duty. On the amount paid, the defendants objected to the recovery of the damages and the amount of the Central. Excise Duty Verification cannot be compensated for any remote or indirect loss or damage due to breach of contract or breach of contract. Was available on record, irreparable damages could not be awarded as presented by the plaintiff which proved that the payment of Central Excise duty in connection with the financing of the bank and, thus, from the respondent receiving the money. Was able to do accordingly
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
