A. XXXVII, Rr 1, 2 and Section 34 Contracting Act (IX of 1872), Section 238 Bank Accused of Fraud by its Employees Fraudulent by Employees of Suits for Recovery of Plaintiffs Fake checks were withdrawn from their account. The defendant's bank suit was ordered for the original amount and, moreover, the bank was obliged to pay the compound interest to the defendants, when it was issued in a certain way, the bank was not liable for the loss. Was. It was not correct to place an order with the account holder and with compound interest. Fraud was committed by the bank's employees, and the crime was within the bank's powers of the manager and cashier, who was legal to the plaintiff's bank for cash and repayment, while acting as a person and principal. Was acting as agent and as agent of conducting business of the bank under section 238. The Bank of the Contract Act, 1872, was responsible for fraud committed by its agents, while granting relief to a successful plaintiff, the nature of the case requiring the prosecution may require the nature of a lawsuit. And the nature of the case was open to the trial court to grant such general relief in the interest of justice. An interest order can be ordered pursuant to Section 34, CPC which revoked downward revision of the court there was nothing illegal in the order of the courts.
Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2013
