AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN versus JASARAT HUSSAIN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Section 11 (4) Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 74 Damages Damages Non-payment of complaint to the Bank was that the Banking Tribunal passed the order in favor of illegal damages, charges, expenses and markup. Refused to give. No proof of bank legitimacy was presented, nor was any attempt by the bank to present any damages when it failed to pay the unpaid amount of judicial indemnity only, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 Use of Section 11 (4) of the Act was allowed at the discretion of the Tribunal liquidator, which, if allowed automatically, would have to receive interest from him, thus intending to introduce a legal change introduced in the banking laws. And the purpose will be defeated, where no reason has been given from the tribunal to seek such discretion and neither will it. D get a chance. Arises, the tribunal will admit that the bank will refuse to pay damages to the bank; any evidence fails to present evidence on record was erroneous and the costs and the borrower refused, , The bank was not entitled to claim such costs or charges. The appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
