Find a Lawyer

SHAMS PAK ASSOCIATES (PVT.) LIMITED versus HABIB BANK LIMITED

Banking Companies (Debt, Progress, Credit and Finance Recovery) Ordinance 9, 12 of the Ordinance 1997 to file a reply to a showcase notice issued by the Chairman, Banking Tribunal, setting aside the Ex parte Decree for Loan Loan Issued notice to the accused The plaintiff had set up a tribunal and trial for arguments with the direction of presenting written arguments, but the defendant failed to file the same case in the banking tribunal which dismissed the response to the notice filed against the defendants for illegal proceedings. And dismissed the earlier request for a trial, the defendant's former party director was also rejected. The defendants claimed that their lawyer failed to note the exact date of the hearing and on the date of the hearing. He was misled about settling the case. The question is whether the defendant's lawyer noted the wrong date, a question that could be solved by merely recording the documents, on the issue of defense, the defendants were, first of all, under oath. Supported application tents were able to prove a single application for rejecting the previous order, in which case, the dismissal should have been allowed instead of the previous decision and the banking tribunal approved by the defendants. The order was set aside. The result is that after the parties have the opportunity to hear, the suit and reply to the showcase notice will be decided. law websites from Mailsi lawyer