Find a Lawyer

SIDDIQ M. MALIK versus AL-BARAKA ISLAMIC INVESTMENT BANK, B.S.C. (E.C.)

Financial Institutions (Finance Recovery) Ordinance 2001 Section 22 Banking Companies (Debt, Advancement, Credit and Recovery of Finance) Act (XV of 1997), Section 15 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 5, 12 (2), (5) [such as the Limitation (Amendment) Act (VIII of 1991) and the 29 High Court (Lahore) Rules, Volume I, Chap XIV D, Para 2 (II) (d) 155 day appeal delay, A decision / decree passed by the banking court on 11 5 2001 was requested on 24 5 2001. Copies were prepared on 15 6 2001, which were delivered to the appellant on 26 10 2001, filed on appellant 5 11 2001, the appellant was claimed to be entitled to deduction. Until then it was wasted time to obtain such copies which they received on the basis of section 12 (5) of the Received Limits Act, 1908, with the High Court (Lahore) rules and regulations, Vol I, Chap XIV D, para 2. Read (ii) (d), the time of intervention between the day on which the application was made and the applicant on the day in which the copy was ready for delivery could not be excluded till the said date. Of course, the applicant had to satisfy the court about the different dates given on the slip and the steps it took to collect the copy. For the late condolences, it was not the case of the appellant that he was not informed by the office that on the day the copy was to be provided he was alleged to have informed the appellant about the date of the day. Due to the negligence of the office in notifying the office of this cause. The one who was ready to copy was the delivery appellant, thus, was not entitled to time-out from 16 6 2001 (when the copy was made Pakistan, top advocate family court from Hazro lawyer