BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED versus BENTONITE PAKISTAN LIMITED
Sections 10 (3), (4), (5), (6) and (12) suit for recovery of loan amount Defendants objected to debitable amount of money and wrongful payment of markup, but not Neither the request nor the specific mandate of any account or tabulation of section 10 (4) of the financial institutions was requested, the defendants of 2001 stated that they discharged under section 10 (12) of the Ordinance 2001 A modified request was filed for , The remaining provisions of the same validity mandate of section 10 (12) of the Ordinance 2001 shall not apply; the defendant, who had already filed leave, amended the provisions of section 10 (12) of the said ordinance. Will submit a leave application. ) The Ordinance, 2001 clearly applies to all provisions of the Ordinance with its provisions (sub), ()), ()) and ()), as amended, in section 10 (4). Non-submission of Mandatory Accounts Under the Prevention Act set forth in sub-section (), the High Court dismissed the leave application for non-compliance with section 10 (3) (4) of the Ordinance, 2001. ?
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
