Find a Lawyer

MALIK IFTIKHAR AHMAD versus R.D.F.C.

After the suit was decided to recover the debts of Sections 7, 9 and 16, the defendant filed an appeal against the judgment of the Banking Court in which he claimed that he was the directorship / chief executive of the defendant company. Had resigned, and was later released from his role. His resignation was no longer guaranteed. Implementation of bail was not denied by the plaintiff / guarantor and it was requested by him only that the defendant executed by the defendant directors of the company guarantee. Resigned provided that the guarantee was binding upon him, and the guarantees of his representatives in respect of the obligations were exercised by the defendant in his sole capacity and it was not subject to his holding of the post because the defendant He records something to indicate his resignation or resignation following the resignation of the company director I was not The guarantor stated that either the plaintiff corporation canceled it and it relinquished the defendant in his position as a guarantor, the letter of guarantee was void and valid, the applicable banking court, I appreciated the legality of the defendants in approving the order, when the banking court's decision and the decree in the absence of any unlawful interference or omission, guarantee of interference, appeal against the appeal court. Decision and order issued immigration advocates email from Gari Habibullah lawyer