Find a Lawyer

EAPOHIRE TEXTILE MILLS LTD. versus APL PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED

Sections 13, 14 and 15 of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXX, RR 1 and 2 under Application A XXXX, RR 1 and 2, direct against CPC defendants in any way whatsoever. Or an order preventing them from seeking or recovering an indirect amount. The restriction of Section 13, 14, and 15 of the Contemporary War Risk Dependence Provided for Interim Order (Control and Prevention) Ordinance, 1970 was justified under the temporary injunction and that Appropriate investigations can be made for all practical purposes and may remain to this extent witnessed. Requirements and notices to be sought and examined for the preparation of documents for the purposes of recording evidence, issuing a commission for the examination of witnesses, etc. were appropriate for the purpose of coming to a fair and equitable conclusion if the plaintiff, in the present In this case, it was sensible that if the ordinance was violated, it would be appropriate for him to take advantage of the remedies mentioned in the ordinance and proceed accordingly. As it has been alleged that the reliance on war risk questions was invalid, and contrary to the provisions of the illegal and aforesaid ordinances, obtaining relief from trial was not a proper remedy for monopoly and compulsory trading practices (control and Prevention) was provided by the Ordinance, 1970. For the claimant, its application under O XXXIX, Rr 1 & 2, CPC was not enforceable patent advocate from Shahpur Chakar lawyer