UNITED BANK LIMITED versus MESSRS ITTAFAQ TRADERS
Sections 3 (2) and 7, in favor of Bank Plaintiff of the case for restitution, have ruled that the Banking Court erroneously refused interest on the order that the respondent delayed the delivery of the original amount to interest. Was refused. The banking court has awarded him the date of filing the case, the petitioner's requests and the account statement on the card were inconsistent and appeared to be based solely on the assumption that the bank was his The order is entitled from the date of filing of the case, no proper request of the mind was made in the banking court case; the High Court obtained the remand of the banking court
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer
Pakistan, top advocate family court from Chak Jamal lawyer
