Find a Lawyer

SAHARA TRADING INTERNATIONAL (PVT. LTD. AND OTHERS versus BANK ALFALAH LTD.

Sections 10 and 9 (5) of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 185 (3) of the suit defending the suit defaulter company did not apply for leave to defend the case, but the guarantor submitted leave. And prayed for the defense of the suit banking judge. The premises refused to provide assistance to the surety that no clear dispute was identified and no plausible explanation was presented, and the application for defense and defense of the case was dismissed. The judgment of the case was pronounced in favor of the bank. And against the bail order of the Defaulter Company and the Banking Judge, it was affirmed by the High Court of the Defaulter Company that the Company had secured financial assistance through the guarantee of its Chief Executive, according to the same document. Was self-reliant. Therefore, the application for submission and defense by the surety should have been applied by the banking judge as well as the High Court by both of them. The justice and the interest of the company cannot be justified for technical reasons only after the material available on record was approved by the banking judge, and the company in its sole discretion / position as the original lender Is. According to Section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Reinstatement) Ordinance 2001, after the summons was sought by the Banking Court under Section 9 (5) of the Ordinance, the defense did not apply for leave, The grant was made by the petitioner, being a separate and varied position, being a guarantor, shall not be considered for leave to defend even by the principal borrower, advocate from Feroz Walla lawyer