Find a Lawyer

MESSRS BASHIR LEATHER INT. (PVT.) LIMITED versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER

Section 12 The previous order, putting aside the change of address, documents supporting the separation of the respondent, did not appear in response to the banking court proceedings, and the case against the defendant was dismissed. The request for separation of the preceding order, based on the fact that the process was issued at the wrong address, raised the question by the defendants that the defendant had a new address in the knowledge of the bank but had hidden it. The Banking Court dismissed the application and the previous party order was upheld and there were valid letters between the parties prepared by the defendants, which was the new address on the documents prepared by the defendants. The idea was to ignore the prejudice. The bank did not explicitly deny any of the letters that had a significant impact on the fate of the case. They were neither discussed nor considered by the Banking Court, and during the AP decision they were completely burned to the side by the Banking Court in support of their claim on the respondents' request. Refusing to read / consider the documents presented by the defendants, while presenting their views on disputes between the parties, if the lower courts did not consider material documents or material evidence, the High Court intervened. Can do. The case was rejected by the Banking Companies (Loans, Progress, Credit and Recovery of Finance) Act 1997, dismissing the application and the documentary evidence was misread and not read and the same case will be set aside. advocate for immigration from Bewal lawyer