HABIB BANK LIMITED versus MESSRS USMANIA CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED
Article Q Law In this testimony (of 1984 10 of 10), Article Bank84 comparing the signatures of the bank loan recovery dispute dispute signatures by the court, a defendant denied being the director of his lending company and The bank also refused to execute any document in favor of the plaintiff. It was by the contested defendant that his signature on the documents was fake. The evidence of the bank witness was not affected by the trust. Such witness was not aware of the facts of the case and had been discharged on the basis of the records available to him. Gone, such a witness was inspected that the bail was not executed before him and he was not a witness to the transaction and did not know whether the person had visited the bank or presented by him. None of the documents bank was created in his presence Defendant's contentious signature was not equivalent to approved signatures Both signatures Their flow was D if different, the styles were different and the features and the characters in particular were different even if the handwriting expert's report was ignored, the bank's evidence was on the documents by the defendant. Were not enough to prove the process by which the documents filed with the investigator were not processed. The defendant and the claimant who was not liable for the amount claimed in the suit were dismissed against the defendant in the circumstances.
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
