MST. SURIYA KHANUM versus HABIB BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
The judgment for the recovery of sections 15, 19 and 22 was decided against the judge and the banking court directed the auctioneer's property to be auctioned while the auction terms and conditions were fixed. The banking court, which was in the process of adjourning the decision, filed a petition challenging the objections which the banking court had rejected, not only to dismiss the request for postponement of the sale so that the creditor of the decision could not obtain the number. To be able to collect data. The point of the verdict of the judgment was that the reserve price was not fixed by the court nor the time and place of the auction was determined by the court and all such cases were dispatched to the discretion of the court auction record, however, it appeared. In fact, the reserve price was fixed and approved. The court ordered the first order through the fact that the order was disclosed and there is evidence on record that the auction opportunity was also decided by the court on the site only with the exact date and time. Not settled, the High Court on appeal directed the Banking Court to set the date and time of the auction and then proceed with the auction proceedings. In accordance with the law and no further order was refused in this regard, there was no provision in the law which enabled the debtor to postpone the auction of property to fulfill this decree. And there was nothing in the law that would hinder satisfaction. In accordance with the limits provided by law
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
