Find a Lawyer

AMERICAN EXPRESS BANK LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF MANAGER versus TAHIR AMIN

Section 2 (c) (d), 9 and 10 of the suit to recover the passenger's check money request for leave to defend the case that the defendant did not purchase the passenger check from the bank, Were stolen, thus, there was no privacy agreement between the parties. And that the bank was neither "client" nor the plaintiff's banking court after deciding the relationship between the parties' clients and the "financial institution". Facts on whether the plaintiff was a "consumer" within the meaning of section 2 (c) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001. Whether any finance within the scope of Section 2 (d) of this Ordinance is given to the plaintiff, even if the banking court has the power to sue. Whether the passenger check is within the finance period as described in Section 2 (d) of the Ordinance. Whether the bank was responsible for benefiting the plaintiffs' purchase of the plaintiff from its original holders, the banking court did not deal with such questions in its true context, the bank defending the case There was a case for approval of the holiday, which should have been approved. The High Court accepted the appeal on the bank guarantee offer, set aside the immovable decree and, on the basis of the accepted leave request, agreed to formulate a conditional matter for depositing the amount equal to the bank guarantee and the evidence of the parties. Instructed to make a decision after recording in a timely manner \ r \ n. r \ n advocates from Khair Pur lawyer