BANK OF PUNJAB THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEY versus AMZ VENTURES LIMITED
Sections 9 and 22 (6) of the National Accountability Ordinance (XVIII of 1999), Sections 5 (r) and 9 (a) (viii) of the Bank of Loans default Remedies Bank for the recovery of bank loans 9 filed a banking suit under. (Recovery of Taxes) Ordinance, 2001, Respondents filed leave to defend the petition against the defendants who are still pending and instead of acting on this remedy, the respondents were subjected to the provisions of the National Accountability Ordinance. By sending notice, the bank resorted to new procurement. In 1999, the respondents approached the Banking Court seeking orders to prevent the bank from taking any action under a notice issued by NAB. Valdati Bank had nothing to show that the defendants were deliberately untrustworthy. This can happen only when a competent court determines the responsibility of the lender, i.e. the accountability court under the National Accountability Ordinance provided under Section 22 (6) of the Lender (Bank) Financial Accountability Ordinance, 2001 Cannot Refer to, 2001, Section 115, Appeal under the CPC or Appeal under the OLLI, CPC or Article 199 of the Constitution under the Constitution Petition.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
