BRECAST INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. versus HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION
The main question of this fact and leave to defend and defend the case by the borrower against the financial institution of section 10 and the scope plaintiff obtained financing from the House Building Finance Corporation and eventually to settle the case. The matter was settled in the Supreme Court in the matter of the appointing government official for the public account. In addition, he claimed any damages and ordinary damages due to a sudden decision Can't decide. In the matter of settlement, the responsibility is reached before the Supreme Court and the verdict should be made on whether the plaintiff was obliged to pay markup / profit till the date of the capture of the corporation or markup on the last calculation by the government. / Continue to claim profits. For the defense of Assadee, also up to 1 August 2006, the first 30ant 2009 30 calc 2009 was shown in the leave, payable by the plaintiff which was ongoing and to resolve such dispute which included damages and more. The parties need to be provided with important evidence, including money claims. The dispute may decide that the question of law and fact has been raised on his leave to defend the plea, so the defense deserves an unconditional leave. If the application is also allowed, please submit a recent report to the court with the latest due diligence calculation.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
