MST. NAJMA MANSOOR versus MESSRS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION THROUGH AUTHORISED OFFICER
Sections 19 (7) 15 (11), 21 and 22 (1) (6) of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), the rule of appeal limitation rule for section 14 restitution were dismissed against the sale of mortgaged property Objection requests were not allowed on points Appellant's position is that since an inter-order under section 22 (7) of section 22 (6) of section 22 (6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001 One of the orders of the yellow is taken, so the limitation period had to be set separately for this section, it had no power, read with section 22 its subsection (6), which Interpretation is through the banking court In the case of a decision, decree, sentence or final order, the affected person has been given the right to appeal, an earlier order passed under section 15 (11) or section 19 (7) and under section 22 of the ordinance ( 1) Certainly there shall be sub-section (1) of section 22 of the Ordinance which states that an appeal shall be filed in the High Court within 30. On the day of the orders or decisions or the approval of the verdicts or sentences, the appeals which were not entered within the stipulated period were time-bound in the hope that the time alone in prosecuting constitutional petitions against the order, excluded on the imitation of Section I4 of the Limitation Act, 1908. Could have been done. But the delay in filing an appeal after the withdrawal of constitutional petitions was not satisfactory. \ r \ n \ r \ n
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
