CHAUDHRY MUKHTAR AHMAD versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Section 7 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OVII, R 11, Sections 4 (1) and 141 Partnership Act (IX of 1932), Section 69 (2) against the bank for refusal by the client For the Contribution Act, 1932, under Section 69, the Contribution Act, 1932, the case was refused, the plaintiff being a unregistered firm, the trial and the dismissal of the case. A written statement was filed to defend the application and the petition was transferred. The lawsuit, and then the defendants, filed an application to dismiss the plaintiff and the written statement, if the court concluded that the cases fall under any provision of section VII, R 11, CPC. But there is no way for a vacation to defend the suit banking court, while using its civil jurisdiction, the CPC had to follow the procedure laid down in relation to the suit. , Except for the presence of a contrary clause. As in the G ordinance, the general provisions of the CPC give way to conflicting provisions of the ordinance that exceed the Partnership of the Financial Institutions Ordinance 2001, with the contribution of section 69 (2). Read at the Commonwealth Act, 1932 shows that the provisions of the Act were not made in contravention of the provisions of the Ordinance and the Partnership Act, 1932 was not supplied to exclude the provisions of the Partnership Act. Can be applied to The Financial Institutions (Finance Recovery) Ordinance, 2001, was prosecuted and the judgment was upheld by the Banking Court, in the circumstances, pursuant to section 69 (2), the Partnership Act 1932,
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
