Find a Lawyer

BOSICOR CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH ATTORNEY versus AMAN-UR-REHMAN

Sections 42 and 54 of the Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Section 23 and Article 2120 of the Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), O VII, R11 Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 intra-court appeal title and mandatory injunction restraining sanctions Declaration of continued infringement and errors, the plaintiffs issuing their full paid-up share certificate with the plaintiff's vacant transfer proceedings in return for his service privileges, in 1994, when the plaintiff's company refused to apply. When the plaintiff resigned from the service of the plaintiff, the company in 1996 demanded the defendant to hand over the disputed certificate and vacancy transfer deed. The plaintiff's denial was filed by the plaintiff in 2004, a 2004 High Court judge dismissed his request to have the case dismissed when the defendant raised that the limitation period was similar Until then, the application of the provisions of section 23 of the Limitation Act 1908 was permissible if any cause of action was obtained for filing with the plaintiff company. But, in the year 1996, he accused the defendant of issuing the letter, therefore, the period of limitation provided under Article 120, the Limitation Act, 1908, could be counted as such, depending on the terms of the letter issued in 1994. Accordingly, in the letter dated 2003, the defendant provided no fresh cause of action to the plaintiff, nor was there any extension of the limitation period for any action against the defendant. , Which expired long before the issuance of the letter in 2003, the provisions of Section 23 of the Limitation Act, 1908, were not available to meet the limits for signing the petition ff. The High Court's Division Bench of the High Court upheld the appeal advocates from Chacklala lawyer