Find a Lawyer

BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED versus MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN

Defense of this case by guaranteeing a suit guarantee for the receipt of Sections 9 and 10 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 128 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Article 57 of Pakistan, Article 10 guarantee of loan amount They requested that the case be timely banned. This court granted another defendant leave on the same threshold. It is found that the statements in the accounts have been mentioned above the markup and there is a large amount of money against fines and that the assets were sold as a result of the collusion of the principal company, but the plaintiff nevertheless entered into a contract act 1872. Failed to file its claim for Section 128 of the Legal Status of the State. Impact on the application of the statute of limitations was a mixed question of law and fact regarding the limitation raised in the current situation. Such complex questions raised by the Guarantor will require evidence and the implementation of Article 10A of the Constitution. Cannot be ignored or ignored. Holiday request unconditionally accepted \ r \ n

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013

• MUHAMMAD YAKOOB GOPANG v. PRESIDING OFFICER, HYDERABAD 2013 PLD 551
• MANTHAR ALI v. STATION HOUSE OFFICER 2013 PCrLJ 553
• MEDIA MAX (PVT) LTD. v. ARY COMMUNICATION PVT. LTD. 2013 PLD 555
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE, ZONE-III, KARACHI v. ADAM SUGAR MILLS LIMITED, KARACHI 2013 PTD 556
• Mst. SADAF v. SHAH NAWAZ 2013 MLD 562
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS v. Mrs. ISMAT MEHDI 2013 CLC 562
• GHULAM MURTAZA v. State 2013 YLR 566
• MUHAMMAD HANIF v. KARACHI ELECTRIC SUPPLY COMPANY LIMITED 2013 CLC 571

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2013 →

immigration advocate from Ambela lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes