Find a Lawyer

ELAHI BANISH versus ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER

Appeals for Section 9, 10 and 22 Case Mortgage Property Returns Against Bank Banking Court's decision Appellant filed a declaration against Bank Bank for leave to defend the case and Bank Had entered a written statement. The appellant was defaulter of Rs 2,61,447 up to 30 6000 and the appellant who had taken responsibility for payment of this amount requested the banking court to pay the said amount in the form of quarterly installments to the appellant. For a two-year period. Payment of the amount requested in the quarterly installments and the appellant deposited the amount according to the amount in the installments and moved the application for release, the bank claimed that the request was made through written reply and requested that the appellant Need to pay more because the Tubewell Money Banking Court against the 1,29,307 dues plus Rs 15,198 dismissed the appeal, Appellant's resignation for residential property redemption was granted by Weldetti Bank in defense of its leave. The petition clearly stated that the appellant was a defaulter of Rs 2,61,447 and said that the appeal as per the order of the Banking Court. The amount was paid by Nanda. The bank's installment counsel failed to show how the appellant was responsible for paying the excess amount as claimed by the bank appellant who complied with the banking court's decision and decree and Unanimous amount was paid in installments, claim cannot be defaulted for money. The Banking Court's bank order was set aside, rejecting the appellant's request for a mortgage back. advocates from Islamabad lawyer