TANYA KNITWEAR (PVT.) LTD versus FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD
Section 17 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), AXXIII, R3 and Section 151 Decree of Consent, together with the decision of the scope suit filed by the bank, on the basis of the joint statement made by the lawyer I decided. More than two years after the parties approved the consent decree, the bank applied, either to change the material dates in the agreement or to keep the decision separate, and on this basis the issue of eligibility. It was ruled that the statement filed by his lawyer was without the authority bank. No action was taken against the lawyer who had allegedly entered into the agreement to effect such an order of consent which was based on the record, where in the dates. The change can be seriously prejudiced which cannot be reviewed by the High Court or advocated by the High Court. Can not be addictive. The bank was not identified by any State Bank Circular violation for more than two years, thus being outside the scope of Section 151; Talk not found. Any errors or omissions in an earlier consent order that could call for correction because the compromise was made on the basis of the statements of both parties, neither the withdrawal of the settlement order nor the review options were available. 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.
