Find a Lawyer

CITIBANK N.A. THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER versus AMEER ALAM

The scope for the recovery of Section 2 (e) and 9 finance facility, Scope Banking Court, dismissed the bank's lawsuit that it was based on a redistributed facility to charge markup on markup. The effect of the restructuring or reorganization of the financing facility was agreed to be absorbed through mutual consent or markup by the parties until the agreed date of termination of the obligation; maintenance, restructuring and renewal of such facility or accommodation. Which was granted to the customer by the bank and which was recognized as a "duty" described in the section. The Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2 (e) of 2001, allowed the High Court to set aside the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court and to declare the case filed in favor of the bank. \ n \ r \ n

Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2015

• AMIR SHAHZAD CHAUDHARY v. CHAIRMAN, BANK OF PUNJAB 2015 PLC(CS) 423
• ZAFAR v. State 2015 PCrLJ 424
• COMMISSIONER INLAND REVENUE v. Maj. Gen. (R) Dr. C.M. ANWAR 2015 PTD 424
• MUBASHER v. State 2015 PLD 426
• ARSHAD HUSSAIN alias ARSHI v. State 2015 MLD 431
• MUHAMMAD AFZAL DEURA v. ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN 2015 CLD 439
• ZAFAR JAVAID v. EXECUTIVE DISTRICT OFFICER (REVENUE), OKARA 2015 PLC(CS) 442
• MUHAMMAD BAKHSH (DECEASED) v. AMANULLAH (DECEASED) 2015 PLD 445

All Lahore High Court Lahore judgments of 2015 →

solicitors from Lawrence pur lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes