PAKISTAN STATE OIL COMPANY LTD. versus DR. ABDUL RAUF
Sections 42 and 54 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), O XXXX, RR 1 and 2 Civil Procedure Code (Amendment) Ordinance (X of 1980), Section 15 of the Law Reforms Act (XII of 1972), Section 3 of the High Court of Appeal suit The interim evidence dealership agreement between the plaintiff and the plaintiff fraud was made with the plaintiff company and the plaintiff plaintiff company received large quantities of petroleum products in which the plaintiff was also sued, in which the plaintiff was arrested. As a result of the settlement, the plaintiff issued a check issued by the plaintiff in favor of the plaintiff company, after being released on bail, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit and posted the post. Anksmnt the situation and asked to remove the restraining order against his dealership contract. The court granted the interim injunction in favor of the plaintiff that it was raised by the plaintiff that the checks were issued due to coercion and that the right to transfer the full value of the threatening right to the disputed delivery could not prove itself. The fraudster was not an active participant, but his involvement in the scam could not be ruled out simply because he transferred the entire online payment to the disputed price online, but did not mean the supply to another person's account. That the claimant was paying with his financial resources, demonstrating the full truth of the same payment online One can withdraw the same amount over and over again, and it is not enough for a person in the account, whom the defendant had no association with, to establish the first case in favor of the plaintiff, Who transferred online in the name of an individual and not the plaintiff company courts maintain the integrity of contractual commitments
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
