UNITED BANK LIMITED THROUGH AUTHORIZED ATTORNEYS versus BANKING COURT NO.II
Sections 9 and 10 constitution Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional petition leave defense to strengthen the suit, two cases were pending before the Banking Court, one was filed by the bank and the other was denied by the defendants. Was filed later. The bank's case, the banking court, allowed the defendant's request, and both bank suits were upheld, requesting leave to defend the claim that both suits could not be consolidated. Rejecting means that the accounts between the parties can be settled without being recorded. Evidence When no evidence was needed to settle the accounts, the order for settlement of accounts was to be followed as no other than passing the order on the basis of the accounts already laid down by the parties. The move wasn't working. Applying for leave to approve the defense to defend this case, the law considered that the decision of the case should be made immediately at a stage when the only order was to be passed in a suit, together with another case. The collection of suits in which the evidence was to be filed will defeat the Financial Institutions Section 10 (11) (Finance Recovery) Ordinance, which was also the order of stability granted by the 2001 Banking Court, to repeal the order. The effect under which a leave application for defense of a suit was denied, therefore, does not uphold such an order to strengthen the suit. It may be that the banking court violated the provisions of section 10 (11) of the financial institutions. The ordinance, 2001, therefore, strengthened the suit
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
