Find a Lawyer

NIB BANK LTD. versus SHADMAN ELECTRONIC INDUSTRY (PVT.) LTD.

The application for leave was filed during the trial of the section 10 bank loan recovery. The defendant did not refuse the loan but relied solely on the suit filed against the bank. The defendant / borrower was not meant to and does not constitute a valid, good or substantial basis for the holiday. Defendant has to stand on his feet to defend it and have to file a case for leave to defend him; no definitive question about the law and the facts was raised by the defendants alone. ? The claim was denied by the claimant, it was not enough to claim leave, even taking the stand that the case against the bank was pending.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012

• Mrs. INGRID PEREIRA v. VITH ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH 2012 PLD 208
• ABDUL RASHEED v. State 2012 PCrLJ 210
• ASIF v. State 2012 YLR 211
• IMAM BUX alias AMOO v. State 2012 PLD 212
• HARIS RANA v. Mst. SARWAT AKHTAR 2012 MLD 213
• GUL MUHAMMAD v. KAIMUDDIN 2012 YLR 218
• HABIB BANK LIMITED v. BANKING COURT NO.II 2012 CLD 218
• ABDUL RAZAK\'ZANGEJO v. State 2012 PLD 218

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2012 →

us immigration advocates from Zhob lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes