SYED ALEEMUDDIN versus PAKISTAN AGRO-MECH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD.
O V11, R 2 The suit for recovery of the money was simultaneously rejected The plaintiff's argument was that he had entered into an agreement with the defendant, stating that the loan was to be repaid within fifteen days and In the event that the defendant defaults, a defendant will pay the same amount of penalties as the plaintiff failed to prove before the following courts. Or the story of allegedly paying and entering into a contract. Those who were suspicious and could not be given any weight thus failed to show that the plaintiff failed to justify the contract of repayment of the loan and the loan repayment equivalent to the loan amount. It was not covered by any law that it did not conform to the principles of equality of justice, but rather it exhibited immense profits over cruel conduct and debt, and therefore the alleged contract was invalid. The benefit was nothing but publicity. A needy person has been accused of allegedly being affected by the law and the law, which deals with business-to-business loans or profit or interest-free financing. The lender had a business or banking money, and the alleged contract had to claim unlawful forcible interest against the penal friendly loan, which itself was not law and equity, such agreements or agreements. Speaking of legally was inappropriate. Was not open to nature and its enforcement by a court of law; in the circumstances, the amendment was rejected.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2012
