Find a Lawyer

ALLIED BANK LIMITED versus MUSLIM CO1TON MILLS PRIVATE LIMITED

Sections 9 and 10 suit for defending suit for bank loan collection, request for leave not to meet the requirements of section 10 (314) of financial institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001 Defendant's financial The admission to seeking assistance to secure his payment The effect mentioned in the plaintiff's and executed documents in favor of the bank The plaintiff failed to show any good reason for his failure to comply with such requirements. The defendant had failed to perform its obligations under the finance agreement The plaintiff had failed to ask any specific parties. \ n In prayer for the High Court, the vacation petition was dismissed and the order was dismissed.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011

• Syed HAKIM ALI SHAH v. State 2011 YLR 384
• ZURASH INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Interior, Islamabad 2011 PLD 385
• MUHAMMAD SHARIF v. State 2011 MLD 389
• MUHAMMAD ASHRAF v. MUHAMMAD AKBAR 2011 YLR 390
• GHULAM MUSTAFA v. State 2011 PLD 394
• MUMTAZ v. Mst. JANAT 2011 MLD 395
• INAYATULLAH v. State 2011 PCrLJ 398
• Miss UFERA MEMON v. LIQUAT UNIVERSITY OF MEDICAL AND HEALTH SCIENCE (LUMAS) JAMSHORO, through Registrar 2011 PLD 400

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2011 →

best law firm from Choa Saiden Shah lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes