A. XXXVII, Rr 2 and 3 raised the objection of the defendant at the time of the final settlement of the case for the receipt of money on the basis of negotiable instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), Articles 6, 118 and 123 Swiss non-declared cross-checks. The lawsuit was issued in the name of checkger Agar Corporation name. Thus, there is no litigation based on the complaint filed by \ Agar International Limited that the lawyer did not deny that in the past the defendant. The plaintiff was issuing a check to the company. gar Agar Corporation Limited / Defendant's Advisor Name It was not denied that in the past, the bill concerning Gar Agar International Limited was issued by the defendant in the name and manner of the defendant's counsel. Were. The bills and checks previously issued were related to the plaintiff's company, therefore, the defendants now state that the check was issued in the name of \ Agar Corporation of and could not be operated in the name of the \ agar antenna. Was. The bank statement of the Tienal Limited accounts accounts shows that all the bills and checks issued by the defendant were in the name of \ Agar Corporation \ and in addition to dishonorable suit checks from the bank's specific remarks, due to insufficient funds. Had requested the plaintiff in his letter. The magistrate had apologized for investigating the case for a fixed month and for the inconvenience in the FIR filed against the defendant under Section 489F, CRPC, in its audit report that the plaintiff company was guilty. And sentencing such unconstitutional facts show that the defendant, considering the business matters, was able to take the trial as a process of the past.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
