Find a Lawyer

EXECUTIVE VICE-PRESIDENT versus BRIG. (R) MIAN HAMEED-UD-DIN

The Section 9 suit for the annual 14 @ profit claim on the defendant investment exception certificate was that the subsequent change in the promise rate of such profit by the bank was inappropriate. It was agreed to abide by all the rules and regulations pertaining to such certificate. Under the PLS system the amount of profit on such certificate was calculated on a monthly basis and the profit rate was declared on it without notice. Should the reduction in the rate of interest announced by the State be compelled by the Bank to revise the rate of profit, which was then reported to the plaintiff to continue the revised profit schedule or Without having to pay any compensation, his certificate can be denied or the claimant can claim a profit rate of 14%, but the bank is sued by the suit. Was entitled to receive the default revised rate was excluded under the circumstances

Related judgments — Peshawar High Court NWFP, 2010

• INAMULLAH KHAN v. State 2010 YLR 798
• CHAIRMAN STATE LIFE INSURANCE CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN v. UMAR ZAD SHAH BUKHARI 2010 CLD 798
• AYAN SHAH v. State 2010 MLD 804
• MUHAMMAD KHAN v. MIR ABBAS 2010 MLD 817
• QISMAT ALI KHAN v. MUHAMMAD YOUSAF KHAN 2010 YLR 829
• MASOOD alias GUDOO v. State 2010 MLD 835
• UMAR KHITAB v. AZIZ-UR-REHMAN 2010 YLR 837
• SULTAN MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 MLD 847

All Peshawar High Court NWFP judgments of 2010 →

law websites from Garh More lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes