Find a Lawyer

UNITED BANK LIMITED versus PROGAS PAKISTAN LIMITED

Protecting this Case from Sections 9 and 10 Bank Debt Recovery Requesting leave to defend this case shows that sections 10 (3), (4) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001 ) And (5) had no provisions. Compliance with Impact If the application for leave to defend this case does not comply with the terms of Sections 10 (3), (4) and (5) of the Financial Institutions (Financial Recovery) Ordinance 2001, such application Was obliged to exclude the defendant. Failure to comply with such requirements fails to show any good reason as the defendant did not perform his obligation in accordance with the contract, so the claim was properly filed by the bank that the defendant had There was no specific question about the law as well as any question about the facts. Any evidence was required by the parties, leave petition for the defense of the case filed by the defendants was dismissed by the High Court. The suit was pronounced in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2010

• GHANI AND TAYUB (PVT.) LTD., KARACHI v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through 2010 PTD 817
• NAWAB JAN alias NAWAZ v. State 2010 MLD 824
• Haji INAYAT v. State 2010 PCrLJ 825
• REAL TRADING CO. through Wali Muhammad, Karachi v. COLLECTOR OF CUSTOMS, MODEL CUSTOMS COLLECTORATE OF PaCCS, KARACHI 2010 PTD 826
• SURRIYA BEGUM v. CITY NAZIM, CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI 2010 PLC(CS) 832
• GHULAM MUHAMMAD v. State 2010 YLR 833
• NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN v. NAYA DOUR MOTORS (PVT.) LIMITED 2010 CLD 838
• MUHAMMAD ARSHAD v. State 2010 MLD 839

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2010 →

law firms from Khangarh lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes