A. XXXVII, Rr. 2 and 3 of the Negotiable Devices Act (XXVI of 1881), sections 4 and 13 of the suit, which defended the plaintiff's bankruptcy case for receipt of call deposit receipts by the Bank Office. He was released for leave and was a plaintiff in association with him. The former manager stole such invoices and later completed them by filling them. The bank had filed an FIR and filed a case for cancellation of such receipts. And since the receipts were not a promise notice, therefore, this case was not enforceable, Waldetti Bank accused the plaintiff of being a party to the fraud and theft of such receipts, no consideration in respect of such invoices. No FIR or payment was registered and a lawsuit was filed. The bank upheld its request that the bank alleges that it was not merely a bald accusation, that the allegations of fraud cannot be summarized as recording of the evidence would be required when the dispute was used as evidence. If a source needs a solution, a vacation grant will be the right way.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2009
