Find a Lawyer

UNITED BANK LTD. versus MUHAMMAD SADIQ

Section 2 (d) (f) and 9 Customers and User Proofs From the counterfeit amount, the defendant's recovery was an employee of the bank against whom the bank filed a fraudulently charged money recovery bank. The court claimed the validity over draft. The bank did not actually support the over draft, but there was an amount that was obtained through the fraudulent work by the employees, for which a criminal complaint was filed by the bank amnesty which was obtained through fraud. It was not acquired under the banking system nor can it be considered one. Neither the loan, nor the person who received so much money, could not be declared because a consumer consumer high court refused to interfere with the banking court's decision, the appeal was dismissed in the circumstances.

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• Mst. YASMEEN v. DISTRICT AND SESSIONS JUDGE, KARACHI SOUTH 2009 YLR 615
• M. AYUB v. FEDERATION OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Commerce, Government o 2009 CLD 616
• HUMAN SAFETY FOUNDATION through Authorized Representative v. GOVERNMENT OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2009 MLD 628
• UNITED BANK LTD. v. MUHAMMAD NASEEM QURESHI 2009 CLD 629
• KEHAR KHAN v. ADDITIONAL SESSIONS JUDGE AND EX-OFFICIO JUSTICE OF PEACE, KOTRI 2009 PCrLJ 634
• IRSHAD ALI v. State 2009 MLD 637
• ALI REHMAT v. State 2009 PCrLJ 640
• Syed MUNAWAR SULTAN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Chief Secretary 2009 PLC(CS) 640

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

best advocate from Samma Satta lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes