Find a Lawyer

UNITED BANK LTD. versus MUHAMMAD NASEEM QURESHI

Section 2 (d) (f) and 9 bankers and the customer, the relationship of proof of counterfeit money, was employed by the defendant Recovery Bank against whom the bank fraudulently filed a recovery of the money withdrawn from it. Which was presented by the banking court. The bank was meant to defraud even the employees of the banking system or under the jurisdiction of the banking court. Validity over draft was not a voluntary facility by the bank and there was no permission or condition nor any interest rate, as per the bank itself. There can be no fraud and fraud factor in the banking system business. Obtaining such facility by the defendant was beyond the legal business transaction for which a criminal case was registered, in which the High Court refused to interfere with the decision of the banking court because it was a respectable and equitable appeal. Was rejected in the circumstances

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• HABIB-UR-REHMAN v. State 2009 MLD 614
• 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 SADIQ 2009 CLD 634
• 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

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

immigration advocates contact from Abdul Hakim lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes