Find a Lawyer

AAMER ENTERPRISES (PVT.) LTD. versus UNITED BANK LTD.

Sections 19 (1) and 22 of the appellants were of the view that their application to the rehabilitation of Section 19 (1) of the financial institutions (along with the Ordinance 2001), along with other applications, was not given by the Banking Court without giving any reason. Was dealt with. The appeal will be partially amended by the appeals before the banking court under section 151, section 19 (1) of the Ordinance read with the CPC, and within thirty days the appeal will be heard. Will be dealt with in style. Date of communication of the present order of the High Court

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• MUHAMMAD AYOOB v. State 2009 PCrLJ 403
• MUHAMMAD YOUNIS v. MUHAMMAD ISHAQ 2009 YLR 408
• SINDH HIGH COURT BAR ASSOCATION, through Honorary Secretary v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Ministry of Law and Justice, Islamabad 2009 PLD 408
• SHAH FEROZ RIND v. State 2009 PCrLJ 409
• GHAZANFAR ALLY EFFENDI v. ARIF EFFENDI 2009 CLC 413
• TALAT HUSSAIN v. RADO BUILDERS AND DEVELOPERS, KARACHI 2009 YLR 414
• ZAFAR AHMED KHAN v. FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary, Ministry of Defence, Islamabad 2009 PLC(CS) 415
• MUHAMMAD RAMZAN v. State 2009 PCrLJ 417

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

property advocate from Sohawa District Jelum lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes