Find a Lawyer

HABIB BANK LIMITED versus TAUQEER AHMED SIDDIQUI

Sections 3, 9 and 17 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Sections 151, 152 and 153 Cost of decree funds for recovery of loan amount, such costs in non-delivery of application for modification of bank order. Requested to be removed from the application of the cost by the Banking Court as per Section 17 of the Financial Institutions read with Section 3 (Recovery of Taxes) Ordinance 2001 was mandated that the Banking Court In its judgment it did not observe that the bank was not entitled to such expenditure from the date of default. The Bank of Public Money was entitled to such costs. The High Court accepted the appeal under the circumstances

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009

• Malik MUHAMMAD RASHEED v. REGISTRAR (ITU) AND CHAIRMAN, NIRC 2009 PLC 308
• Mst. ANWAR BEGUM v. ZARAI TARQIATI BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager 2009 YLR 308
• MADINA ELECTRIC MARKET through Shop-keepers Union v. CITY DISTRICT GOVERNMENT, KARACHI through Nazim-e-Aala, Karachi 2009 PLD 309
• JAVED IQBAL AWAN v. ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD. 2009 PLC(CS) 310
• ADAM LIMITED, KARACHI v. MITSUI & COMPANY 2009 YLR 315
• SOHAIL alias GANG v. State 2009 PCrLJ 315
• PAKISTAN REFINERY LIMITED v. BARRET HODGSON PAKISTAN (PVT.) LTD 2009 PLD 315
• SAEED-UR-REHMAN v. PROVINCE OF SINDH through Secretary 2009 PLC(CS) 317

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2009 →

immigration advocates phone number from Chak Sawara lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes