Section 22 (6) and 22 (1) interpretation of sections 22 (6) and 22 (1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001 Appeal of the International Court of Banking Court against the Plaintiff (Customer) After directing the secondary evidence under Article Secondary Evidence of Disqualification Order Martyrdom 1984 of 1974, it was dismissed, while Section 22 (1) of the Financial Institutions (Retrieval of Financial Assistance) Ordinance, 2001 provided the victim with a An absolute right to control the veracity of a decision / order / sentence or final order on the other hand, section 22 (6), covers it and prevents it in relation to mutual orders while section 2 of the ordinance. In 2 (1) the word may be used to allow him to file an appeal. Section 22 (6) of the contradictory ordinance, with the words opened in the language mandatory, no appeal review or review shall be against any formal order of the banking court, stating that the legislative choice emphasizes two aspects of the same coin. Was used by the legislature to deliver, and there is no doubt that the purpose was to challenge the interim, intermediate or interim injunction, under which the lawsuits prosecuted by the bankruptcy court The law was finally finalized on this matter. Appeal dismissed without hesitation
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
