DHRALA OIL MILLS THROUGH PARTNERS/ GUARANTORS versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB
Sections 10 (4) and 22 leave to defend suit for recovery, leave application for defense leave were dismissed, and the case was decided in favor of the plaintiff bank to defend the defendants. In his request for, he had, the accounts statement specifically challenged various entries and this markup was illegally charged before the facility expired. And so, the leave of defense should have been given to them that Validati Bank could not receive the markup beyond the expiration date of the facility. Where documents and markup rates were disputed, this was the same holiday to defend the decision of the accounts statement, which found that in most entries, transaction details were not given, and Because of this, no inference can be made about the truth. On the basis of such incomplete statement of accounts and incomplete statement of accounts, it was not sufficient to declare the case unless it was obtained through contentious documents that the defendants in the leave application for defense Many questions of law and facts have been raised without which a decision cannot be made. The impeachment order was set aside for the formation of the cases and the recording of the evidence and the petition for leave was granted on behalf of the defendants and after the matter was made the banking court had to decide the matter. Was sent and a recording of the evidence was allowed to appeal accordingly. General Chat Chat Lounge n
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2014
