STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN versus ERASMUS OSMUND INTERLINK (PVT.) LTD
The company accused of appreciating section 83 (1D) and 27 evidences of the Ordinance of Banking Companies is neither a banking company nor has the permission of a competent authority to collect publicity through advertisement in public media. As well as evidence for the prosecution's testimony. The suspects allege that the accused company had made such an advertisement in the newspaper daily. One accused confessed that he was receiving investment from a public defendant in pursuit of the advertisement, violating Section 27A of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, and he was sentenced. He was punished accordingly
Find a Lawyer Near You
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
