Sections 9, 10 and 22 of the Constitution of Pakistan, Article 199 Constitutional Application Proof of Bank Debt Recovery Procedure The decision was issued on the basis of a separate order of the bank's lawsuit filed against the defendant, the former order. That this process was carried out according to everyone. The summons sent to the defendant through the courier service by the Banking Court through the proposed methods and the offer failed to be returned with the remarks that the defendant had been transferred from the address where the defendant was sent the summons. Instead it was sent by the Registered Post. Bailiff did not submit his report nor did he have the record acknowledgment, which was nothing on the record to prove that he was summoned or refused to receive the same. There is a report from the site to indicate that the summons is in progress. Received by the defendant or refused to receive the same. There was no evidence on record to indicate that he was a defendant, or non-service or part of the proper service of summons, especially Section 9 (5) of the Financial Institutions (Financial Recovery) Ordinance, 2001 ) Was not complied with, not sending a summons via post-registration acknowledgment. Passing a previous party order against the defendants, despite such non-compliance, the banking court committed a serious illegal action; summons not issued under section 9 (5) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001 The defendant was not served and was being served. Never been better, first on the defendant
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
