Non-compliance with Section 10 (4), 10 (5) and Section 10 Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001 for restoration of charge of obtaining client's signature on blank paper by financial institution scope suit. The leave was dismissed for defense and the plaintiff's bank was ordered to sue (that the plaintiff bank) had taken his signature on the blank pieces of paper and the account statement filed by the plaintiff bank was incomplete. Was. And there were serious irregularities, that the plaintiffs' dispute cannot be accepted in connection with the signing of the blank documents, where one person signs and passes another paper, sealed according to the law. Is empty or has an incomplete chat device written on it. Order that the same be done, or completed, by the negotiating device, thereby giving the authority to the person who first received the paper to receive and complete the matter. As an exchange device in any way, the documents were not submitted in the petition for leave to defend in their pleadings, which in their opinion supported concrete questions of law and fact. Section 10 (5) of the Financial Institutions (Maintenance) Ordinance, 2001, therefore, did not comply with the mandatory provisions of Sections 10 (4) and 10 (5) of the Ordinance. Otherwise, the consequences of non-compliance appeal will suffer. In the circumstances, dismissed
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
