THARPARKAR SUGAR MILLS LIMITED versus BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED
Interpretation of Sections 27 and 22 of the Financial Institutions (Finance Recovery) Ordinance 2001 was decided in the case of a compromise between the parties, and after that, the defendants took advantage of the State Bank circular dispute. Filed another case for Defendant's case was interdependent, so long as the proceedings of the second case were to maintain a democratic position in connection with the mortgaged property, the defendant relied on indirect relief to alter or modify the judgment. The first case, against which the defendant did not file an appeal, and the decree was finalized under section 27 of the Ordinance 2001 of the Financial Institutions (Security of Finance), is a court or authority overlooking the decision. No second, recall, phone or permit or revocation was prohibited and the banking court order or the Banking Court The legality or ownership of any of the items, which are in the provisions of section 22, made the ordinance legislative to safeguard the orders of the banking court, in the concern that any authority other than the appellate forum would be subject to the orders of the banking court. Throwing the challenge for validation will also not allow and it cannot. Except for the way of appeal before any forum, only in the event that orders for restraint or restriction against the execution of the decree and sale of mortgaged property may be made, it will be presumed that in the first case in the decree Amendment, alteration, or set aside, which cannot be considered under the provisions of Section 27 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance 2001, the appeal has been dismissed;
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
