Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD DAWOOD versus UNITED INSURANCE CO. PAKISTAN LTD.

Sections 9 and 15 (3) (a) of the Sindh High Court Rules (original side), RR 586 (1) and 586 (2) invoice petition requiring petitioner's argument that he should pay theft and ransom in his office. Was due to Any movable and immovable property property applicant is required by section 15 (3) (a) of the Sindh Insurance (Karachi Division) Act 1909 and RR 586 (1) and (2) of the Sindh Bank to pay the loan. Failed to meet conditions. (O section) Rules No book was maintained by the applicant. Documentary evidence and audit reports do not show that the applicant suffered damages before the state-owned petitioner sought to take advantage of the civil and criminal proceedings initiated against him by the lenders. ? Failure to present its case for grant of involuntary certificate petition, in those cases excluded

Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014

• MUHAMMAD RIAZ SHAIKH v. IFTIKHARUDDIN 2014 CLC 1695
• MUHAMMAD KASHAN v. COCA COLA CORPORATION PAKISTAN LIMITED 2014 CLD 1696
• KHADIM HUSSAIN PALH v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1698
• GHULAM HUSSAIN alias BASHOO v. State 2014 MLD 1698
• MUHAMMAD BUX alias PAPOO SHAR v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1707
• ABDUL REHMAN KHAN v. PAKISTAN INTERNATIONAL AIRLINE CORPORATION 2014 CLC 1714
• MUHAMMAD AMEEN v. State 2014 PCrLJ 1719
• ABDUL RAZZAK v. Syed HAFEEZ-UDDIN 2014 MLD 1720

All Karachi High Court Sindh judgments of 2014 →

attorney vs advocate vs counsel from Chak 46 lawyer

Talk to a Lawyer Free · replies in minutes