Find a Lawyer

RASHID AHMAD versus WASIM AHMAD

CPC Parties read with Civil Procedure Code Order I Suite OI, R 10O VII, R 11 Contract Act (IX of 1872), Section 2 (h) to invite applicants as applicants The request was to be canceled. Is alleged to be fraudulent and likewise the applicant was signed by the defendant's employee. Such plaintiff was declared as ludicrously liable. The contract of effect shows that the employee of the applicant bank has signed his signature. But just as a witness. Such an agreement does not show whether the applicant's employee was represented as an officer in a private transaction between persons not directly related to the applicant's defendant or his business. The contract was written, typed or the applicants signed the bank premises act. The employee had a completely independent process and was neither in the interest of the applicant nor during his employment which indicated that the AC applicant / respondent was out of his or her job. It cannot be held liable for the independent conduct of its employees who have served or performed outside their jurisdiction during their employment as applicant's employee. In its sole discretion, the applicant bank cannot be held responsible for the principle of liability contrary to its employer status. The names of the defendants were excluded as defendants in the case best law firms from Sahiwal lawyer