Find a Lawyer

MUHAMMAD YASIN TAHIR versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN

Bank Development Against Recovery of Bank Loans by Agricultural Banking Ordinance 1961 Section 19 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Section 42 Civil Procedure Code (VV 1908), OXXXIX, Rr l & 2 It has been decided that in accordance with the terms and conditions of the agreement between the plaintiff (lender) and the defendant bank (lender), the case against the defendant (lender) seeking a declaration and permanent order. The procedure that the bank has for establishing and in addition to interim relief of the claimant's claim for interim relief to recover a certain amount of cash. Tyab trial court had accepted it but ulydyty Appellate Court has rejected the bank in order to adopt measures to recover the amount of your loan. The claimant who did not pay the confession was well aware of the terms of the loan, when he applied for such loan, the claimant was required to pay his obligation and pay the basic amount with him. Accrued interest also. He could not even complain about the fact that the bank could not be resorted to through repression, but the bank could not deprive him of the available means for recovering the loan amount, as set forth in the terms of the agreement between the parties. Has been done And the Agricultural Development Bank will be able to receive the money in accordance with the provisions of the ordinance because the residual plaintiff of the land revenue emphasized the claim of some amount by the bank as compensation or indemnity, which would put the creditors in a liability situation. Was a new way of doing. The plaintiff claims that the bank cannot pressurize to repay the loan amount, as long as it does not. jobs for fresh advocates from Tobatek Singh lawyer