Find a Lawyer

AL-ATHAR LIMITED versus SAIIAD HUSSAIN

The intra-court appeal case of the plaintiff / defendant for the recovery of the Section 3 case, Section 10 Law Reform Ordinance (Act XII of 1972), was that the trustee took the money from the defendant / appellant in dispute with the defendant. The plaintiff further asserts that the defendant, who had promised to keep the money as `trustee 'in the dispute, assured that the defendant did not terminate the shareholder's proposed sale agreement between the parties. Will return the money to the plaintiff if the defendant did not base his case on the alleged breach of contract. What agreement was reached between the parties so far, but the issue was that after he agreed to buy the defendant's shares, the defendant applied for a disputed amount of money, which the defendant had requested for his The personal need was urgently needed to satisfy the single judge, though rightly concluding that the money in the dispute was not paid to the defendant by `trustee 'but it was paid in advance as advance. The cost of the sale of the order was made; the only disclosure was to dismiss the case because it was never requested by the claimant that the phase Defendant agreed upon and the contract between the plaintiff or the defendant has been no breach of such agreement or by the plaintiff harm this account. The fact is that no agreement can be reached between the parties, the defendant will not be obliged to refund the money unless it is established that the money was received by the defendant as the outstanding balance and that the defendant Was irreversible or the plaintiff was in breach of the claimant agreement jobs for advocates from Kamokey lawyer