2/2013 Suit.B UNITED BANK LTD (Plaintiff) V/S FASHIONWEAR (PVT) LTD & OTHER (Defendant)

Sindh High Court2015

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)

Share on WhatsApp
2/2013 Suit.B UNITED BANK LTD (Plaintiff) V/S FASHIONWEAR (PVT) LTD & OTHER (Defendant) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 18-SEP-15 Contents of the plaint as well and it appears that the defendant has evasively denied his liabilities in the leave to defend application which is not requirement of Order VIII Rule 4 CPC. Under the law every allegation of fact in the plaint should be denied specifically and if not it would amount to an evasive denial. ---Insofar as the claim of the mark up is concerned as it should be strictly subject to agreement as in chart given as the plaintiff has not cited any agreement to entitle them to claim mark up as sought, however no dispute with cost of funds from the date of default Advocates: Ijaz Ahmed Zahid(ADVO-11135-SBC-KHI),Khursheed Javed(ADVO-8182-SBC-KHI),Syed Aijaz Hussain Shirazi(ADVO-8688-SBC-KHI)
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020