Hypothecation Agreement Judgment


. the necessary formalities and invited the counterparties to refinance the vehicle as agreed. It is also alleged that the counterparties retained Form 35 relating to the fictitious agreement, although . Refusal to refinance the vehicle. It is also alleged that the complainant asked the counterparties to return Form 35 in respect of the loan agreement, but that they did not return the considerations. – A fictitious contract of 26.12.2009. It is also argued that Shri Roshal Lal lonaee the loan amount in the amount of Rs.1213364/- (Twelve lake thirteen thousand three Sushil Kumar against Shri Ram. Summary cannot be displayed when the content is scanned, please open the judgment to display the full content. . has the responsibility of the third party and asks the opponent to the first application for the cancellation of the contract of termination. The complaint made by the petitioner in the written petition concerns the. Complainant bank.

The third document is in accordance with the poisoning of 20 buffaloes, The Committee on Economic Affairs and Human Rights ruled in favour of the bank, which was concluded on 20 June 1974, and filtered that the incriminated No. 1, kept every twenty years of 20 June 1974, had concluded a mortgage agreement under which 20 buffaloes of the accused were kept as security. It was insisted that, within the framework of the agreement and in particular. Article 3 of the disposal contract, Accused No. 1, had accepted that, without the prior consent of the bank, Accused No. 1 would not sell or sell the 20 buffaloes. . . .

Contact Info

Marmee Reizen

Eize Speerstrastrjitte 4

8711 LB Workum

Phone : 06-14 534 773

Email : maricavdmeer@yahoo.com