Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S. 10---Recovery of bank loan---Application for leave to defend the suit was moved during pendency of suit by the defendant---Defendant did not deny having taken the loan but only relied upon a suit filed by him against the bank---Validity---Mere filing of suit for accounts by defendant / borrower did not mean and form valid, good or substantial ground for leave---Defendant had to stand on his own legs and to make out a case for leave to defend it---No substantial question of law and facts was raised by defendant---Only by passing amounts claimed by plaintiff had been denied, that too by taking the stand that suit against bank was pending, was not sufficient to claim leave---Application was dismissed in circumstances. ORDER SALMAN HAMID J.---CMA No.9684 of 2009: Suit for recovery of Rs.100,798,440 as on 31-7-2009 with liquidated damages @ 20% and cost was preferred by the plaintiff on or about 26-8-2009 against the defendant. After service, this leave to defend application under section 10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 (Ordinance 2001) was filed on 15-10-2009. 2. Narration of the plaint would show that Running Finance Facility in the sum of Rs.50 million was extended by the plaintiff to the defendant in or about October 2004 which was fully availed of by the defendant. In or about 13-12-2007 a request was made by the defendant for enhancement of the above Running Finance Facility from Rs.50 million to Rs.70 million. Upon deliberation of the defendant's request Running Finance Facility of Rs.50 million was improved to Rs.70 million. Obligatory financing documents which amongst others included agreements for financing on mark-up basis dated 8-5-2008 for the sum of Rs.79,574,159 (resale price), promissory note, letters of continuity, letter of arrangements, confirmation and undertakings, letter of disbursement and personal guarantees, all were of the alike date and amounts as of financing agreements were also executed by the defendant in favour of the plaintiff. 3. Adding up to the above execution of security documents, the defendant also mortgaged its…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492