| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2152 2013 SLD 2152 2013 CLD 1922 |
Sindh High Court
Special High Court Appeal No.98 of 2012, decision dated:7-05-2013.
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Raza Rabbani along with Saalim Salam Ansari and Muhammad Zeshan Abdullah for Appellant. Ijaz Ahmed for
Respondent.
Special High Court Appeal No.98 of 2012, decision dated:7-05-2013.
MUSHIR ALAM, C.J. AND MUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J
Raza Rabbani along with Saalim Salam Ansari and Muhammad Zeshan Abdullah for Appellant. Ijaz Ahmed for
Respondent.
IRFAN NAWAB through AttorneyvsSONERI BANK LIMITED
Law:
Section:
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S. 15(12)---Sale of mortgage property---Scope---Borrower is required in terms of S.15(12) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, to show a positive evidence that all amounts secured by mortgaged property have been paid. (b) Administration of justice--- ----When an act is required to be done in a particular way, it has to be performed in the manner provided under law---If an act provided to be performed in a particular way is followed by some consequence, then it no more remains mere procedural requirement but assumes mandatory requirement. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 15(2) & (4)---Sale of mortgage property---Scope---Assumption of power under S.15(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is of such nature that it takes away certain valuable rights of borrower/mortgagor and hence compliance of provisions of S.15(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, becomes mandatory. (d) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 15 & 22--- Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.129(f)--- Sale of mortgage property without intervention of court---Statutory notices, requirement of---Loss of courier receipts---Presumption---Borrower assailed sale of mortgage property on the plea that notices under S.15(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, were not issued--- Validity--- Bank should have been more vigilant in retaining receipt of such courier company through which second disputed notice was sent, more particularly when assumption of powers under S.15(4) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 depended on fulfilment of S.15(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Loss of such receipt could only yield to establish a presumption which was contrary to the presumption drawn by Single Judge of High Court---Bank did not present postal receipt or courier receipt to enable the court to apply Art. 129 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 to presume that…
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