| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2013 SLG 2072 2013 SLD 2072 2013 CLD 439 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.B-187 of 2009, decision dated: 31st May, 2012.
MUNIB AKHTAR, J
Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Plaintiff. Abid Aziz Sheikh for Defendants Nos.1 and 2.
Suit No.B-187 of 2009, decision dated: 31st May, 2012.
MUNIB AKHTAR, J
Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for Plaintiff. Abid Aziz Sheikh for Defendants Nos.1 and 2.
MEEZAN BANK LIMITED--Plaintiff
VS
WAPDA FIRST SUKUK COMPANY LIMITED through Chief Executive Officer and 2 others----Defendants Ijaz Ahmed and Aijaz Shirazi for --Plaintiff. Abid Aziz Sheikh for ----Defendants Nos.1 and 2.
Law:
Section:
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss 2(a), 2(c), 10---Suit for recovery---"Provider of finance"--- Financial Institution--- Scope--- Plaintiff had acquired "Sukuk" certificates issued by the defendants---Said "Sukuk" certificates had been originally allotted to another institution and were subsequently traded in the financial market and the plaintiff acquired the said "Sukuk" certificates in good faith---When the original allottee did not receive the "rental payment" against said certificates; it contacted the defendants and contended that it had never transferred said "Sukuk" certificates---Plaintiff's title to the certificates, therefore, led back to an elaborate swindle---Plaintiff contended that the transaction embodied in the "Sukuk" certificates was "finance" within meaning of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and the defendants, who had issued the said certificates, were "customers" within the meaning of the Ordinance, and therefore the suit for recovery was maintainable---Validity---Question to be determined was whether the plaintiff on acquisition of said "Sukuk" certificates became a financial institution that had provided finance to the defendants within the meaning of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001; there was a distinction to be drawn between a person who was a provider of finance and someone who was a holder of debt--- Provider of finance, if it was financial institution, as defined in S.2(a) of the Ordinance, was entitled to bring a suit under the Ordinance but a mere holder of debt, however, even if the same was a financial institution, may or may not be able to do so---Every provider of finance within the meaning of the Ordinance was also a holder of debt, but every holder of debt was not necessarily a provider of finance within the meaning of the Ordinance ----For the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 to apply it was crucial that the finance should originally have been provided by the financial institution----Crucial element in the definition of "customer" was the origination of the finance that was being…
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