Case Details

Citation(s)
2016 SLG 900 2016 SLD 900 2016 CLC 351
Sindh High Court
Spl. High Court Appeal No. 22 of 2008, decided on 21stSeptember, 2015. Dates of hearing: 11th, 18th, 27thNovember, 9th December, 2014, 12th, 20th January, 27thFebruary and 14th September, 2015.
NADEEM AKHTAR AND MUHAMMAD IQBAL KALHORO, JJ
Rashid Anwer for Appellant.Sajid Zahid for
Respondent No. 1.Nemo for
Respondent No. 2.Ejaz Ahmed for
Respondents Nos.3, 4 and 5.Khalid Javed Khan for
Respondent No. 6.

HABIB AHMADVSMEEZAN BANK LIMITED and 5 others

Law:

Section:

(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 62---Novation of contract--- Object, import and scope---Novation means and be construed when contract already in existence is extinguished and a new contract is created, whereunder new rights emerge in favour of parties---Unless rights under old contract are explicitly relinquished, no new contract comes into force---Procrastination by a party to abide by terms of contract and to gain benefit out of it does not mean novation of contract---Novation comes about where parties to contract mutually agree to substitute it with new contract---If a party alleges novation of contract, it has to establish such prerequisites. Mrs. Mussarat Shaukat Ali v. Mrs. Safia Khatoon and others 1994 SCMR 2189 rel. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----S. 17---Fraud---Proof---Allegations of fraud require specific evidence establishing unequivocally malfeasance or a misrepresentation made with a design to get benefit for oneself or misleading the other into a course of action, detrimental to its rights. Black's Law Dictionary (Sixth Edition) rel. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.176---Recovery of finance---Pledged stock, sale of---Procedure---Notice to pawnor---Requirement---Defendant while seeking finance facility from plaintiff Bank pledged shares owned by him, in a company listed in Stock Exchange---Defendant alleged that Bank and stock broker had illegally and fraudulently sold his shares at lesser price causing loss to his property---Plea raised by defendant was, that before selling the shares, bank was to issue notice to him---Giving notice to pawnor was a mandatory requirement of law that had to be fulfilled before selling his pledged property---Obligation stood complied with if pawnor was served with a letter telling him about sale of his shares by pawnee, in case of non-compliance of terms of pledge-agreement---Regarding contents of such notice no hard and fast rule could be laid down and it was not necessary that such letter would contain actual date and place of intended sale---Only prerequisite was to convey reasonable information to pawnor…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register