Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Section: 9,16,16(1),16(2),23

Law: Code of Civil Procedure of 1882

Section: O.XXXVIII,R.5

Law: Transfer of Property Act, 1882

Section: 53

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 16, 23 & 9---Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S. 53---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVIII, R. 5---Suit for recovery---Restriction on transfer of mortgaged assets and properties of customer(s) of Financial Institutions---Attachment before / decree---"Benami" property in the name of an ostensible owner, determination of---Plaintiff Bank, inter alia, sought an injunctive order under Ss. 16(1) & 16(2) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 to the effect that a property, which was owned by the defendant, and was gifted to his wife; should not be allowed to be transferred to his wife---Contention of plaintiff Bank inter alia was that the subject transfer by the way of gift could only be deemed to be a benami transfer, and was done to deprive the plaintiff Bank from fruits of decree which was likely to be passed in the suit, and further sought impleadment of defendant's wife as party to the suit---Validity---When the loan was rescheduled, subject property did not form part of the security, and prima facie said gift could not be considered as mala fide exercise of right since it was not considered by the plaintiff Bank to form part of any security for repayment of finances---Determination as to whether the property was held as benami by the defendant's wife was an independent exercise which could not form part of proceedings which were governed by the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 which was special law, and defendant's wife did not come within the definition of "customer", "financial institution" or "borrower"---Order under S. 16(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was to be made when a property was being alienated, encumbered or otherwise dealt in a manner which was likely to impair or prejudice security in favour of the financial institution---Valuation report provided that mortgage was more than what was being claimed in the suit therefore, the same was not being subjected to impairment---Essential ingredients of S. 16(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances)…