| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 663 2017 SLD 663 2017 CLD 302 |
Lahore High Court
C.O.S. No. 46 of 2002, decided on 9th March, 2016, Dates ofhearing: 3rd, 6th, 8th July, 1st, 4th December, 2015; 15thand 24th February, 2016.
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Asim Hafeez for Plaintiffs.Moiz Tariq for Defendant.
C.O.S. No. 46 of 2002, decided on 9th March, 2016, Dates ofhearing: 3rd, 6th, 8th July, 1st, 4th December, 2015; 15thand 24th February, 2016.
SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE
Asim Hafeez for Plaintiffs.Moiz Tariq for Defendant.
MESSRS MAKMA STEEL CRAFT (PVT.) LTD. AND others--PlaintiffSVSALLIED BANK LIMITED--Defendant
Law:
Section:
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S. 10---Leave to defend suit---Principle---Mere denial of availing of amount by borrower is not sufficient to entitle him to grant leave to defend. Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. and others v. Soneri Bank Ltd. 2012 CLD 337 rel. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Ars. 117 & 120---Burden of proof---Principle---Normal standard of proof in civil cases is proof on the balance of probabilities or preponderance of probabilities. Miller v. Minister of Pensions (1947) 2 All ER 372 rel. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 10---Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 117 & 120---Recovery of finances---Misappropriation of pledged goods---Proof---Onus---Bank included amount of pledged goods alleged to have been misappropriated by borrowers in connivance with Muqadam---Validity--Onus or burden of proof to be discharged, regarding misappropriation of pledged goods, was placed on Bank---Bank had to prove that pledged goods were misappropriated by borrowers and conversely there was no onus on borrowers to prove that pledged goods were pilfered by Bank or any of its officers---Inevitable inference was that Bank or any of its officers was not charged with misappropriation or pilferage nor borrowers raised a finger in such regard or made any effort to attempt to fix liability in such regard on Bank---Borrowers had chosen to watch as a bystander and let Bank prove that misappropriation was done by borrowers and in case the onus was not discharged on a balance of probabilities, the question of misappropriation of pledged goods would lose significance---Bank having discharged onus of the issue relating to misappropriation of pledged goods, the same was decided in favour of Bank and against the borrowers---Suit was decreed in favour of Bank accordingly. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: SHAHID KARIM, JUSTICE:---.--- This judgment shall decide C.O.S. No.46/2002 and C.O.S. No.24/2004. C.O.S. 24/2004 has been filed by Allied Bank Limited (ABL) for the recovery of an amount of Rs.94,844,797/- under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of…