| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2017 SLG 1538 2017 SLD 1538 2017 SCMR 1470 |
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Appeals Nos. 2105 and 2106 of 2008, decision Dated: 2nd May, 2017. Heard on: 2nd May, 2017. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 18.1.2008 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Spl. HCA No. 29/2001 and First Appeal No. 01/1998)
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CHIEF, JUSTICE, UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Rasheed Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.
Civil Appeals Nos. 2105 and 2106 of 2008, decision Dated: 2nd May, 2017. Heard on: 2nd May, 2017. (On appeal against the judgment Dated 18.1.2008 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in Spl. HCA No. 29/2001 and First Appeal No. 01/1998)
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, CHIEF, JUSTICE, UMAR ATA BANDIAL, JUSTICE, FAISAL ARAB, JUSTICE
Syed Iftikhar Hussain Gillani, Senior Advocate Supreme Court for Appellants. M. Rasheed Qamar, Advocate Supreme Court for
Respondent.
MISS RUKHSANA MURRAD AND OTHERS --AppellantS
VS
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Banker and customer ---.--- ---.--- -Finance facility availed by loanee from Bank to settle its liability with the State Bank ---.--- Bank making payment to State Bank on behalf of the loanee (exporter) ---.--- When no finance directly disbursed to the loanee under the finance agreement, question as to whether the finance agreement was of any legal consequence ---.--- Exporter executed a finance agreement with the respondent-Bank to avail a running finance facility ---.--- To secure the financial facility, exporter pledged its goods, hypothecated its machinery, assigned the proceeds of its life insurance policy, and created an equitable mortgage on subject property ---.--- After the exporter failed to repay the finance facility, respondent-Bank filed a suit for recovery in the Banking Tribunal ---.--- Exporter claimed that after execution of finance facility, no amount was disbursed and all documents executed in such regard were forged ---.--- Banking Court dismissed the suit after holding that no amount was disbursed under the finance agreement ---.--- Exporter filed its own suit claiming damages contending that recoveries made under the finance agreement, when no finance was disbursed, caused a huge loss of business to the exporter since subject property was sold for a meagre amount, and proceeds of insurance policy were appropriated by the respondent-Bank ---.--- Suit for damages filed by exporter was decreed by the Banking Court ---.--- On appeal, the High Court decreed the suit for recovery filed by the respondent-Bank and dismissed the suit for damages filed by exporter ---.--- Validity ---.--- Case record showed that exporter had been availing various financial facilities under the State Bank's Export Refinance Scheme through the respondent Bank ---.--- Export Re-Finance Scheme allowed the exporters to avail finance from State Bank to finance their exports, which was adjustable against export proceeds ---.--- Where no exports were made or there was a shortfall, the State Bank imposed a penalty ---.--- When the exporter failed to meet its export target a penalty was imposed on it by the State Bank ---.--- For purposes of repaying such penalty, financial…
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