Case Details

Citation(s)
2019 SLG 2554 2019 SLD 2554 2019 PLJ 602
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No. 872 of 2016, decision Dated: 02.05.2019. hearing Dated: 28.03.2019.
MUHAMMAD SAJID MEHMOOD SETHI, JUSTICE MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Mr. Akif Majeed, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Mr. A.W. Butt, Advocate No. 1 Malik Asadullah and Mirza Zeeshan, Advocates No.2.

M/S. GULISTAN POWER GENERATION LIMITED & 3 OTHERS

VS

BANK OF PUNJAB & 2 OTHERS

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

Section: 22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001)-- ----S. 22--Suit for recovery--Decreed--Finance facility agreement--Renewal of agreement--Time and again--Relationship of banker and customer--Ceasing of--Non mentioning of personal guarantee--Applications for leave to extent of defendant No. 1 & 2--Dismissed--Appeal allowed to extant of Appellant No. 3 & 4 while dismissed to extent of Appellant No. 1 & 2--Challenge to--Although learned Single Judge in Chambers has referred to continuing guarantees of Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 issued between 14.07.2003 to 01.07.2008 against renewals of finance facility but said is silent as to effect of renewal agreements dated 01.07.2009 onwards, which only refer to continuing guarantee of Appellant No.2 but not to guarantees issued by Appellant Nos. 3 and 4--Even Plaint is silent to that effect, which only refers to personal guarantees of Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 up to renewal of agreement for years 2007-08--Effect of afore-referred non-mentioning of personal guarantees of Appellant Nos. 3 and 4 was required to be determined while passing impugned , which is not forthcoming on record, therefore, said appellants were at least entitled for granting leave to defend to establish that their guarantees had been discharged--Learned Single Judge in Chambers has rightly relied upon statement of accounts and excluded an amount of Rs.11,830,843/- as markup charged beyond expiry period to decree suit against remaining appellants jointly and severally for an amount of Rs.51,892,960.50/- together with costs of funds and costs of suit--Afore referred finding of learned Single Judge is inconsonance with material available on record and is well founded warranting no interference--Consequently, no exception can be taken to same--Order accordingly. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: MUZAMIL AKHTAR SHABIR, J.- Through this Regular First Appeal, filed under Section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("Ordinance"), the appellants have called in question the judgment and decree dated 31.12.2015 passed by the learned Single Judge in Chambers, whereby the recovery suit filed by Plaintiff…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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