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

Section: 9,10,10(3)(4)(5),22

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss.9 & 10---Suit for recovery of finance facility---Leave to defend---Continuing guarantee---Effect of novation of contract---Scope---Appellants assailed and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court and contended that although Single Judge of High Court held that guarantees executed by two of the appellants were continuing guarantees but failed to take into consideration that the finance agreements were subsequently renewed time and again; that the subsequent finance agreements did not mention the guarantees executed by said two appellants; that said two appellants were discharged from payment of the amount of finance as guarantors on account of novation of contract and that said appellants were entitled at least for grant of leave to defend the suit---Validity---Single Judge of High Court had referred to the continuing guarantees of said appellants but the was silent as to the effect of renewal agreements, which only referred to continuing guarantee of another appellant but not of said appellants---Even the plaint was silent to that effect, which only referred to personal guarantees of said appellants up to the renewal agreement---Effect of the non-mentioning of the personal guarantees of said appellants was required to be determined while passing the impugned ---Said appellants were at least entitled for grant of leave to defend to establish that their guarantees were discharged---Division Bench of High Court allowed the appeal and applications for leave to defend to the extent of said appellants and remanded the matter to the Single Judge of High Court for further proceedings. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss.9 & 10---Suit for recovery of finance facility---Leave to defend---Scope---Appellants assailed and decree passed by Single Judge of High Court---Validity---Single Judge of High Court had properly appreciated the controversy and rightly dismissed their applications for leave to defend as no substantial question of law and facts requiring recording of evidence was raised and application for leave to defend was…

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