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

Section: 3,9,10,22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 3, 9, 10 & 22---Application for leave to defend---Details of accounts, non-mentioning of--- Dual rate of markup---Defendant was aggrieved of and decree passed by Banking Court against him---Plea raised by defendant was that Banking Court did not take into consideration details of markup charged by Bank which was mentioned in application for leave to defend suit---Validity---Defendant did not bring to challenge any entry or statement of account of principal---Although it was stated that not only entire amount of principal was repaid but extra amount had also been paid but defendant did not furnish any details thereof as per requirements of section of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Record was not clear as to how Banking Court concluded that an amount of Rs. 1,059,052/- was paid by defendant when no such averment was made in application for leave to defend---Banking Court fell in error to such extent by deducting such amount from claim of Bank---High Court modified and decree to extent of decretal amount together with costs of funds as contemplated by S. 3 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---High Court declared that modified decree be treated as interim decree and leave to defend suit was granted to defendant with regards to balance claim of Bank---High Court directed Banking Court to frame necessary issues with regard to markup component of claim of Bank and to record evidence of parties---Appeal was allowed accordingly. Trycot Synthetic Fibre Company and another v. Habib Bank Limited 2012 CLD 1670 ref. THIS ORDER PASSED BY: JAWAD HASSAN, JUSTICE---.--- This regular first appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) for calling in question judgment and decree dated 01.10.2014 passed by the banking court. 2. Facts of the case may briefly be stated as under. The respondent bank instituted a suit against the appellant seeking recovery of Rs.11,051,030.50 due under a Running Finance facility. The appellant contested the suit by filing his…

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