| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2022 SLG 2122 2022 SLD 2122 2022 CLD 320 |
Regular First Appeal No. 72 of 2019, decision Dated: 26thOctober, 2021. hearing date: 26th October, 2021.
SOHAIL NASIR AND AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, JJ
Muhammad Suleman Bhatti and Iftikhar Majid for Appellants. Sajid Ali Chaudhary for
Respondent.
VITAL CHEMICALS CORPORATION and 2 othersvsSILK BANK LIMITED
Law: Contract, Act, 1872
Section: 148,172
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 9,10,22
(a) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss. 148 172---’Bailment’ and ‘pledge’---Distinguished---Slight difference between bailment and pledge is that in the case of bailment deposit of goods is for a certain purpose to be returned after the purpose is accomplished but in case of pledge, goods are deposited as security to be kept till payment of debt is effected or a promise for which the goods were pledged is performed---Pledge is kind of bailment and security. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9, 10 22---Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 148 172---Recovery of finance---Pledged goods---Protection, responsibility of/ debtors availed finance facility from respondent Bank---Suit filed by Bank was decreed against appellants/ debtors---Pledged goods were seized by government authorities on the allegation that the goods were stored without proper registration---Plea raised by appellants/ debtors was that Bank could not recover financial facility until Bank had returned the stocks---Validity---Stocks were in possession of appellants/ debtors from where it was taken into custody by authorities---Such was duty of appellants/ debtors to provide necessary details with relevant documents to the authorities in order to get back the custody of stocks/ debtors failed to perform their duties therefore, they could not get benefit of their own wrongs---Banking Court had rightly decided such issue against appellants/ debtors, as there was no illegality, irregularity, mis-reading and non-reading of evidence while rendering such findings---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs World Trans Logistics and others v. Silk Bank Limited and others 2016 SCMR 800; A. M. Burg v. Central Exchange Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 (W.P) Lah. 1 and Habib Bank Limited v. Orient Rice Mills Ltd. and others 2004 CLD 1289 ref. JUDGMENT AHMAD NADEEM ARSHAD, J.---This Regular First Appeal (R.F.A.) under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (Ordinance) is directed against judgment and decree dated 11.01.2019 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court-II, Multan (Banking Court) on the basis of which a suit for recovery of…
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