| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2021 SLG 2472 2021 SLD 2472 2021 CLD 794 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No. 1954 of 2010, decided on 20th April, 2020, Dates of hearing: 3rd and 16th September, 2019.
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, JUSTICE
Manzoor Hameed Arain for Plaintiffs. Nemo for Defendant.
Suit No. 1954 of 2010, decided on 20th April, 2020, Dates of hearing: 3rd and 16th September, 2019.
MUHAMMAD FAISAL KAMAL ALAM, JUSTICE
Manzoor Hameed Arain for Plaintiffs. Nemo for Defendant.
RAZAK LATIF AND ANOTHER
VS
ACE SECURITIES (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Law: Central Depositories Act, 1997
Section: 12
Law: Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001
Section: 12,17
(a) Central Depositories Act (XIX of 1997)--- ----S. 12---Brokers and Agents Registration Rules, 2001 [since repealed], Rr. 12 17---Suit for recovery of loan amount and damages---Pledge of book-entry securities---Agent not to deal with clients in his name---Scope filed suit for recovery of different amounts and damages claiming therein that they had opened two different accounts in the defendant company for trading in shares; that the defendant had pledged the shares belonging to plaintiffs and that the plaintiffs had advanced a loan to the defendant which was never paid back, despite ample opportunities, did not lead evidence, therefore, the court evaluated the claim of plaintiff on its own merits---Validity---Audit Financial Statement of defendant confirmed that the loan was advanced by one of the plaintiffs, even though it was averred in the written statement that the loan was repaid by the defendant but no contrary evidence was led was liable to pay the same to the plaintiffs, but without any mark-up, as the Financial Statement itself stated that the loan did not have interest component---Statement of balance addressed by defendant to one of the plaintiffs confirmed that the shares/securities of different companies existed in the names of plaintiffs---Account Balance Report by Central Depository Company showed that the shares owned by the plaintiffs were pledged were held entitled to recover the amount of shares along with 10% mark up from the date of institution of suit till its realization---High Court while considering the conduct of defendant and the illegality committed by it, the effect of which was lasting and was felt till date, awarded a sum of Rupees Two Million as general damages to the plaintiffs---Suit was decreed accordingly. Abdul Majeed Khan v. Tawseen Abdul Haleem 2012 CLD 6 and Sufi Muhammad Ishaque v. The Metropolitan Corporation, Lahore PLD 1996 SC 737 ref. (b) Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984)--- ----Art. 30---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XII, R. 6---Admission---Judgment on admission---Scope---Pleadings itself cannot be taken as an evidence, but there is an exception to this rule, that when the pleadings, more particularly, a…
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