Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S. 2(c)---Mortgagor as customer---Scope---Law does not contemplate that a mortgagor ought to be a beneficiary of finance or ought to have nexus with principal debtor in order to be liable on mortgage executed by him/her. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 3, 9 & 10---Suit for recovery of bank loan---Leave to defend the suit---Execution of mortgage---Proof---Two loan facilities were advanced to defendant company and suit was filed for recovery of Rs.75.848 million--- Guarantor denied having executed mortgage deeds of her property. in favour of bank---Validity---Some of charged documents were executed on behalf of guarantor by her husband as general attorney but the attorney was not on record---Bank had shown that documents were signed by guarantor in year 1997, including registered mortgage deed for an amount of Rs. 100,000 and another mortgage deed for an amount of Rs.6.155 million, were signed " by guarantor personally and signatures matched---Both the mortgage documents stated that security was tendered to secure disbursement of finance to defendant company---High Court passed interim decree in favour of bank to the extent of Rs.6.155 million and in respect of claim made by the bank for remaining amount of Rs.75.8 million unconditional leave to defend was granted to the guarantor---Decretal amount, under. S.3 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was subject to payment of cost of funds from the date when, guarantor first disputed her liability towards bank in her petition for leave to appear---Petition was allowed accordingly. (p. 13381 B ORDER UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.---The. plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.75.848 million against defendant No.1 principal debtor company and defendants Nos.2 and 3 guarantors whilst defendants Nos.4 to 9 were sued as directors without having furnished personal guarantees and defendants Nos. 10 to 15 as guarantors/mortgagors. The suit was contested by defendants but on 30-7-2002 the PLAs were dismissed and a decree of Rs.75.848 million was passed in favour…

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