Case Details

Citation(s)
2024 SLG 5131 2024 SLD 5131 = 2024 CLD 623
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No.44 of 2019, decided on 6th February, 2024.
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Omar Sial, JJ
Sohail Hameed for Appellants. Suleman Hudda for
Respondent.

MUHAMMAD BILAL through Legal Heirs---Petitioner

VERSUS

DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK LIMITED---Respondent

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

Section: 9, 22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 9 & 22---Suit for recovery of finance---Finance agreement---Terms and conditions, challenge to---Appellant / defendant was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Trial Court in favour of respondent / bank---Validity---After consuming amount, appellant / defendant came forward challenging KIBOR on the terms of which the finance facility was consciously availed, utilized and then defaults were made and recovery suit was filed---Appellant / defendant failed to point out that KIBOR was not applicable in terms of some circular of State Bank of Pakistan---Neither, when leave application was filed and granted nor at any stage of suit proceeding, nor when present appeal was filed, such circular of State Bank of Pakistan was presented to the Court---KIBOR was part of the agreed terms when loan was structured and financed and hence appellant / defendant could not blow hot and cold after utilization of amount---Cheques which bounced could not be adjusted in the execution proceedings and only the amount that was paid after decree was duly adjusted---High Court declined to interfere in judgment and decree passed by Trial Court---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.ORDERWe have heard learned counsel for the appellant as well as for the Respondent.This appeal is filed against the judgment and decree of the Banking Court No.III, Karachi in Suit No.72/2012.Two questions have been raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that is (a) in a house finance, KIBOR is not applicable and (b) that the payments made subsequent to the decree in term of the cheques/pay orders, as reflected in para-8 of the judgment, were not adjusted; which revealed subsequently, after filing of this appeal.In this regard, at the first instance, learned counsel in attendance have taken us to the finance facility which is described as "Musharaka". The loan terms were agreed vide agreement dated 08.01.2010 and the terms of such finance facility were incorporated in the letter, on the basis of which the finance was availed vide letter dated 07.12.2010 with schedule 'B' attached to it. It includes recovery of the…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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