| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3757 2025 SLD 3757 = 2025 CLD 561 |
Sindh High Court
Suit No.290 of 2018 and Judicial Miscellaneous Nos. 32, 33 of 2022, decided on 22nd February, 2025.
Before Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J
Ali Mehdi for Plaintiff (in Suit No.290 of 2018). Nemo for Defendant (in Suit No.290 of 2018). Hanif Faisal Alam, Barrister-at-Law for Plaintiff (in J.M. No.32 of 2022). Waqar Ahmed for
Respondent No.1 (in J.M. No.32 of 2022). Mrs. Heer Memon, Barrister-at-Law for
Respondents Nos.2 and 4 (in J.M. No.32 of 2022). Hanif Faisal Alam, Barrister-at-Law for Plaintiff (in J.M. No.33 of 2022). Waqar Ahmed for
Respondent No.1 (in J.M. No.33 of 2022). Mrs. Heer Memon, Barrister-at-Law for
Respondents Nos.2 and 4 (in J.M. No.33 of 2022).
Suit No.290 of 2018 and Judicial Miscellaneous Nos. 32, 33 of 2022, decided on 22nd February, 2025.
Before Mohammad Abdur Rahman, J
Ali Mehdi for Plaintiff (in Suit No.290 of 2018). Nemo for Defendant (in Suit No.290 of 2018). Hanif Faisal Alam, Barrister-at-Law for Plaintiff (in J.M. No.32 of 2022). Waqar Ahmed for
Respondent No.1 (in J.M. No.32 of 2022). Mrs. Heer Memon, Barrister-at-Law for
Respondents Nos.2 and 4 (in J.M. No.32 of 2022). Hanif Faisal Alam, Barrister-at-Law for Plaintiff (in J.M. No.33 of 2022). Waqar Ahmed for
Respondent No.1 (in J.M. No.33 of 2022). Mrs. Heer Memon, Barrister-at-Law for
Respondents Nos.2 and 4 (in J.M. No.33 of 2022).
LUCKY TEX (PVT.) LIMITED---Plaintiff
VERSUS
CRESOX (PVT.) LTD.---Defendant
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: XLVI,23(1),23(1)
Law: Contract Act (IX of 1872)
Section: 23
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: VII,11(d)
Law: Specific Relief Act (I of 1877)
Section: 12
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S.23---Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 23---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 12---Suit for specific performance of agreement to sell---Rejection of plaint---Mortgaged property---Transfer of assets---Restrictions---Plaintiff company sought specific performance of agreement to sell regarding suit properties which were mortgaged with bank as security for a finance facility---Defendant company sought rejection of plaint on the plea that the suit was not maintainable---Validity---Provision of S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, did not operate retrospectively and transfers that occurred prior to promulgation of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 were not to be treated as void---General restraints as contained in Ss. 23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 could only set aside those registered transfers that had violated provisions of each of those subsections---Properties that were not furnished as security were not impacted by S. 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 prior to any decree passed and were valid transfers--Agreement of sale instituted for sale of a mortgaged property would be void under S. 23 of Contract Act, 1872 as the object of agreement of sale would be to defeat the provision of law i.e., S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Right of redemption may be recognized in the context of transfers subject to S. 23 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Jurisdiction to determine performance of agreement to sell as entered into between parties, in terms of Ss. 23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 at all times vested with Banking Court and Civil Court did not have the requisite jurisdiction to entertain such suit---Plaint seeking specific performance of agreement to sell was barred under the provisions of Ss. 23(1) & 23(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001…