| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3764 2025 SLD 3764 = 2025 CLD 641 |
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No.114 of 2016, decided on 25th February, 2025.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Muhammad Osman Ali Hadi, JJ
Muhammad Immad Qamar for Appellant. Muhammad Baqar Raza for
Respondent.
First Appeal No.114 of 2016, decided on 25th February, 2025.
Before Muhammad Iqbal Kalhoro and Muhammad Osman Ali Hadi, JJ
Muhammad Immad Qamar for Appellant. Muhammad Baqar Raza for
Respondent.
SALMAN CAPITAL INVESTMENTS (PVT.) LIMITED through duly authorized Representative---Appellant
VERSUS
MCB BANK LIMITED---Respondent
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: XLVI,22,24
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 22 & 24---Judgment passed by the Banking Court---Appeal, filing of---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Appellant (customer / Company), instead of filing within thirty days, filed appeal with a delay of atleast 08 months after passing of decree---Validity---Along with the application for condonation of delay, a photostat copy of a certificate, purportedly issued by a doctor had been filed by the deponent to support his statement / explanation ('certificate-in-question')---Certificate-in-question was issued on such date when at least seven months of impugned judgment has already elapsed---Certificate-inquestion depicted that the deponent had remained under the treatment of said doctor for severe post trauma stress disorder ; however, it did not show that for how much period deponent remained under the treatment of the said doctor and from when--The doctor, in the certificate-in-question, had not clarified whether the deponent was not even able to communicate simple instructions to his lawyer to file an appeal within time, or that he was so incapacitated that his routine life had been compromised so much so that he had lost his ability to perform daily chores or run routine errands like a normal person---Therefore, certificate-in-question was of little help to the appellant for covering delay in filing the appeal---Consequently, the application for condonation of delay was also dismissed---Appeal, filed by customer / company was also dismissed, in circumstances.(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 22 & 24---Judgment passed by the Banking Court---Appeal, filing of---Limitation---Condonation of delay---Sufficient cause---Appellant (customer / Company), instead of filing within thirty days, filed appeal with a delay of at least 08 months after passing of decree---Validity---It was not explained in the application for condonation of delay that when the certified true copy of impugned judgment and decree (documents) was obtained---Even, as per endorsement date on…