Case Details

Citation(s)
2002 SLG 2232 2002 SLD 2232 2002 CLD 1247
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No. 64 of 1995, heard on 21st May 2002.
MIAN SAQIB NISAR AND MUHAMMAD SAIR ALI, JJ
Asim Nazir for Appellant. Sh. Umar Draz for
Respondents.

STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Attorney of Bank --Appellant

VS

. Messrs ASIAN BODY BUILDING WORKS and 9 others --Respondents

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) Ss. 6 & 12 Suit for recovery of bank loan Leave to appear and defend suit unconditionally Entitlement ¬Leave application filed by defendants was pending when Banking Court rejected the plaint on the ground that Bank had written, off the amount sought to be recovered after procuring sanction from State Bank of Pakistan Validity Plaint with its original contents could not have been rejected on account of letter, dated 5 2 1981 issued by Bank to defendants on account of sanction for writing off the loan¬-Such subsequent development at the best had given a plausible defence to defendants to seek leave to appear and defend unconditionally Banking Court should not have hastily rejected the plaint, rather should have granted the leave and thereafter on the basis of written statement and issues framed should have considered the effect of said letter and sanction of State Bank of Pakistan for writing off the loan High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned order observing that suit would be deemed pending before Banking Court, which would decide the leave application of defendants in accordance with law. JUDGMENT MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J. Appellant, filed a suit for the recovery of an amount of Rs.5,88,838.56 against the respondents under the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979; the respondents applied for the leave to appear and defend, which application was yet pending and the Banking Court, Lahore, through the impugned order, rejected, the plaint of the appellant on the ground that the loan which is sought to be recovered from the respondents, has been written off by the appellant, after procuring sanction from the State Bank of Pakistan. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant contends, that such write off was not meant for the purposes of giving tip the claim of the appellant, rather the permission was sought from the State Bank of Pakistan, for showing the said amount as written off for 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