Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (LXVI of 2001) Ss.9 & 10 Contract Act (X of 1872), S.128 Recovery of bank loan Application for leave to defend the suit ¬Substantial question of law and facts, non raising of Non- impleading of co guarantor Suit, maintainability of ¬Defendant neither denied availing of loan facility, nor she denied her status of guarantor Plea raised by the defendant was that the loan was secured by the bank guarantee provided by another bank and the plaintiff Bank should have encashed the guarantee provided by the other bank, thus the suit was premature Defendant further raised the plea that without impleading the guarantor bank as a party the suit was not maintainable Validity General rule about joint and simultaneous obligation of principal debtor and surety/securities was enunciated in the provisions of S.128 of Contract Act, 1872 If any such clause was otherwise agreed between the parties, the provisions of S.128 of Contract Act, 1872, would be inapplicable and the provisions of the contract would prevail Creditor could not be bound and compelled under S.128 of Contract Act, 1872, to always join in legal action only or all sureties of debt, besides the principal debtor, who under all circumstances, was primarily liable to pay the debt Was the choice and prerogative of the creditor to take recovery action against the principal debtor alone or join any of the guarantors and to leave the enforcement of the surety against any of the co sureties; specially when each of the guarantees of contract was independent in nature and had no overlapping effect on each other Defendant¬ Company did not file any application for leave to defend the suit and the defendant guarantor could not set out the plea that the suit of bank was either pre mature or the plaint did not disclose a cause of action Defendant guarantor failed to raise any substantial question of lain and facts which required recording of evidence Banking Court had rightly rejected, the application for leave to defend the suit and the suit was decreed in favour of the bank Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. United Bank Ltd. v. Pakistan Industrial Credit and…

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