Case Details

Citation(s)
2003 SLG 3034 2003 SLD 3034 2003 CLD 1352
Sindh High Court
Suit No.B-73 of 2000, decision dated: 8-10-2002.
SHABBIR AHMAD, J
Waqar Muhammad Khan Lodhi for Plaintiff. Rasheed A. Rizvi for Defendant No. 1. K.A. Wahab for Defendant No. 5. Iqbal Ahmed for Defendant No. 7.

ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED--Plaintiff

VS

. Messrs MODerN METALLIC SERVICES through Proprietor and 6 others----Defendants

Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--------S.10---BCD Circular No. 13 dated 20-6-1984---Leave to defend suit, application for---Defendant's plea was that price and buy-back price were mentioned in agreement, but its column of mark-up was blank, thus, in absence of agreement for payment of mark-up, plaintiff-Bank was not entitled to charge mark-up---Validity---Agreement showed that transaction was Marahaba (Bai' Muajjal) or sale on deferred payment basis or agreement for sale on credit--¬One of the modes of Trade Related Financing detailed in Annexure-I of BCD Circular 13, dated 20-6-1984 was purchase of goods by banks and their sale to clients at, appropriate mark-up in price on deferred payment basis--¬Defendant had agreed to pay mark-up in price of goods on or before date specified in agreement---Plaintiff in absence of percentage was entitled for mark-up in price i.e. difference between sale and buy-back price. (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872)--- ----Ss.170 & 171---Lien of bankers---Bank has right to exercise lien, when its customer has breached agreement by not making payment as agreed. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S.10---Leave to defend suit, application for--Availing of facility, execution of documents and liability to ay was not disputed by defendant---Defendant had failed tb make out a case for leave to defend by raising substantial questions of law and fact requiring evidence---High Court dismissed application in circumstances. (d) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss.9 & 10---Insurance and Muqadam charges claimed by Bank in terms of letter of pledge---Pledged goods were to be insured against fire, theft and other risks by customer (pawner) and in case of its failure by pawnee (bank)--¬Customer's case was not that goods were insured, rather Bank had insured the same---Bank (pawnee) was thus, entitled for extraordinary expenses incurred by them in shape of insurance as well as by appointment of Muqadam. JUDGMENT I intend to dispose of the applications (C.M.As. Nos.7676 of 2001, 7854 of 2001 and 7855 of 2001), under…
🔒
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