| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2151 2002 SLD 2151 2002 CLD 557 |
Lahore High Court
C.O.S. No.78 of 2000, decision dated: 30-01-2002.
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J
M. Naeem Sahgal for Plaintiff. Zahid Malik for Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. Saif ud Din Chughtai for Defendant No. 5. Faisal Hanif for Defendant No. 6.
C.O.S. No.78 of 2000, decision dated: 30-01-2002.
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J
M. Naeem Sahgal for Plaintiff. Zahid Malik for Defendants Nos. 1 to 4 and 7. Saif ud Din Chughtai for Defendant No. 5. Faisal Hanif for Defendant No. 6.
BOLAN BANK LIMITED through Attorneys --Plaintiff
VS
. BAIG TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 6 others ----Defendants M. Naeem Sahgal for --Plaintiff. Zahid Malik for ----Defendants Nos. l to 4 and 7. Saif ud Din Chughtai for --
Law:
Section:
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) - S. 10 Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126 Application for leave to defend the suit Bank filed a suit for recovery of money against the defendants as guarantors Plea of defendants was that they never executed personal guarantees; and that one of the defendants, after ousting them from management of the company, had procured the finance by forging documents ¬ validity Such defendants had vaguely denied execution of guarantees Record showed that at the relevant time, they were Directors of defendant Company and in such capacity had executed letters of guarantees and stood guarantors Nothing was brought on record to show that either the guarantees were forged by Bank or such defendants were forced by the other defendant or the Bank to execute guarantees Plea of defendants that documents had been forged by one of the defendants had no bearing on the case, because it had not been alleged that Bank had forged the same Dispute about alleged ouster from management of company and grabbing of properties by the defendant was between the private persons, which was not the subject matter of present proceedings, and Banking Court was not the forum for determination of such, dispute inter se the defendants Said defendants had executed guarantees, and had denied neither statement of accounts nor availing of financial facilities by defendants Company Mere vague denial of execution of documents would not absolve them from discharging the liabilities incurred by them through execution of personal guarantees and other documents Application for leave to defend the suit being devoid of force was dismissed. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) S. 10 Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126 Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1894), S.4 Application for leave to defend the suit Bank filed suit for recovery of money against defendant Company and its Directors/mortgagors/guarantors ¬ Defendants in applications for leave to defend did not deny sanctioning of financial facilities and availing the same nor their signatures on documents annexed with the plaint, but asserted that all such…
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