| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2009 SLG 1941 2009 SLD 1941 2009 CLD 1440 |
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No.56 of 2008, decision dated: 17-02-2009.
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ
Khaleeq Ahmad for Appellant. Salman Huda for
Respondent No. 1.
First Appeal No.56 of 2008, decision dated: 17-02-2009.
ANWAR ZAHEER, JAMALI AND FAISAL ARAB, JJ
Khaleeq Ahmad for Appellant. Salman Huda for
Respondent No. 1.
Messrs KINZA FASHION (PVT.) LTD. and others
VS
. Messrs HABIB BANK LTD. and another
Law:
Section:
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss.9, 10 & 22---Suit for recovery of loan---Leave to defend suit---Banking Court dismissed the leave to defend application in a hasty manner without examining in detail, the defence put up by the defendant and absence of any material with regard to availing the FATR facility---Impugned order passed on the application and the consequent decree, could not be sustained---Judgment and decree passed in favour of plaintiff--Bank, was set aside and case was remanded to Banking Court with the direction to decide the leave to defend application of defendant afresh. ORDER Through this appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the appellant has challenged the judgment dated 1.9.2008 passed by Banking Court No.5 at Karachi, in Suit No.945 of 2007 followed by decree dated 15th September, 2008, whereby the suit for recovery of Rs.8,77,631 instituted by respondent No.1 was decreed in the sum of Rs.8,26,068 with costs. 2. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contends that in the leave to defend application, the appellant and respondent No.2 have agitated strong grounds for grant of unconditional leave and their assertions were also established from the material contradictions contained in the Statement of Accounts and other documents filed by the respondent No.1 Bank, but the Banking Court dismissed the leave to defend application without any cogent reasons and thereafter decreed the suit in a whimsical and arbitrary manner without even ascertaining correct facts as to how and in what manner FATR facility, that was sanctioned to the extent of Rs.9,50, 000, was availed by the appellant and respondent No.2. 3. After carefully perusing the case record, we have noticed that in the Statement of Accounts produced before the Banking Court, there is no debit entry with regard to availing of FATR facility in a sum of Rs.9,50,000 for which suit for recovery was instituted by…
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