Case Details

Citation(s)
2008 SLG 2239 2008 SLD 2239 2008 CLD 1252
Lahore High Court
R.F.A. No.167 of 2004, heard 27-06-2008.
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH AND KHAWAJA FAROOQ SAEED, JJ
Raja Zaheer-ud-Din Babar for Appellant. Muhammad Rasheed Qamar for
Respondent.

TARIQ RAFIQUE SHEIKH

VS

. CITI BANK N.A. through Authorized Attorney

Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------S. 10 (8)---Leave to defend the suit---Preconditions---Essentials for grant of leave are questions of law and fact which require determination through recording of evidence. (b) Banker and customer--- ----Lease finance---Liability of hirer---Scope---Under Lease finance the liability of hirer arises only when leased assets are delivered by hire grantor. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S.2 (d)(i)---Word "lease"---Connotation---Essential of valid lease is delivery of leased assets---There is no lease when there is no "lease property"----Lease commences when lease assets are delivered and the date on which parties signed lease agreement is not material in such regard---Legal and valid lease is one where hire grantor has delivered possession of leased assets to hirer---In absence of possession, the rights and obligations of hire grantor and hirer are not created in the eyes of law. The Concise Oxford Dictionary; Black's Law Dictionary 6th Edition; Lease Finance and Hire Purchase" by Vinod Kothari P.7; Karsales (Harrow) Ltd. v. Wallias" (1956) All ER 866; Associated Japanese Bank (International) v. Credit Du Nord SA and another (1988) 3 All ER 902 and Domestic Electric Rentals Ltd. V. Dowson" (1943) LJ CCR 31 rel. (d) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 10---Recovery of finance---Lease agreement---Non-¬delivery of possession of hired asset---Bank filed the suit on the basis of lease agreement, whereby a car was leased to defendant---Banking Court did not allow application for leave to defend and decreed the suit in favour of bank---Plea raised by defendant was that though he signed lease document but possession of car was delivered to his employer, registration was also in the name of 'his employer who was in fact using the same---Validity---Bank did not prove or establish that leased car was delivered to defendant and remained in his use---Registration book of leased car showed that its possession- was with another person---Banking Court without determining factum of delivery of…
🔒
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