Law:

Section:

Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 10 & 22---Suit for recovery of loan---Petition for leave to defend suit was dismissed by Banking Court and suit was decreed--Appeal by Bank---Question raised by the appellant-Bank was regarding the mark-up payable by the borrower, which had already been manifestly adjudicated upon by the Banking Judge---No interference, in circumstances, was warranted in the of Banking Judge---Appeal was dismissed. ORDER The appellant is aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned order and decree passed by Banking Court No. V, Karachi in Suit No. 456 of 2005 whereby an application under section 10 of the Ordinance XLVI of 2001, filed by the respondents, was rejected. The suit of the appellant was however decreed in a sum of Rs.4,82,890 instead of total outstanding financial liabilities to the tune of Rs.16,60,519.45 on 31st July, 2005, including the liquidated damages. The appeal emanates from the following circumstances in which the appellant has filed suit for recovery against the respondents with the following prayer:-- (i) A decree in the sum of Rs. 16,60,519.45 with future cost of fund at the prescribed rate of plaintiffs bank payable by the defendants from the date of default till its final payments by the defendants. (ii) Decree for the amount of Rs.3,32,104 towards the liquidated damages as justified/claimed in para. 7 of the plaint. (iii) Final decree for the sale of aforesaid mortgaged property of defendant No.2 as described in para. 5 of the plaint together with present and future constructions including fittings and fixtures lying therein. In case of insufficiency and deficiency of the decretal amount, the same may be recovered through the personal decree against the defendant No.2. After service of summons upon the respondents, an application for leave to defend the suit was filed by the respondent, who categorically admitted Sanction Advice, Finance Agreement and Charge documents. However it was contended that no amount was disbursed under the subsequent Agreement dated 17-4-2001, and therefore claim of the appellant under the subsequent agreement was void. The respondent has…

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