| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 613 2004 SLD 613 2004 CLD 817 |
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.352 of 2002, heard on 15-10-2002
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE
Ch. Abdul Majid and Shahid Shaukat for Appellants. Ashar Elahi for
Respondent. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatha and Haji Dildar Khan for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.
Regular First Appeal No.352 of 2002, heard on 15-10-2002
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, JUSTICE JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, JUSTICE
Ch. Abdul Majid and Shahid Shaukat for Appellants. Ashar Elahi for
Respondent. Ch. Muhammad Aslam Chatha and Haji Dildar Khan for
Respondents Nos. 3 to 6.
MESSRS FRIENDS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 2 OTHERS
VS
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED THROUGH MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
Section: Preamble
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-----Preamble---Limitation Act (IX of 1908); S.5---Provisions of S.5, Limitation Act, 1908 are inapplicable to the proceedings under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--S.10(12)---Application for leave to defend the suit had already been filed under the repealed law---Pending case---Section 10(12) of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 was not mandatory so far as the pending case was concerned---Rationale behind S.10(12) of the Ordinance highlighted. So far as the provisions of section 10(12) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 are concerned, those are not mandatory respecting the pending cases where the leave applications had already been filed by the defendants and were pending adjudication. The rationale behind the filing of fresh leave application in such cases, was that either the defendants may add some new grounds to the leave application, or for the reasons that these applications were to be treated as the written statements in the eventuality the leave was granted. However, if no leave application was moved, it is not the spirit of law, that the application already on the' record should be ignored and the suit be decreed. In such circumstances, the Court would deem the pending application as the one filed under the Ordinance and was supposed to decide the same in accordance with law (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----S.10(12)---Application for leave to defend the suit---Debtor applied for leave to appear and defend the suit---Written reply to the said application was filed by the Bank and while the matter was still pending, the provisions of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 were enforced---Debtor was granted permission by the Banking Court to file an amended application as provided under S.10(12) of the Ordinance which was filed with delay of one day and the Banking Court dismissed the application for leave to appear and defend and decreed the…
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