Section 9 : Procedure of Banking Courts
2005 CLD 1746 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AMTUL REHMAN INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. through Chief Executive/ Managing Director VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—Ss.9 & 10—Banker’s Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount-Application for leave to appear and defend suit—Discrepancies in statement of account.—Effect—Determination of actual amount due would not be possible
2005 CLD 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. through Chief Executive VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
— Ss. 10, 2(d), 9 & 21—Appeal—Application for leave to defend the suit—Dismissal of such application on valid reasons while discarding the agreement which was executed between the judgment-debtors but the Corporation (plaintiff being not party to
2005 CLD 1660 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AWAN ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager
—Ss. 7, 9, 10 & 12—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend suit—Ex parte decree, setting aside of—Suit by Bank, was decreed ex parte against defendants—Application filed by defendants under S.12 of Banking Companies (Recovery
2005 CLD 1569 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs A.M. RICE CORPORATION through Sole Proprietor VS BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager as Attorney
–Ss. 9 & 10—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 3—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to appear and defend suit—Charging of mark-up—Appellant had admitted liability to pay amount, but his griev
2005 CLD 1481 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL SATTAR RANA VS MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—Ss.9 & 10—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.133—Suit for declaration and permanent injunction—Failure of defendant to file leave application and obtain leave from Court to defend suit-Effect-Decree in such suit could not be passed straightaway a
2005 CLD 1481 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL SATTAR RANA VS MANAGER, NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—Ss.9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XIV, R.2—Qanun-e-S ha had at (10 of 1984), Art.133—Suit for declaration, permanent injunction and damages—Leave application, non-filing of—Framing of preliminary issue qua maintainability of suit
2005 CLD 1473 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs PRIME ROAD WAYS through Manager VS UNITED BANK LTD. through Regional Chief and Authorized Attorneys
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1471 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHABBIR AHMED MALIK VS SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION, OKARA, through Manager
—S.9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11 & O.X, Rr.1, 2—Suit for rendition of accounts against Finance Corporation—Rejection of plaint—Filing of written statement and statement of accounts by Corporation after granting of leave to def
2005 CLD 1425 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs RAVI ENTERPRISES through Proprietor VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Provincial Chief
—Ss.9 & 10—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.133—Suit for damages—Dismissal of leave application—Refusal of Court to allow defendant to cross-examine plaintiff’s witnesses and to object to admissibility of documents produced in evidence—Suit
2005 CLD 1411 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs RAVI ENTERPRISES through Proprietor VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
—Ss.9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.10 & 11—Suit. for recovery of money by Bank—Leave application-Pendency of suit for damages previously instituted by defendant against Bank, wherein matter in issue in Bank’s suit was directly and sub
2005 CLD 1242 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs RISING SUN COMPANY through Partner Mr. Farooq Ahab VS BANK OF OMAN LTD., LAHORE through General Manager
—S.9—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.19 & 21—Suit for recovery of bank loan—Maintainability—Acknowledgement of liability—Contention of defendants was that the stamps were not crossed thus the suit was barred by limitation—Validity—Defendan
2005 CLD 1220 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SHAFI BONZER INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1201 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Zonal Head and Constituted Attorney VS Messrs SURAJ GHEE INDUSTRIES LIMITED
—Ss.9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Recovery of bank loan—Rejection of plaint—Non-deciding of application for leave to appear and defend the suit—Plaint filed by bank was rejected under O. VII, R.11, C.P.C., without first
2005 CLD 1194 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs G.A. STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS through Managing Partner VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED, through Registered Office
—S.9—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave application—Defendant’s plea was that documents filed with plaint including finance agreement were fake and bogus, and statement of accounts was incorrect—Bank
2005 CLD 1186 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ICEPAC LIMITED VS Messrs PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
–S.9-Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave application raising objections qua statement of accounts i.e. neither showing disbursement of amount nor executed and verified in according with Banker’s Boo
2005 CLD 1129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs POLYMER INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor VS Messrs BOLAN BANK LTD.
—-Ss.9, 10 & 18—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.176—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). S.47—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Pledged goods—Application for leave to defend suit—Defendant’s plea was that Bank being a Pawnee was not entitled to rec
2005 CLD 1129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs POLYMER INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor VS Messrs BOLAN BANK LTD.
–Ss. 9 & 17—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.17(2)(a)—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Loan documents executed in year 1996 i.e. before promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Non-attestat
2005 CLD 1129 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs POLYMER INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor VS Messrs BOLAN BANK LTD.
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GUL-E-RANA VS CITIBANK N.A., LAHORE through Manager
–S.9 —Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXIX, R.1—Recovery suit instituted by a person, who was neither a Bank Manager nor authorized by Board of Directors—Maintainability—Plaintiffs plea was that such person was its duly constituted attorney,
2005 CLD 1116 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AL-KASHMIR TRADERS VS UNITED BANK LIMITED through Muhammad Jarar
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1114 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Messrs FOOTCARE (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive
—S.3—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.9—Recovery of bank loan— Charging of mark-up not agreed in finance agreement—Awarding of cost of funds—Retrospective effect—Banking Court decreed
2005 CLD 1108 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SHALIMAR METAL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
–Ss.9 & 10—Recovery of bank loan—Plea not raised in application for leave to appear and defend the suit—Loan facility was availed by defendants on 7.7.1993 and mother of appellants mortgaged her property as a security of loan availed by defendants-
2005 CLD 1098 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs F.S. TRADERS, LAHORE VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1094 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TALAT TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS ALTOWFEEK INVESTMENT BANK LTD. Through Manager, Vice-President and Attorneys
#NAME?
2005 CLD 1076 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAISAL RAUF MALIK VS Messrs CITIBANK N.A.
—Ss.9 & 10—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend suit, application for—Plea of defendant was that suit had not been filed by a duly authorized person; and statement of accounts was not correct—Banking Court dismissed leave application
2005 CLD 1023 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLAH RAKHA VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager
—Ss. 9 & 10—Recovery of bank Loan—Fraud committed by bank manager, allegation of—Loan was availed by the defendant for purchase of tractor—Grievance of the defendant was that the manager had misappropriated the tractor—Defendant approached Hig
2005 CLD 1021 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. SADIA BIBI VS Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
–Ss. 9 & 10—Recovery of bank loan—Death of original loanee–ÂLiability of legal heirs of deceased loanee– Application for leave to defend the suit—Arguable plea, non-raising of—Suit for recovery of loan was filed against the legal heirs of the
2005 CLD 1006 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS Messrs SHIFA MEDICO
—S. 9—State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. 19, dated 5-6-1997–ÂRecovery of bank loan—Incentive scheme—Wrong calculation by bank—During pendency of suit filed by bank, the defendants deposited the amount under ‘Incentive Scheme’ issued by State
2005 CLD 998 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUNRISE TEXTILE LIMITED through Chief Executive VS DOHA BANK LIMITED through BRANCH MANAGER
—Ss. 9 & 10—Recovery of bank loan—Factual controversy–ÂLoan for a sum of Rs.5 million was secured by the defendants but the bank claimed recovery of Rs.29 million —Banking Court dismissed the application for leave to defend the suit and the suit
2005 CLD 993 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs GHULAM HUSSAIN & COMPANY VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
–S. 9—Recovery of bank loan—Amount deposited by defendants, non-adjustment of—Father of defendants died on 17-3-1996 who had secured loan facility from plaintiff-bank–Statement of account revealed that amount outstanding against the father of defe
2005 CLD 953 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LIMITED (ZTBL) through Branch Manager—Plaintiff
VS Messrs ZASHA LIMITED
—Ss. 9 & 21—State Bank of Pakistan SBP Circular No.29 of 2002—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.8 & S.151–ÂLimitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181—Suit for recovery of outstanding loan—Pending petition for leave to defend the suit by the
2005 CLD 923 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MONIM MANSAB BOKHARI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager
—S.9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.7—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Non-appearance of defendant, when case was fixed for plaintiffs evidence—Banking Court, without proceeding ex parte against defendant, recorded plaintiff’s evidenc
2005 CLD 920 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- SHAHID SAIGOL VS AL-TOWFEEK INVESTMENT BANK LTD.
–Ss.9 & 10—Suit for damages—Dismissal of suit without deciding leave application—Validity—Duty of Banking Court was to decide leave application on its own merits before embarking upon the suit—If Banking Court was of the view that substantial q
2005 CLD 868 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR & COMPANY through Sheikh Riaz-ud-Din VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager
#NAME?
2005 CLD 854 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Messrs ESS EMM ESS CORPORATION PAKISTAN LIMITED through Chairman
–S.9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.III, R.4, O.VI, Rr.14, 15 & O.VII, R.11—Suit by Bank for recovery of amount—Non-recording in plaint the names of principal officers and general attorney of Bank—Non-verification of plaint by any officer of
2005 CLD 653 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR AHMAD VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager Nankana Sahib Branch
—S. 9—Procedure of Banking Court—Scope—Borrower or a customer or Banking Company may institute a suit in the Banking Court by presenting a plaint and thereupon the defendants be served through bailiff, by registered acknowledgment due notice, by c
2005 CLD 653 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR AHMAD VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager Nankana Sahib Branch
—S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11—Procedure of Banking Court—Rejection of plaint—Scope—Banking Court was not completely divested of exercising the powers under O.VII, R. 11, C.P.C.—Such powers could not be exercised befor
2005 CLD 653 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR AHMAD VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager Nankana Sahib Branch
–S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11—Procedure of Banking Court—Record, in the present case, revealed that the suit was not fixed for “hearing†as contemplated under the law and only the matter regarding the deposit of certain m
2005 CLD 653 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR AHMAD VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager Nankana Sahib Branch
–S. 9—Procedure of Banking Court—Defendant-bank had failed to file any application, seeking leave to defend the suit and Banking Court, instead of proceeding against the Bank, for not filing the leave application penalized the plaintiffs by rejecting
2005 CLD 629 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID SHAHBAZ CHAUDHRY VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Vice-President
—Ss. 7, 9, 10 & 15—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A—Operative part of the judgments and decrees of the Banking Court along with grounds of application for leave to defend the suits clearly showed that Banking Court had passed the impugned
2005 CLD 629 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID SHAHBAZ CHAUDHRY VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Vice-President
—Ss. 7, 9 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan filed before Banking Tribunal under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Contention of the defendants was that suits were filed before incompetent Tribunal, therefore same could not be transferred by operation o
2005 CLD 624 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Dr. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS THE BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager
–Ss. 9, 10, 18 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Defendants had not filed applications for leave to appear to defend the suit—Banking Court dismissed the suit ex parte and also decreed against the defendants—Bank and defendants, during pendency of a
2005 CLD 581 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MOHIB EXPORTS LTD., VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. through Chief Executive
—-Ss.10 & 9—Application for leave to defend the suit–ÂDefend had raised a specific plea that plaintiff had charged mark-up on mark-up which was illegal and against the directives of the State Bank of Pakistan —-Impugned judgment showed that althou
2005 CLD 503 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mrs. TANIS AKHTAR VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, through Manager
—Ss. 9 & 21—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.316(1)—Recovery of bank loan—Failure to seek permission from Company Judge—Bank filed suit against defendant company and its Directors/guarantors for recovery of bank loan—Defendant company wa
2005 CLD 393 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs RAVI ASSOCIATE (PRIVATE) LIMITED through Director VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Senior Vice-President
—-Ss. 9 & 10—Bankers’ Book Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.2—Recovery of bank loan—Suit filed by person not duly authorized—Treating ‘Recovery Certificate’ as statement of account—Application for leave to defend the suit filed by defendants wa
2005 CLD 373 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BASHIR BEGUM VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
–Ss.2(e) & 9—Recovery suit—Sanction of loan on buy back arrangement”—-Mark-up, charging of—Bank could not charge mark-up beyond agreed date and over and above agreed mark-up amount.
2005 CLD 314 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ASHRAF VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through GENERAL ATTORNEY
—Ss. 9 & 10—Contract Act (IX of 1872), 5.135—Recovery of bank loan—Application for leave to defend the suit–ÂProperty of minors as surety—Property under surety in the name of minors was discharged under S.135 Contract Act, 1872, by Wafaqi Moht
2005 CLD 292 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Messrs THE ENGLISH ENGINEERING COMPANY
–Ss.9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Plaint rejection of—No cause of action—Absence of written finance agreement between the parties—Without deciding the application for leave to defend the suit, Banking Court rejected the p
2005 CLD 126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE TEXTILE LTD and 7 others VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
—-Ss.7, 9 & 21—Bdnking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.5, 6 & 9—Contention of the appellant was that suits were filed by the Bank before an incompetent Tribunal (Banking Tribunal), therefore the same could not be transferred by operation of
2005 CLD 50 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUBINA JAMSHED VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-S. 9(1)—Institution of suit by Bank —Competence–Legally a Branch Manager is competent and empowered to institute suit by presenting a plaint, which shall be verified on oath by him, before the Banking Court—Any other Officer of the Bank, who is
2004 CLD 1664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AURANGZEB SHAAFI BURKI VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1660 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ZAKAS (PVT.) LIMTED through Managing Director VS THE BANK ALFLAH LIMITED
—Ss.9 &, 10—Recovery of bank loan—Leave to defend the suit, refusal of–Failure to establish good prima facie case–Banking Court refused the leave and suit was decreed in favour of bank—Validity—Financial facility; as mentioned in. the suit, wa
2004 CLD 1640 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs GHULAM HUSSAIN & CO. through Managing Partner VS Messrs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1628 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs CRYSTAL ENTERPRISES through Proprietor VS Messrs BOLAN BANK LIMITED through President
—-S.9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.99—Recovery of loan—Misjoinder of causes of action or of plaintiffs—Suit, dismissal of—Banking Court concluded that the suit could not proceed in the name of all plaintiffs but was maintainable in the
2004 CLD 1620 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- A. HAMEED VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1555 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Khawaja MUHAMMAD BILAL VS UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager
—–S.9(3)—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss.9(5), 10(2) & 12—Service of notice by publication, legality of—Service upon the appellant only by publication of notice in two newspapers—Effect—Service by an
2004 CLD 1376 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1325 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AFZAL HUSSAIN VS Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager
–S.9(4)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13–ÂLimitation Act (IX of 1908). Art.164—Application for setting aside of ex parte decree—Limitation—Service of summons, legality of–Suit for recovery filed by the Bank against the appellant wa
2004 CLD 1266 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs HI LITE INDUSTRIES VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.7 & 9-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20-Banking Court, territorial jurisdiction-Determination–Such jurisdiction is regulated by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908-ÂTerritorial jurisdiction is conferred upon Banking Court, under the
2004 CLD 1247 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
S.M.S. BOKHARI VS CITI BANK N.A.
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1227 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MASOOD ALAM VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Manager
–Ss.9(3) (4) & 10—Leave to defend the suit, grant of—Service off summons to defendant—Non-return of registered post–ÂPresumption—Change of address by defendant—Contention of the defendant was that if he was not available on the address availa
2004 CLD 1174 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. IFFAT SULTANA MALIK VS TRUST MODARBA through Trust Management Services (Pvt.) Ltd.
–Ss. 9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI & R.17–ÂPleadings, amendment of–Amended application for leave to defend—Plaintiff-Bank intended to include additional claim through amendment in plaint—Validity—Contents of application for am
2004 CLD 1077 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs P&B CARPETS (PVT.) LIMITED VS THE BANK ALFLAH LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of loans—Appeal—Financial facilities, as mentioned in suits by Bank, were advanced to defendants, who executed relevant documents and creation of mortgage had not been denied by defendants who failed to liquidate
2004 CLD 889 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs PAK. GREEN ACRES (PVT.) LTD. VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 9 & 11(2)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 73 & 74–Recovery of bank loan—Decree in terms of admission of borrowers—Failure to decide the issues raised by the borrowers—Borrowers admitted liability to the extent of Rs.11, 71, 400 but denied
2004 CLD 808 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Mrs. NAJMA PERVEEN
—-Ss. 9, 15 & 21—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss.42 & 54—Suit for declaration, injunction and rendition of accounts—Bank issued notice to borrower showing his liability to tune of Rs.36,000—Borrower filed suit seeking declaration that no suc
2004 CLD 771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MAHMOOD BROTHERS VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-S. 9(3)—Modes of service—Requirements of publication in one Urdu language daily and in one English language daily having wide circulation—Mandatory—Publication in the present case was made through the newspapers having a limited circulation—
2004 CLD 771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MAHMOOD BROTHERS VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 12, 9(3) & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V, R.17—Suit for recovery of loan—Proper service of the defendants—Affixation of summons on alleged refusal to receive the same by the defendants —Procedure–Applicability of O.V, R.17,
2004 CLD 755 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALIL-UR-REHMAN and another VS HABIB BANK LIMITED and 8 others
—-Ss.9, 15 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIV, R.1—Decree in suit for recovery of loan amount by sale of mortgaged property—Necessary parties—Contention of appellants (non-parties to suit) was that they had purchased lease-hold right
2004 CLD 743 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MAHMOOD HUSSAIN BAJWA VS Messrs GULF COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED and 9 others
—-Ss.9(4), 12 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.V, R.25—Ex parte decree—Refusal of Banking Court to set aside decree—Contention of appellant was that he was living abroad, thus, no decree could be passed against him except affecting his s
2004 CLD 732 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AWAN APPARELS (PVT.) LTD VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
2004 CLD 712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD MUJTABA and 5 others VS THE BANK OF PUNJAB
—-Ss.9 & 10—Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.7—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Leave to defend suit—Plain not supported by loan documents and duly verified statement of accounts—Banki
2004 CLD 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs C.M. TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED VS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 4 & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII–Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend–Pleadings—Proper examination of—Duty of Court in case of failure to file written statement or leave to defend—Court was bound to
2004 CLD 460 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TRAVEL KINGS (PVT.) LIMITED VS UNION BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 10, 15 & 21–.-Suit for recovery of loan amounting to Rs.55,24,355.94—Plea of defendants was that after the alleged payment of Rs.10 millions only Rs.3 millions were left payable and three cheques amounting to Rs.5 lacs each were delivered to
2004 CLD 393 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SHEER PAK LIMITED through Managing Director VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—Ss. 9(3)(4) & 12—Failure to issue summons in any one of prescribed modes—Effect—Summons must be issued through all four prescribed modes of service before deeming a service effected in any one of such modes to be a valid service—If any one of s
2004 CLD 239 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
EVERGREEN PRESS VS BANK OF PUNJAB
—-Ss.2(c), 9 & 10—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to appear and defend the suit—Defendant availed financial facilities from Bank by executing agreement and other loan documents including hypothecation deed—Hypothecated goods were
2004 CLD 112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZUBAIR MUHAMMAD VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 7(6)(7) & 9(3)(4)—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V, R.1, O. VII, R.11(a) & Appendix-B, Form No.4—Suit against Bank for specific performance of agreement of loan and in alternative for recovery of d
2004 CLD 1711 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SINDH TANNERIES LTD. VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34-B, O.XXI, R.23(2) & O.XXIII, R.3—Suit for recovery of loan–ÂCompromise decree, execution of—Entitlement to mark-up–ÂSuit having been compromised, compromise decree was passed whereby plaintiff
2004 CLD 1472 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs MAHMOOD (PVT.) LIMITED and others
—S.9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.127 & 133—Suit against guarantor for recovery of loan amount—Plea of defendant was that guarantee given by him in consideration of original loan granted to principal borrower stood discharged after granting of fr
2004 CLD 616 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MASOOD ASIF VS UNITED BANK LTD
—–Ss.9 & 10—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.11—Suit by borrower against Bank for specific performance of agreement and recovery of damages etc. —Rejection of plaint—Bank through agreement initi
2003 SCMR 1156 SUPREME-COURT
SIDDIQUE WOOLLEN MILLS VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 9 & 10—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Recovery of Bank loan—Leave to defend suit—Bona fide dispute —Scope–ÂRetaining of goods of borrower by Bank—Liability towards outstanding amount of the Bank was not denied by the bor
2003 CLD 632 SUPREME-COURT
KAPUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED
—-Ss. 12 & 9(4)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)–Suit for recovery of money was decreed ex parte—Summons were issued to the judgment-debtor after filing the suit as required under the law
2003 PLD 212 SUPREME-COURT
KAPUR TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS BANKERS EQUITY LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 12 & 9(4)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). O.XXXVII, R.2–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Suit for recovery of money was decreed ex parse—Summons were issued to the judgment-debtor after filing the suit as required under the law and subsequently publication of the same was made in leading newspapers but none appeared—Record showed that on the date the decree was passed no one appeared before the Trial Court, nor any application for leave to defend the suit was filed, and the Banking Court decreed the suit as provided under S.9(4) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and O.XXXVII, R.2, C.P.C. as the averments made in the plaint were verified on oath and the suit was decreed as prayed—Application for setting aside the said decree on the ground that correct address of the defendant had not been given in the plaint, therefore, the decree was not served in accordance with law—High Court dismissed the application on the ground of limitation holding that the defendant had, in fact, been served—Defendant, inter alia, contended that the Courts below had not considered the case in its true perspective; that the applications for setting aside the decree was in time and the judgment of the High Court had resulted in miscarriage of justice and that the defendant had intimated the plaintiff (Bank) about the change of the address—Validity—Essence of the facts clearly showed that Court had adopted proper course of service of the defendant in the suit and defendant in his own wisdom moved an application before the Court for setting aside the ex parte decree which was time-barred—Judgment of the High Court was well-reasoned and was based on the proper appreciation of the material available on record–Neither question of misreading or non-reading of the material was available nor question of general public importance was involved in the case—Petition being without merit and substance was dismissed and leave to appeal was declined.
2003 CLD 1419 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Messrs HAQ TRADERS VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 7(6), 9 & 22—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss.2(b), 5, 9 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–ÂConstitutional petition—Suit for declaration and’settlement of accounts by bo
2003 CLD 1770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Messrs AIMA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—-Ss.7, 9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of amount–Application for leave to defend suit—Dismissal—Defendant filed appeal against judgment of Banking Court whereby its application for grant of permission to appear and defend the suit was dismissed—A
2003 CLD 1754 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MEHMOOD KHAN VS MAKMA STEEL CRAFT (PVT.) LTD.
#NAME?
2003 CLD 1546 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAHIR TARIQ TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LTD VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
—-S.9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20 & O.VII, R.10—Suit for damages by customer on account of alleged breach of finance agreement by Bank—Return of plaint for its presentation before Court at place K—Validity—Such agreement executed at
2003 CLD 1464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INTERNATIONAL TRADERS VS UNION BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9, 15 & 21—Bankers’ Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Suit for recovery of loan amount decreed by Banking Court—Validity—Defendants had not denied availing of finance facility and execution of loan documents—Statement of accounts fi
2003 CLD 856 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 9 & 7—Banking Court —Jurisdiction—Scope— Examination of plaint revealed that suit filed in the Banking Court was for recovery of damages on account of alleged defamatory act committed by the respondent—Competence—Held, it was only brea
2003 CLD 845 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD TUFAIL VS HABIB BANK LTD.
—-Ss. 9(3) & 12—Ex parte decree, setting aside of—Limitation—Starting point—Ex parte decree was passed against the judgment-debtor on 18-11-1997, and application to set aside the ex parte decree was filed on 7-2-2000—All the modes of service i
2003 CLD 771 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAKHAR HAYAT VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.9 & 10—Recovery of Bank loan under Prime Minister Transport Scheme—Application for leave to defend the suit, dismissal of—Liability of Insurance company to pay loan–Loan was advanced to the defendant for purchase of vehicle which was duly in
2003 CLD 765 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- AFZAL VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKSITAN LTD.
—-Ss.9, 10 & 12—Ex parte decree, setting aside of–Condonation of delay—Valid service on defendant– -Filing of application for leave to defend within the prescribed period from the date of knowledge of ex parte decree—Application for setting asid
2003 CLD 748 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JAMSHED ANWAR VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.9 & 10—Recovery of Bank loan—Conditional leave, grant of –Charging of illegal and exorbitant mark-up—Leave to appear and defend the suit was not granted and the suit was decreed in favour of the bank—Defendants admitted availing of the loa
2003 CLD 702 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mian AFTAB A. SHEIKH VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED
—Ss. 9, 10 & 21—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.135–Guarantee by the guarantors continues to bind them under the rescheduled arrangement as well.
2003 CLD 606 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sh. MUHAMMAD NAEEM VS HABIB BANK LIMITED, KARACHI
—-Ss. 9 & 10—Recovery of Bank loan—Application for leave to appear and defend the suit, dismissal of—Failure to afford any opportunity of hearing—Defendants filed separate applications for leave to defend and plaintiff filed application for amen
2003 CLD 349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAKILA RIAZ VS JUDGE BANKING COURT
–Ss. 27, 4, 9 & 18—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99—Constitutional petition—Execution of decree–Review of order—Property of Judgment-debtor was ordered to be auctioned in execution proceedings through Court auctioneer—Reserve price of
2003 CLD 291 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS TANVIR KHALID
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. III, Rr. 1 & 2—Suit for recovery of loan filed by Bank through its Branch Manager—Banking Court while deciding leave application dismissed suit for not being filed through competent person—Contention of Bank was that suit was filed through its Branch Manager, whose power of attorney given by Competent Authority was produced during arguments, but Banking Court refused to accept the same–Validity—Mere reading of S.9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 revealed that Branch Manager was competent to file suit against defendant—Suit had been filed by Branch Manager of the plaintiff-Bank, who had signed the plaint–Impugned judgment was not in accordance with law—High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgment and decree, resultantly suit filed would be deemed to be pending adjudication, which would be decided by Banking Court alongwith application for leave to defend in accordance with law.
2003 CLD 232 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ICEPAC LIMITED VS ASIAN LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96–Appeal—Plea that suit not filed by duly authorized person–Application for leave to defend the suit was dismissed by Banking Court and suit filed by Bank was decreed against the borrower—Plea raised by the borrower was that the suit was not filed by person duly authorized by Bank. and the plaint was bad as requirements of S.9 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, had not been fulfilled—Validity—Plaint narrated that the Bank was suing through its duly authorized agent—Such statement of the Bank was contained in the plaint and the power of attorney had also been placed on record—Power of attorney was a registered document and it had authorized the attorney to file the suit—Banking Court had rightly considered the objection regarding filing of the suit— Appeal was dismissed in limine.
2003 CLD 114 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHAN MUHAMMAD TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEASING CORPORATION LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 10—Suit for recovery of amount due in respect of lease finance—Borrowers in leave application claimed profits in respect of lease key money deposited with Leasing Company—Validity—Deposit of lease key money was part of contractual arrangement between Leasing Company and borrowers—Leasing arrangement between parties had not provided for any profit on lease key money—If lease key money had been deposited against certificates of investment, then Leasing Company would have been obliged to pay profit thereon—Leasing Company, in the absence of contract, could not be made liable to pay profit in respect of lease key money.
2003 CLD 37 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD FARRUKH VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 18—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI R.58—Constitution of Pakistan (19731) Art. l99–Constitutional petition–Recovery of Bank loan—Necessary parties—Execution proceedings—Objection under O.XXI, R.58, C.P.C.—Petitioners claimed to be bona fide purchasers of properties mortgaged with the Bank on the basis of sale-deeds—Banking Court disallowed the objection filed by the petitioners—Petitioners claimed to be necessary party in the proceedings initiated by Bank against the borrower as they were bona fide purchasers of the properties for valuable consideration and the decree was obtained by Bank without impleading them in the suit—Validity—Bank proceeded on the basis of record available with it according to which the disputed property was mortgaged with the Bank — Any dealing by the mortgagor/borrower would not have come its knowledge unless disclosed by the mortgagor, borrower—Bank had acted in accordance with law, in suing only the parties to the transactions with it —Mortgage of property and sale claimed by the petitioners being of a later date, no further investigation was warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case—Banking Court had rightly dismissed the objection petition filed by the petitioners–Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2003 CLD 1788 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Messrs INDUS LENENTOSE (PVT.) LTD.
—–S. 9—Civil procedure Code (V of 1908), O.I, R.10 & O.VI, R.17—Suit for recovery of loan amount —Factum of demise of mortgagor-defendant prior to filing of suit came into knowledge of Bank from leave to defend application filed by other defendan
2003 CLD 1601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ARY TRADERS (PVT.) LTD. VS MULSIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
—-Ss. 9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.11—Suit against Bank not relating to loan or finance–Rejection of plaint—Agreement executed between parties to suit and a foreign Bank was produced by plaintiff with counter-affidavit in r
2003 CLD 1590 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VS Messrs AL-FAHM TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
—-Ss. 9 & 17(3)(4)—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 9 & 18(3)(4)–Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984) Art. 17(2)(a)—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Defendant alleged guarantee document, letter of hypothecation
2003 CLD 971 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS GALAXY TEXTILE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED
—-Ss.9. & 10—Suit for recovery of amount—Application for leave to defend suit—Defendants/borrowers had not denied transaction of having availed loan facility of plaintiff-Bank–ÂAnnexure filed by defendants to their application for leave to defen
2003 CLD 320 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
AAMIR IMPEX VS PRUDENTIAL COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —Ss. 9 & 15—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.11, 12(2), 35-A, 151 & O. VII, R. 11 —Suit for recovery of damages etc. against Bank—Rejection of plaint-Bank obtained consent decree for recovery of loan amount, whereby customers had agreed to pay decretal amount in instalments—Customers instead of filing appeal against such decree filed application under S.12(2) read with S.151, C.P.C. as well as Constitutional petition, which were dismissed—Customer challenging such decree then filed suit for damages etc.—Bank’s application seeking rejection of plaint on the ground that no cause of action had accrued to customers for filing such suit—Validity—Customers after having availed finance facility had defaulted not only in repayment thereof, but in also repayment of decretal amount after obtaining concession of instalments for its payment from Banking Court—Customers (borrower and guarantor) had no cause of action to bring present suit against Bank, when they themselves were defaulter after availing full facility—Present suit was also barred under S. 11 C.P.C. in view of such decree obtained by Bank—Plaint was rejected with special costs of Rs.25,000.
2003 CLD 119 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
JAWAHAR AFZAL VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —Ss. 9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of amount—Application for leave to defend suit—Dismissal of application —Effect–Trial Court would be left with no option but to decree the suit.
2002 SCMR 1419 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs HUFFAZ SEAMLEN PIPE INDUSTRIES LTD VS Messrs SECURITY LEASING CORPORATION LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 126 & 128—Recovery of Bank loan—Guarantor, liability of—Scope—Creditor, in an action against a guarantor, is only required to establish the liability of the principal debtor and occurrence of default or breach of the terms leading to the liability–Guarantor cannot resort to technicalities to defeat the claim of the creditor–Even where the contract becomes unenforceable against the principal debtor, the guarantor would still be liable for the surety he had executed, unless there was any covenant to the contrary.
2002 CLD 1634 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Sheikh NAZIR AHMED VS HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9(4), 10 & 21—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S. 42–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII R. 11 —Suit for rendition of accounts and declaration—Rejection of plaint without deciding leave application—Plaintiff-customer claimed to have adjusted financial facility well within time and thus, becoming entitled to clearance certificate, but Bank was not issuing clearance certificate and was demanding more amount from him—Bank filed application for leave to defend the suit, which was replied by plaintiff–Banking Court instead of deciding leave application while relying upon statement of accounts filed by Bank rejected the plaint for not disclosing any cause of action —Validity–Rejection of plaint without deciding leave application was against the provisions of law—Defendant as a matter of right could not defend the suit unless upon filing of proper application as provided under S. 9(4) read with S. 10 of the Act, Banking Court granted leave to defend the suit to such defendant—Banking Court without deciding leave application was not empowered to call upon defendant to defend suit, muchless on filing of statement of accounts to reject the plaint—Banking Court had completely travelled beyond the scope and provisions of special statute i.e. Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Court in order to reject a plaint had to take into account only the contents of plaint and defence pleas raised by defendant could not be considered for such purpose—Plaint disclosed a cause of action as averments contained therein were supported by photo copies of voluminous receipts showing that plaintiff had faithfully paid the amount in instalments—Present case did not fall under any of the clauses of O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C.—Impugned judgment suffered from grave legal infirmity as having been passed in complete oblivion of the express provisions of law—High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgment/ decree, and remanded the case for its fresh decision with, observations that leave application would be deemed to be pending before Banking Court, which would firstly decide such application and then would proceed to decide the suit after hearing the parties in accordance with law.
2002 CLD 741 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs UNION BANK LIMITED through Vice-President and Attorney VS SILVER OIL MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 10—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Necessary parties—Guarantor, proceedings against—Contention, of the guarantors was that they need not join the proceedings actively as in case of failure of the remaining defendants to discharge their liability or in case the decree if passed was not satisfied, only then their property mortgaged with the Bank would be under the charge—Validity—Names of the guarantors, in circumstances, were struck off from the application for leave to appear and defend the suit and they were treated as pro forma defendants in the suit accordingly.
2002 CLD 712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs NAQI BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —S.9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OJI, R.3—Causes of action, joinder of two financial facilities were granted in favour of joinder by the Bank—Parties were same and the interest was joint—Bank filed one suit wherein the causes of action were joined—Validity—When the causes involve joint interest, plaintiff was empowered under OII, R.3, C.P.C. to combine several causes of action against the defendants in one suit—Causes of action in the present case, could be amalgamated in one suit and there was no illegality committed by the plaintiff in filing one suit thereby combining two causes of action—Suit was rightly instituted in circumstances.
2002 CLD 695 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAHIR ISLAM VS HABIB BANK LTD. through its Manager
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 — Ss. 9(4) & 12—Ex parte decree—Setting aside of—Defendant could not reach the rostrum due to rush in the Court-room and the decree was passed ex pane—Validity—Contention having been supported by affidavit of the defendant, High Court considered that the defendant was deprived of his right of hearing—Judgment and decree passed against the defendant ex parte was set aside in circumstances.
2002 CLD 53 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS SPINNING MACHINERY COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss.2(a) & 9—National Development Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1973), Ss.15 & 25—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Maintainability—National Development Finance Corporation, a banking company was a body corporate which was transacting business of advancing loan to various enterprises in Pakistan—Credit agreement and other documents, executed by the borrower company established the nature of the Corporations business and the relationship between the Corporation and the company–Objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Corporation was not a banking company under S.25 of the National Development Finance Corporation Act, 1973 and under the provisions of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962—Validity—From the perusal of the definition of the Banking Company as given in S.2(a)(i)(ii) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, the Corporation was covered by the definition of a Banking Company–Contention that Corporation was not a Banking Company as defined in the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was irrelevant because the definition of a Banking Company given in the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, could not be taken into account for determining whether or not the plaintiff was a Banking Company for the purpose of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Suit was maintainable in circumstances.
2002 CLD 723 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mrs. ROSHAN BANG VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss.9 & 21—Recovery of Bank loan—Decree against mortgagor and guarantor—Attorney of the mortgagor and guarantor had executed sale-deed in favour of his son prior to the execution of guarantee—Banking Court decreed the suit in favour of the Bank—Contention of the appellant, who was mortgagor and the guarantor, was that the property was not available for mortgage—Transferee of the suit property did not question the judgment and decree—Validity—Where the appellant had not questioned or disputed the execution of the guarantee, no exception could be taken to the judgment and decree passed against the borrower—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 702 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs BOLAN BANK LIMITED through Attorney VS Messrs AL-ASLAM INTERNATIONAL through Proprietor
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 28—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.152 & O.XX, R.6—Decree against judgment-debtor—Correction of clerical mistake—Dismissal of suit against mortgagor—Decree included the property owned by the mortgagor—Application was filed for the correction of the decree—Banking Court allowed the application and the decree was corrected whereby the property was excluded from the decree—Contention of the Bank was that no review of decree could be made by the Banking Court–Validity—Dismissal of the Bank’s suit against the mortgagor in absence of memorandum of deposit of title deed being signed by the mortgagor was unexceptionable—Borrower could not create charge upon property of some other person—High Court took serious note of the fact that the money was advanced by the Bank to the borrower without obtaining adequate security and such recklessness on the part of the Bank officials possibly acting in collusion with borrowers, could not be provided shelter through protracted legal proceedings or by taking advantage of technical mistake—High Court directed the President of the Bank to take appropriate action against the officials responsible for the act—Appeal was dismissed in limine.
2002 CLD 689 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD VS Messrs TAWAKKAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9(4), 12 & 21—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2)–Suit for recovery of loan—Ex parte decree, setting aside of–Provision of S.12(2), C.P.C.– Applicability—Provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. could be pressed into service in Banking cases, but it required examination as to whether grounds were available or not to press into service S.12(2), C.P.C.—Mere falsity of claim to the knowledge of person to forward claim, could not be a ground for setting aside decree on ground’of fraud—If the claim was false it would be a false representation made on Court, but this could not by itself be a ground for setting aside decree because if such ground was accepted there would be no end to the litigation for every decree which would not proceed on some legal ground alone would be liable to be challenged on ground that a party had deliberately put forward an untrue case—Provisions of S.12(2), C.P.C. would apply if fraud or misrepresentation was alleged during the proceeding of suit in Court and not to anything outside the Court.
2002 CLD 137 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- AFSHAN AHMED VS MESSRS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss.7 & 9—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss.6 & 7—Provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979—Comparison—Nature of the case, procedure to be followed and the powers to be exercised in deciding case by a Banking Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, are similar and analogous to the corresponding provisions and powers conferred on the Special Court constituted under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1979.
2002 CLD 46 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL BASIT ZAHID VS MODARABA AL TIJARAH
—-S.9—Modarba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980), preamble—Notification No.F.48(7)/80-A(11), dated 30-12-1986—Suit for recovery of Bank loan against Modarba management company—Banking Court–Jurisdiction—Doctrine of de facto—A
2001 CLC 623 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NOOR MUHAMMAD VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Bank loan, installments of—Petitioner received Bank loan from the respondent-Bank but failed to repay the same in due time—Suit for recovery of the same was filed and the same was pending before the Banking Court–Petitioner was willing to repay the same and requested for the installments of the amount to be recovered—Validity—High Court, directed the petitioner to pay the loan in five monthly installments, failing which the amount would be recovered as arrears of land revenue.
2001 CLC 171 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CITIBANK N.A. VS JUDGE, BANKING COURT-IV
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 42—Qunan-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.85(5)—Suit for declaration–Defendants who were cousins of plaintiff and were cultivating his land, on basis of forged and fabricated agreement to sell and power of attorney in collusion with another defendant got land owned by plaintiff mutated in their favour in absence of plaintiff—Plaintiff in his suit denied execution of agreement of sale in favour of defendants and execution of power of attorney in favour of other defendant and sought declaration that said documents be declared to be illegal and void and that plaintiff was owner of land in dispute and had not sold land to the defendants—Suit was decreed by Trial Court, but on filing appeal Appellate Court dismissed the suit—Validity—Power of attorney on basis of which land of plaintiff was got mutated in names of defendants and execution of which was denied by plaintiff, was not even produced on record and no explanation for the omission, was given by defendants—Defendants had claimed that power of attorney being registered one was a public document and its certified copy was admissible in evidence–Contention was repelled because under Art.85(5) of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 only such registered document could be a public document, execution whereof was not disputed, whereas plaintiff had totally denied the execution of the power of attorney—No evidence whatsoever had been led by defendants to prove proceedings of mutation—Appellate Court below was not justified to hold that since mutation stood incorporated in Revenue Record same enjoyed a presumption of correctness and need not be proved–If mutation was incorporated in Revenue Record, defendants claiming benefit thereunder were not absolved of their obligation to prove the same as a fact—Judgment and decree passed by Appellate Court being not based on any evidence and having been passed in. exercise of jurisdiction not vesting in it, could not sustain—High Court set aside judgment of Appellate Court and restored the judgment and decree of Trial Court in circumstances.
2001 CLC 169 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BANKERS EQUITY LTD. VS IQAS WEAVING MILLS (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXVIII, Rr.2, 3 & O.VII, R.10—Suit for recovery of loan—Jurisdiction of Court—Institution of suit in Banking Court at Lahore had been objected to on ground that according to agreement arrived at between the parties, both parties had agreed that Court of appropriate jurisdiction at Karachi would .be the proper Court to entertain all matters arising under the agreement—Defendant-company though was situated at Lahore and cause of action had also partly arisen at Lahore, but choice with regard to forum made by parties as per agreement was of binding nature and same being neither illegal nor contrary to public policy, should have been kept in mind and acted upon—Plaint filed in Court at Lahore, was directed to be returned for presentation before appropriate Court at Karachi.
2001 CLC 158 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS CITIBANK N.A.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Ss. 9 & 15—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203-G—Suit for recovery of loan–Defendant/borrower had contended that S.15 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 relating to mark-up, was against the Injunctions of Islam—Contention was repelled having no force by virtue of Art.203-G, Constitution of Pakistan (1973) qua relief with regard to mark-up as defendant had alternate remedy to agitate matter before Federal Shariat Court —Interest/Riba though was un-Islamic in view of Supreme Court verdict but past and closed transactions were not to be opened because agreement was executed between parties before the said verdict of Supreme Court which had prospective and not retrospective effect.
2001 PLD 264 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LTD. VS A.B.M. GRANER (PVT.) LTD. AND OTHERS
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Recovery of Bank loan—Loan agreement—Non-disbursement of money under agreement—Excise duty and other charges included in liability—Two agreements were signed by the borrower—Amount was disbursed under the earlier agreement while under the latter agreement no money was disbursed by the borrower—Bank claimed recovery of the amount under the subsequent agreement—Validity—Debt had been created under the earlier agreement and that upon the debt having been created by earlier agreement no further increase in any manner could be made—Where no amount was disbursed under the subsequent agreement, the agreement did not contemplate continuation of the earlier agreement—Subsequent agreement was not a valid agreement and the same could not be looked into —All credits and debits made by the earlier agreement would be looked into and en into blunt-_-Amount excise duty and other charges were included in the liability against the borrower—Suit was decreed accordingly.
2001 CLC 1551 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MESSRS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS SULTAN AHMAD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Recovery of Bank loan—Rebate on prompt payment within due dates—Rebate had already been included for the purpose of arriving at the purchase price and in the event of delay in payment the said amount of rebate would be charged but, if the payments were made within due dates the interest amount would be reduced—Validity—Such rebate was nothing but mark up on the marked-up price which was not allowable.
2001 CLC 713 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HUFFAZ SEAMLESS. PIPE INDUSTRIES LTD., KARACHI VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, KARACHI
- 9—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 10, 42 & 55—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of amount—Plaintiffs alongwith plaint had filed application seeking interim injunction against Bank restraining it from sending the names of plaintiff-company and its Directors to the State Bank of Pakistan as defaulters—Amount claimed by defendant-Bank had not finally been determined or adjudicated by the competent Banking Court–Apprehension of the plaintiffs that the mark-up had been wrongly and maliciously calculated and that huge penalties had been imposed, could not be ruled out as the amount the plaintiffs were liable to pay was yet to be determined by a competent Banking Court—Before adopting coercive methods in order to recover statutory dues, there should be a well-ascertained and determined sum of money—Efforts of the Banks and the State Bank of Pakistan should be to recover the stuck up loans, but at the same time some efforts should be adopted for recovery of outstanding loans from a non-wilful defaulter without destroying the company which had obtained such loan–Defendant-Bank before forwarding the name of the plaintiff as defaulter to the State Bank of Pakistan should consider all such facts as well as all the circulars of the State Bank of Pakistan issued from time to time.
2001 PLD 143 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK LTD. VS SAADI CEMENT COMPANY LIMITED AND 2 OTHERS
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Recovery of bank loan—Term Finance Agreement whether a type of Musharakah—Where the parties to the agreement had nowhere stated that they were entering into a relationship as partners and would share or distribute the profits of the business in agreed proportion, such agreement forming the basis of relationship between the parties showed that the agreement was not a Musharakah (partnership agreement).
2001 CLC 492 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS BHITAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9—Recovery of Bank loan—Liquidated damages and mark-up for cushion period—Borrower accepted the statement of account except a specific sum of amount which amount plaintiff-Bank agreed to reduce accordingly—High Court refused to allow liquidated damages and mark-up .for cushion period—Suit was decreed accordingly.
2001 CLC 460 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS ABDUL HAMID
- 21(5)—Appeal against interlocutory order of Special Court–Maintainability—Order passed by Special Court was neither suffering from any illegality or impropriety nor was passed without jurisdiction—Appeal against said order being not maintainable under S.21(5) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 was dismissed.
2001 CLC 90 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FRONTIER CERAMICS LTD. VS UNITED BANK LTD.
- 9—Suit for recovery of amount and settlement of accounts—Incentives Scheme of State Bank of Pakistan—Applicability—Grievance of the plaintiff was that benefit of the Incentives Scheme was not given to the plaintiff–Validity—In order to avail all the benefits of ‘the Incentives Scheme, the plaintiff was to demonstrate that he was a defaulter for 365 days ~on 5-6-1997, when the Scheme was introduced—Where the plaintiff was not a defaulter as provided in the Scheme, held, the benefits of the Incentive Scheme could not be availed by him—Suit was dismissed in circumstances.
2001 CLC 87 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KOHINOOR FIBRES LIMITED VS FIRST U.D.L. MODARABA
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872) Ss. 127 & 128—Suit for recovery of bank loan—Liability of guarantors—Scope—Where the borrower had committed default in payment of loan to the bank the guarantors were liable jointly and severally for such loan under the provisions of Ss. 127 & 128 of Contract Act, 1872.
2000 PLD 297 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
DAWOOD LEASING COMPANY LTD VS REGENT DYEING AND FINSHING MILLS (PVT) LTD
Ss. 9, 10 & 11—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Application for leave to defend—Contention of borrower was that the project could not go through as such the agreement between the parties was frustrated and Bank could, at the most, recover the machinery rented out—Validity—Where under the agreement, the borrower had undertaken to pay rentals in addition to price of machinery, contention of borrower was repelled—If borrower could not set up the project or there was some difficulty in doing so, Bank could not be made to suffer—Leave to defend the suit was refused and suit was decreed accordingly
2000 PLD 290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PRECISION ENGINEERING LTD VS GRAYS LEASING LIMITED
- 51 & O.XXI, Rr.37, 38???Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 9 & 13???Execution proceedings???Suit for recovery of loan???Issuance of warrant for arrest before inquiry???Validity???Banking Court without attending to the real spirit of provision of law relating to execution, issued warrant of arrest of the judgment?debtors???Such order of the Executing Court could not be affirmed and judgment?debtors, were entitled to join the proceedings by furnishing simple security for appearance in the Banking Court???Said Court was required to decide the application for detention in prison after necessary inquiry and satisfaction of the conditions stated in S.51 and OXXI, R.37, C.P.C.???Warrant of arrest issued by the Banking Court was set aside by High Court in circumstances
2000 CLC 1818 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LTD., FOREIGN EXCHANGE BRANCH, KARACHI VS PEARAL FABRICS LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Ss. 9 & 12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13 — Suit for recovery of loan—Ex parte decree, setting aside of—Suit having been decreed ex parte, defendant/judgment-debtor had filed application for setting aside of the decree—No separate address of defendant/judgment-debtor was given in the plaint—-Defendant was resident of Karachi, but notices were sent to him at address of defendant-company at Lahore which was registered office of the company of defendant—Fact that defendant was residing at Karachi and not at Lahore was well within knowledge of plaintiff-Bank, but despite that the address of Karachi was not mentioned in the plaint–Defendant having not properly been served, application for setting aside ex parte decree filed within prescribed period of limitation was accepted and the decree was set aside accordingly
2000 CLC 1013 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHUDA BAKHSH VS BANKING COURT NO.2, MULTAN
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9(3)—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Modes of service on defendants—Purpose–Modes of service mentioned in S.9(3) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, enable service upon defendant with convenient despatch so that banking cases to be tried under the special law, do not get delayed on account of service.
2000 CLC 968 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LTD. VS REDCO TEXTILES LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Ss. 9 & 10—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Leave to defend suit–ÂNowhere in the application for leave to defend, the defendant had denied or disputed the receipt of different amounts on different dates under the agreements for finance—Only ground raised in that respect was that the amount had yet not fallen due—Validity—Such stand of the defendants stood negated from the report of the Chartered Accountant of the defendants themselves, as the same had. given the due dates for payment and had also mentioned the fact that the defendants were in default—Dispute raised by the defendants was neither serious nor bona fide—Leave to appear and defend the suit was not granted in circumstances-
2000 CLC 847 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CITI BANK N.A., A BANKING COMPANY VS RIAZ AHMED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Claim of subsidiary of plaintiff Bank included in the plaint—Validity—Where such subsidiary was a limited company, the same was an independent entity—Plaintiff-Bank could not claim amount on its behalf in the suit.
2000 CLC 706 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD. VS LAHORE MEDICAL IMAGING (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9(4)???Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2???Suit for recovery of Bank loan???Leave to defend the suit, refusal of???Effect???Where the defendants had failed to obtain leave to defend the suit the averments contained in the plaint were deemed to be correct???Claim of the plaintiff was fully supported by the documents on record???Suit of plaintiff was decreed in ‘ circumstances.
2000 PLD 246 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ASKARI COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS PAKLAND CEMENT
—-S. 9—Qanun-e-Shahadat (X of 1984), Art.84—Suit for recovery of Bank loan–Comparison by Court of the signatures-bf guarantor with those present on Vakalatnama and the affidavit filed by the guarantor—Validity—Banking Court refused to compare t
2000 CLC 2017 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NARGIS BEGUM VS ZEBAR SHAH
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Modaraba Companies and Modarabas (Floatation and Control). Ordnance (XXXI of 1980), S.25(1)—Recovery of Modaraba assets and rentals—Banking Court, jurisdiction of—Scope—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, being a special and subsequent enactment supersedes the provisions of earlier special enactment—Plaintiff has the option to file suit for recovery under S.9(1) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances,. Credits and Finances, Act, 1997, in addition to right available under S.25(1) of Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980.
2000 CLC 1682 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK. LTD. VS TARBELLA COTTON AND SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend suit—Defendants who had filed application for leave to defend suit beyond statutory period of twentyone days, had sought condonation of said delay—Validity—Time for filing application for leave to defend suit could be extended only if Court was satisfied that defendants did not have knowledge of publication of summons pertaining to suit—Defendants had not even made a bare statement that publication of said summons in newspaper was not within their knowledge–Defendants having failed to file application for leave to defend suit within time despite having knowledge of summon, no ground existed for extension of time for filing application for leave to defend suit
2000 CLC 1455 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
QATAR AIRWAYS PLC VS ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Civil suit based on commitments/obligations of a Commercial Bank arising out of a Bank guarantee—Validity—Such suit falls within the scope of S.9 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and is maintainable in law.
2000 CLC 774 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS TAUFIQ IMPEX INC.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. I, R.10 & S.151—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Application for leave to defend the suit–Proceedings of recovery against Officer of Bank—Validity—Defendant/ account-holder was just a front man while the defendant/Bank Officer was the real beneficiary of the amount—Application under 0.1, R.10, C.P.C. for striking out the name of the defendant/Bank Officer from the plaint was dismissed, as the defendant was a necessary party and was rightly impleaded in the proceedings—Defendant/Bank Officer neither produced any evidence nor gave any explanation to show that the defence taken by him was bona fide—Documents placed on record showed that defendant/Bank Officer connived with the defendant/account-bnlder and a huge amount was transferred to the account of the former for his personal benefit—No serious bona fide dispute was raised—Leave to defend the suit was refused and suit was decreed accordingly.
2000 CLC 287 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PICIC VS FRONTIER CERAMICS LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.35-A—Misjoinder of parties —Misjoinder of parties in a banking suit would justify award of maximum amount of compensatory costs since upon service of summons, a defendant was required to take various steps for defending the proceedings.
1999 CLC 1953 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- HABIB AHMED VS HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING COMPANY
Ss. 2(b). 5. 7(4)(6), 7(6) & 9(1)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & 0.11, R.3—Transfer of suit to Banking Court—Procedure—Suit filed by plaintiff under S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on original civil side of High Court, prior to promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loan’s, Advances, Credits arid Finances) Act, 1997, was sought to be transferred to newly-created Banking Court after promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans,, Advances, Credits arid Finances) Act, 1997—Points for determination in the suit were the terms and conditions for grant of two credit facilities extended to two accounts maintained by plaintiff with defendant-Bank and obligations of plaintiff who was borrower and contractual obligations of defendant-Bank as banker—Determinations of all such questions eminently fell within domain of a Banking Court as established under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Transfer of suit to Banking Court was resisted by defendants contending that if suit was transferred to newly-created Banking Court, then defendants would be put under hardship and rigours of a summary proceedings and they would be required to obtain leave to defend from Banking Court—Defendants contended that only those suits were liable to be transferred to Banking Court which were either pending in Special Court constituted under Banking Companies Ordinance, 1979 or under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and suit of plaintiff which was filed under S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was not liable to be transferred to Banking Court—Apprehensions of defendants were misconceived—If suit was transferred to a Banking Court, Banking Court according to S.7(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 would proceed from stage which proceedings had reached immediately prior to transfer and on transfer of case, Banking Court would not be bound to recall and rehear any witness but would act on evidence already recorded or produced before Court or Tribunal from which proceedings were transferred—Provisions of S.7(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances). Act, 1997 further provide that all proceedings including proceedings following the fling of arbitration award and for execution of a decree pending before Banking Court or Banking Tribunals, including any other Court, would stand transferred—Suit filed by plaintiff was transferred to newly-constituted Banking Court as prayed by plaintiffs in circumstances.
1998 PLD 316 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
I.C.P VS CHINIOT TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
- 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3—Suit for recovery of loan amount against defendants—Application for leave to defend suit—Party advancing loan claiming mark-up beyond period of contract–Entitlement—Party which granted facility of loan could not claim any mark-up beyond period of contract for such payment would necessarily render mark-up based transaction into one of “interest” —Agreement to pay extra mark-up at specified rate per rupee per annum, would, thus, amount to payment of mark-up beyond contract period and same could not be allowed—Defendants in application for leave to defend had claimed that specified amount had been repaid which had not been adjusted from amount claimed by plaintiffs—Such plea was accepted by plaintiffs, therefore, same would not need further inquiry—Investment agreement of specified date continued to be valid and subsisting—Plaintiffs would, thus, be entitled to recovery of specified amount being the purchase price agreed under investment agreement subject to adjustment of repayments—Defendants contention for leave to defend suit having been repelled, their such application was dismissed, with the result that contents of plaint would be deemed to have been admitted and plaintiffs were entitled to decree in terms of prayer in their plaint—Plaintiffs suit was decreed in the sum of specified amount against defendant jointly and severally with mark-up at specified rate per annum from date of institution of suit till payment—Prayer to pay outstanding amount in instalments being not warranted and not acceptable to plaintiffs was not accepted.
1998 PLD 302 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PUNJAB BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 9—Non-verification of statement of accounts—Effect—Requirement of verification on oath as per provisions of S.9 of the Act, would be applicable to plaint which must be supported by statement of account —Objection of defendant relating to non-verification of statement of accounts was, being not tenable, repelled
1998 CLC 1718 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIMUDDIN SIDDIQUI VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S.9(1)—Procedure of Banking Court—Finance agreement—Bank is obliged to fulfil the agreement for financing the borrower and determination of such question is fully covered by S.9(1) of the Act—Banking Court being competent to grant main relief in this respect, also had the powers to grant consequential reliefs i.e. prohibitory injunction as well as mandatory injunction.