Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001) ---S. 7; Leave to defend, grant of--- The appellant sought leave to defend against a recovery suit filed by the respondent bank. The bank claimed Rs.9,15,155, alleging default by the appellant on a vehicle financing agreement. The appellant contended that he had deposited Rs.7,91,000, which was not credited, and that the bank had sold the impounded vehicle four years after possession at a grossly undervalued price of Rs.1,00,000. He further alleged that the bank received Rs.2,16,000 as insurance claim, which was also not credited to his account. Held, substantial questions of law and fact were raised regarding the appellant’s liability and the bank’s conduct. These could not be resolved without recording evidence. (b) Banking transactions and debtor’s liability ---Questions of fact and valuation of collateral--- The Court observed that the bank’s delay in selling the vehicle for four years and its undervalued sale raised legitimate concerns. Whether the bank was entitled to recover the claimed amount required examination of evidence, especially in light of uncredited payments and insurance proceeds received by the bank. (c) Procedural safeguards ---Grant of leave to defend and trial directives--- The appellate court set aside the trial court’s judgment and decree, granted leave to defend to the appellant, and directed the appellant to file a written statement within 20 days. Failure to comply would result in the appellant’s defense being struck off. The trial court was directed to expedite the case. Disposition: Appeal allowed. The trial court’s judgment and decree were set aside, and the case was remanded for trial.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.