Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 – Ss. 9, 10(4), 11 – Leave to defend – Admissions in pleadings – Suit for recovery – Non-fulfilment of legal obligations by borrower – Consequence In a recovery suit under Section 9 of the F.I.O., 2001, the defendants admitted availing finance facilities worth Rs. 144.7 million and markup of Rs. 10.1 million but raised technical and unsupported objections to avoid liability. The Sindh High Court held that once a borrower admits disbursement and does not contest it at the time of availing, they cannot subsequently challenge bank records or entries without cogent evidence. The failure to provide a specific, documented response to the bank’s statement of account or to comply with Section 10(4) of the F.I.O., 2001 rendered the leave to defend untenable. The suit was decreed accordingly. Cited: Apollo Textile Mills Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Ltd. (2012 CLD 337) (b) Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 – S. 48(6) – Merger of banks – Effect on suits – Maintainability – No bar to continuation of proceedings The defendants objected to the maintainability of the suit due to the merger of Barclays Bank PLC into Habib Bank Ltd. The Court ruled that Section 48(6) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 clearly states that all assets and liabilities of a merged entity vest in the transferee bank. Therefore, the amendment of the plaint is not necessary and substitution of title suffices. The objection was rejected as frivolous and misconceived. (c) Evidence – Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 – Statement of accounts – Objections to entries – When not sustainable The Court dismissed objections to the bank’s statement of account, noting that the entire current account was annexed, entries were never disputed during the operation of accounts, and all requirements of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 and F.I.O., 2001 were met. Borrowers are estopped from raising vague and belated objections to account entries after default, particularly where they admitted financing and repayments in their pleadings. Cited: Muhammad Imran v. National Bank of Pakistan (2016 CLD 2093) (d) Contracts – Guarantees – Continuing nature – Validity and enforcement: The defendants argued that guarantees from 2008 were used for subsequent disbursements in 2011, amounting to novation. The Court rejected this and held that the guarantees explicitly covered current and future obligations, and as the earlier facilities were not fully discharged, the guarantees remained valid. The contractual wording and settled principles under Section 129 of the Contract Act support enforcement of such continuing guarantees. (e) Financial Instruments – Stamp Act, 1899 – Deficient stamping – Applicability to banking suits: Objections on deficient stamping of finance documents were overruled by invoking Section 18(4) of the F.I.O., 2001, which overrides provisions of the Stamp Act, 1899 in financial recovery matters. The Court emphasized that banking suits filed under a special statute must be interpreted in light of the F.I.O.’s overriding provisions. (f) Limitation – Banking suits – Starting point: The Court held that limitation runs from the date of last default, not the original agreement or disbursement. Since the last agreements matured in May 2012 and the suit was filed in April 2014, it was held to be within limitation. ----Disposition: Leave to defend dismissed. Suit decreed for Rs. 144,788,392.80 (principal) and Rs. 9,271,738.85 (markup) up to agreement maturity, with cost of funds until realization, and decree for sale of mortgaged and hypothecated properties.

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: S. 496-A,109 PPCIngredients of sections missing (Bail allowed)

Summary: S.302 PPC Lack of evidence,wants further inquiry (Bail allowed)

Summary: S.23-A Civil Servants Act-1973,Ord VII R 11 & S.115-CPCSuit for damages