2015 PLP 54 (SCMR)
BANKERS EQUITY (LTD.) and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs BENTONITE PAKISTAN LTD. and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2015 PLP 54 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ |
| Parties | BANKERS EQUITY (LTD.) and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs BENTONITE PAKISTAN LTD. and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 54 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2015 PLP 54 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Sarmad Jalal Osmany, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2015 PLP 54 (SCMR) (BANKERS EQUITY (LTD.) and others — Petitioners Versus Messrs BENTONITE PAKISTAN LTD. and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Shabbir Azar, Advocate Supreme Court and Mahmood ul Islam, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Ijaz Anwar, Advocate Supreme Court and Haji Muhammad Rafi Siddiqui, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent No.4.
- Date of hearing: 12th March, 2013.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment dated 24-2-2010 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No.579 of 2002)
Ss. 9(1) & (2)
Non-compliance with Ss. 9(1) & (2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Rectifiable mistake/omission
Recovery suit filed by plaintiff-institution was solely rejected on the ground that it had failed to comply with Ss. 9(1) & (2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Defendant in all fairness admitted that omission/mistake on part of plaintiff-institution was rectifiable and if plaintiff amended the plaint within a period of 15 days, defendant had no objection
Supreme Court in view of the fair stand taken by the defendant set aside the impugned judgment and directed the plaintiff to file amended suit within 15 days
Appeal was allowed accordingly. Respondents Nos.2 and 6 in person.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the suit for recovery filed by the petitioners' plaint was rejected solely on the ground that petitioner/plaintiffs had failed to comply with sections 9(1) and (2) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 although it was a rectifiable mistake and even otherwise since the loan was relatable to the year 1987, the matter should have been dealt with under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and not under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent No.4 who was on watching brief in all fairness submitted that it was a rectifiable mistake/omission and if the petitioners amend the plaint within a period of 15 days, respondent has no objection if this petition is converted into appeal and allowed.
3. In view of the fair stand taken by respondent's learned counsel, this petition is converted into appeal and allowed and the impugned judgment is set aside. Civil Original Suit No.44 of 2000 shall be deemed to be pending and the appellants shall file amended suit within 15 days. MWA/B-2/SC Appeal allowed.