CLD 2012

2012CLD 1336 (PLP)

BANK OF KHYBER — Plaintiff Versus Messrs SPENCER DISTRIBUTION LTD. through Chief Executive and 14 others — Defendants

Jurisdiction / Court
Lahore
Decided Date
2011-November-11
Honorable Judges
N/A
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 2012CLD 1336 (PLP)
Forum / Court Lahore
Bench Members N/A
Parties BANK OF KHYBER — Plaintiff Versus Messrs SPENCER DISTRIBUTION LTD. through Chief Executive and 14 others — Defendants
Primary Law (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2012CLD 1336 (PLP)?

This judgment primarily cites: (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2012CLD 1336 (PLP)?

The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 2012CLD 1336 (PLP) (BANK OF KHYBER — Plaintiff Versus Messrs SPENCER DISTRIBUTION LTD. through Chief Executive and 14 others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Headnotes / Summary

S. 2(c)

Mortgagor as customer

Scope

Law does not contemplate that a mortgagor ought to be a beneficiary of finance or ought to have nexus with principal debtor in order to be liable on mortgage executed by him/her.

Ss. 3, 9 & 10

Suit for recovery of bank loan

Leave to defend the suit

Execution of mortgage

Proof

Two loan facilities were advanced to defendant company and suit was filed for recovery of Rs.75.848 million

Guarantor denied having executed mortgage deeds of her property. in favour of bank

Validity

Some of charged documents were executed on behalf of guarantor by her husband as general attorney but the attorney was not on record

Bank had shown that documents were signed by guarantor in year 1997, including registered mortgage deed for an amount of Rs. 100,000 and another mortgage deed for an amount of Rs.6.155 million, were signed " by guarantor personally and signatures matched

Both the mortgage documents stated that security was tendered to secure disbursement of finance to defendant company

High Court passed interim decree in favour of bank to the extent of Rs.6.155 million and in respect of claim made by the bank for remaining amount of Rs.75.8 million unconditional leave to defend was granted to the guarantor

Decretal amount, under. S.3 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, was subject to payment of cost of funds from the date when, guarantor first disputed her liability towards bank in her petition for leave to appear

Petition was allowed accordingly. (p. 13381 B

Judgment & Decree

UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.

The. plaintiff bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.75.848 million against defendant No.1 principal debtor company and defendants Nos.2 and 3 guarantors whilst defendants Nos.4 to 9 were sued as directors without having furnished personal guarantees and defendants Nos. 10 to 15 as guarantors/mortgagors. The suit was contested by defendants but on 30-7-2002 the PLAs were dismissed and a decree of Rs.75.848 million was passed in favour of plaintiff bank. The defendant No.10 mortgagor/ guarantor filed an appeal against the judgment and decree which was allowed on 22- 1-2009 and her PLA was remanded for fresh decision by this Court. M.H./Fl-7/L???? ??????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Order accordingly.