2001 PLP 492 (CLC)
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs BHITAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD.
| Citation | 2001 PLP 492 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | S. Ahmed Sarwana, J |
| Parties | NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs BHITAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD. |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 492 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 492 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: S. Ahmed Sarwana, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 492 (CLC) (NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs BHITAI RUBBER INDUSTRIES LTD.). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 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. (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. .10‑‑‑Leave to defend suit‑‑‑Forged signatures on the guarantees‑‑ Defendant denied his signatures on the guarantees as the same were alleged to be fabricated‑‑‑Effect‑‑‑Where on comparison with the admitted signatures of the defendant, the signatures on the guarantees prima facie appeared to be different, leave to defend the suit was granted. A.H. Mirza for Plaintiff. Noorullah Manji for Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and
8. Amer Raza Naqvi for Defendant No.3.
Judgment & Decree
A.H. Mirza for Plaintiff. Noorullah Manji for Defendants Nos. 1, 2, 3, 6, 7 and
8. Amer Raza Naqvi for Defendant No.3. This is an application filed by defendants Nos. l, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 for leave to defend the suit filed by the plaintiff for recovery of Rs.77,138,911, liquidated damages of Rs.15,427,782 and for sale of mortgaged properties and pledged shares. On 21‑1‑2000, when the matter came up for hearing Mr. Manji learned counsel for the aforesaid defendants sought time to verify the statement of Accounts and submitted that if no discrepancy was found in the same, he would not file any rejoinder. Today, he conceded that the Accounts were in order except a debit of Rs.47,006 alleged to have been paid to E.F.U. on 27‑3‑1990. He did not advance any other argument for leave to defend. Mr. A.H. Mirza, learned counsel for the plaintiff states that he has no objection, if a sum of, Rs.47,006 is deducted from the plaintiff's claim as it is not shown in the Statement of Account. Consequently the plaintiff's claim shall stand reduced by Rs.47,
006. The plaintiff has also claimed liquidated damages and mark‑up for the cushion period of 210 days, which cannot be allowed under the law. In view of the above position plaintiff's suit is decreed jointly and severally as follows: (a) Judgment and decree against, defendants Nos. l, 2, 5, 6, 7 and 8 in the sum of Rs.77,091,905 together with mark‑up at the rate of Rs.0.50 per thousand per day from the date of suit till realization. (The rate of. mark‑up is not disputed by Mr. Manji). (b) Final mortgage decree for sale of the mortgaged property. (c) Decree for sale of the pledged shares. (d) Costs of the suit.
2. Mr. Amer Raza Naqvi, raised several grounds in defence, including, among others, that the guarantees were not signed by his client and that his signatures were fabricated. The signatures on a few guarantees on comparison with the admitted signature of defendant No. 3, prima facie, appear to be different. Mr. A.H. Mirza concedes to this position. Accordingly, the application for leave to defend the suit is granted.) Defendant No.3 is allowed three weeks to file the written statement.
3. In view of the orders passed above in C.M.A. No.9593 of 1999, Mr. Naqvi does not press this application, which is accordingly dismissed as withdrawn. No application for. leave. to defend has been filed by defendant No.4. Consequently, the plaintiff's claim against defendant No.4 is decreed in the same terms as against defendants Nos. 1, 2, 5, 6, 7 and
8. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑35/K Order accordingly.