2007 PLP 170 (CLD)
KASB BANK LTD. — Plaintiff Versus Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN — Defendant
| Citation | 2007 PLP 170 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KASB BANK LTD. — Plaintiff Versus Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN — Defendant |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2007 PLP 170 (CLD)?
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 2007 PLP 170 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2007 PLP 170 (CLD) (KASB BANK LTD. — Plaintiff Versus Rana MUNIR AHMED KHAN — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.10
Lease financing facility
Application for grant of leave to defend the suit
Defendant had also filed suit for declaration, specific performance and rendition of accounts against the plaintiff-Bank which was pending
Bank, instead of granting finance to the defendant, in fact, had delivered assets (in the present case vehicles) to the customers
Out of 25 vehicles, agreed to be leased out to the defendant, delivery of nine, vehicles had not been effected by the Bank and Receiver had been appointed in the suit filed by the defendant, 'in respect of 16 buses which were delivered to the defendant
Specified directions had been issued to the Official Assignee
Defendant, in lease financing facility, was required to disclose amount of finance granted to him and amount of finance paid by him
High Court, in circumstances, without going into the question whether the defendant was entitled for leave, granted leave to defend the suit as substantial questions of law had been raised viz., whether the time was essence of lease financing agreement executed between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant; whether the plaintiff-Bank delivered lease assets/buses well in time to the defendant; whether delay committed by the plaintiff-Bank in payment of amount caused financial loss and damaged business credibility of the defendant; whether without delivery of 25 vehicles, the plaintiff could claim rental of the said 25 buses and whether the plaintiff under Islamic Financing System was entitled for proportionate rental.
Judgment & Decree
KHILJI ARIF HUSSAIN, J.
The defendant filed application/written statement under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and requested for grant of leave to defend the suit. Without going into the question whether the defendant is entitled for leave as counter-suit being Suit No.15 of 2006, filed by the defendant against the plaintiff for declaration, specific performance and rendition of accounts is pending and whether in lease financing facility, defendant is required to disclose amount of finance granted to him and amount of finance paid by him, as in fact the bank instead of granting finance, delivered assets (in this case vehicles) to customers. The defendant is granted leave to defend the suit as substantial questions of law like "(i) Whether the time was essence of lease financing agreement executed between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant?" "(ii) Whether the plaintiff-Bank delivered lease assets/buses well in time to the defendant?" and "(iii) Whether delay committed by the plaintiff-Bank in payment of amount caused financial loss and damaged business credibility of the defendant?" have been raised. Another question, which also requires consideration, is, "Whether without delivery of 25 vehicles, the plaintiff can claim rental of the said 25 buses and whether the plaintiff under Islamic Financing System is entitled for proportionate rental?" I would like to mention here that out of 25 buses, agreed to be leased out to the defendant, delivery of nine buses has not been effected by the plaintiff. In respect of 16 buses, which were delivered to the defendant, Official Assignee has been appointed as a Receiver of the said buses in Suit No.15 of 2006, filed by the defendant directing the Official Assignee to deposit 50% of the income towards the adjustment of defendant's liability. The defendant is granted leave to defend the suit. Office is directed to fix this suit along with Suit No.15 of 2006 for framing of issues on 6-11-2006. M.B.A./K-37/K Leave granted.