2011 PLP 1056 (CLD)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. through Manager Law — Appellant Versus VTH BANKING COURT AT KARACHI and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2011 PLP 1056 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. through Manager Law — Appellant Versus VTH BANKING COURT AT KARACHI and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 1056 (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 2011 PLP 1056 (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: 2011 PLP 1056 (CLD) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION LTD. through Manager Law — Appellant Versus VTH BANKING COURT AT KARACHI and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 7 & 22
Connected appeals which were being disposed of and reasons given for seeking condonation of delay in time-barred appeals were cogent, delay could be condoned in case of time-barred appeals, and all appeals disposed of in terms of the orders made in respect of the appeals which were within time.
Judgment & Decree
These appeals, were fixed along with other connected appeals and the only grievance raised by the appellant in all these matters was that the learned trial Court had failed to give cost of funds in accordance with law which was the statutory right of the appellant under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. By means of the order dated 25-8-2010 some of those appeals including Ist Appeal No.74 of 2010 were disposed of by modifying the judgment and decree of the learned trial Court and granting the cost of funds to the appellant in accordance with law. However, in respect of the appeals before the Court today, learned counsel for the appellant had himself pointed out that the said appeals had been filed beyond the period of limitation and were time-barred by about one week and that there was an application seeking condonation of such delay which was mending adjudication. We had therefore, adjourned the hearing of these appeals to consider first the matter of limitation. We would first like to commend the learned counsel for the appellant for having himself pointed out that these appeals involved issue of limitation, since otherwise the matters may have been disposed of in the ordinary course along with the other appeals. We have considered the application seeking condonation of delay and the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court relied upon by learned counsel being Commissioner of Income Tax v. Media Network and others PLD 2006 SC
787. In the reported decision, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held at page 814 that since connected appeals which were within time were being disposed of and since the reasons given for seeking condonation of delay in the time barred appeals were cogent, the delay was condoned and all appeals were disposed of in terms of the orders made in respect of the appeals which were within time. We have also seen the application seeking condonation of delay and have come to the conclusion that the reasons stated therein are reasonable and therefore, respectfully following the dictum of the. Hon'ble Supreme Court we condone the delay in these matters and accordingly modify the decision of the learned trial Court in terms of our earlier order dated 2-8-2010 namely that the appellant is entitled to cost of funds in accordance with law. The appeals along with listed application stand disposed of in the above terms. M.A.K. /H-1 /K Order accordingly.