2011 PLP 267 (CLD)
KASB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus DEWAN SALMAN FIBRE LIMITED — Defendant
| Citation | 2011 PLP 267 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | KASB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus DEWAN SALMAN FIBRE LIMITED — Defendant |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2011 PLP 267 (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 267 (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 267 (CLD) (KASB BANK LIMITED — Plaintiff Versus DEWAN SALMAN FIBRE LIMITED — Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.--- Mr. Salim Thepdawala requests for an adjournment. He submits that in view of the 18th Amendment, the question that whether the procedure provided under the present Banking Ordinance is in consonance with the concept of fair trial and due process as enunciated through the said Amendment, is under consideration by a Division Bench of this court and such petition is being heard on day to day basis. He, therefore, requests that the hearing in the present case may be adjourned till such time the Division Bench decides as to whether the procedure of the present proceedings meets the above criteria or not. Mr. Saim Hashmi, Advocate vehemently opposes the request. He submits that since the defendant has in para-28 of its application under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 clearly admitted its liability towards the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.406,525,436, therefore, an interim decree at least to the extent of such amount may be granted. Mr. Salim Thepdawala, advocate submits that the amount as shown payable by the defendant, as noted above, does not pertain to the suit transactions. In response, Mr. Saim Hashmi, Advocate submits that the suit transactions are in continuity with the transactions in respect: whereof the defendant has admitted the above amount and, therefore, the plaintiffs claim in the suit shall be, reduced by Rs.406,525,436 in case such amount is paid by the defendant He, however, clarifies that: much of the remaining amount pertains to L/C transactions, wherein rollover cannot even be alleged.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 10
Application for leave to defend the suit
Counsel for defendant requested for an adjournment contending that in view of Constitutional (18th Amendment) Act, the question would arise as to whether the procedure provided under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was in consonance with the concept of fair trial and due process as enunciated through the said amendment
Said amendment was under consideration by a Division Bench of the High Court and constitutional petition was being heard on day to day basis
Counsel for the defendant, requested that the hearing in the case could be adjourned till such time the Division Bench decided as to whether the procedure of the present proceedings would meet said criteria or not
Defendant in his application for leave to defend suit had admitted its liability towards the plaintiff Bank in the sum of Rs.406,436,00
Counsel for the plaintiff had submitted that interim decree to the extent of said amount be granted
Interim decree in favour of the plaintiff bank for payment of said amount by the defendant to the plaintiff was granted
Hearing in respect of leave to defend application for the remaining amount, was adjourned, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MAQBOOL BAQAR, J.
Mr. Salim Thepdawala requests for an adjournment. He submits that in view of the 18th Amendment, the question that whether the procedure provided under the present Banking Ordinance is in consonance with the concept of fair trial and due process as enunciated through the said Amendment, is under consideration by a Division Bench of this court and such petition is being heard on day to day basis. He, therefore, requests that the hearing in the present case may be adjourned till such time the Division Bench decides as to whether the procedure of the present proceedings meets the above criteria or not. Mr. Saim Hashmi, Advocate vehemently opposes the request. He submits that since the defendant has in para-28 of its application under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 clearly admitted its liability towards the plaintiff in the sum of Rs.406,525,436, therefore, an interim decree at least to the extent of such amount may be granted. Mr. Salim Thepdawala, advocate submits that the amount as shown payable by the defendant, as noted above, does not pertain to the suit transactions. In response, Mr. Saim Hashmi, Advocate submits that the suit transactions are in continuity with the transactions in respect: whereof the defendant has admitted the above amount and, therefore, the plaintiffs claim in the suit shall be, reduced by Rs.406,525,436 in case such amount is paid by the defendant He, however, clarifies that: much of the remaining amount pertains to L/C transactions, wherein rollover cannot even be alleged. The above being the position, I would, therefore, grant an interim decree in favour of the plaintiff for payment of an amount, of Rs.406,525,436 by the defendant to the plaintiff. Hearing in respect, of leave to defend application for the remaining amount is adjourned to 16-11-2010. H.B.T./K-37/K Order accordingly.