- —Section 8 —Purpose and object of—written amount/loans—attended the legal status—under the statutory provision the Bank has been provided an opportunity to file a suit for recovery of such written off amount if it is result of political reason other than bona fide business consideration. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mils vs Habib Bank Limited 2018 SCR 513 (A)
- —Sections 9 and 10—Procedure for conducting the proceedings in the suit— Under section 9, the customer or financial institution both are entitled to file the suit if anyone commits default in fulfillment of any obligation with regard to any finance– – Once suit is filed and notices issued, section 10 comes into operation—under section 9, after service of summons, the defendant has to obtain the leave to defend the suit — in default the allegations of facts in the plaint shall be deemed admitted. Qureshi Vegetable Ghee & Oil Mils vs Habib Bank Limited 2018 SCR 513 (B)
- —Section 10 (3) —application for leave to defend— shall in the form of written statement, contain a summary of substantial questions of law as well as facts, in which, in the opinion of defendant, evidence needs to be recorded. Mujahid Hussain Kazmi v. National Bank & another 2019 SCR 370 (A)
- —Section 10 —sub sections (3), (6) & (11) —-application for leave to defend— when the defendant fails to make out any substantial question of law and facts requiring the recording of evidence, the Banking Court under sub-section (6) has to reject such application—-Under sub-section (11) the Court is empowered on rejection of application to forthwith proceed to pass judgment and decree against the defendant. Mujahid Hussain Kazmi v. National Bank & another 2019 SCR 370 (B)
- —section 10(9) —Leave to defend—Banking Court may impose conditions—which it deem appropriate—including—deposing of cash—furnishing of security—the minute study of the language used in the section, unambiguously speaks that the Banking Court is fully empowered to grant leave to defend the suit unconditionally or by imposing condition as to deposit of cash or furnishing of a surety as it thinks fit. Askari Bank Limited v. Banking Court/ Circuit Bench Mirpur & 3 others 2017 SCR 886 (A)
- —section 10(9)—conditional leave to defend—-discretion of Court—exercised by Court—cannot be interfered—unless exercised—in fanciful or arbitrary manner—the direction exercised by the Banking Court under section 10(9) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, is not to be interfered with unless it is shown that the same was exercised in a fanciful or arbitrary manner. Askari Bank Limited v. Banking Court/ Circuit Bench Mirpur & 3 others 2017 SCR 886 (B)
- —section 10(9)—no distinction —between bank and private party—the language of the section 10(9) shows that no distinction has been made between the private party and the bank. Askari Bank Limited v. Banking Court/ Circuit Bench Mirpur & 3 others. 2017 SCR 886 (C)
- —section 10(9)—leave to defend—order of Banking Court—conditional— or unconditional—sole consideration is—satisfaction of the Court—While granting leave to appear and defend the suit conditionally or unconditionally the sole consideration is the satisfaction of the Court. Askari Bank Limited v. Banking Court/ Circuit Bench Mirpur & 3 others. 2017 SCR 886 (D)
- —section 10(9)—conditional leave to defend—by Banking Court—bank was ordered to furnish security—apprehension of private party/plaintiff— bank has no property/assets in Azad Jammu and Kashmir—discretion exercised by Bank— order is in judicious manner—the learned counsel for the respondents, during the course of the arguments taken the stance that the bank has no property/assets in the territory of Azad Jammu and Kashmir and in case the decree is passed in favour of the respondents its execution may create hardships, is not without substance. The learned counsel for the appellants failed to bring anything on record from where it can be ascertained that the appellants have any property/assets in the territory of AJK, therefore, the apprehension shown by the respondents seems to be genuine. Keeping in view the circumstances of the case we are of the view that the Banking Court while imposing the condition of furnishing security has exercised the discretion in a judicious manner and rightly upheld by High Court. Askari Bank Limited v. Banking Court/ Circuit Bench Mirpur & 3 others. 2017 SCR 886 (E)
error: Content is protected !!