| Case Details | |
|---|---|
| Case ID | 093b4f3c-6a57-4855-a9aa-2c900e20a01e |
| Body | View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number | Suit No. B-36 of 2013 |
| Decision Date | Apr 05, 2018 |
| Hearing Date | Mar 15, 2018 |
| Decision | The case revolves around the recovery of a significant amount of finance under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The plaintiff, Soneri Bank Limited, filed a suit against Grey Printers Pvt. Limited and others for recovery of Rs. 11,42,16,425.95. The bank asserted that the defendant defaulted on financial obligations despite having availed multiple finance facilities. The court held that the objections raised by the defendants regarding the validity of documents were not substantial, particularly as the defendants had previously utilized the facilities without objection. The court emphasized that even if some documents were blank, the defendants could not contest their validity after having availed the finance. Consequently, the suit was decreed in favor of the plaintiff for the outstanding amounts, including interest, and allowed the sale of hypothecated and mortgaged assets to recover the dues. |
| Summary | In the case of Soneri Bank Limited v. Grey Printers Pvt. Limited, the Sindh High Court addressed critical issues regarding the recovery of finances under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The plaintiff bank sought to recover a substantial amount from the defendant company, which had defaulted on its financial obligations. The court examined various arguments raised by the defendants, including claims regarding the validity of documents and the absence of a Board Resolution for the power of attorney used to file the suit. The court concluded that the bank's position was fortified by the fact that the defendants had availed of the financial facilities without raising prior objections. The ruling underscored the legal principles surrounding banking transactions, emphasizing that objections regarding documentation could not be entertained after the fact. This decision reinforces the importance of maintaining proper documentation in financial transactions and the enforceability of banking agreements in Pakistan. The case exemplifies the judiciary's stance on financial disputes and the need for borrowers to adhere to their contractual obligations, making it a significant reference for similar cases in the future. |
| Court | Sindh High Court |
| Entities Involved | Soneri Bank Limited, Grey Printers Pvt. Limited |
| Judges | MUHAMMAD JUNAID GHAFFAR, JUSTICE |
| Lawyers | Neel Keshav, Abdul Qayyum Abbasi |
| Petitioners | SONERI BANK LIMITED THROUGH ATTORNEYS |
| Respondents | GREY PRINTERS PVT. LIMITED THROUGH DIRECTOR AND 5 OTHERS |
| Citations | 2018 SLD 1928, 2018 CLD 1183 |
| Other Citations | 2004 CLD 587, 2009 SCMR 846, PLD 1966 SC 684, 1992 SCMR 846, PLD 1971 SC 550, 2006 SCMR 437, 2001 SCMR 1700, 2011 CLD 790, PLD 1991 Lahore 381, 2004 CLD 1356, 2010 CLD 701, 2012 CLD 957, 2014 CLD 415, PLD 2013 Sindh 406, 1994 MLD 476, 1995 SCMR 1489, 2002 PTD 388, 1995 SCMR 1505, PLD 2003 Supreme Court 215, 1992 SCMR 19, 2005 CLD 444, 2009 CLD 460, 2007 CLD 435, 2012 CLD 961, 2015 CLD 1875, 2001 CLD 1655, 2011 CLD 408, 2005 CLD 569, 2005 CLD 1421, 2006 CLD 1546, 2007 CLD 188, 1996 SCMR 696, 2003 SCMR 261, PLD 2012 SC 211, 1993 MLD 1287, PLD 2003 Karachi 253, PLD 2014 Sindh 224, 2014 CLC 322, 2013 CLC 535, 2017 CLD 540, 2012 CLC 337, 2014 CLD 160, 2014 CLD 985, 2012 CLD 1302, 2001 CLC 1551, 2005 CLD 581, 2006 CLD 773, 2007 CLD 667, 2007 CLD 678, 2010 CLD 651, 2012 CLD 1222, 2009 CLD 1195, 2006 CLD 734 |
| Laws Involved | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 |
| Sections | 9, 10, 20 |