| Case ID |
2bfdb93e-692c-4355-84c3-a0b4816a5742 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. B-2 of 2014 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 26, 2017 |
| Hearing Date |
May 02, 2017 |
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court ruled on the case between Pak Oman Investment Company Limited and Cresox (Pvt.) Limited regarding the recovery of finances under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The court highlighted the necessity for the defendant to provide specific defenses and not general denials concerning the statements of accounts presented by the plaintiff. It was held that the restructuring or rescheduling of finance facilities does not constitute fresh disbursements, and the repayment schedule is a fundamental component of these agreements. The court maintained that if the defendant fails to challenge specific entries in the accounts, they are deemed correct, emphasizing the importance of compliance with statutory provisions. The court also addressed the right to a fair trial, reinforcing that while Article 10-A of the Constitution ensures due process, it must be exercised in accordance with the law under which the proceedings were initiated. |
| Summary |
In the case of Pak Oman Investment Company Limited vs. Cresox (Pvt.) Limited, the Sindh High Court addressed significant issues related to the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The plaintiff sought recovery of Rs. 162,344,199 along with liquidated damages and costs, stemming from various finance facilities availed by the defendant. The court's decision underscored the necessity for specificity in legal defenses, particularly in financial disputes where accurate account statements are crucial. The ruling clarified that general assertions are insufficient and emphasized the binding nature of repayment schedules as integral to financial agreements. The court also reaffirmed the constitutional right to a fair trial, aligning it with the procedural requirements of the ordinance, thereby ensuring that defendants cannot bypass statutory obligations under the guise of seeking fairness. This case serves as a critical reference for financial recovery litigation, highlighting the need for precise legal arguments and adherence to established financial protocols. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Pak Oman Investment Company Limited,
Cresox (Pvt.) Limited
|
| Judges |
AZIZ-UR-REHMAN
|
| Lawyers |
Waqar Ahmed,
Adnan Iqbal Choudhry
|
| Petitioners |
PAK OMAN INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED
|
| Respondents |
CRESOX (PVT.) LIMITED
|
| Citations |
2017 SLD 2972 = 2017 CLD 1659
|
| Other Citations |
Ghulam Rasool through Legal Heirs and others v. Mohammad Hussain and others PLD 2011 SC 119,
Appolo Textile Mills Ltd. v. Soneri Bank Ltd. PLD 2012 SC 268,
Habib Bank Ltd. v. Taj Textile Mills Ltd. through Chief Executive and 5 others 2009 CLD 1143,
Muhammad Arshad and another v. Citibank N.A., LAHORE HIGH COURT 2006 SCMR 1347,
United Bank Limited v. Messrs Sartaj Industries through Qaiser Iqbal Managing Partners and 6 others PLD 1990 Lah. 99,
Askari Commercial Bank Ltd. v. Hilal Corporation (Pvt.) Ltd. and 6 others 2009 CLD 588,
Shabbir Ahmed v. Khan Khursheed and 8 others 2012 CLC 1236
|
| Laws Involved |
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
10,
9,
7,
2(d)
|