Citation Name: 2024 CLD 758 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAQEER MUHAMMAD vs NATOVER LEASE AND REFINAN

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Citation Name: 2024 CLD 758 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAQEER MUHAMMAD VS NATOVER LEASE AND REFINANCE LTD. through DMO, Peshawar S. 310---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 9---Suit for recovery filed before the Banking Court by a Company undergoing winding up---Maintainability---Leave of the Court, not sought for---Scope and effect---Plaintiff (company under winding up) filed suit for recovery against lessee/purchaser of car---Defendant / lessee preferred appeal as the Baking Court decreed the suit after denying leave to contest filed by him---Validity---Section 310 of the Companies Act, 2017, stipulates that no suit shall be proceeded with or commenced against a company regarding which either a winding up order is passed or the provisional manager is appointed without the leave or permission of the court before which the winding up proceedings are pending---Undoubtedly, the said court also has the jurisdiction to entertain, dispose of any suit or proceeding by or against the company ; and, in case any such proceeding is pending in any other court, it can be transferred to and disposed of by the court which is dealing with the matter of winding up the company---In the present case, one year and two months before filing of recovery suit before the Banking Court (through Deputy Manager Operations under an authority letter), the Provisional Manager had already been appointed after the commencement of the winding up proceedings of the company; thus, recovery suit was not maintainable /competent being against the very mandate of the provisions under S. 310 of the Companies Act, 2017---Record was completely silent in respect of any permission / leave obtained from the concerned Court to file the suit against the appellant / company before the Banking Court in terms of S.310 of the Companies Act, 2017---Respondent (plaintiff/company) ought to have filed the suit after obtaining leave of the Court---Such legal aspect of the case had not been considered by the Banking Court while decreeing the suit filed by the company, thus suit-in-question was not competent in circumstances of the present case---Findings of the Baking Court suffered from illegality and material irregularity, warranting interference by the Appellate/High Court---High Court set-aside impugned decree and remitted the matter back to the Banking Court for its decision afresh after due compliance of the provisions of S.310 of the Companies Act, 2017---Appeal filed by the lessee (defendant) was allowed accordingly.

Citation Name: 2024 CLD 758 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURTBookmark this Case FAQEER MUHAMMAD vs NATOVER LEASE AND REFINANCE LTD — 2024 CLD 758 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD