PAK LAW GPT — Pakistan Case Law AI justice scale emblemPAK LAW GPTCase law · Urdu & English

GHOUSIA RICE MILLS vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2024 CLD 965 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN

Case information

Citation
2024 CLD 965 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Court
Balochistan High Court
Year
2024
Reporter
CLD
Parties
GHOUSIA RICE MILLS vs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss
Subject matter
Civil
Provisions referred to
S. 12; S. 9; Specific Relief Act (I of 1877); Arbitration Act (X of 1940); Specific Relief Act; Arbitration Act

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

Judgment text as reported

GHOUSIA RICE MILLS VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN Ss. 9 (a) & 22---Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 21 & 42---Arbitration Act (X of 1940), Ss. 32 & 33---Suit for recovery of finance and declaration---Contractual liability---Arbitration clause, non-invoking of---Effect---Appellant / customer filed suit to recover finance amount from insurance company on account of damages caused to pledged goods due to flood whereas respondent / bank filed suit for recovery of finance facility---Trial Court decreed suit filed by respondent / bank while dismissed that of appellant / customer---Validity---As per insurance policy if any difference had arisen as to amount of loss or damage, such difference was to be referred to decision of an arbitrator to be appointed in writing by parties in difference---Appellant / customer instead of invoking arbitration clause filed suit which was otherwise barred under S.12 of Specific Relief Act, 1877 and Ss. 32 & 33 of Arbitration Act, 1940---Suit filed by respondent / bank was verified on oath and supported by all necessary documents including statements of account, loan application, agreement of loan, undertaking by appellant / customer, power of attorney, mutation for mortgage property and other relevant documents which were duly signed / attested as required under the law---Suit was covered within the definition of S. 9(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Respondent / bank complied with the requirements of Ss. 9(2) & (3) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---High Court declined to interfere in judgments and decrees passed by Banking Court as there was no misreading or non-reading of evidence nor there were glaring illegalities or irregularities---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.

Other judgments reported in 2024 CLD

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English