FAYSAL BANK LIMITED vs TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S — 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

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

FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Defendant failing to produce favourable supporting documents---Effect---Objection taken by the defendant (Company / Customer) that the Letters of Credit (LCs) mentioned in the plaint were different and not the ones which the plaintiff-Bank allegedly claimed to have retired---Validity---No supporting material was submitted by the counsel for the defendant-Company to substantiate this claim---It is axiomatic that the Court cannot grant relief based merely on unsubstantiated assertions---It is a fundamental principle of evidence that parties seeking judicial remedy must provide adequate documentation or testimony to validate their contentions---In the absence of any supporting material, the Court has no alternative but to reject such unfounded assertions as being devoid of merit---Thus, the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED Ss. 10(1), 10(4), 10(5), 10(6) & 10(11)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Application for leave to defend, acceptance / rejection of---Defence to be taken by customer---Requirements---Scope --- Under the provisions of Ss.10(4) & 10(5) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, ('the Ordinance 2001') the defendants were obligated to provide a clear and specific response to the Bank's Statement of Account, in their application for leave to defend, besides providing details of their own accounts along with the specific amounts they dispute---However, the necessary documents, as mandated under S. 10(5) of the Ordinance, 2001, were not annexed with the leave application---Said failure to plead the requisite details attracts the consequences prescribed under Ss. 10(1) & 10(6) of the Ordinance, 2001, warranting the rejection of the application for leave to defend and the passing of judgment and decree in favour of the plaintiff-Bank under Ss. 10(1) & 10(11) of the Ordinance, 2001---The defendants have failed to comply with the requirements of Ss. 10(4) & 10(5) of the Ordinance, 2001---Thus , the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED arts. 102 & 103---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Conflict between oral evidence and documentary evidence---Defendant failing to produce favourable supporting documents---Effect---Objection of the defendant/Company that the claim of Finance against Trust Facility (FaTF) is not supported by necessary documents particularly 'Trust Receipts"---Validity---Said contention of the defendant-Company was belied by the relevant Trust Receipt (dated 10.04.2019), which unequivocally established that FaTR facility was availed by the defendant-Company---Indubitably, in terms of arts. 102 & 103 of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984, if, there is a conflict between oral evidence and documentary evidence, the documentary evidence available on record is to prevail over the oral evidence---Thus, the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 2(8)---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Statement of Account, attached with the plaint, not duly verified---Objection that the Statement of Account, attached with the plaint, is not duly verified as required under the provisions of the Bankers Books Evidence Act, 1981---Validity---Statement of Account provided by the Bank, which bears the proper stamps and initials of the authorized bank official, besides carrying a certain note regarding being "Certified and verified on Oath", satisfies the legal requirements stipulated under S. 2(8) of the Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891---The Statement of Account submitted by the plaintiff-Bank in this suit carries such an endorsement/certification; therefore, the Statement of Account is duly certified in terms of afore-referred provisions of law---On the other hand, the defendants have not attached any counterstatement to controvert said Statement of Account---Consequently, their mere unsubstantiated allegations, unsupported by legal authority or documentary evidence, have no legal merit or foundation---Thus ,the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Defendant failing to produce favourable supporting documents---Effect---Stance taken by the defendants (Company / Customer) was that they were not liable to make payment of the suit amount as the alleged documents showing liability of the defendants had been engineered by the plaintiff-Bank---Validity---The defendants Nos. 2 to 4, being Directors of the defendant-Company, furnished personal guarantees in favor of the plaintiff-Bank---Said defendants have failed to produce any documentation demonstrating that the personal guarantees were fake, fabricated, or bore forged signatures; consequently, their mere vague denials were insufficient to absolve them of their liability---Even when a contract becomes unenforceable against the principal debtor, the guarantor remains bound by the surety he had executed, unless there exists a specific covenant to the contrary and a surety/guarantor cannot be permitted to repudiate the original finance facility---Furthermore, jurisprudence has consistently recognized that a bank guarantee constitutes an autonomous contract that imposes an absolute obligation to fulfill its terms---Payment under such a guarantee becomes due upon the occurrence of the specified contingency that renders the guarantee enforceable---Unsubstantiated allegations by the defendant-Company regarding the non-execution of financial documents lack documentary evidence---The defendants have not specifically denied executing the mortgage deeds, Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds, or other security documents---Furthermore, the Defendants have not explicitly denied that the amount claimed by the plaintiff-Bank was credited to the principal debtor's account---The defendants have also failed to challenge these documents before any legal forum---Therefore, the evasive denial of defendants of executing the financial documents does not entitle them to leave to defend the suit---Conversely, the plaintiff-Bank's claim is supported by numerous documents present on the record, as discussed above, which cannot be discarded without compelling documentary evidence in rebuttal---Thus ,the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Defendant filing to produce favourable supporting documents---Effect---Stance taken by the defendants / customers is that they have not availed the alleged Finance Against Trust Receipt (FATR ) and Working Capital Loan (WCL) finance facilities, besides disbursement of Rs.41 Million under FATR facility---Validity--- In their leave application, the defendants disputed the availing of FATR and WCL finance facilities, except disbursement of Rs.41 Million under FATR facility, however, said stance lacks supporting documentary evidence---Defendants have also contested the demanded mark-up under the said facilities but have failed to identify even a single entry demonstrating how the mark-up was inconsistent with the Statement of Account---Where a defendant challenges the disbursement claim made by the plaintiff bank, he must rely on his account statement to highlight the inaccuracies and fallacies of the claim, rather than putting up just a simpliciter denial---Defendant-Company, in its financial statement for the year 2019, submitted with SECP, showed an amount of Rs.400 Million as outstanding against the defendant-Company---A defendant cannot contest an amount that has been duly acknowledged in the financial statement and audited accounts---Audited financial statement of the defendant-Company is very strong corroborative evidence against it---Thus ,the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Mark-up, payment of---Calculation---Scope---Objection taken by the defendant-Company was that entries of the Statement of Account were not corroborating the alleged claim of mark-up in respect of availed finance facilities---Validity---The documents annexed with the plaint negate said contention of the defendant-Company---The Statement of Account and the Financing Statement duly reflect the details of due mark-up as well as adjusted mark-up---Mark-up is to be paid by the customer on the availed finances as per the agreement executed between the parties---Thus, the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Competency of institutor, objection against---As per S. 9(1) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance ('the Ordinance 2001'), when a customer or financial institution defaults on any finance obligation, the aggrieved party may institute a suit in the Banking Court by presenting a plaint verified on oath; in the case of a financial institution, this verification may be executed by the Branch Manager or another officer duly authorized by power of attorney---Record demonstrates that the plaintiff-Bank had nominated and appointed its two officers (designation of whom are duly described) as Attorneys to conduct, carry on and represent the bank in all forms of litigation---Present suit was instituted through the said persons, with the Power of Attorney available in the file, confirming that present suit had been properly instituted through a competent person---The defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit, filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Mark-up or interest---Scope---Objection of the Defendants (Company) was that the amounts mentioned under the head of interest could not be a part of the claim of plaintiff-Bank as this term was alien to the alleged finance agreements and so-called finance facilities---Validity---In the Statement of Account, certain outstanding amounts have been claimed under the title of interest, however , the plaintiff-Bank (during arguments) clarified that this was merely a technical error and the amounts should be construed as mark-up---Court found said clarification sufficient and did not consider it a valid ground for dismissal of the plaintiff-Bank's claim---Thus , the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit , filed by Bank, was decreed. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case FAYSAL BANK LIMITED VS TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S. 9(1)---Suit for recovery filed by Bank---Application for leave to defend, rejection of---Ancillary / miscellaneous application (s) filed by defendant prior to the grant of leave---Maintainability---Defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed--- Since, application for leave to defend filed by defendants was dismissed, therefore, all the (four) miscellaneous applications filed by defendants, were also dismissed being not maintainable---Prior to the grant of leave to defend, a defendant cannot seek adjudication of any rights of defence as the law expressly prohibits consideration of a defendant's defence before leave is granted and prescribes a specific procedure under which any defence-whether raising legal or factual controversy-may only be entertained after leave to defend has been granted---Therefore, any ancillary application filed prior to the grant of such leave is legally untenable---A defendant could not file any ancillary or interlocutory application unless such defendant was allowed by the Court to defend the suit---Thus , the defendants failed to raise any factual defence that would necessitate the recording of evidence---Accordingly, the defendants' application for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed---Suit , filed by Bank, was decreed.

FAYSAL BANK LIMITED vs TAHIR OMER INDUSTRIES LIMITED S — 2025 CLD 1366 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD