PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs ATLAS CABLES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss — 2025 CLD 1653 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH

Case information

Citation: 2025 CLD 1653 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Court: Sindh High Court
Year: 2025
Reporter: CLD
Parties: PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED vs ATLAS CABLES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 9; S. 2; S. 4; Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891); Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002); Books Evidence 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

PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LIMITED VS ATLAS CABLES (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss. 9(2) & 10---Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), Ss. 2 (8) & 4---Electronic Transactions Ordinance (LI of 2002), Ss. 3 & 12---Suit for recovery of finance---Leave to defend the suit---Statement of accounts---Print out of electronic document---Bar to attestation---Principle---Plaintiff / financial institution instead of appending complete statement of accounts appended only statement of balances and certificate of outstanding amount---Validity---Statement of account envisaged in S. 9(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 is a document reflecting debits and credits and dates thereof from the time of disbursement---Any statement only of balances or a certificate of outstanding amount is not such a statement of account---Statement appended to plaint was not certified as required by S. 9(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 as it did not bear the certificate prescribed by S. 2(8) of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and could not be taken as prima facie evidence of existence of entries it had reflected---This recognition was otherwise provided to a certified copy by virtue of S. 4 of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891---Print-out of such electronic document for the purposes of S. 9(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was required to be certified under Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891---Omission of statement of account with plaint was a defect that was rectified to avoid rejection of plaint but the same had deprived defendants of a defense on accounts, thereby raising a substantial question of fact for granting leave to defend---Defendants who were directors and officials of defendant company, were entitled to leave to contest, plaintiffs / financial institution's accounts in as much as those were produced for the first time with the replication---Application was allowed.

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD

2025 CLD 1438 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDHIN THE MATTER OF THE COMPANIES ACT, 2017 VS BEACH LUXURY HOLDINGS (PRIVATE) LIMITED, SPENCER AND COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED AND PHYSONS (PRIV…
2025 CLD 53 INSURANCE-TRIBUNAL-LAHOREMUHAMMAD TARIQ VS JUBILEE LIFE INSURANCE S. 77---Language of policy documents---Principle---It is mandatory requirement of law to use plain…
2025 CLD 288 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANUNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The DIRECTOR/HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECP, ISLAMABAD Ss. 156 & 167---Tak…
2025 CLD 872 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANThe UNITED INSURANCE COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS The HOD, ADJUDICATION-I, ADJUDICATION DIVISION, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PA…
2025 CLD 435 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANHAJRA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED VS DIRECTOR, CORPORATE SUPERVISION DEPARTMENT, SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION OF PAKISTAN S. 33(1)(a)---Comp…
2025 CLD 393 SECURITIES-AND-EXCHANGE-COMMISSION-OF-PAKISTANUBL FUND MANAGEMENT LIMITED VS Ms. MOMY KAMAL Reglns. 66a(c)(i), 66a(c)(iv), 66a(d) & 66a(f)---Investing in Equity/Mutual Funds---Mis-sellin…

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