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

SADIQ FEEDS (PVT.) LTD. vs MEEZAN BANK LIMITED Ss — 2026 CLD 693 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation
2026 CLD 693 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court
Lahore High Court
Year
2026
Reporter
CLD
Parties
SADIQ FEEDS (PVT.) LTD. vs MEEZAN BANK LIMITED Ss
Subject matter
Criminal
Provisions referred to
S. 9; S. 10

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

SADIQ FEEDS (PVT.) LTD. VS MEEZAN BANK LIMITED Ss.9 & 10---Suit for recovery---Finance facility, availing of---Bank failing to disburse amount of finance facility, allegation of---Bank issuing notices demanding disputed amount and repossession of leased vehicles---Territorial jurisdiction, objection of---Maintainability of suit---Factors to be considered while determining territorial jurisdiction---Scope---Suit under S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 against the defendant bank was filed seeking recovery of Rs.120 million with up-to-date profit; the dispute arose in the context of a finance facility and subsequent notices relating to an alleged demand and repossession of leased vehicles, after which the defendant bank under S. 10 sought unconditional leave to defend and raised a preliminary objection that the suit was not maintainable for want of territorial jurisdiction (stating the lease agreement was executed at Islamabad and that PKR 37.2 million had been disbursed to the plaintiffs' account maintained at Islamabad)---Held: The issuance of impugned notices which related to recovery of vehicles in respect of which the High Court lacked subject matter jurisdiction was not a fact giving rise to the cause of action and was to be disregarded for the purposes of determining territorial jurisdiction---Cause of action in the present case, if any, had arisen at Islamabad, where the finance facility was sanctioned, disbursed and operated; and where the relevant contractual obligations were performed---No part of the cause of action had arisen with the territorial limits of the High Court entertaining the suit---Present lis could not entertained due to lack of territorial jurisdiction---Present suit was dismissed, in circumstances. Where an objection to the jurisdiction of a Court is raised, the same is required to be determined in the first instance.

Other judgments reported in 2026 CLD

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