SAJJAD GONDAL versus ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED
Sections 9, 10 and 16 (3) Sue for recovery of outstanding lease rentals and reclaim leased machines on the basis of lease agreement, application to defend the case by principal debtor, order by the Banking Court The principal borrower did not refuse financially upon the issuance of the letter of credit, the execution of the entire document, recovery of the leased machines and payment of the lease rent, the default principal debtor had two other defendants. Had tried to highlight the issue with Ali when it came to leasing machinery at the time of the lease. The contract was between the plaintiff and the principal debtor. Since the two defendants were not parties, the principal debtor with the false defense doctrine had presented the other two defendants as party appeals, whose names were earlier deleted by the Banking Court, with the other two defendants as the personal defendants. Disputes cannot be allowed to rise. In the appeal, the appeal arising out of such an agreement between him and the claimant, as ruled by the PO, was not discharged by the principal debtor of the Financial Institutions' Financial Relations Ordinance, 2001 The application had no substantive basis and did not comply with the terms of the Financial Institutions (Restoration) Ordinance 2001, as are the terms of such agreement and provision. Section 16 (3) of the Ordinance had the power to recover and reinstate the leased machinery in default condition, the High Court awarded the costs against the plaintiff and the other two defendants paid by the principal. Up against special cost of Rs 25,000
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2011
