HABIB BANK LTD. THROUGH ASSETS MANAGEMENT (ARM) INTERNATIONAL DIVISION versus MUHAMMAD NAVEED SOOMAR
Section 7 (1) (a), Ordinance of Companies 9 and 10 (XLVII of 1984), Section 316 Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), Section 13, on the basis of a prior foreign judgment obtained against it by the switch bank. Sue to recover the loan amount from the guarantee. Leave to defend the case, the defendant's plea was that the case was not upheld on the basis of such a decision not being on merit. The principal borrower had resigned under the Companies Ordinance 1984 and the liquidator had filed a claim against the company. And that according to the law of Pakistan, the original case was timely barred and thus it was not appropriate to maintain the present case on the basis of such judgment because the defendant was not present before the foreign judgment was justified. Was approved, thus the decision could not be presented as a decision. A good foreign judgment did not show, whether the defendant was living in a foreign country at the relevant time and whether any attempt was made to serve him personally, in the foreign case, no notice was sent to the levieder. It was not submitted that he had obtained a foreign judgment by pressing the bank to represent the company. The company's exception was a foreign country resident and did not submit to the jurisdiction of the foreign court. Therefore, the foreign verdict was not binding, the court in Pakistan may refuse to accept the foreign verdict. If it comes to a decision within. With the exception of Section 13, the CPC defendant raised substantial questions about the law and the facts which led to the racketeering of the evidence.
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2009
