93/2011 Suit.B BURJ BANK LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S M/S. PAK HY-OILS LTD. & OTHERS (Defendant)

Sindh High Court2016

Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author)

Share on WhatsApp
93/2011 Suit.B BURJ BANK LTD. (Plaintiff) V/S M/S. PAK HY-OILS LTD. & OTHERS (Defendant) Sindh High Court Bench: Hon'ble Chief Justice Mr. Justice Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui(Author) Order Date: 19-FEB-16 The Facility Advising Letter was subsequent to the Murahaba Facility Agreement dated 01.6.2010 these Murahaba Facilities are to be established independently as being separate and independent transactions. Certainly the agreement in relation thereto does provide a mechanism, method and a way in case of dispute however as to the disbursement of amount and availment of fund, it could independently be established through Murahaba transactions which in the present case have not been denied except it is claimed that all previous debt prior to June, 2010 stood paid and that these Murahaba transactions have not been based on any Finance Agreement. The set of documents provided by the plaintiff is sufficient to ascertain (i) the principal amount, (ii) the profit payable, (iii) transaction debt and (iv) the maturity date. Thus in my view this could hardly constitute a ground to grant leave in this suit since the finance otherwise is established and nothing would turn on the contention that the stamp endorsed on some of the documents were subsequent to the agreement which documents were earlier used with some different dates as the contents of the guarantee itself is sufficient. The plaintiff would have gained nothing by endorsing such stamps on those documents as text of guarantees speaks itself. The contents of the guarantee relates to a Finance Agreement or any supplemental thereto thus these transaction of Murahaba Facility though are supplement to the earlier agreement and Facility Advising Letter so also these guarantees cannot be said to be limited only to the extent of date prior to the 2010. These contentions of the learned Counsel for the defendant do not constitute a substantial question of law and facts. Advocates: Rasheed A Akhund(ADVO-145-SBC-KHI),Ijaz Ahmed Zahid(ADVO-11135-SBC-KHI),Syed Aijaz Hussain Shirazi(ADVO-8688-SBC-KHI),Rabel Zeeshan Akhund(ADVO-13089-SBC-KHI),Waleed Rehan Khanzada(ADVO-14977-SBC-KHI)
Full judgment text for this case is not yet available on Pakistan Law Reports. Check the official Sindh High Court case law portal for the complete order.
This judgment is reproduced from a publicly available source for informational purposes and does not constitute legal advice. If you believe this listing contains an error, let us know.

Related judgments

Red Notices against Foreign National Proclaimed Offender

PLJ 2024 Karachi 138 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2024

Judgment on Punjab Partition of Immovable Property Act 2012

PLJ 2023 Karachi 124 (DB) · Sindh High Court · 2023

Domestic Violence (Prevention and Protection) Act 2013 explained in a Judgment

PLJ 2022 Cr.C. (Note) 154 · Sindh High Court · 2022

Article 140- Cross Examination of a Witness

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020

Re-Examination is more important than Examination in Chief

PLJ 2020 · Sindh High Court · 2020