Al Wakeelo
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Your Digital Lawyer, Always on Duty
Initializing Secure Chambers
Petitioner: BANK ALFALAH LIMITED VS Respondent: Syed ZULFIQAR ALL RIZVI and 3 others
Court Name: Sindh High Court Judge(s): Aziz-ur-Rehman Title: BANK ALFALAH LIMITED vs Syed ZULFIQAR ALL RIZVI and 3 others Case No.: Suit No. B-130 of 2009 Date of Judgment:2015-08-06 Reported As: 2016 CLD 618 Result: Suit decreed
JUDGMENT
JUDGMENT AZIZ-UR-REHMAN, J.---The present suit has been filed under section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 for Recovery of US $ 5,204,346.77 along with Cost of Funds, Cost of Charges, Costs till the date of realization of the whole amount with the following prayers:- 1. for payment and recovery of sum of US $ 5,204,346.77 together with future mark-up at the applicable rate. 2. for permanent injunction restraining the Defendant jointly and severally, their employees, agents or any other person acting for and on their behalf directly and/or indirectly from selling, alienating, disposing of or creating third party rights in any manner whatsoever in respect of the Pledged Rice and Mortgaged Properties Nos. 1 to 3. 3. for sale of the Mortgaged Property as mentioned in Para 5(i) to (iii) above. 4. for sale of the Pledged Rice as mentioned in Para 5(iv) above. 5. for payment of cost of funds in terms of section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 on the aforesaid suit amount from the date of default till the date of realization. 6. the suit may kindly be decreed with all other costs, charges and expenses incurred by the Plaintiff during the pendency of the suit. 7. to grant any other relief(s) which the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of this case. 2. The brief relevant facts are as under:- 3. The Plaintiff is a Banking Company duly incorporated under the Companies Ordinance, 1984 [XLVII of 1984], having its' registered office at BA Building LI. Chundrigar Road, Karachi and a Branch
---
## Page 2
known aS Paper Market Branch Karachi, wherefrom it is carrying on its 'banking business'. The present suit has been filed through Muhammad Tariq lawaid son of Abdul Majeed and Syed Sajid Ali Shah son of Syed Hamid Ali Shah who are the authorized attorneys of the Plaintiff Bank and as such are well conversant with the facts of the case. Besides, they are duly authorized to sign, verify the plaint, Institute the suit and also do all such other acts, deeds, which are necessary and incidental thereto. 4. The Defendant No.1 besides a guarantor as averred, is carrying on his business in the name and style of Zulfiqar Trading Corporation [In short ZTC] as being sole Proprietorship concern of Defendant No.1 viz. Syed Zulfiqar Ali Rizvi, having its' place ot business at Room Nos.6, 7 and 8 Al- Yousuf Chamber, New Challi Karachi, while Defendant No.2 iS mortgagor, Defendant No.3 is duly constituted attorney of Defendant No.2, Defendant No.4 besides mortgagor is a guarantor and Defendant No.5, is a person in whose custody the pledged rice is lying. 5. Per assertions, on the request, representation and guarantee of the Defendants the Plaintiff from time to time extended various finance facility[ies] to Defendant No. 1 's proprietorship concern, i.e. a finance facility of US $ 5,000,000/- under AGREEMENTS FOR FINANCING FOR SHORT/MEDIUM/LONG TERMS ON MARK-UP BASIS dated April 17, 2006 [Annexure 'B-2' to the Plaint] and December 14, 2007 [Annexure 'B-3' to the Plaint]. In order to secure the aforesaid finance facility, the Defendants Nos.2 and 4 created mortgages over their immovable properties described and detailed as below in favour of the Plaintiff Bank:- (i) A mortgage by deposit of title deeds of Plot No.108/16, Survey Sheet No.35-P/1, measuring 840 square yards, Block 3, Bahadur Yar Jung Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi [Mortgaged property No.1] situated within registration of District and Sub-District Karachi created by Defendant No.2. (it) A mortgage by deposit of title deeds of Plot No.109/16, Survey Sheet No.35-P/1, measuring 835 square yards, Block 3, Bahadur Yar Jung Cooperative Housing Society, Karachi [Mortgaged property No.2] situated within registration of district and sub-district Karachi created by Defendant No.2. (iii) A mortgaged by deposit of title deeds of Double storey bungalow on Plot No.95, measuring 2000 square yards, Khayaban-e Ghazi, Phase VI, DHA Karachi [Mortgaged Property No.3] situated within registration of District and sub-district Karachi, created by Defendant No.4. 6. The Defendant No.1 as being sole proprietor of Zulfiqar Trading Corporation, apart from signing and executing the aforesaid 'finance agreements', 'Demand Promissory Notes' of April 17, 2006 and December 26, 2007 etc. also signed and executed letter of guarantee in his personal capacity dated December 14, 2007 [Annexure 'F' to the Plaint]. Likewise, Defendant No.4, in order to secure the Finance Facility granted to and availed by Defendant No. 1, signed and executed letter of guarantee dated May 29, 2009 [Annexure 'F-1' to the Plaint]. Besides, Defendant No. 1, pledged its' rice through pledged letters [Annexures 'D' and 'D-1' to the Plaint] with the Plaintiff Bank as security for securing the finance facility availed by Defendant No.1 and for the discharge of the agreed contractual obligations. 7. The finance facility in the sum of US $ 5,000,000/- granted to the Defendant No.1, was fully availed and utilized by Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1, however, in breach of the mutually agreed 'terms' and 'conditions' inter alia as per annexed documents, failed and/or avoided to repay the outstanding amount to the Plaintiff Bank. For and in view of such failure, the Plaintiff Bank while, re calling the aforesaid finance facility also served three demand notices under Section 15[2] of the Financial Institutions [Recovery of Finances] Ordinance, 2001 dated February 12, 2009, March 12, 2009 and April 2, 2009, upon the Defendant No. 2 in his capacity as being mortgagor regarding sale of the 'mortgaged properties Nos.1 and 2' in of section 15 of F.1.0., 2001.
---
## Page 3
8. Nevertheless, instead of Making payment, the Defendant No.2 as averred with 'mala fide intention' and 'ulterior motives' to delay and/or avoid the repayments of the outstanding dues filed Suit Na. B-54 of 2009 [Muhammad Irfan through his registered Attorney Aurangzeb v. Bank Al-Falah Ltd.] against the Plaintiff Bank and Defendant No.1 herein for rendition, declaration, settlement of accounts and permanent injunction along with a stay application. The Plaintiff herein besides, filing APPLICATION FOR LEAVE TO DEFEND THE SUIT, had also filed 'counter affidavit' in opposition of the stay application in Suit No.B-54 of 2009. The Court, however, was pleased to restrain both the Defendants in Suit No 54 of 2009 i.e. Bank Al-Falah Ltd. and Syed Zulfiqar Ali [who are Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 hereinabove from creating any 3rd party interest in the mortgaged proper No.1 and 2 belonging of Defandant No.2 herein viz. Muhammad Irfan Pursuant to filling of the aforesaid Suit No. B-54 pf 2009 Muhammad Irfan v. Bank Al-falah and another, the defendant No.1 herein nonetheless entered into a Settlement Agreement dated May 25, 2009 [Annexure 'I' to the plaint] with the Plaintiff Bank herein whereby, it was agreed that the entire outstanding liability will be settled on or before July 31, 2009. The defandant No.1 however failed and/or avoided to pay the outstanding dues even in accordance with aforesaid Settlement Agreement. The Plaintiff Bank despite giving several opportunities to the Defendant for the repayment of the outstanding amount , however failed and/or avoided to discharge their contractual obligation. The failure of the Defandant to liquidate the outstanding dues owed to the plaintiff Bank per plaintiff stand it tantamounts to refusal on the part of the defandant. 9. The BREAK-UP-SUMMARY of the outstanding liability of the Defendants, inspect of finance facility grantee to and availed by the Defendant No.1, as required in terms of section 9[3] of the Financial Institutions [Recovery of Finances] Ordinance, 2001, is as follows:- [a]Amount of Finance Availed/disbursed to Defendant No.1US $ 7,648,930.00 [b]Amount repaidUS .$ 3,556,838.58
PrincipalUS $ 2,853,827.00 Mark-up US $ 703,011.58 [c]Amount Overdueu's $ 5,204,346.80
PrincipalUS $ 4,795,103.00 Mark-up US $ 412,243.77 [d]Total amount payableUS $ 5,204,346.77 10. Per Plaintiffs version if, the Defendants had paid the outstanding amount on the dates when they were called-upon to make payment then of course, the Plaintiff Bank would have made profit on the outstanding amounts by advancing the same onwards. On account of non-payment of the outstanding amounts, the Plaintiff Bank was thus exposed to suffer losses of profit/income on the outstanding amounts. The Plaintiff Bank, as per its' version, is entitled to the grant of mark-up on the outstanding amounts. 11. On filing of the suit, process under section 9[5] of F.I.O., 2001, was issued to the Defendants by all the requisite modes including publications in Newspapers i.e. Daily 'Dawn' English Karachi and Daily Jang' Karachi, both dated 17.09.2009. In response, the Defendants Nos.1, 3 and 5 filed their Leave to Defend Applications respectively as follows:-
---
## Page 4
[i] CMA No. 9567 of 2009 [ii] CMA No. 9568 of 2009 [iii] CMA No. 9569 of 2009 12. In response to the aforesaid 'LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATIONS', 'REPLICAS' on behalf of the Plaintiff Bank, were also ' filed. As far as Defendants Nos.2 and 4 are concerned, they in their 'own wisdom' did not file any Leave to Defend Application[s], as such against them the allegations of fact in the plaint shall be deemed as admitted in terms of section 10[1] of F.I.O., 2001. For ready reference section 10[1] of F.I.O., 2001 is reproduced here-in-below:- "10. Leave to defend.---(1) In any case in which the summons has been served on the defendant as provided for in subsection (5) of section 9, the defendant shall not be entitled to defend the suit unless he obtains from the Banking Court as hereinafter provided to defend the same; and, in default of his doing so, the allegations of fact in the plaint shall be deemed to be admitted and the Banking Court may pass a decree in favour of the plaintiff on the basis thereof or such other material as the Banking Court may require in the interests of justice." [Underlining is mine]. 13. On 25.05.2015, the LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION bearing CMA No.9569 of 2009 filed by Defendant No.5, was dismissed as 'infructuous' in view of the fact that against Defendant No.5, the 'ABOVE SUIT' was 'NOT PRESSED' by the Plaintiff Bank. Being relevant, order dated 25.05.2015 is reproduced here-in-below:- 1. FOR HEARING OF CMA 8632/2010 2. FOR HEARING OF CMA 8329/2009 3. FOR HEARING OF CMA 9567/2009 4. FOR HEARING OF CMA 9568/2009 5. FOR HEARING OF CMA 9569/2009 6. FOR HEARING OF CMA 273/2010 7. FOR HEARING OF CMA 3553/2014 25.05.2015 Mr. Aijaz Hussain Sheerazi advocate for plaintiff Mr. Zeeshan advocate holding brief for Mr. Asim Mansoor advocate for defendant No.1 Mr. Khalid Lateef advocate for defendant No.2 Mr. Faiz H Shah advocate for defendant No.3 Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi advocate for defendant No.5 along with Mr. Farhatullah advocate Against defendant No.5, the learned counsel for plaintiff does not press suit. Accordingly, the suit against defendant No.5 is dismissed as withdrawn. In view of withdrawal of suit against defendant No.5 leave to defend application bearing CMA No.9569/2009 has become infructuous. Accordingly, the same stands disposed off Plaintiff is consequently directed to file 'amended title' within two days. The statement filed today on behalf of the defendant No.5 dated 25.5.2015 which also bears the endorsement of the learned counsel for the plaintiff to the effect that plaintiff is not pressing the suit against defendant No.5 is taken on record. Both learned counsel for defendant No.3 and the plaintiff today have have been heard on CMA No.9668/2009 being an application under section 10 of F.I.0., 2001. For reply in rebuttal of the learned counsel for defendant No.3, however, the matter is adjourned to 28.5.2015, to be taken up 11.00 a.m." 14. In the LEAVE 'TO DEFEND APPLICATIONS [i.e. CMA No.9567 of 2009 and CMA No.9568 of 2009] besides raising various pleas, a 'common prayer' for grant of un-conditional Leave to Defend the above suit has also been sought. The gist of the pleas raised by Defendants Nos.1 and 3 in their have-to-Defend Applications respectively are as follows:-
---
## Page 5
1. CMA NO.9367 OF 2009: i-a. In the 'LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION' filed by Defendant No.1, it was denied that the Plaintiff Bank has any 'cause of action' as alleged against the Defendant No.1. The breach of any obligation i.e. contractual or otherwise, was also denied. The factum of creation of mortgage of the mortgaged properties was not denied, however, it was averred that the mortgaged properties needs to be released as now there REMAINS NOTHING to be recovered from Defendant No.1. On account of refusal to sell the 'pledged. Rice', the Defendant No.1 in its' leave to defend application bearing CMA No.9567 of 2009, has also alleged SUFFERING OF LOSSES. The execution of 'Finance Agreements' in April, 2006 and December, 2007 has not been denied by Defendant No.1. The Defendant No.1 also admits the 'SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT' dated 25th May, 2009. i-b. Per Defendant No.l's assertion, despite provision of additional security, the Plaintiff Bank with mala fide intention had backtracked from its' legal obligation of releasing the whole stock of 'pledged rice' and issuing the delivery orders in respect thereof. Besides, it was alleged that the plaintiff Bank had wrongly ADJUSTER, the repayments made by the defendant No.1 towards on markup' and 'markup beyond the scope of initial finance agreement' [Annexure 'B-2' to the Plaint]. According to Defendant No.1 's stand such act of the Plaintiff Bank is contrary to both INJUNCIMNS OF ISLAM and law. i-c. In the leave to defend application, facilities from . the plaintiff Bank amongst other financial institutions, however, has not been denied by the defendant No.1. Per defendant No.l's stand, the 'PLEDGED RICE' due to un-professional and ill-attitude of the Plaintiff Bank, COULD NOT BE SOLD in time as such, the Defendant No.1 suffered huge losses on account of deterioration of value of pledged goods, loss in revenue and profit inter alia due to loss of contracts, loss of future contracts and loss of goodwill regarding which now the counterblast Suit No.B-182 of 2009 [Syed Zulfiqar Ali Rizvi v. Bank Al-Falah Limited] is pending. Further, the demand of the Plaintiff Bank for more properties as security and that too before issuing of 'delivery orders' for the 'whole stock of pledged rice' as per Defendant No.l's stand, was also illegal and unjustified.i-d. Per defendant No.1 's version, the quality of 'pledged rice' was since going from bad to worse as such, the defendant No.1 under severe pressure was constrained to sell the same so that to minimize the losses. The LESS, DAMAGED 'pledged rice' under circumstances, were sold in local market. From the sale proceeds thereof, according to Defendant No.1, an amount of about 8 to 9 crones rupees was paid to the Plaintiff Bank. i.e. The lodging of FIR against defendant No.1 for about 77000 stolen bags of 'pledged rice' was not denied by the Defendant No.1, however, in 'LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION', it was averred that during investigation, the COMPLAINT filed by the Plaintiff Bank has already been declared as false, bogus and cancelled in Clause-'A'. According to the Defendant No.l's stand, the plaintiff Bank is not entitled to any of the reliefs as claimed in the suit. Rather, the Defendants who have raised very SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS OF FACTS and law deserve to be granted un-conditional leave to defend the suit. CMA No. 9568/2009: ii-a. Per Defendant No.3's version, since finance facility has been provided by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 against the security of 'PLEDGED RICE' and 'PERSONAL GUARANTEE' of Defendant No.1 etc., therefore, Defendant No.3 is not liable to pay any amount to the Plaintiff Bank. Defendant No.3, in his 'LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATION' bearing CMA No.9568 of 2009, besides admitting the execution of two 'DEEDS OF MORTGAGES', [Annexure 'C-2' and 'C-3' to the Plaint], however, to the extent of securing Rs.2,50,000/- has also acknowledged the 'SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT' [Annexure 'I' to the Plaint], having been signed and executed between the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1 on 25th May, 2009. Besides, the 'MDOT Deeds' [Annexures 'C' and 'C-1' to the Plaint] for securing an amount upto Rs.350,000,000/- were also admitted.
---
## Page 6
ii-b. The Defendant No.3 as averred, is not at all liable to pay/repay any money to the Plaintiff Bank. The execution of 'Deeds of Mortgage' and 'Memoranda of Deposit of Title Deeds', per Defendant No.3' stand, have been subsequently ENGINEERED and MANUFACTURED as such these documents beside meaningless are liable to be released/redeemed. The claim of the Plaintiff Bank that the 'Deeds of Mortgage' was executed for creating 'security' is false, concocted and also seems an attempt to usurp the mortgaged properties. Neither, the Defendant No.2 has given his consent to creation of mortgage of properties as additional securities nor otherwise, in the registered 'DEEDS OF MORTGAGE'/'MEMORANDUM OF DEPOSIT OF TITLE DEEDS', it has been mentioned as 'additional securities' for the previous liability of Defendant No. 1 . The Defendant No.3, in absence of any agreement/contract, is not liable to pay or repay any amount whatsoever to the Plaintiff Bank. ii-c. According to Defendant No.3, the plaintiff [Bank] and Defendant No.1, no doubt, had entered into a Finance Agreement of 17.4.2006 and in pursuance thereof, a finance to the extent of US $ 5,000,000/-, was also advanced to and availed by the Defendant No.1 but apparently against the securities of 'PERSONAL GUARANTEES' and 'PLEDGE GOODS OF RICE'. In term of the Finance Agreement dated 17.4.2006 [Annexure 'B2' to the Plaint], the 'PURCHASE PRICE' was payable by the customer to the Plaintiff Bank on or before 28.02.2007. The factum of another Finance Agreement dated 14,12.2007 [Annexure 'B-3' to the Plaint] duly signed and executed between the Plaintiff Bank and Defendant No.1, has also not been denied. Under the finance agreement of 14.12.2007, the 'PURCHASE PRICE' in the sum of US $ 5,673,000/-, was payable on or before 31.3.2008. According to the Defendant No.3's stand, two registered 'MORTGAGED DEEDS' for Rs.2,50,000/- [Rupees Two Hundred Fifty Thousand only] one each have also been executed. Per the said 'Mortgage Deeds', the agreed liability of the mortgagor is to the extent of Rs.2,50,000/- only [Rupees Two lacs Fifty Thousand only] and not above that amount as being claimed by the Plaintiff Bank in the instant Suit. The 'MDOT Deeds' [Annexures 'C' and 'C-1' to the Plaint] for securing upto a sum of Rs.350,000,000/- , however, have not been denied. ii-d. According to Defendant No.3's version, finance facility advanced by the Plaintiff to the Defendant No.1 under finance agreement dated 17.4.2006, is only against the security of 'pledged Rice' that was lying under the 'custody' and 'control' of the Plaintiff Bank. The Plaintiff Bank, as alleged by the Defendant No.3, in collusion with the Defendant No.!, did remove the 'pledged Rice' of high value i.e. Rs.21,000/- per Metric Ton. The 'pledged value' of 'Rice' as per Defendant No.3's version, is Rs.14,500/- per Metric Ton only. ii-e. The Plaintiff Bank, with a view to grab the precious immovable properties without lawful authority and justification has impleaded the Defendant No.3 in his personal capacity in the present suit. According to Defendant No.3's stand, despite notice for 'non-advancing' any amount to Defendant No.1, the Plaintiff Bank did advance huge amount to the Defendant No.1 obviously in violation of the instructions given to the Plaintiff Bank vide Defendant No.3's letter of February 1, 2009. ii-f. The Defendant No.3, under such circumstances, filed Suit No. B-54/2009 [Muhammad Irfan through his Registered Attorney Aurangzeb v. Bank Al-Falah Ltd.] before this Court wherein-the Plaintiff Bank, was restrained from creating any 3rd party's interest in the mortgaged properties pursuant to Plaintiff Bank's notices under Section 15 of FIO, 2001, regarding properties belonging to the Defendant No.2 herein viz. Muhammad Irfan. The 'SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT' dated 25.5.2009 [Annexure 'I' to the Plaint], per Defendant No.3's stand, does nothing with Defendant No.3 herein. According to Defendant No.3 [who is attorney of Defendant No.2] herein, the Plaintiff and Defendant No.1/principal customer, in actual fact, are acting in collusion and in connivance with each other. The Defendant No.3, as alleged, is not liable to pay or repay any amount much-less pursuant to execution of Mortgage Deeds/Memoranda of Deposit of Title Deeds on 14.12.2007, as no any amount as alleged has been provided to the Defendant No. 1. The liability if any, pertains to the
---
## Page 7
earlier finance agreement of 17.4.2006 [Annexure 'B-2' to the Plaint] which, as far as the instant claim of Plaintiffs is concerned seems irrelevant and frivolous. ii-g. Per Defendant No.3's stand, the allegations of 'REMOVAL' of the 'pledged Rice', meant for securing the entire liability under the Finance Agreement dated 17.4.2006, NON-DISBURSEMENT of any finance facility by the Plaintiff under the subsequent Finance Agreement dated 14.12.2007 and for the 'reason that the security provided as per registered 'DEEDS OF MORTGAGE', is only to THE EXTENT OF Rs.2,50,000/-, the Defendant No.3 for the reasons mentioned in the LEAVE-TO DEFEND APPLICATION, per learned counsel for Defendant No.3, is entitled 'FOR THE GRANT OF LEAVE TO DEFEND THE SUIT', as Defendant No.3, his not only raised 'SUBSTANTIAL QUESTIONS' of facts but also substantial questions of law. The Defendant No.3, who is attorney of Defendant No.2, has prayed for granting 'UN-CONDITIONAL LEAVE TO DEFEND THE SUIT' to him otherwise, the Defendant No.3 as agreed shall be seriously prejudiced. 15. In response to aforesaid 'LEAVE TO DEFEND APPLICATIONS', the Plaintiff Bank, has also filed 'REPLICAS' thereto wherein, Defendants Nos.1 and 3's averments and assertions contrary to the Plaintiffs stand, have been specifically denied. 16. On 28.05.2015, when the above case came-up before the Court then the following order was passed: 1. For hearing of CMA 8632/10 2. For hearing of CMA 8329/09 3. For hearing of CAM 9567/09 4. For hearing of CMA 9568/09 5. For hearing of CMA 273/10 6. For hearing of CMA 3553/14 28.05.2015 Mr. Aijaz Hussain Sheerazi, Advocate for Plaintiff Mr. Asim Mansoor, Advocate for Defendant No. 1 Mr. Khalid Lateef Advocate for Defendant No. 2 Mr. Abdul Lateef Shakoor, Advocate Mr. Faiz H. Shah, Advocate for Defendant No. 3 Mr. Arif Khan, Advocate for Intervener 1, 2 & 5]. Dismissed as 'not pressed'. 3 & 4] Learned counsel for Plaintiff and contesting Defendants concluded their arguments on 'leave to defend applications' bearing CMAs Nos. 9567/09 and 9568/09. Mr. Abdul Lateef Shakoor, who is representing Defendant No.2 adopted the arguments of learned counsel for the Defendant No.3. Reserved for orders. 6]. Through this application under Order I, Rule 10, C.P.C. read with section 151, C.P.C., the Applicant/Intervener viz. Mst. Kausar Jabeen is seeking her joining in the suit as Defendant No.6 as the Applicant/Intervener's stand is that she has already entered into a sale agreement with the mortgagors in respect of Bungalow No.95, Khayaban-e-Ghazi, Phase VI, PDOHA, Karachi measuring 2000 sq. yds. The application, so made, cannot be entertained as the Applicant/Intervener is not a customer of the Plaintiff As such, cannot be jointed in the Banking Suit. [Underlining is mine]. In view of this position the application stands disposed off however, the Applicant/Intervener will be at liberty to agitate her alleged claim, if any, in terms of section 19[7] of F.I.0., 2001 in the execution proceedings." 17. Mr. Asim Mansoor Khan while, arguing 'LEAVE-TO-DEFEND APPLICATION' bearing CMA No.9567 of 2009, filed by the Defendant No.1, vehemently contended that the plaintiff bank has 'NO CAUSE OF ACTION' in its' favour against defendant No.1, as there occurs no breach of any obligation on the
---
## Page 8
part of Defendant No.1. If at all, any amount is/was found to be payable to the Plaintiff Bank then too the same be deemed as got 'SETTLED'/'SET OFF' by the AMOUNT OF DAMAGES/LOSSES caused to the Defendant No.1 by the Plaintiff Bank, inter alia, on account of refusal/non-release of the 'PLEDGED RICE'. Per learned counsel, the Plaintiff Bank was under legal obligation to have immediately released the 'pledged rice' in favour of Defendant No.1 and that too without any excuse or demand for additional security. According…
Read the unabridged text and precedent citation network on Al Wakeelo Legal Research Platform.