1968 SCMR 259 (PLP)
TRIPURA MODERN BANK. LTD — Petitioner Versus KHAN BAHADUR KHALILUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents
| Citation | 1968 SCMR 259 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ |
| Parties | TRIPURA MODERN BANK. LTD — Petitioner Versus KHAN BAHADUR KHALILUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1968 SCMR 259 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1968 SCMR 259 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Fazle-Akbar and Muhammad Yaqub Ali, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1968 SCMR 259 (PLP) (TRIPURA MODERN BANK. LTD — Petitioner Versus KHAN BAHADUR KHALILUR RAHMAN AND OTHERS-Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asraral Hossain, Senior Advocate Supreme Court instructed by Md. Nurul Hag, Senior Attorney for Petitioner.
- B. C. Bhattacharjee, Senior Advocate Supreme Court (Ismail uddin Sarkar, Advocate Supreme Court with him) instructed by dbit Backkgr, Attorney for Respondent No. 1,
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 2 to 4.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the High Court of East Pakistan, Dacca, dated the 18th August 1966, in Appeal from Original Decree No. 216 of 1959). Mortgage--Mortgaged property sold for realization of Municipal dues-Question whether even if Municipality had a first charge on mortgaged property whether it could not be sold free , from all encumbrances-Special leave to appeal granted by Supreme Court to consider question.
Judgment & Decree
FAZLE-AKBAR, J.-In this case a property under mortgage to the petitioner Bank has been sold for realisation of the dues of a Municipality. It was contended, inter alia: (i) that if the municipality had a first charge on the mortgaged property, even then it could not be sold free from all incumbrances, and (ii) that the High Court while reversing the decision of the Court did not fully consider the evidence with regard to allegation that the mortgagor brought about a collusive and fraudulent sale by keeping the Municipal tax in arrears and then purchased the property in the benami of his relation. In our opinion, these points require consideration and we accordingly grant leave to appeal as prayed. Security
Rs. 1000. Petition accepted.