2006 PLP 987 (CLD)
NAJAM-US-SAQIB — Appellant Versus Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 987 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAJAM-US-SAQIB — Appellant Versus Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 987 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2006 PLP 987 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2006 PLP 987 (CLD) (NAJAM-US-SAQIB — Appellant Versus Messrs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sardar Jannat Hussain for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10 & 22
Only point canvassed before the High Court was that the Banking Court discriminated the appellant/guarantor by refusing the leave to defend the suit when in similar circumstances leave was granted when the respondent/Bank had also initiated criminal proceedings
Civil liability and criminal liability were distinct and separate, and each case was to be dealt with on its own facts and circumstances
Guarantee executed in the present case, was not disputed
No contentious point of fact and law having been raised by the appellant, Banking Court had rightly dismissed the application for leave to defend the suit and granted the decree in, favour of the Bank.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant is guarantor for the redemption of the loan availed by respondent No.2 from respondent No.l. The only point canvassed before us was that the learned Banking Court discriminated the appellant by refusing the leave to defend the suit when in similar circumstances leave was granted when respondent No.1 had also initiated criminal proceedings. Civil liability and criminal liability are distinct and separate, each case is to be dealt with on its facts and circumstances. In the instant case, the guarantee executed by the appellant is not disputed. In these circumstances no contentions point of fact and law was raised. The trial Court has rightly dismissed the application for leave to defend and granted the decree in favour of the respondent No.l. Consequently, the appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. M.B.A./N-12/K Appeal dismissed.