2003 PLP 278 (CLD)
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus Dr. QUDRATULLAH CHAUDHRY and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 278 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J |
| Parties | NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus Dr. QUDRATULLAH CHAUDHRY and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Tribunals Ordinance (XLVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 278 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Tribunals Ordinance (XLVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 278 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 278 (CLD) (NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION‑‑‑Appellant Versus Dr. QUDRATULLAH CHAUDHRY and 4 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Syed Mansoor Ali Shah for Appellant.
- Nasrullah Khan Baber for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th September, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 6 & 9‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.133‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan amount‑‑‑Banking Court decreed suit against principal debtor, but disallowed the claim against respondents‑guarantors on the ground that plaintiff had got executed supplementary agreements relating to finances, thus, they were not liable to pay any amount on basis of such supplementary agreements‑‑‑Contention of plaintiff was that Banking Tribunal had fallen in error as record showed that respondents had executed personal guarantees to secure even supplementary agreements ‑‑‑Validity‑‑ Guarantees executed by respondents were very much part of record available to Banking Tribunal, but same had been overlooked‑‑‑No justification for failure, of Banking Tribunal to pass decree against respondents s prayed for in the plaint‑‑‑High Court passed decree against respondents in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
Nasrullah Khan Baber for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th September, 2002. JAWWAD S. KHAWAJA, J.‑‑‑This appeal impugns the judgment and decree, dated 1‑2‑1996 passed by the learned Banking Tribunal No. 1, Faisalabad.
2. The facts of this case are straightforward. NDFC appellant/plaintiff filed a suit against the respondents for recovery of a sum of Rs.4,02,80,298.35. Messrs Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited respondent No.5 was sued in its capacity as the borrower/principal‑debtor, while the respondents Nos.1 to 4 were arrayed as defendants being guarantors to secure the liability owed to N.D.F.C. by Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited.
3. By means of the impugned judgment, a decree, as prayed for, was passed against Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited. However, the claim of NDFC against respondents Nos.1 to 4 on the basis of the personal guarantees executed by them, was not allowed. The reason given by the learned Banking Tribunal for disallowing the claim against the guarantors has been noted in paragraph 6 of the impugned judgment. The relevant part of the said paragraph is reproduced as under:‑‑ "During the course of argument that as the plaintiff has got executed supplementary agreement relating to these finances, therefore, the alleged guarantors i.e. defendants Nos.2 to 5 are not liable and responsible to pay any amount on the basis of these supplementary agreements, and the provisions of the agreement could not be invoked against the guarantors i.e. defendants Nos. 2 to 5 as this is against the provision of the Contract Act."
4. Learned counsel for NDFC has pointed out that the learned Banking Tribunal fell in error because the record shows that the respondents Nos.1 to 4 had executed personal guarantees to secure even the supplemental agreements, dated 22‑2‑1993 and 22‑3‑1993 respectively. Furthermore, the third financing facility, dated 18‑1‑1992, which was allowed to Sahi Fabrics (Pvt.) Limited, was also secured by a personal guarantee executed by the aforesaid respondents Nos. 1 to 4.
5. We have examined the guarantees executed by the aforesaid respondents and note that these guarantees were very much part of the record available to the learned Banking Tribunal but were overlooked by the said Tribunal. In these circumstances, we find no justification whatsoever for the failure of the Banking Tribunal to pass a decree against respondents Nos.1 to 4 as prayed for in the plaint filed by NDFC. In these circumstances, a decree, as prayed for, is passed against the said respondents Nos. 1 to 4 also. S.A.K./N‑235/L Order accordingly.