2003 PLP 1036 (CLD)
Messrs RADIX CHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED through Director — Appellant Versus Messrs TOP GROWERS CHEMICAL NEWTWORK through Chief Executive and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2003 PLP 1036 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs RADIX CHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED through Director — Appellant Versus Messrs TOP GROWERS CHEMICAL NEWTWORK through Chief Executive and another — Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 1036 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2003 PLP 1036 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 1036 (CLD) (Messrs RADIX CHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED through Director — Appellant Versus Messrs TOP GROWERS CHEMICAL NEWTWORK through Chief Executive and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Masood Sabir for Respondent No.2.
- 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that his client will only follow .the orders of the Court, as the case may be.
Headnotes / Summary
O. VII, R.2 & O.XXXIX, Rr.1, 2
Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.126
Suit for recovery of money with a prayer that the other parties be restrained to encash the Bank Guarantee till the final disposal of the suit
Validity-- Bank guarantee being an independent contract from the original contract the same could not be restrained from being encashed to enforce the terms of an earlier contract.
Judgment & Decree
Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Appellant. Ch. Muhammad Masood Sabir for Respondent No.2. Date of hearing: 22nd April, 2003. Brief facts of the case are that respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.54,25,000 against the present petitioner. Alongwith the suit he filed an application for stay, whereby, it was prayed that the petitioner and respondent No.2 may be restrained to encash the Bank Guarantee of Rs.4,00,000 till the final disposal of the suit. This application was contested by the present petitioner. However, vide order dated 8-11-2002, the learned trial Court granted the application filed by respondent No. 1 and directed that during the pendency of the suit, the bank guarantee shall not be encashed. This order is being assailed through the instant F.A.O.
2. The service of respondent No.1 has been got effected through registered post A.D. The receipt of the same has been received back. He has also been served through OCS. Nobody has entered appearance on his behalf. He is, therefore, proceeded against ex parte.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends on the strength of 2000 UC 53 (M/s. Pioneer Cables Ltd. v. WAPDA, etc.) and 1996 UC 367 (Power Engineering and Construction Company Limited v. The Board of Trustees of the Port of Karachi) that the Bank Guarantee being an independent contract from the original contract which is under litigation, its encashment cannot be restrained to enforce the terms of an earlier contract.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that his client will only follow .the orders of the Court, as the case may be.
5. I have considered the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties.
6. Admittedly, in view of the law referred by the learned counsel for the appellant, since a bank guarantee is a separate contract from the original contract, the same cannot be restrained from being encashed to enforce the terms of an earlier contract, therefore, the order passed by the learned trial Court dated 8-11-2002, is set aside and the direction to restrain the encashment of bank guarantee is re-called. This appeal is accordingly allowed and disposed of in the above terms. No order as to costs. M.B.A./R-228/L Order accordingly.