2005 PLP 1543 (CLD)
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Appellant Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1543 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Appellant Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1543 (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 2005 PLP 1543 (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: 2005 PLP 1543 (CLD) (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Appellant Versus GHULAM MURTAZA and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Rab Nawaz Niazi for Respondents Nos. 1 and 2.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Banking Court decreed suit, but declined to award liquidated damages to the Bank
View taken by Chairman, Banking Tribunal in his judgment was not shown to have been suffering from any misreading of record or same was contrary to law
Tribunal, in declining liquidated damages, had exercised discretion on sound principles
No justification was available to interfere with the judgment of Chairman, Banking Tribunal.
Judgment & Decree
SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.
A suit to recover a sum of Rs.1,56,790 was instituted by the appellant-Bank against the respondent. It was contested by the respondent-defendant, whose stance was that the liability stood already cleared and liquidated in pursuance of the package scheme then prevailing. The learned Banking Court by taking into consideration the material on the record came to the conclusion that as against the initial loan of Rs.99,475 payment of Rs. 1,05,000 had been made by the respondent-defendant, the suit was accordingly disposed of in view of the above. He, however, declined to award liquidated damages to the appellant-plaintiff. This is appeal by the plaintiff-Bank.
2. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered the material on the record with their assistance. The view taken by the learned Chairman, Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad in his judgment dated 20-2-1995 is not shown to have been suffering from any misreading of the record or contrary to the law. In declining the liquidated damages, even the learned Tribunal exercised his discretion on sound principles. Law in that regard is almost now settled in the B precedents, i.e. Habib Bank Ltd. v. Messrs Farooq Compost Fertilizer Corporation Ltd. and 4 others 1993 MLD 1571; Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited, Faisalabad v. Messrs Asisha Garments through Proprietor and 2 others 2001 MLD 1955; Saudi-Pak Industrial and Agricultural Investment Company (Pvt.) Limited, Islamabad v. Mohib Textile Mills Limited Lahore and 3 others 2002 CLD 1170 and National Development Finance Corporation v. Messrs Millrock Quarring (Pvt.) Ltd. and 7 others 2002 CLD 1382. As a result of the above, we find no justification to interfere with the judgment of the learned Chairman, Banking Tribunal. The appeal is, accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs. H.B.T./A-752/L Appeal dismissed.