1992 PLP 1272 (CLC)
EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD: ‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs FIBERS INC. and 3 others‑‑‑Defendants
| Citation | 1992 PLP 1272 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Syed Abdur Rehman, J |
| Parties | EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD: ‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs FIBERS INC. and 3 others‑‑‑Defendants |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1992 PLP 1272 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1992 PLP 1272 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Syed Abdur Rehman, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1992 PLP 1272 (CLC) (EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD: ‑‑Plaintiff Versus Messrs FIBERS INC. and 3 others‑‑‑Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S.6‑‑‑Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXXIV, R.2 & OXXXVII, R.3‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan amount‑‑‑Application to appear and defend suit‑‑‑Two of the four defendants did not apply for leave to defend and were thus liable for a decree against them forthwith‑‑‑Remaining defendants did not appear to have any plausible defence; their applications for leave to defend were dismissed‑‑‑Plaintiff's suit was decreed against all the defendants jointly and severally for a specified amount with interest till realisation of decretal amount‑‑‑Preliminary decree for mortgage was passed against guarantor/defendant‑‑‑In case decretal amount was not paid within six months, final mortgage decree would follow in respect of mortgaged property. Liaquat Merchant for Plaintiff. Pervez Akhtar for Shaikh Mir Mohammad for Defendant No.4. Nemo for Defendants Nos.1 to 3.
Judgment & Decree
Nemo for Defendants Nos.1 to
3. Date of hearing: 18th February, 1990. Defendants Nos.1 and 2 have not filed any application for leave to defend. Hence they are liable for a decree against them forthwith. On 22‑5‑1988 the following order was passed by my learned brother Mr. Justice Nasir Aslam Zahid:‑ "I have heard learned counsel for defendant No.3 and learned counsel mainly raised legal pleas as otherwise the taking of the loan by defendant No.1 firm from Dubai Bank and the rate of interest is not denied. It is also not denied by Mr. G.M. Oureshi that defendant No.3 is a partner of defendant No.1 firm, but the contention is that defendant No.3 was a sleeping partner and he had not signed any cheque or operated the account. Mr. Shaikh Mir Mohammad, Advocate for, defendant No.4 states that his client is only a guarantor and had mortgaged his property as security for the loan granted by the plaintiff‑bank and if the plaintiff Bank waives interest, defendant No.4 will settle this matter with the plaintiff Bank. Both Mr. G.M. Oureshi and Mr.,. Sheikh Mir. Mohammad want some time. Adjourned to a date in office.". For the reason shown in the above order defendants Nos.3 and 4 do not appear to have any plausible defence. Hence C.M. As. Nos. 2772 of 1987, 2896 of 1987 and 2897 of 1987 are dismissed. The plaintiff's suit is decreed against all the defendants jointly and severally for a sum of Rs.24,23,730.39 with 14% p.a. interest from 21‑9‑19W till realisation of decretal amount. A preliminary decree for mortgage is passed against the Defendant No.4 under Order 34, C.P.C. In case the decretal amount is not paid within six months, final mortgage decree shall follow in respect of the mortgaged property. Costs of the suit shall be borne by the defendants. AA./E‑54/K Suit decreed.