2004 PLP 391 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ SHAFIQUE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch, Manager and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 391 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ SHAFIQUE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch, Manager and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 391 (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 2004 PLP 391 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 391 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD IMTIAZ SHAFIQUE and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch, Manager and 6 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Haq Nawaz Chattha for Appellants.
- Mushtaq Mehdi Akhtar for Respondent No. 1.
- Sajid Mehmood Sheikh for Respondent No.5.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.17 & 22‑‑‑Appeal against decree for recovery of loan amount‑‑‑Appellant (Guarantor) stated that principal debtor had applied to Bank to write off balance decretal amount, and in case same was written off, then no further amount would be payable by appellant‑‑‑Counsel for Bank admitted such facts‑‑‑Appellant for time being did not press appeal and reserved his right that if balance was not written off to principal debtor, he might apply for revival of appeal to be decided on merits‑‑‑High Court disposed of appeal. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents.
Judgment & Decree
Haq Nawaz Chattha for Appellants. Mushtaq Mehdi Akhtar for Respondent No.
1. Sajid Mehmood Sheikh for Respondent No.5. Nemo for the Remaining Respondents. Regular First Appeals Nos.187 of 2002 and 179 of 2002, are being disposed of together, as both involve common question of law and facts.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants states, that the principal debtor, has applied to the Bank for the write off of certain decretal amount, which matter is yet pending consideration with the Bank. In case, the write off is granted to the principal debtor, obviously, no recovery shall be enforced against the present appellants, who are the guarantors.
3. Learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank states, that the matter for the write off of the balance amount of the decree is yet pending with the head office of the Bank, thus, if the write off is granted to the appellants, no further amount shall be claimed from the appellants.
4. In the light of the above, learned counsel for the appellants, does not press this appeal for the time being, and reserves his right, if the write off is refused to the principal debtor, he may apply for the revival of this appeal to be disposed of on merits. Accordingly, both the appeals are disposed of. S.A.K./M‑1738/L Order accordingly.