2005 PLP 1683 (CLD)
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Appellant Versus Chaudhry REHMAT ALI through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1683 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Appellant Versus Chaudhry REHMAT ALI through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1683 (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 1683 (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 1683 (CLD) (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager — Appellant Versus Chaudhry REHMAT ALI through Legal Heirs and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Waseem Majeed Malik for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. 19 dated 5-6-1997
In the matter of one of the appeals, appellant-Bank had very candidly conceded that respondents having made a deposit in accordance within the terms of State Bank's Circular No. 19 dated 5-6-1997 it had neither filed any suit nor undertaken any recovery proceedings
Appellant-Bank had filed suits for recovery of loan amounts against respondents, whereas respondents had filed suits for injunctions against appellant-Bank
Case of respondent was that State Bank's Circular No. 19 dated 5-6-1997, in terms had applied to Chairman of the Bank, who had allowed settlement and that respondents were directed to deposit principal amount plus 5% in each case and said amounts were deposited
Banking Court dismissed suits filed by the Bank and decreed suits of respondents
Contention of Bank was that Chairman, A.D.B.P., had no jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as loans did not quaky for said relief and that only seven years' old loan could be settled in said manner
All loans in case were seven years old on 5-6-1997 which was the date of Circular No. 19 and period of seven years was to be counted from dates of disbursements
No other points having been urged all appeals filed by Bank, were dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.
This judgment shall decide R.F.As. Nos. 103 to 108 of 2004 as common questions are involved.
2. Before we proceed further we may state here that the learned counsel for the appellant, in the matter of R.F.A. No. 105 of 2004, has very candidly conceded that the respondents had made a deposit in accordance with the terms of the State Bank Circular No. 19 dated 5-6-1997 and that the appellant had not filed any suit or undertaken any recovery proceedings.
3. The admitted facts of the remaining cases are that the appellants had filed suits for recovery of loan amounts against the respondents in these cases while the respondents had filed suits for injunction against the appellants. The case of the respondents was that in terms of the said State Bank circular they had applied to the Chairman of the appellant-Bank who B had allowed the settlement and consequently they were directed to deposit the principal amount + 5% in each case. Admittedly, these amounts were deposited. The learned Judge, Banking Court, consequently dismissed all the suits filed by the appellant-Bank and decreed the suits filed by the respondents in these cases. This was done vide judgments and decrees dated 15-7-1999.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the Chairman, A.D.B.P., had no jurisdiction in the matter inasmuch as the loans did not qualify for the said relief. According to the learned counsel only seven years old loan could be settled in the said manner. Learned counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, argue that all the loans are seven years old.
5. We have gone through the records. We find that the said Circular No. 19 was issued on 26-11-1997. The dates of disbursement of the loan amounts are as follows:-- (i) R.F.A. No. 103 of 2004 26-1-1987 (ii) R.F.A. No. 104 of 2004 2-8-1988 (iii) R.F.A. No. 105 of 2004 8-12-1984 (iv) R.F.A. No. 106 of 2004 27-4-1989 (v) R.F.A. No. 107 of 2004 27-4-1989 (vi) R.F.A. No. 108 of 2004 26-1-1987
6. There is no dispute that the period of seven years is to be counted from the said dates of disbursements. It is a matter of simple arithmetic that all the loans were seven years old on 5-6-1997. No other point has been urged. All these R.F.As. are accordingly dismissed without any orders as to costs.
7. The records of the learned Banking Court be remitted back immediately. H.B.T./A-298/L Appeals dismissed.