SCMR 1989

1989 PLP 1440 (SCMR)

Sh. MAHMOOD AHMAD Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others Respondents

Jurisdiction / Court
High Court
Decided Date
Civil Petition No.1184 of 1983, decided on 28th August, 1988.
Honorable Judges
Muhammad ,Afzal Zullah and Saad Saond Jan, JJ
Case Reference Summary (AEO Optimized)
Citation 1989 PLP 1440 (SCMR)
Forum / Court High Court
Bench Members Muhammad ,Afzal Zullah and Saad Saond Jan, JJ
Parties Sh. MAHMOOD AHMAD Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others Respondents
Primary Law Co‑operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)‑‑
💡 Quick Legal QA & Summary / سوال و جواب خلاصہ
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 1440 (SCMR)?

This judgment primarily cites: Co‑operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.

Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 1440 (SCMR)?

The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Muhammad ,Afzal Zullah and Saad Saond Jan, JJ.

Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?

Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 1440 (SCMR) (Sh. MAHMOOD AHMAD Petitioner Versus SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB and others Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.

Laws Cited

Co‑operative Societies Act (VII of 1925)‑‑

Representation

  • Ch. M. Anwar Khan, Advocate Supreme Court and Rana Maqbool Ahmad Qadri, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
  • Nemo for Respondents.
  • Date of hearing: 28th August, 1988.

Headnotes / Summary

(From the judgment, dated 9‑1‑1983 of the Lahore High Court, Lahore in W.P. No.474 of 1982). ‑‑‑Ss._S4 & 54‑A‑‑Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199 & 185(3)‑‑Petitioner invoked Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court to challenge an award against him in accordance with the Co‑operative Societies Act, 1925 in favour of a Co operative Bank‑‑Main plea of the petitioner was that by way of security for the loan he had mortgaged with the Bank his factory together with some other immovable property but that the Bank had misappropriated the sale proceeds thereof‑‑Such contention was also raised before the departmental authorities but after consideration of evidence that was rejected‑‑High Court, "l was justified to decline interference with such finding of fact.

Judgment & Decree

SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑The petitioner invoked the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court to challenge an award made against him in accordance with the provisions of the to‑operative Societies Act in favour of the Khanewal Central Co‑operative Bank Limited. His main plea was that by way of security for the loan he had mortgaged with the Bank his factory together with some other immovable property but that the Bank had misappropriated the sale proceeds thereof. This contention had been raised before the departmental authorities but after consideration of evidence was rejected. In writ jurisdiction the High Court declined to interfere with this finding of fact.

2. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner we are not persuaded that the High Court erred in not interfering with the finding of the departmental authorities. The petition is dismissed. M.B.A./M‑818/S Petition dismissed.