2004 PLP 845 (CLD)
STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Fareed Khan Verdag (Attorney of the Bank)‑‑‑Appellant Versus M. Y. MALIK & COMPANY and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 845 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Fareed Khan Verdag (Attorney of the Bank)‑‑‑Appellant Versus M. Y. MALIK & COMPANY and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 845 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 845 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 845 (CLD) (STANDARD CHARTERED BANK through Fareed Khan Verdag (Attorney of the Bank)‑‑‑Appellant Versus M. Y. MALIK & COMPANY and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Asam Nazir for Appellant.
- Salim Shehnazi for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 27th January, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss.18 & 21‑‑‑Execution of decree‑‑‑Bank guarantee, furnishing of‑‑‑High Court in earlier appeal filed against decree allowed Bank to execute same and recover decretal amount from judgment‑debtor after furnishing Bank guarantee for payment of amount so recovered in accordance with judgment in such appeal‑‑‑Bank applied for execution of decree, but furnished guarantee for one year‑‑ Objection of judgment‑debtor that guarantee was not in terms of order of High Court‑‑‑Executing Court overruled objection‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Bank showed readiness to furnish guarantee in strict terms of such order‑‑‑High Court disposed of appeal with observations that Bank upon furnishing guarantee in terms of such order would be entitled to execution of decree and recover decretal amount from judgment‑debtor.
Judgment & Decree
Asam Nazir for Appellant. Salim Shehnazi for Respondent. Date of hearing: 27th January, 2003. MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑‑Both the parties filed suits for recovery of money against each other. Both the suits were decreed. After adjustment and set off respondents filed execution for recovery of Rs.4,57,967.63. Meanwhile the appellant filed Regular First Appeal No. 195 of 1995 against the decree passed in favour of the respondents. The appeal came up before a learned Division Bench of this Court on 1 1‑12‑1996, when according to both the learned counsel present following order was passed:‑‑ "The decree being a money decree, therefore, we shall allow the respondents to execute the same passed in their favour and recover the decretal amount from the appellant after furnishing Bank Guarantee for payment of the amount so recovered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in this appeal. This C.M. is disposed of". The respondents furnished a Bank Guarantee and sought execution of the decree. The appellant objected that the guarantee is not in terms of the said order rather it is only for a period of one year. Objection was overruled by the learned Executing Court vide order dated 15‑1‑1998.
2. Both the learned counsel have advanced some arguments. Learned counsel for the respondents states that his clients are ready to furnish a Bank Guarantee in strict terms of the said order dated 11‑12‑1996.
3. This being so, F.A.O. is disposed of and the respondents upon furnishing a Bank Guarantee in terms stated in the said order i.e. "for payment of the amount so recovered in accordance with the judgment of this Court in said R.F.A.", shall be entitled to execution of decree and to recover the decretal amount from the appellant. We may note here that it has been stated by the learned counsel for the respondents that the said R.F.A. filed by the appellant had been dismissed for non‑prosecution and had not been restored so far If this is so, the respondents may proceed accordingly. S.A.K./S‑600/L Order accordingly.