1989 PLP 968 (MLD)
SAGHIR AHMAD WARSI‑‑Appellant Versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1989 PLP 968 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Ajmal Mian and Ahmad Ali U. Qureshi, JJ |
| Parties | SAGHIR AHMAD WARSI‑‑Appellant Versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 968 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 968 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Ajmal Mian and Ahmad Ali U. Qureshi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 968 (MLD) (SAGHIR AHMAD WARSI‑‑Appellant Versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Ali Jan for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Industrial Development Bank Ordinance (XXXI of 1961)‑‑ ‑‑‑S.39‑‑Appellant alleging commission of acts of mis‑feasance and non feasanance on the part of Bank, having failed to tender any evidence in support of his averment, Bank's application under S.39, held, was rightly granted. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑ ‑‑‑Art.2‑A‑‑Industrial Development Bank Ordinance (XXXI of 1961), S,39‑ Simpliciter enforcement of Shariah Ordinance, held, would not nullify loan agreement entered into between parties. Messrs Bank of Oman Ltd. v. Messrs East Trading Co., Ltd. and others PLD 1987 Kar. 404 ref.
Judgment & Decree
AJMAL MIAN, J.--‑This appeal is directed against the two orders, dated 25‑5‑1988 and 30‑5‑1988 passed by the Hon'ble Chief Justice in J. Mist. NoS8 of 1987 ordering attachement and sale of the property in terms of section 39 of the Industrial Development Bank Ordinance, 1961, hereinafter referred to as the Ordinance. The appellant being aggrieved by the above orders has filed the present appeal. , . ,
2. In support of the above appeal Mr. Muhammad Ali tan learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the liability to repay the loan would have arisen after the commencement of the production in the factory and since the production could not be commenced on account of acts of mis‑feasance and non feasance committed by the respondents, the respondents were not entitled to invoke section 39 of the Ordinance. I will suffice to observe that from the orders under appeal, it is evident that though in the written statement the appellant made averement as to the commission of acts of mis‑feasance and non‑feasance by the respondent bet no evidence was tendered in support of the above allegation this view of the matter, we are inclined to hold that the learned Chief Justice has rightly granted the respondent's aforesaid application under section 39 of the Ordinance.
3. Then it was contended by Mr. Muhammad Ali Jan Advocate that in any case after the enforecement of the Sharaih Ordinance, no interest can be charged. Reliance has been placed on the case of Messrs Bank of Oman Ltd. v. Messrs East Trading Co. Ltd. and others reported in PLD 1987 Kar. 404, in which a learned SIngle Judge of this Court while dealing with an interlocutory application, hold that in view of Article 2A of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan, 1973, the interest cannot be charged. In this behalf it may be observed that simpliciter enforcement of the Shariah Ordinance would not nullify the loan Agreement entered into between the parties. As regards the above order of the learned Single Judge, it will suffice to observe that the matter is under appeal and the stay has been granted.
4. The above appeal has no merits and, therefore, it is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./S‑318/K Appeal dismissed.