1989 PLP 398 (MLD)
| Citation | 1989 PLP 398 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Haider Ali Pirzada, J |
| Parties |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1989 PLP 398 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1989 PLP 398 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Haider Ali Pirzada, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1989 PLP 398 (MLD) (). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Muhammad Shibli for Petitioner.
- Date of hearing: 28th January, 1989.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 27(1), 43‑AA & 43‑B [as amended by Banking Companies (Amendment) Ordinance (III of 1989)]‑‑Declaration against Banking Company‑‑Extension of time‑‑Essentials‑‑Petitioner/State Bank properly explained circumstances and gave cogent reasons for not issuing declaration within prescribed time against company found transacting banking business illegally in contravention of relevant provisions of Ordinance and found receiving deposits of money from public‑ Period as prayed for by Bank to make necessary declaration against that company was extended.
Judgment & Decree
(b) directing any Bank, financial institution or person to freeze all moneys deposited with it or him on behalf of the company, firm or person or of any director manager, officer, partner or employee, agent, beneficiary or transferee of such company, form or person and deliver such moneys to the person appointed by it under clause (a); (c) authorising a person appointed under clause (a) to take all necessary steps and measures for identifying the‑ assets and properties of the company, firm of person and for realisation, protection and preservation thereof; (d) restraining any company, firm or person or any director, manager, officer, partner or employee or agent, beneficiary or transferee of such company, firm or person or their dependants or any other person deriving or claiming title through any of them from alienating, transferring, selling, assigning, disposing of or parting with possession of any property, movable or immovable, or deriving any benefit, rent or income therefrom; and (e) making such orders for realisation, protection and preservation of deposits of money and other assets and properties of the Company firm or person as it may deem fit; (2) ......................... (3) ......................... (4) ......................... By Section 9, Section 43‑B was also amended which reads as under:‑ (a) in subsection (1)‑ "(i) after the word "company", whenever occurring the comma and word, "firm" shall be inserted; (ii) after the figure and comma "27‑A, the words, figure, letter and comma "for is receiving or has received deposits of money in contravention of section 27," shall be inserted, and (iii) for the full‑stop at the end a colon shall be substituted and thereafter the following proviso shall be added, namely.‑‑ "Provided that, in a case in which the State Bank has made an order under subsection (1) of section 43‑AA in respect of a company, firm or person, the State Bank shall make a declaration under this subsection in respect of such company, firm or person within three months of the making of such order or within such further time not exceeding three months, in the aggregate, as the High Court may allow, or withdraw such order." (b) for subsection (2) the following shall be substituted, namely:‑- "(2) ...... It would appear on a plain reading of the proviso to Section 43‑B that in a case in which State Bank has made an order under subsection (1) of Section 43 -AA in respect of a company, firm or person; the State Bank shall make a declaration under this subsection in respect of such company, firm or person within such further time, not exceeding three months in the aggregate, as the High Court may allow or withdraw any such order. In my view, the petitioner has properly explained the circumstances arid has given cogent reasons for not issuing the declaration within the prescribed time. I am inclined to extend the period by three months commencing from 31‑1‑1989. In the result the petition succeeds and the time is extended as prayed. H.B.T./S‑335/K Petition allowed.