2008 PLP 313 (CLD)
INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BILAL AHMAD and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 313 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BILAL AHMAD and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 313 (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 2008 PLP 313 (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: 2008 PLP 313 (CLD) (INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD BILAL AHMAD and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Shafi Maye for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9, 19 & 22
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr.66 & 90
Objection petition-Appeal was filed against the order passed by executing court rejecting. the objections by the decree-holder as well as by two other objectors who offered to pay higher price, on the ground that decree-holder's objection was time-barred and other bidders' objections did not disclose substantial injury as required by O.XXI, R.90 C.P.C.
Decree-holder had objected that the terms of auction were to be finalized and approved by the executing court under O.XXI, R.66 C.P.C. and said terms must necessarily contain the reserve price of property under auction
Only question was whether the sale of the auction property below the reserve price fixed by the executing court was valid or not
Reserve price of a property under auction must be fixed with the approval of the court
Neither the Court Auctioneers nor the parties to the decree had authority to modify a duly fixed reserve price without such approval
In the present case impugned sale was finalized at a price below the reserve price fixed by the executing court without obtaining approval for the reduction of the reserve price of the property under auction
Such auction was illegal and consequently the sale concluded thereby was void
Failure by the Banking Court to consider and deal with the said illegality upon the pretext of technical objections was deprecated
Executing Court, however would sell the property under auction through a fresh auction to be conducted strictly in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J.
This appeal is filed against the order dated 8-8-2003 passed by the learned Executing Court rejecting the objections by the appellant/decree-holder as, well as by two other objectors who offered to pay higher price on the ground that the appellant's objection is time-barred and the other bidders objections did not disclose substantial injury as required by Order XXI, rule 90, C.P.C.
2. The appellant objects that the terms of auction are to be finalized and approved by the learned Executing Court under Order XXI, rule 66, P.P.C. These terms must necessarily contain the reserve price of property under auction. In the present case by order dated 18-12-2002 the learned Executing Court approved the reserve price of Rs.8 million for the property under auction. Thereafter, the auction was attempted abortively by the Court-auctioneer on 5-2-2003 and 17-2-2003. Finally on 5-3-2003, he reduced the reserve price unilaterally and finalized the auction at Rs.0.5 million, at 1/10th of the reserve price fixed by the Court. The only question before us is whether the sale of the auction property below the reserve price fixed by the learned Executing Court is valid or not.
3. It is a settled law that the reserve price of a property under auction must be fixed by the approval of the Court. Neither the Court-auctioneer nor the parties to the decree have authority to modify a duly fixed reserve price without such approval. In the present case the impugned sale dated 5-3-2003 was finalized at a price below the reserve price fixed by the learned Executing Court obtaining approval for the reduction of the reserve price of the property under auction. Such action is illegal and consequently the sale concluded thereby is void.
4. The failure by the learned Banking Court to consider and deal with the said illegality upon the pretext of technical objections is deprecated. Be that as it may be learned Executing Court shall sell the property under auction through a fresh auction to be conducted strictly in accordance with law. The learned counsel for the highest bidder, respondent No.1 submits that his client, has made investments in the property after the date of confirmation of auction. That is a matter to be considered by the learned Executing Court for the purposes of compensation, if at all. In the foregoing circumstances, this appeal is allowed. H.B.T./I-3/L Appeal allowed.