2008 PLP 552 (CLD)
FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD.-appellant Versus Mrs. AFIFA IFTIKHAR and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2008 PLP 552 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD.-appellant Versus Mrs. AFIFA IFTIKHAR and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 552 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2008 PLP 552 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi 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 552 (CLD) (FIRST WOMEN BANK LTD.-appellant Versus Mrs. AFIFA IFTIKHAR and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
S.9-Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.126 & 128
Scope
Held, even where contract had become unenforceable against the principal borrower yet the guarantor would be liable for surety executed by him.
Judgment & Decree
Exemption is allowed, but subject to all just exceptions.
2. Learned counsel submits that his suit was dismissed by the learned Banking Court as according to the learned Banking Court the suit was hopelessly time barred as the transaction had taken place between 28-3-1995 and 28-5-2002 and a period of three years is provided to file a suit but the same was filed on 1-3-2007 which, according to the learned Judge, was hopelessly time barred. The learned counsel submits that he concedes that the suit was time barred against the principal borrower, who has been made respondent No.1 but the suit was not time barred against guarantors who are respondents Nos.2 and 3 in the appeal as guarantors are separate from the principal borrower. He does not press the case against respondent No.1, which is dismissed as not pressed. However, in respect of respondents Nos.2 and 3, the learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan in the case of Messrs Huffaz Seamless Pipe Industries Ltd. and 2 others v. Messrs Security Leasing Corporation Ltd. 2002 CLD 550, wherein the Honourable apex Court has held that even where contract becomes unenforceable against the principal borrower yet the guarantor would be liable for surety executed. The learned counsel also pointed out that the sections quoted by the learned Banking Court for dismissing his suit are irrelevant and do not pertain to the dismissal of the suit. Issue pre-admission notice to the respondents Nos.2 and 3 for 24th October, 2007. M.B.A./F-28/K Order accordingly.