2010 PLP 974 (CLD)
Messrs KOHINOOR LOOMS LTD. — Petitioner Versus MCB BANK LTD. — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 974 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court |
| Bench Members | Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs KOHINOOR LOOMS LTD. — Petitioner Versus MCB BANK LTD. — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 974 (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 2010 PLP 974 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court bench comprising: Tassaduq Hussain Jillani and Asif Saeed Khan Khosa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2010 PLP 974 (CLD) (Messrs KOHINOOR LOOMS LTD. — Petitioner Versus MCB BANK LTD. — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sajid Mehmood Sheikh, Advocate Supreme Court for the Petitioner.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 22(6)
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)-Counsel for the petitioner had contended that High Court was not justified in holding that order passed by Banking Judge was not appealable and that reserved price of the property as fixed by the High Court was presumptuous and not in accord with its market value
Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to consider said issues and any other issue which could arise.
Judgment & Decree
Refers to section 22(6) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and relies on a judgment of this Court reported as Pakistan Industrial Credit and Investment Corporation Limited and other v. Government of Pakistan 2002 CLD 1 to contend that the learned High Court fell in error in holding that the order passed by the learned Banking Judge was not appealable. Adds that the reserve price fixed by the learned High Court is presumptuous and not in accord with its market value.
2. Having considered the submissions made, leave is granted to consider the afore-referred issue raised and any other issue which may arise. H.B.T./K-9/SC Leave granted.