2006 PLP 612 (CLD)
EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND — Appellant Versus Messrs PAKIZAN OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2006 PLP 612 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND — Appellant Versus Messrs PAKIZAN OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2006 PLP 612 (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 2006 PLP 612 (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: 2006 PLP 612 (CLD) (EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND — Appellant Versus Messrs PAKIZAN OIL MILLS (PVT.) LTD. and 4 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----Ss.9 & 10---Finance Agreement---Financial facility provided by way of participation in equity of company against assurance of payment of minimum dividend @ 13% per annum for a period of four years---Guarantors had agreed to buy back the shares acquired by appellant and had also guaranteed the payment of said minimum rate of dividend at 13% per annum after grace period of one year---Leave to defend was refused but later on Court allowed counsel for respondents to record statement/ acquiescence and suit was decreed---Decretal amount had been paid and dispute with regard to residual amount was challenged by appellant---Question was as to whether after having refused to grant leave to defend, recording such statement, was permissible under the law and if that was so whether liability under said statement was liable to be altered---Validity---Case was remanded to trial Court for verifying the liability after statement of respondent's side---If no concession was offered by appellant through any statement the trial Court would allow appellant to rebut the statement made by counsel of respondent.
- Ch. Anwar-ul-Haq for Respondents.
- 3. On 7-3-2002 when this matter came up before a learned Division Bench of this Court it modified the impugned decree by saying that the relief be given to the plaintiffs in accordance with what was prayed in the plaint. It has been noted in the said order that hearing in fact was ex parte as the learned counsel for respondents failed to appear repeatedly not only on the date of hearing even on subsequent dates. A miscellaneous petition was moved by him for recalling of the said order. This matter again came up for re-determination. The re-determination was done on a technical objection that the appeal had not been admitted at that time for regular hearing.
- 4. We now admit the appeal for regular hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for judgment debtor/respondent. This matter even before the Banking Court was decided without giving leave to the respondent's side. But at that stage, the learned trial Court allowed the learned counsel for respondent's side to add a statement at the end of the trial and this statement was reduced to writing. It reads as follow:
- 6. Therefore, after hearing both sides we are of the view that the matter will have to go back to the learned trial Court for verifying the liability after the statement of Mr. Anwar-ul-Haq, Advocate for defendants. The Court below shall then find out if any concession was offered by the appellant's side through any statement or acquiescence. If not then the learned trial Court shall allow an opportunity to the appellant side to make a statement in rebuttal to the statement made by the counsel for the respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.9 & 10
Financial facility provided by way of participation in equity of company against assurance of payment of minimum dividend @ 13% per annum for a period of four years
Guarantors had agreed to buy back the shares acquired by appellant and had also guaranteed the payment of said minimum rate of dividend at 13% per annum after grace period of one year
Leave to defend was refused but later on Court allowed counsel for respondents to record statement/ acquiescence and suit was decreed
Decretal amount had been paid and dispute with regard to residual amount was challenged by appellant
Question was as to whether after having refused to grant leave to defend, recording such statement, was permissible under the law and if that was so whether liability under said statement was liable to be altered
Case was remanded to trial Court for verifying the liability after statement of respondent's side
If no concession was offered by appellant through any statement the trial Court would allow appellant to rebut the statement made by counsel of respondent.
Judgment & Decree
ALI NAWAZ CHOWHAN, J.
This regular first appeal has been filed against judgment and decree dated 2-5-2001 passed by the learned Banking Court No.III, Lahore.
2. The liability of the respondent has not been disputed in view of Finance Agreement dated 26-6-1987. The financial facility was provided by way of participation in equity of the appellant's company against assurance of payment of minimum dividend @ 13% per annum for a period of four years. Under the agreement the guarantors, who were impleaded as defendants and are now respondents in this appeal had agreed to buyback the shares acquired by the plaintiff and had also guaranteed the payment of the aforesaid minimum rate of dividend at 13% per annum after the grace period of one year.
3. On 7-3-2002 when this matter came up before a learned Division Bench of this Court it modified the impugned decree by saying that the relief be given to the plaintiffs in accordance with what was prayed in the plaint. It has been noted in the said order that hearing in fact was ex parte as the learned counsel for respondents failed to appear repeatedly not only on the date of hearing even on subsequent dates. A miscellaneous petition was moved by him for recalling of the said order. This matter again came up for re-determination. The re-determination was done on a technical objection that the appeal had not been admitted at that time for regular hearing.
4. We now admit the appeal for regular hearing. We have heard the learned counsel for appellant and the learned counsel for judgment debtor/respondent. This matter even before the Banking Court was decided without giving leave to the respondent's side. But at that stage, the learned trial Court allowed the learned counsel for respondent's side to add a statement at the end of the trial and this statement was reduced to writing. It reads as follow: The learned Judge Banking Court then came to the aforesaid conclusion, which is now being impugned before us.
5. The question which arises is whether after having refused to grant the leave to defend the recording of such statement was permissible under the law and if that was so whether the liability under the said statement was liable to be altered. This failure has led to a further grievance in the shape of appeal before this Court.
6. Therefore, after hearing both sides we are of the view that the matter will have to go back to the learned trial Court for verifying the liability after the statement of Mr. Anwar-ul-Haq, Advocate for defendants. The Court below shall then find out if any concession was offered by the appellant's side through any statement or acquiescence. If not then the learned trial Court shall allow an opportunity to the appellant side to make a statement in rebuttal to the statement made by the counsel for the respondent.
7. According to the learned counsel for parties the decretal amount has been paid and the question is with regard to residual amount, which is being challenged by the appellant's side. This matter will, then, be substantially decided after further proceeding at the end of the learned trial Court. To whom the matter is remitted for resolution of the issue and the parties shall appear on 28-2-2006. There shall be no order as to costs. F.M./E-1/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Appeal disposed of.