1991 PLP 1756 (SCMR)
Messrs HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and 8 others — Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and 7 others — Respondents
| Citation | 1991 PLP 1756 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | High Court |
| Bench Members | Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and 8 others — Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and 7 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1991 PLP 1756 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1991 PLP 1756 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the High Court bench comprising: Shafiur Rahman and Rustam S. Sidhwa, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1991 PLP 1756 (SCMR) (Messrs HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED and 8 others — Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and 7 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Petitioners (in C.R.P. No. 69/R of 1987).
- Nemo for Respondents No.1 to 7 (in C.R.P. No.69 of 1987).
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No.8 (in C.R.P. No. 69/R of 1987).
- Ch. Khalil-ur-Rehman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court and S.M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners (in C.R.P. No. 8-R of 1988).
- Nemo for Respondents Nos. 1 to 6 (in C.R.P. 8/R of 1988).
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate-on-Record (absent) for Respondent No.7 (in C.R.P. 8/R of 1988).
- Date of hearing: 21st February, 1990.
- S.M. Zafar, Senior Advocate Supreme Court and Syed Abul Aasim Jafri, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Petitioners (in C.R.P. No. 69/R of 1987).
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Ch. Ghulam Dastgir, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.8 (in C.R.P. No. 69/R of 1987).
- Ch. Khalil‑ur‑Rehman, Senior Advocate, Supreme Court and S.M. Almas Ali, Advocate Supreme Court and Manzoor Ilahi, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners (in C.R.P. No. 8‑R of 1988).
- Rana Abdur Rahim, Advocate Supreme Court and Tanvir Ahmad, Advocate‑on‑Record (absent) for Respondent No.7 (in C.R.P. 8/R of 1988).
Headnotes / Summary
(For review of judgment dated 12-8-1987, passed in Civil Appeal No.90 of 1987).
S. 8(3)
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.80
Supreme Court Rules, 1980, O.XXVI
Grounds for review were that in judgment under review, power of Special Court with regard to execution of decree passed by such Court was recognized by holding that procedure provided in S.8(3), Banking Companies. Recovery of Loans Ordinance, 1979 was contrary to the procedure provided for execution of a decree under Civil Procedure Code, 1908; and reservation by Supreme Court of the power of confirmation of auction, as distinguished from confirmation of sale; both of which were within the amptitude of power possessed by the Court under S.8(3), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, in the matter of execution of decree, were ignored or not given due effect to in holding that sale was to be governed throughout by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, overriding those express provisions-- Case for review of matter was made out in circumstances
Second Review Petition would however, be heard subject to objection with regard to the locus standi of petitioners to move such application.
Judgment & Decree
SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.‑‑‑These two Review Petitions have been moved on the ground chat in the judgment under review, a power of the Special Court was recognized in express terms by holding as hereunder:‑‑ ".. So far as execution of the decree passed by the Special Court is concerned the procedure provided in section 8(3) is contrary to the procedure provided for execution of a decree under the C.P.C." The reservation by the Court of the power of confirmation of auction, as distinguished from confirmation of sale made in Order dated 14‑9‑1985 in the following words:‑‑ "Since there is no concluded compromise the auction may , go on. However, auction may not be confirmed in the meanwhile. Notice to the Bank for a date in the first week of October, 1985. Let this order be telegraphically conveyed to the auctioneer at the expense of the petitioners today." and the condition No.9 reproduced hereunder: "The auction shall be subject to confirmation by this Court"; both of which were within the amplitude of the power possessed by the Court under section 8(3) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, in the matter of the execution of decree, were ignored or not given due effect to in holding that the sale was to be governed throughout by the provisions of the C.P.C. overriding these express reservations.
2. We consider that a case for hearing of the review matters is made out. Notice should issue to the respondents. The matters be placed before a larger Bench of which the author judge of the impugned judgment may, if possible, be a member.
3. In Civil Review Petition No.8‑R of 1988, raising the same questions, as have been dealt with, the objection is that the petitioners therein were not appellants before the Court and have no right to move a review petition. We do not proposo dealing with this objection because we are issuing notice in the other matter. This Review Petition should be heard subject to the objection with regard to the locus standi of the Petitioners to move such application. Let the matter be heard before vacation, by a larger Bench in which the author judge should be included. In the meantime the parties concerned shall not transfer or encumber the property, without permission of the Court. A.A./H‑98/S Order accordingly.