2005 PLP 1636 (CLD)
PEARL AND BEADS MANUFACTURING COMPANY through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1636 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | PEARL AND BEADS MANUFACTURING COMPANY through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1636 (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 2005 PLP 1636 (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: 2005 PLP 1636 (CLD) (PEARL AND BEADS MANUFACTURING COMPANY through Chief Executive — Appellant Versus UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Aamar Farooq for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 19 & 22
Appellant who had admitted to discharge liability under decree passed against it, had requested that instead of delivering possession of property in question, it be permitted to pay decretal amount in instalments to save valuable property and its business over said property which was the only means of its subsistence
Appellant was allowed to make payment in instalments accordingly with the observation that in case there was default in payment of any single instalment, respondent would be entitled to take over possession of property in question.
Judgment & Decree
Learned counsel for the appellant contends that the appellant has to discharge the liability under the decree dated 18-2-1999 except to the extent of Rs.754,225, thus, instead of delivering the possession of the property in question to the respondent, the appellant be permitted to pay the aforesaid amount in instalments, to save the valuable property and the business of the appellant over the property which is the only mean of his likelihood. Learned counsel for the respondent as also the representative, present in Court, states that if the appellant makes the payment of Rs. 1, 50,000 per month, they will have no objection for setting aside the said order.
2. Let the appellant make payment of Rs. 1,50,000 by 15th July, 2003 as first instalment and the remaining four instalments of Rs. 1,50,000 each shall also be paid by the appellant to the respondent on or before the 15th of each month. In case there is a default in payment of any single instalment, the respondent shall be entitled to take over the possession of the disputed property as per order impugned before us.
3. The appeal is therefore, disposed of in the above terms. H.B.T./P-150/L Order accordingly.