1987 PLP 401 (MLD)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL RICE MILLS and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1987 PLP 401 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hasan, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL RICE MILLS and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans.) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1987 PLP 401 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans.) Ordinance (XIX of 1979) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1987 PLP 401 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Abaid Ullah Khan and Akhtar Hasan, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1987 PLP 401 (MLD) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Appellant Versus Messrs NATIONAL RICE MILLS and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 21st March, 1987.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.6,7 & 12--Suit for recovery of Bank loans-- Competency of--Stocks of rice and paddy pledged by borrower with appellant-Bank, subsequently taken over by Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan--There being no relationship .of borrower and creditor between Corporation and Bank, suit instituted by Bank against Corporation in Special Court (Banking), held, was not- competent.
Ss.6, 7 & 12--Suit for recovery of loans--Dismissal of--Appeal against--Bank being not in a position to return stock, pledged by borrower with such Bank, same, held could not claim recovery of loans from borrower--Suit of appellant-Bank for recovery 'of loans against borrower was rightly dismissed by Trial Court in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
ABAID ULLAH KHAN, J.
The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal against the judgment and decree of the learned Special Judge (Banking), Lahore, dated the 8th July, 1981, decreeing respondent 1's suit for the recovery of outstanding amount of debt of Rs.70,46,454 with interest and costs against the appellants and respondents 2 to 11 may be shortly stated. Mian Muhammad Latif, respondent 2, and his brother, the late Mian Muhammad Rafi, father of respondents 3 to 10 and husband of respondent 11, obtained in May, 1975 from Muslim Commercial Bank, Limited, respondent 1, loans of Rs.20,00,000, 8,00,000, Rs.7,00,000 and Rs.5,00,000 against mortgage of their jointly owned properties. At the moment we are concerned with only the loan of Rs.20,00,000 for repayment of which the two brothers (Mien Muhammad Latif and Mian Muhammad Rafi) mortgaged their Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala. Subsequently, without the knowledge and consent of respondent 1, they partitioned between themselves their joint properties which they had mortgaged with respondent
1. Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, which had been mortgaged with respondent 1 in respect of the loan of Rs.20,00,000 fell to the share of respondent 2 who transferred it by sale in favour of his sons who are appellants in the appeal. Respondent 1 had to sue the appellants and the debtors for the recovery of the outstanding amount of loan in the learned Special Court (Banking). The suit was decreed and the learned Court subjected the mortgaged properties including the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, to the charge of the entire amount of all the loans.
2. The learned counsel for the appellants has contended that since the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, had been mortgaged with respondent 1 as security for repayment of the loan of Rs.20,00,000, the learned trial Court could create charge thereon only to the extent of the repayment of the aforesaid loan with interest and expenses relating thereto and that the decree of the learned Court in so far as it placed the charge of all the loans upon the said property was not valid. The learned counsel for respondent 1 receded this argument. As the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing factory Arifwala has been: mortgaged for the repayment of loan of Rs.20,00,000 it could have beer subjected to the charge of the said loan and of no other. The impugned judgment and decree a are modified to the extent that the Nilibar Cotton Ginning and Pressing Factory, Arifwala, will be subject to the charge of the loan of plus interest thereon and expenses incurred by respondent 1 in respect thereof. It will not be subject to the charge of other loans aggregating Rs. 20,00,
000. With the aforesaid slight modification of the decree the appeal is dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs. H.B.T./I-22/L Order accordingly.