2001 PLP 1816 (MLD)
MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BANKING COURT, SIALKOT and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2001 PLP 1816 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BANKING COURT, SIALKOT and another‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2001 PLP 1816 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2001 PLP 1816 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Tanvir Ahmad Khan, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2001 PLP 1816 (MLD) (MUHAMMAD ARIF‑‑‑Petitioner Versus BANKING COURT, SIALKOT and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9, 14, 15, 16 & 18‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Recovery proceedings‑‑‑Where suit was decreed, but decree remained unsatisfied despite passage of considerable period, recovery proceedings could not only be restricted to mortgaged property‑‑‑Functionaries had got ample jurisdiction to proceed against the defendant/judgment‑debtor in the manner provided under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997.
Judgment & Decree
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9, 14, 15, 16 & 18‑‑‑Suit for recovery of amount‑‑‑Recovery proceedings‑‑‑Where suit was decreed, but decree remained unsatisfied despite passage of considerable period, recovery proceedings could not only be restricted to mortgaged property‑‑‑Functionaries had got ample jurisdiction to proceed against the defendant/judgment‑debtor in the manner provided under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Ijaz Ahmad Awan for Petitioner. Petitioner through this Constitutional petition has made a prayer that the respondent decree‑holder be first directed to sell the mortgaged property and thereafter adopt any other recovery measure. I have considered the contentions. It is reflected from the perusal of petition that the petitioner took some loan in the year 1975 and mortgaged certain property. Decree in this case by the Judge Banking Court Sialkot was passed as reflected from the petition on 13‑4‑1993. This shows that in spite of passage of seven years the decree has not been satisfied. Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to quote any provision of law whereunder the recovery proceedings can only be restricted to the mortgaged property. The respondent functionaries in the circumstances have got ample jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioner in the manner provided under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Writ petition having no force is dismissed in limine. H.B.T./M‑628/L Petition dismissed.