2002 PLP 1101 (CLD)
Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED through its Chief Manager and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Messrs HEBEI MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IMPORT/EXPORT CORPORATION through their Attorney‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1101 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED through its Chief Manager and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Messrs HEBEI MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IMPORT/EXPORT CORPORATION through their Attorney‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1101 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1101 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Jawwad S. Khawaja and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1101 (CLD) (Messrs HABIB BANK LIMITED through its Chief Manager and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Messrs HEBEI MACHINERY AND EQUIPMENT IMPORT/EXPORT CORPORATION through their Attorney‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- M. R. Sheikh for Appellant.
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑‑Recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Decree passed in favour of Bank did not include costs‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Court had chosen not to award costs in the decree High Court declined to allow the same.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑Ss. 15 & 21‑‑‑Recovery of Bank loan‑‑‑Decree passed in favour of Bank did not include costs‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Court had chosen not to award costs in the decree High Court declined to allow the same. M. R. Sheikh for Appellant. The facts of the case are simple. The Banking Court- II, Lahore passed a decree in favour of the appellant against the respondent‑Bank in a suit filed by the appellant. The appellant is aggrieved that costs amounting to US $ 10,000 were not allowed to the appellant.
2. While deciding an appeal against the same decree, dated 1‑10‑2001 filed by the respondent‑Bank against the present appellant, we have noted that the respondent‑Bank did not contest its liability under a letter of credit established by it in favour of the appellant. The respondent‑Bank appears to have been under the misconception that there were interim orders in force which prevented it from making payment of the final instalment under the aforesaid letter of credit. The respondent‑Bank did not challenge the impugned decree to the extent it related to the amount of the letter of credit. Its appeal was confined only to challenge the amount of interest awarded to the appellant‑Company by the learned Banking Court.
3. For the foregoing reasons, we are not inclined to allow costs to the appellant, particularly when the learned Banking Court has chosen not to do so.
4. For the foregoing reasons this appeal is dismissed. Q.M.H./M.A.K./H‑83/L Appeal dismissed.