2005 PLP 1745 (CLD)
Messrs PLASTIC CRYSTAL through Sole Proprietor and another — Appellants Versus Messrs BOLAN BANK LIMITED through General Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1745 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs PLASTIC CRYSTAL through Sole Proprietor and another — Appellants Versus Messrs BOLAN BANK LIMITED through General Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1745 (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 1745 (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 1745 (CLD) (Messrs PLASTIC CRYSTAL through Sole Proprietor and another — Appellants Versus Messrs BOLAN BANK LIMITED through General Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Bashir Ahmad for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 19 & 22
Suit by Bank was decreed by Banking Court and decree holder (Bank) initiated execution proceedings through arrest and detentions of appellants/judgment-debtors
Executing Court issued warrants of arrest of appellants/judgment. debtors
Appeal was partially allowed and Appellate Court, after setting aside judgment and decree of Banking Court, remanded case to Banking Court with certain directions
As judgment and decree, out of which execution petition arose, was set aside, the execution petition had become infructuous and orders passed therein whereby warrants of arrest of appellants/judgment debtors were issued, had lost their efficacy and in that perspective, present appeal had become infructuous and could not proceed.
Judgment & Decree
Messrs Plastic Crystal etc., through the filing of the present appeal, have called in question order dated 14-4-2000, whereby the learned Banking Court issued warrants of arrest of the judgment-debtors with the directions to keep them in judicial lock up till the realization of the decretal amount.
2. Facts relevant for the disposal of the present appeal are that pursuant to the passing of decree for the recovery of Rs.76,39,144 on 4-5-1999, by the learned Banking Court, against the appellants, the decree-holder bank initiated execution proceedings through the arrest and detention of the judgment-debtors. The learned Judge issued show-cause notice to the appellants and after the receipt of its reply and after finding that the same is without merits, issued the warrants of arrest of the judgment-debtors vide impugned order dated 14-4-2000.
3. The appellants filed the appeal (R.F.A. No.300 of 1999) against the judgment and decree dated 4-5-1999. This Court vide judgment of even date, passed in R.F.A. No.299 of 1999, has partially allowed appellant's appeal, set aside the judgment and decree dated 4-5-1999 and has remanded the case to the learned Banking Court with certain directions. As the judgment and decree, out of which the execution petition arose, has been set aside, therefore, the execution petition has become infurctuous and the orders passed therein have lost their efficacy. In this perspective, we feel that with the partial acceptance of appeal (R.F.A. No.300 of 1999), the present appeal has become infructuous and cannot proceed.
4. Present appeal stands disposed of having become infructuous. H.B.T./P-40/L Order accordingly.