P L D 1975 Karachi 844 (PLP)
THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., KARACHI-Plaintiff Versus MESSRS SUHAIL & CO. AND 3 OTHERS-Defendants
| Citation | P L D 1975 Karachi 844 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | |
| Bench Members | I. Mahmood, J |
| Parties | THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., KARACHI-Plaintiff Versus MESSRS SUHAIL & CO. AND 3 OTHERS-Defendants |
| Primary Law | (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872), (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in P L D 1975 Karachi 844 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Contract Act (IX of 1872), (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908), (a) Limitation Act (IX of 1908) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case P L D 1975 Karachi 844 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the bench comprising: I. Mahmood, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: P L D 1975 Karachi 844 (PLP) (THE AUSTRALASIA BANK LTD., KARACHI-Plaintiff Versus MESSRS SUHAIL & CO. AND 3 OTHERS-Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Dates of hearing :10th and 15th April 1975.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 19-Acknowledgment of liability-Promissory note-Not an acknowledgment of existing liability but merely promise to pay certain sum in future-Promissory note-A security rather than acknowledgment-Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 4. Lallu Mal v. Pandit Beoti Ram A I R 1924 All. 70 ref. Ss. 196 & 197-Defendant manager of plaintiff -Bank though not empowered to grant overdraft in question yet plaintiff electing to ratify same by conduct, debiting interest in account, relying on promissory note executed by person securing money on overdraft, and suing on agreement of hypothecation itself-Plaintiff, held, knew unauthorised act of defendant Manager and ratified same by conduct. Halsbury's Laws of England, 3rd Edn., Vol. 25, Arts. 894 & 896 ref. Lakshumanan Chetty and others v. Chidambaram Chetty A I R 1919 Mad. 343 held not applicable. Kandana Venkata Varadaraja Sobandhri Row and another v. Achanta Venkata Subbarayudu A I R 1919 Mad. 692 distinguished. Sched. I, Art. 85-Current account-Suit one for recovery of balance due on mutual, open, and current account-Suit filed within 3 years of credit entry in account, held, not time-barred. Robert Cotton Associates Ltd,. Khorewal v. Khan Karam Hussan Khan and others P L D 1972 S C 109 ; The Relionce Bank Ltd. v. Prafulla Kumar Benerjee P L D 1953 Dacca 200 ; Subba Karan and others v. The State Bank of Pakistan and others P L D 1962 Dacca 1 and Nobadwip Chandra Podder and another v. S. R. Ahmed, Official Receiver, Official Liquidator, Dass Bank Ltd. P L D 1969 Dacca 629 ref. Mansoorul Arfin for Plaintiff. S. A. Moulvi for Defendants Nos. 1 and 2. A. A. Aziz Munshi for Defendant No. 4.. Defendant No. 3 : - Ex parte.
Judgment & Decree
Lakshumanan Chetty and others v. Chidambaram Chetty A I R 1919 Mad. 343 held not applicable. Kandana Venkata Varadaraja Sobandhri Row and another v. Achanta Venkata Subbarayudu A I R 1919 Mad. 692 distinguished. (c) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)‑ Sched. I, Art. 85‑Current account‑Suit one for recovery of balance due on mutual, open, and current account‑Suit filed within 3 years of credit entry in account, held, not time‑barred. Robert Cotton Associates Ltd,. Khorewal v. Khan Karam Hussan Khan and others P L D 1972 S C 109 ; The Relionce Bank Ltd. v. Prafulla Kumar Benerjee P L D 1953 Dacca 200 ; Subba Karan and others v. The State Bank of Pakistan and others P L D 1962 Dacca 1 and Nobadwip Chandra Podder and another v. S. R. Ahmed, Official Receiver, Official Liquidator, Dass Bank Ltd. P L D 1969 Dacca 629 ref. Mansoorul Arfin for Plaintiff. S. A. Moulvi for Defendants Nos. 1 and
2. A. A. Aziz Munshi for Defendant No. 4.. Defendant No. 3 : ‑ Ex parte. Dates of hearing :10th and 15th April 1975.