2003 PLP 231 (CLD)
others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AL‑TOWFEEK INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED through Branch
| Citation | 2003 PLP 231 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Hamid Farooq and Parvez Ahmad, JJ |
| Parties | others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AL‑TOWFEEK INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED through Branch |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2003 PLP 231 (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 2003 PLP 231 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Hamid Farooq and Parvez Ahmad, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2003 PLP 231 (CLD) (others‑‑‑Appellants Versus AL‑TOWFEEK INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED through Branch). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Naseem Kashmiri for Appellants.
- Naeem Sahgal for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 22 & 10‑‑‑Appeal against decree passed by Banking Court‑‑‑Appellant's counsel submitted his own affidavit in support of memo of appeal‑‑‑Respondent's counsel did not object to acceptance of appeal and setting aside of decree, provided Banking Court was, directed to decide petition for leave to defend/suit exeditiously‑‑‑High Court with consensus arrived at between counsel for the parties, accepted appeal and set aside impugned decree with direction to Banking Court to decide afresh at the first instance application for leave to defend suit within specified time.
Judgment & Decree
Regular First Appeal No.640 of 2001, decided on 3rd October, 2002. ‑‑‑‑Ss. 22 & 10‑‑‑Appeal against decree passed by Banking Court‑‑‑Appellant's counsel submitted his own affidavit in support of memo of appeal‑‑‑Respondent's counsel did not object to acceptance of appeal and setting aside of decree, provided Banking Court was, directed to decide petition for leave to defend/suit exeditiously‑‑‑High Court with consensus arrived at between counsel for the parties, accepted appeal and set aside impugned decree with direction to Banking Court to decide afresh at the first instance application for leave to defend suit within specified time. Muhammad Naseem Kashmiri for Appellants. Naeem Sahgal for Respondent. The appellants/defendants, through the filing of the present appeal have called in question judgment and decree, dated 18‑5‑2002, whereby the learned Judge, Banking Court, while dismissing an application for leave to defend the suit, filed by the appellants, proceeded to pass a decree for the recovery of Rs.1,42,54,065 with costs, against the appellants.
2. Learned counsel for the respondent submits that since the learned counsel for the appellant has furnished his own affidavit in support of the memorandum of appeal, therefore, he has no objection to the acceptance of the appeal and setting aside the impugned decree, provided a direction be issued to the Banking Court for the expeditious disposal of the petition for leave to defend/suit. Learned counsel for the appellant has readily agreed to this course of action.
3. In view of the above consensus arrived at between the learned counsel for the parties, the present appeal is allowed and the judgment and decree, dated 18‑5‑2001 is set aside with no order as to costs. The result would be that the petition seeking leave to defend the suit, filed by the appellants, before the learned Banking Court and the main suit shall deem to be pending before the learned Judge, Banking Court, who shall decide, at the first instance, the said leave to defend application afresh, after hearing the parties and of course in accordance with law, within a period of two months. S.A.K./R‑192/L Order accordingly.