2005 PLP 833 (CLD)
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN — Plaintiff Versus FRIENDS SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 10 others — Defendants
| Citation | 2005 PLP 833 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN — Plaintiff Versus FRIENDS SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 10 others — Defendants |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 833 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 833 (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 833 (CLD) (INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN — Plaintiff Versus FRIENDS SPINNING MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 10 others — Defendants). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 8 & 7
State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular No.29 of 2002, dated 15-10-2002, Cl.17
State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular Letter No.8 of 2003 dated 10-3-2003, Cl.3-- Recovery of Loan
Decision of SBP Committee on dispute between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant borrower-- Scope
Decision of the SBP Committee constitutes a binding resolution between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant borrower in terms of para.3 of BPD Circular Letter No.8 of 2003 dated 10-3-2003
Said Circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan had the force of law with binding effect on the banks
Once the dispute has been resolved and terms of settlement have been specified by the SBP Committee then by the provision of Clause 3 of State Bank BPD Circular Letter No.8 of 2003, then reference to BPD Circular No.29 of 2002 is pointless exercise
Decision of the SBP Committee, in the present case was clear in stating that the security documents which included shares, were to be returned to the defendant upon full payment of the settlement amount-- Realization by sale of said shares prior to any event of default by the Bank, was contrary to the decision of SBP Committee
Demand by the plaintiff-Bank based upon the premature threat of sale of shares as security without the commission of default by the defendant was in derogation of settlement terms decided by the SBP Committee and. therefore unlawful
Bank could not become nudge in its own cause to unilaterally modify the decision of the Committee-- If the Bank was aggrieved thereby its grievance could be determined by a competent forum
No such action having been taken by the Bank, in the present case, the SBP Committee's decision was binding on the Bank.
Judgment & Decree
Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others PLD 1997 SC 315; United Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Azmat Textile Mills Ltd. 2002 CLD 542 and Tristar Industries (Pvt.) Ltd, v. State Bank of Pakistan and another 2004 CLD 257 fol. Shazib Masud for Applicant. Asif Mehmood Butt for Plaintiffs/Respondents. Learned counsel for the defendant-Company states that the State Bank of Pakistan Committee constituted pursuant to clause 17 of the SBP Circular 29 dated 15-10-2002 has given its decision on the dispute between the plaintiff-Bank and the defendant-Company. The said Committee has been empowered by BPD Circular Letter 8 dated 10-3-2003, under its clause 3 to render decisions that are binding upon the parties, namely the bank and the customer whose dispute has arisen under BPD Circular 29 aforementioned. In the case of the applicant a decision of the SBP Committee made in its 63rd meeting held on 16-6-2004, finds the total outstanding liability of the applicant-Company to be Rs.26.964 million.
2. The mode of settlement of that liability by the defendant is also specified in that decision. These terms provide that after full payment of the settlement amount, the security documents including personal guarantee shall be released by the Bank. The plaintiff-Bank holds certain shares of the defendant-Company as pledged security for the outstanding liability. On account of capital injections made by the defendants to revive the project, the value of those shares has risen manifold Capitalizing on this rise in value of their security, the plaintiff-Bank has sought by the impugned letter dated 23-12-2004, for the defendant to redeem these shares at face value failing which they will be sold in the market. Learned counsel for the applicant- Company submits that demand raised in the letter dated 23-12-2004 by the plaintiff-Bank is violative of the foregoing settlement terms decided by the SBP Committee and communicated to the parties vide their letter: dated 12-7-2004. Accordingly, it has been prayed that the plaintiff-Bank be restrained from selling the shares as threatened and to act strictly in accordance with the decision of SBP Committee communicated by letter dated 12-7-2004.
3. Learned counsel for the plaintiff-Bank has stated that the decision of the SBP Committee is subject to implementation in accordance with the over all scheme and object of the SBP Circular No.29 of 2002. By such approach the demand made by the Bank to realize its security is valid action within the scheme of SBP Circular
29. No other ground has been urged.
4. The decision of the SBP Committee constitutes a binding resolution between the plaintiff-Bank and the applicant (defendant) customer in terms of paragraph No.3 of BPD Circular Letter 8 dated 10-3-2003. It may be pointed out that these circulars issued by the State Bank of Pakistan have the force of law with binding effect on the Banks as held in Hashwani Hotels Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan and others (PLD 1997 SC 315); United Bank Ltd. v. M/s. Azmat Textile Mills Ltd. (2002 CLD 542) and Tristar Industries (Pvt.) Ltd. v. State Bank of Pakistan and another (2004 CLD 257). Once the dispute has been resolved and terms of settlement have' been specified by the SBP Committee then by the provisions of clause, 3 of Circular. 8, then reference to Circular No.29 is a pointless exercise. The decision of the SBP Committee is clear instating that the security documents which include shares,, in this case the shares pledged with the Bank, are to be returned to the defendants upon full payment of, the settlement amount. Therefore, realization by sale of these shares prior to any event of default, is contrary to the decision of the SBP Committee. The demand dated 23-12-2004 by the plaintiff-Bank based upon, the premature threat of sale of shares as security without the Commission of default by the applicant Js in derogation of settlement terms decided by the said Committee and therefore unlawful. Moreover the Bank cannot become Judge in its own cause to unilaterally modify the decision of the Committee. If it is aggrieved thereby the Bank must have its grievance determined by a competent forum. In the present case no such action has been taken and therefore, the SBP Committee's decision is binding on the Bank. C.M. allowed. M.B.A./I-84/L Order accordingly.