1994 PLP 1747 (SCMR)
M/s. GULZAR ENTERPRISES through its Managing Partner and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 1747 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ |
| Parties | M/s. GULZAR ENTERPRISES through its Managing Partner and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 1747 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 1747 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Saad Saood Jan and Sajjad Ali Shah, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 1747 (SCMR) (M/s. GULZAR ENTERPRISES through its Managing Partner and 3 others‑‑‑Petitioners Versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ch. Mushtaq Masood; Advocate Supreme Court and Sheikh Masood Akhtar, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioners.
- S. Inayat Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th January, 1994.
Headnotes / Summary
(From the judgment/order of Lahore High Court, Lahore, dated 26‑9‑1992 in R.FA. No. 194 of 1991). Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 12‑‑‑Appeal before High Court against judgment and decree of Special Banking Court‑‑‑High Court directing petitioner (judgment‑debtor) to deposit in High Court decretal amount in cash before appeal could be admitted to hearing‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Petitioners claimed that High Court having discretion (under S. 12(5), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979) to call upon appellants to furnish security instead of depositing decretal amount in cash, it had exercised its discretion wrongly when calling upon petitioners to deposit decretal amount in cash‑‑‑Petitioner's such contention was. without merit‑‑‑Petitioners having offered two properties by way of security one was the subject of litigation in same Court; while petitioner's interest in other property fell far short of decretal amount‑‑‑High Court while directing to deposit decretal amount in cash had acted in accordance with law and its 'order did not suffer from any legal infirmity.
Judgment & Decree
SAAD SAOOD JAN, J.‑‑‑A learned Single Judge of the High Court acting as a Special Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, passed a decree in the sum of Rs.15,74,611 against the petitioners. From the judgment of the learned Special Court the petitioners filed an appeal in the High Court under section 12 of the said Ordinance. A Division Bench in the High Court directed the petitioners to deposit the decretal sum with the Deputy Registrar of the Court before their appeal could be admitted to hearing. Aggrieved by this order the petitioners seek leave to appeal from this Court.
2. From the orders, judgments and decrees of a Special Court the appeals lie to the High Court and are governed by section 12 of the said Ordinance. Subsection (5) of this section reads as follows: "No appeal shall be admitted for hearing unless the appellant deposits in cash with the High Court an amount equivalent to the judgment debtor, at the discretion of the High Court, furnishes security equal in value to such amount." The order of the High Court impugned in this petition has been made in pursuance of this subsection.
3. It is contended on behalf of the petitioners that the High Court had discretion under subsection (5) ibid. to call upon the appellants to furnish security instead of depositing the decretal amount in cash and that the High Court exercised its discretion wrongly when calling upon the petitioners to deposit the decretal amount in cash. This contention is clearly without merit. It may be mentioned that of the two properties which the petitioners offered by way of security one was the subject of litigation in some Court; as regards the other property the petitioners' interest therein was worth only Rs.5,40,
000. In the circumstances, it cannot be said that the High Court exercised its discretion in favour of cash deposit either arbitrarily or on insufficient grounds. This petition is accordingly dismissed. AA./G‑435/S Leave refused.