2008 PLP 385 (SCMR)
SMOOTH PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) and others — Petitioners Versus BANK OF KHYBER — Respondent
| Citation | 2008 PLP 385 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ |
| Parties | SMOOTH PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) and others — Petitioners Versus BANK OF KHYBER — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2008 PLP 385 (SCMR)?
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 2008 PLP 385 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Iftikhar Muhammad Chaudhry and Faqir Muhammad Khokhar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2008 PLP 385 (SCMR) (SMOOTH PHARMACEUTICALS (PVT.) and others — Petitioners Versus BANK OF KHYBER — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jahangir A. Jhoja, Advocate Supreme Court and C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Tanveer Ahmed, Advocate-on-Record for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 2004.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal against the judgment, dated 9-12-2003 passed by Lahore High Court in R.F.A. No.64 of 2003).
Ss.10 & 17
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)
Suit for recovery of loan amount
Liability to pay outstanding claim of Bank not denied by defendant in application for leave to defend suit
Suit decreed by Banking Court was upheld by High Court
Plea of defendant was that claim of Bank was based on blank papers, which were inadmissible in evidence under law, thus, no decree could be based thereon
Defendant in leave application had not denied his liability to satisfy claim of Bank
Non-disputing liability by defendant would be sufficient to draw conclusion that decree had been passed on admissible documents
Payment of 50% decretal amount by defendant would show that he had started satisfying decree
No point of pubic importance was involved in case
Supreme Court dismissed petition.
Judgment & Decree
IFTIKHAR MUHAMMAD CHAUDHRY, J.
This petition calls in question judgment, dated 9th December, 2003 passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No.64 of 2003.
2. Precisely stating the facts of the case are that respondent-Bank obtained decree in its favour for the recovery of sum of Rs.22,54,002/97 along with costs and cost of funds as certified by State Bank of Pakistan from time to time from the date of default i.e. 14th December, 2001 till realization of the decretal amount. In case of their failure to satisfy the decree, the decree shall be executed according to law. Appeal filed by the petitioners before the High Court has been dismissed vide impugned judgment. As such instant petition has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the claim of the respondent-Bank was based on blank papers which were not admissible under the law, therefore, decree could have not been passed by the Banking Court in favour of respondent/decree-holder.
4. It may be noted that petitioners filed application for permission to appear and defend the suit wherein liability to satisfy outstanding claim was not denied by the petitioners. However, permission was denied to the petitioners to appear and defend the suit and decree was passed on accepting the claim of respondent-Bank against petitioners. We are of the firm view that non-disputing of liability by the petitioners is sufficient to draw conclusion that, decree has been passed on admissible documents and contention of learned counsel looses its importance.
5. Learned counsel further contended that 50% decretal amount has been paid by the petitioners. In the view of his such statement we are of the opinion that when petitioners have started satisfying the decree, this Court is not bound to interfere in impugned judgment particularly in view of the fact that no point of public importance is involved in this case. Thus for the foregoing reason petition is dismissed. S.A.K./S-61/SC Petition dismissed