2000 PLP 566 (CLC)
MUHAMMAD IRSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION
| Citation | 2000 PLP 566 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD IRSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2000 PLP 566 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2000 PLP 566 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Sheikh Abdur Razzaq, J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2000 PLP 566 (CLC) (MUHAMMAD IRSHAD‑‑‑Petitioner Versus SMALL BUSINESS FINANCE CORPORATION). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Tariq Muhammad lqbal for Petitioner.
Headnotes / Summary
Constitution of Pakistan (1973)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Art. 199‑‑‑Re‑payment of loan‑‑‑Constitutional petition‑‑‑Petitioner had sought issuance of direction to respondent‑Corporation not to recover amount due from him by using coerci‑e means‑‑‑Amount obtained by petitioner from respondent‑Corporation was to be paid back in instalments ‑‑‑Respondent Corporation had directed petitioner that installment having become due he should deposit the amount within time specified in the notice‑‑‑Petitioner having failed to comply with notice issued to him, respondent‑Corporation was entitled to recover amount of instalments due in accordance with law.
Judgment & Decree
Contends that the petitioner obtained a loan of Rs.1,80,000 on 31‑12‑1996; that out of the said amount, a sum of Rs.70,000 has been repaid vide receipts Annexure "C" to "E" and that now the respondents have issued notices Annexure "B", dated 8‑1‑1999 and Annexure "A", dated 31‑3‑1999, whereby he has been directed to pay a sum of Rs.50,000 on account of installment due to him, failing which the said amount shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue and proceedings for the said recovery shall be carried out.
2. Grievance of the petitioner is that he has to repay the same amount till 2003 and the respondents cannot recover the amount by adopting coercive measures.
3. As per own contention of the petitioner, he had obtained a loan of Rs.1,80,000 and he has to repay the same in the form of instalment of Rs.50,
000. The petitioner was informed vide notice Annexure "B", dated 8‑1‑1999 that out of the amount of Rs.1,78,818 outstanding against him till 31‑12‑1998, the instalment of Rs.50,000 has become due. He was directed to deposit the said instalment within 20 days of the notice, dated 8‑1‑1999. As the petitioner did not comply with the said notice, so he has been issued notice Annexure "A", dated 31‑3‑1999 whereby he has again been asked to pay the said amount by 19‑4‑1999. It appears that the petitioner has not even complied with the notice. On the other hand, he has approached this Court for issuing a direction to the respondents not to recover the said amount by using coercive means. Since the amount obtained by the petitioner has fallen due, so the respondents are entitled to recover the same in accordance with law.
4. With this observation, the petition stands disposed of. H.B.T./M‑38/L Order accordingly.