1994CLC58 (PLP)
UMAN HAYET LALIKA‑‑‑Appellant Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD GONDAL ‑‑‑ Respondent
| Citation | 1994CLC58 (PLP) |
| Forum / Court | Election Tribunal Punjab |
| Bench Members | Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | UMAN HAYET LALIKA‑‑‑Appellant Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD GONDAL ‑‑‑ Respondent |
| Primary Law | Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994CLC58 (PLP)?
This judgment primarily cites: Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994CLC58 (PLP)?
The case was heard and decided by the Election Tribunal Punjab bench comprising: Sardar Muhammad Dogar, Raja Afrasiab Khan and Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994CLC58 (PLP) (UMAN HAYET LALIKA‑‑‑Appellant Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD GONDAL ‑‑‑ Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Abdus Sattar Ghughtai for Appellant. Muhammad Akbar Tarar for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 7th September, 1993.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 14‑‑‑Acceptance of nomination papers of candidate was challenged by rival candidate on ground that candidate was a defaulter of Bank .loan amounting to more than Rs.10 lass‑‑‑Candidate who had obtained loan from Bank had paid certain amount prior to crucial date leaving outstanding amount against him less than Rs.10 lacs‑‑‑Rival candidate had further contended that candidate was a defaulter in payment of loan obtained from other Banks/Finance institutions, but such objection was not. taken up by rival candidate before Returning Officer‑‑‑No case having been made out against candidate for interference, appeal of rival candidate was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 7th September, 1993. SARDAR MUHAMMAD DOGAR, J: ‑‑The appellant, who is contesting election from NA‑84/Gujrat‑V (now numbered as Mandi Baha‑ud Din‑III) has filed this appeal challenging the acceptance of nomination papers of Nazar Muhammad Gondal, respondent No.l, on the ground that he was a defaulter of the bank loan amounting to more than Rs.10 lacs.
2. According to the appellant's own showing, which appear from the certified copy of the Bank statement, placed with this appeal, the respondent owed a sum of Rs.17,45,432 before 28‑8‑1993. He paid a sum of Rs.6,91,000 on 28‑8‑1993 leaving a sum of Rs.10,54,432 outstanding. On 1‑9‑1993, he deposited a sum of Rs,1,03,000 leaving outstanding amount against him as Rs.9,51,
432. Another document placed on record is receipt of payment of Rs.3,54,000 on 8‑8‑1993. This payment, according to the learned counsel for the appellant, was against the overdue mark‑up.
3. While conceding that the respondent owed only a sum of Rs.9,51,432 on 1‑9‑1993, to Habib Bank Limited, learned counsel for the appellant, strenuously argued to make out a case that the respondent was defaulter on the date, he filed the nomination papers and so was not able to contest the election. Nonetheless, he failed to say anything when confronted with the proposition that even if a defaulter pays the amount before 13th of this month (which is yet to dawn), he will become eligible to contest the election. Having failed to convince us on this point, learned counsel additionally submitted that the respondent was a defaulter on account of non‑payment of loan obtained from other banks/finance institutions.
4. It does not appear from the impugned order that the appellant had taken up such an objection before the Returning Officer. Actually, the order does not show that the appellant had taken up any objection. The name of one Allah Ditta is mentioned in the order as objector has not filed any appeal. Looking from that angle, the appeal is not even competent, Nonetheless, we have considered the contentions raised by the learned ‑ counsel for the appellant, he had asserted that he had also objected about the outstanding loan of Habib Bank Ltd., alongwith Allah Ditta. Having considered all aspects of the case, we are convinced that no case has been made out for interference in the impugned order. The appeal is dismissed. H.B.T./95/E Appeal dismissed.