2013 PLP 2666 (YLR)
BANK OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2013 PLP 2666 (YLR) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Ijaz Ahmad and Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, JJ |
| Parties | BANK OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Constitution of Pakistan |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2013 PLP 2666 (YLR)?
This judgment primarily cites: Constitution of Pakistan as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2013 PLP 2666 (YLR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Ijaz Ahmad and Ibad-ur-Rehman Lodhi, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2013 PLP 2666 (YLR) (BANK OF PUNJAB — Appellant Versus RETURNING OFFICER and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Saleem Iqbal for Appellant.
- Syed Shahbaz Ali Rizvi, Rana Muhammad Ashraf Khan and Syed Jafar Tayyar Bukhari for Respondent No.2.
- 4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and gone through the record.
Headnotes / Summary
Arts. 63(1)(n) & 62
Representation of the People Act (LXXXV of 1976) Ss.14 & 12
Disqualifications for membership of Majlis-e-Shoora (Parliament)
Loan default
Scope
Appellant-Bank impugned the acceptance of the nomination papers of the respondent on the ground that he was guarantor for a loan obtained by his son, which had not been repaid for more than a year
Held, that the loan was not obtained by the respondent, and he was only a guarantor of the agreement of loan which was obtained by his son, and said guarantee did not disqualify the respondent under provisions of Art. 63(1)(g) of the Constitution
Appeal was dismissed. Messrs United Dairies Farms v. United Bank Ltd. 2005 CLD 569 ref.
Judgment & Decree
The appellant impugns the order dated 7-4-2013 passed by the respondent-Returning Officer rejecting the objections of the appellant and accepting the nomination papers of respondent No.2 for NA-178 Muzaffargah.
2. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that Nawabzada Imran Ahmad, sole proprietor of Messrs Khan Agro Traders Khan Garh has obtained a loan of Rs.2,020,999 for running finance and Rs.3,520,847 for Bank Guarantee who has yet not paid the same even after the lapse of period of one year. Respondent No.2 stood guarantor for the return of the loan. Relies on section 2(c) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and "Messrs United Dairies Farms v. United Bank Ltd. (2005 CLD 569) to argue that a guarantor is a customer and he as such is not liable for the repayment of the loan. After the promulgation of Ordinance ibid, the guarantor cannot absolve himself and cannot distinguish himself from a customer for whom he stands a guarantor.
3. On the other hand, it is contended by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No.2 that the disqualification attributable to a person in respect of loan is contained under Article 63(1)(n) of the Constitution of Islamic Republic of Pakistan 1973 which postulates that such a person who should apprehend a disqualification should have obtained a loan himself for an amount of two million rupees or more, from any bank; financial institution, cooperative society or cooperative body in his own name, or in the name of his spouse or any of his dependents which remains unpaid for more than one year from the due date, or has got such loan written off. Respondent has not obtained any loan.
4. We have heard the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 and gone through the record.
5. Loan was not obtained by the respondent. He is only the guarantor of the agreement of loan which was obtained by his son Nawabzada Imran Ahmad, sole proprietor of Messrs Khan Agro Traders Khan Garh and this agreement does not disqualify him as provided under Article 63(1)(n) of the Constitution.
6. In view of the above, we see no illegality in the impugned order. The appeal is without merits. The same is hereby dismissed. KMZ/B-21/L Appeal dismissed.