2002 PLP 1099 (CLD)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs MUSLIM CORPORATION, OKARA through Managing Partner and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1099 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs MUSLIM CORPORATION, OKARA through Managing Partner and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1099 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1099 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1099 (CLD) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs MUSLIM CORPORATION, OKARA through Managing Partner and 5 others‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 27th February, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑Ss. 6(2) & 11(4)‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74‑‑‑ Liquidated damages, recovery of‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan included liquidated damages‑‑‑Banking Tribunal decreed the suit in favour of the Bank but declined to include liquidated damages in the decree‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Claim of liquidated damages was not entertainable‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal in view of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Aisha Garments reported as 2001 MLD 1955. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Faisalabad v. Aisha Garments 2001 MLD 1955 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.‑‑‑National Bank of Pakistan, through the filing of the instant appeal, under section 9 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since repealed), has called in question judgment and decree, dated 23‑1‑1994, whereby the then Banking Tribunal although decreed a suit for recovery, in favour of the appellant, yet declined to award liquidated damages to the appellant‑Bank.
2. Brief facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that on account of alleged failure by the respondents to liquidate the Bank's dues, the appellant filed a suit for recovery of Rs.15,81,793.32 alongwith mark‑up and liquidated damages at the rate of 20% per annum, against the respondents, before the Banking Tribunal. Pursuant to the issuance of show‑cause notice, the respondents filed reply to the said show‑cause notice, however, the then Banking Tribunal passed a decree for recovery against respondents Nos. l and 3 but declined to award the liquidated damages at the rate of 20% amounting to Rs.2,63,632.22 vide judgment and decree, dated 23‑1‑1994, which order has been assailed through the filing of the present appeal.
3. No body has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, thus, they are proceeded ex parte. The learned counsel has contended that although under the agreement entered between the parties, the appellant Bank is entitled for the grant of liquidated damages yet the same has been declined by the then Banking Tribunal without any lawful justification.
4. This legal question was examined by Division Bench of this Court in a case of Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Faisalabad v. Aisha Garments 2001 MLD 1955 and this Court after having examined different clauses of the agreement and taking the relevant law into consideration came to the following conclusions:‑‑‑ "Seeing from any angle we are of the considered view that under the fact and circumstances, the appellant‑Bank is not entitled to claim liquidated damages and the claim of the Bank in this respect is not in any way supported by any law and has rightly been disallowed by the Banking Tribunal, and we hereby confirm the impugned judgment to that extent."
5. In view of the findings and reasons recorded in the aforementioned case of Allied Bank of Pakistan, we find that the present appeal is devoid of any merits, the impugned judgment and decree do not call for any interference, thus, the present appeal is dismissed with no order as to costs. Q.M.H./M.A.K./N‑183/L Appeal dismissed.