Lack of bona fides
Lack of bona fides legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
High Court allowed said application and directed defendants to deposit Rs. 400,000 with decree-holder/Bank for setting aside ex parte decree
Defendants deposited a cheque of Rs.400,000 with the Bank, however the same was dishonoured due to lack of funds
Plea of defendants that on the day of presentment of cheque by the Bank, one of defendants' customers withdrew Rs. 30,000 from the account, and as such the cheque was dishonoured; that cheque had been issued to the bank bona fidely, therefore more time might be allowed to the defendants to deposit Rs. 400,000
Validity
Defendants were given concession by the High Court directing them to deposit Rs.400,000, being the expenses of auction as the plaintiff/decree-holder Bank had incurred the said expenses towards payment of court auctioneer fee and other charges etc.
Suit filed by Bank was for recovery of Rs. 58,482,336.57 and if defendants were unable to deposit Rs.400,000, how would they pay the decretal amount
Intention of defendants was not bona fide and they were trying to linger on disposal of recovery suit
Defendants on the present date of hearing were again not in a position to deposit amount of Rs. 400,000, and as such default on their part was contumacious
High Court set aside the order whereby ex parte decree was set aside subject to depositing of Rs. 400,000 with the Bank, and resultantly ex parte decree against defendants was revived
High Court appointed Court Auctioneers for conducting auction of property
Application was dismissed accordingly.
"Lack of bona fides", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124945131
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Lack of bona fides"
1991 S C M R 1527
Dr. ABDUL RAZIQ — Petitioner Versus Mr. MUBEENUL HAQ KHAN and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1989 M L D 2496
ASGHAR HUSSAIN — Appellant Versus SHOUKAT ALI — Respondent
Court: Karachi1985 S C M R 1769
DILDAR HUSSAIN NAYYAR — Petitioner Versus NIAZ MUHAMMAD DAR and another — Respondents
Court: High Court1986 M L D 1255
H AKIMU DDI N‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. AMTUL MATEEN Respondent
Court: Karachi1983 C L C 376
ANWAR MUHAMMAD‑Appellant Versus INAMUR RAHIM KHAN‑Respondent
Court: Karachi1986 C L C 333
Messrs LEATHER GOODS INTERNATIONAL‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. ASIYA KHATOON SHERWANI‑‑Respondent
Court: KarachiP L D 1967 Lahore 854
MUHAMMAD ALI -Petitioner Versus MUHAMMAD AMIN AND ANOTHER-Respondents
Court: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 115-Revision-Findings of fact, howsoever, erroneous, are not gone into in revisional jurisdiction-(Case involving finding that there was no fraud or lack of bona fides in instituting suit in forma pauperis)-Plaintiff could not be deprived (in circumstances of case) of facility to sue as a pauper in absence of fraud-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXIII, r. 1-Skinner v. Orde 6 1 A 126 ref., Biswa Nath Das v. Khejerali Molla A I R 1939 Cal. 394 ; Ram Het Gir v. Banwan Lal A I R 1938 Lah. 41; Model Mills v. Kurban Husain A I R 1928 Nag. 296 and Durga Prasad v. Srinivasa A I R 1930 Pat. 368 considered.1999CLC45
SHAH WALI‑‑‑Petitioner Versus ALLAH BAKHSH‑‑‑Respondent
Court: Lahore1986 S C M R 1709
NASIR PERVAIZ — Petitioner Versus THE ADDITIONAL DISTRICT JUDGE and 2 others — Respondents
Court: High Court1979 C L C 801
EHSAN KARIM AND ANOTHER-Appellants Versus NISAR AHMAD-Respondent
Court: Lahore