Case Details

Citation(s)
2013 SLG 2073 2013 SLD 2073 2013 CLD 1
Lahore High Court
C.M. No.334-L of 2004 in Civil Original No.45 of 1990, decision dated: 29-09-2011.
UMAR ATA BANDIAL, J
Ms. Qubra Gillani for Applicant.

REGISTRAR OF COMPANIES, PAKISTAN through Joint Registrar of Companies--Applicant

VS

TAJ COMPANY LTD. and 8 others

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 19 & 22---Execution proceedings---Mortgaged property at place "K" attached by Banking Court at place "L"---­Objection petition by another decree holder-Bank that such property could not be attached as same was purchased by objector at reserve price fixed in failed auction thereof by Banking Court at place "K" in satisfaction of its decree obtained against deceased principal debtor and mortgagor---­Validity---Objector-Bank had filed recovery suit against principal debtor and mortgagor of property at place "K" in court at place "K" after its attachment by court at place "L" in execution proceedings---Deceased principal debtor in his statement made to court at place "L" claimed to be owner of three properties including property at place "K", which he got registered in names of his family members---Mortgagee and objector of such properties was same objector-Bank---In absence of proof on record of the means of mortgagor (wife of principal debtor) to acquire ownership of two of properties including property at place "K", principal debtor appeared to have been laundering and re-cycling embezzled monies belonging to his company under liquidation before court at place "L"---Objector-Bank had strong financial links with deceased principal debtor and had advanced him loan---Objector-Bank had knowledge about present execution proceedings---Objector-Bank, though claimed equitable mortgages in its favour regarding other two properties and displayed same collusive protection in relation thereto, but had not challenged order of court at place "L" allowing sale thereof---Such inaction of objector-Bank would show its plea to be defective and bogus---Fraudulent and collusive action to avoid process of court at place "L" by resort to a collusive and artificial sale in execution of a collusive decree could not receive protection of immunities and exceptions created for honest transactions entered by genuine and bona fide parties--­Neither principal debtor nor his mortgagor wife nor objector-­Bank were bona fide parties to a genuine and honest execution sale by court at place "K"---Principal debtor,…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492