| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2019 SLG 1259 2019 SLD 1259 2019 MLD 919 |
Supreme Court (AJ&K)
Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2017, decision Dated: 27-11-2018. Hearing Dated: 12-11-2018. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court Dated 26.5.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2009).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Hamyun Nawaz Khan, Advocate Syed Hazoor Imam Kazmi, Tahir Aziz Khan, Advocates and Raja Akhlaq Hussain Kiani, Addl. Advocate-General for Proforma
Civil Appeal No. 276 of 2017, decision Dated: 27-11-2018. Hearing Dated: 12-11-2018. (On appeal from the judgment and decree of the High Court Dated 26.5.2017 in Civil Appeal No. 110 of 2009).
RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, JUSTICE
Petitioner(s) by: Abdul Rashid Abbasi, Advocate
Respondent(s) by: Barrister Hamyun Nawaz Khan, Advocate Syed Hazoor Imam Kazmi, Tahir Aziz Khan, Advocates and Raja Akhlaq Hussain Kiani, Addl. Advocate-General for Proforma
CH. GHAZANFAR, REGISTRAR, CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY AND 2 OTHERS
VS
MUHAMMAD MAQSOOD BUTT AND 31 OTHERS
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: O.VII,R.2
Law: Cooperative Societies Act, 1925
Section: 9
(a) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----O. VII, R. 2---Co-operative Development Corporation converted into a Banking Society---Allegation of illegal business by the Banking Company---Recovery suit by the employee of Banking Company on the ground that Banking Company had caused loss to him and others by doing Banking business---Maintainability---Suit for recovery of amount filed against the Banking Company by its employee was decreed which was upheld by the High Court---Validity---Suit filed by the plaintiff was not maintainable, as he being participant in the illegal business, was estopped by his conduct to approach the Court---Plaintiff on the one hand was involved in the illegal business and on the other he had filed suit against the defendants on the ground that they caused loss to him and others through illegal Banking business---No one could be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath---Impugned s and decrees passed by the Courts below were set aside and suit was dismissed being not maintainable---Appeal was allowed, in circumstances. Mst. Sabira Begum v. Hakim Muhammad Akhtar and another 1993 MLD 955 rel. (b) Approbate and reprobate--- ----No one could be allowed to approbate and reprobate in the same breath. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: RAJA SAEED AKRAM KHAN, J.--- The captioned appeal by leave of the Court has been filed against the judgment and decree of the High Court dated 26.05.2017, whereby, the appeal filed by the appellants and proforma-respondent No.1, herein, has been dismissed. 2. The facts as emerged from this appeal are that respondent No.1, herein, filed a suit for recovery against defendant-appellants, herein, and others in the Court of Additional District Judge Dadyal, Camp Mirpur on 13.12.2002. It was averred in the plaint that Appellant No.1, herein, granted approval of Kashmir Co-operative Development Corporation, under section 9 of the Co-operative Societies Act, 1925. The society was given the name of Kashmir Co-operative Development Corporation (KCDC) with its headquarter Muzaffarabad. It was alleged that the Society framed its bye-laws which were stretchy and defective, however, Appellant No.1, herein, granted…
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