| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 287 2024 SLD 287 2024 CLD 264 |
Sindh High Court
"Special High Court Appeal No. 137 of 2023, decision dated: 14th December, 2023. Date of hearing: 8th December, 2023."
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ
"Abdul Wahab Baloch for Appellant No. 1. Abdul Wahab Baloch for Appellant No. 2. Mehmood Ali for
Respondent No. 1. Moulvi Iqbal Haider for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 9. Nemo for
Respondent No. 6. Nemo for
Respondent No. 8. Abdul Hameed Chohan fo
"Special High Court Appeal No. 137 of 2023, decision dated: 14th December, 2023. Date of hearing: 8th December, 2023."
Before Muhammad Shafi Siddiqui and Jawad Akbar Sarwana, JJ
"Abdul Wahab Baloch for Appellant No. 1. Abdul Wahab Baloch for Appellant No. 2. Mehmood Ali for
Respondent No. 1. Moulvi Iqbal Haider for
Respondents Nos. 2 to 5, 7 and 9. Nemo for
Respondent No. 6. Nemo for
Respondent No. 8. Abdul Hameed Chohan fo
NATIONAL TILES AND CERAMICS LTD. and another---Appellants
VS
SINDH BANK LIMITED and 9 others---Respondents
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 29,22
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 29 & 22---Execution of decree---Auction purchaser, rights of---Appellants/Judgment Debtors were aggrieved of sale of suit property during auction proceedings---Validity---Appellants/Judgment Debtors failed to identify any illegalities in proclamation of sale, its publication and the conduct of sale in execution---Appellants/Judgment Debtors, including other members of their family, did not bring anything on record to assail auction proceedings---No cogent reason was advanced by appellants/judgment debtors or their family to set aside sale on the grounds of irregularity or fraud---High Court declined to set aside the sale on the plea that suit property was a residential bungalow occupied by members of the family and it should not be sold---Appellants/Judgment Debtors did not justify setting aside the sale to the detriment of auction-purchaser---Auction-Purchaser consistently obeyed the orders of Executing Court and had successfully achieved all the milestones during auction proceedings, including, depositing of entire enhanced/increased purchase-price pursuant to O. XXI, R. 85, C.P.C.---Court could not be prejudiced against a party that had obeyed them---Auction-Purchaser acquired legal rights and interest in the purchased Banking Suit Property---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Executing Court as no legal grounds were urged to set aside sale of suit property and the order was passed on proper appreciation of facts and law---Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances. Messrs Habib and Company and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others 2019 SCMR 1453; Hudaybia Textile Mills Ltd. v. Allied Bank of Pakistan PLD 1987 SC 512; Mohammad Attique v. Jami Limited and others PLD 2010 SC 993; Lanvin Traders, Karachi v. Presiding Officer, Banking Court No.2, Karachi and others 2013 SCMR 1419; Mst. Anwar Sultana through L.Rs. v. Bank AL-Falah Ltd. and others 2014 SCMR 1222; Messrs Abdur Razzaq and Company, through Mian Abrar Ahmed v. Bank of Punjab and others 2005 CLC 1170 and Mst. Asma Zafarul Hassan v. Messrs United Bank Ltd. and another 1981 SCMR 108 ref.…
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