Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2949 2006 SLD 2949 2006 CLD 1424
Lahore High Court
C.M.A. No.420-C of 2006 in R.F.A. No. 639 of 2002, decision dated: 6-07-2006.
ORE MIAN HAMID FAROOQ AND SYED HAMID ALI SHAH, JJ
Izhar-ul-Haq Sheikh for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents.

Messrs OVERSEAS BLUE STAR GHEE MILLS LIMITED through Chief Executive/Managing Director and 2 others

VS

. UNITED BANK LIMITED through Principal Officers/Managers/General Attorneys and 8 others

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)-------S.9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.12 (2) & 73 (3)-Recovery of loan-Consent decree, setting aside of---Rateable distribution of assets---Government dues---Suit filed by bank was decreed in favour of bank on the basis of compromise arrived at between the parties---Customs authorities filed application under S.12 (2) C.P.C. for setting aside of the decree on the ground that earlier application under S.73 (3) C.P.C. was filed for sale of assets for recovery of state dues, which application remained undecided and the suit was decreed---Plea raised by Customs authorities was that compromise between the parties ousted the authorities, resultantly their dues remained unpaid---Validity--Grant of loan, execution of documents and existence of valid mortgage in favour of bank was neither disputed nor denied---Bank approached High Court in its original banking jurisdiction. for recovery of its dues and the Court decreed the suit according to the provisions of law---Bank neither misstated any fact nor concealed anything from the Court to obtain the decree---Parties had settled their dispute amicably, whereby the bank, instead of pursuing recovery of total decretal amount, accepted the agreed amount as full and final settlement of its claim---Decree could not be said to have been obtained through fraud and misrepresentation, merely on the ground that a third party had also a valid claim against -debtors---Decree could be set aside under S.12 (2.1, C.P.C., where it was proved that decree-holder had misstated facts or concealed facts or element of fraud and misrepresentation was involved---Judgment-debtor was a company, which was not in the process of winding up but a going concern---No sale proceeds were deposited with Court to qualify the applicant to claim priority in rateable distribution of decree---Application was dismissed in circumstances. Saiyed Abu-Miyan v. Haji Abdul Ghani and others PLD 1974 Karachi 39; Mst. Hasina Khatoon and 2 others v. United Bank Limited and 6 others" 1993 MLD 1088 and Central Cotton Mills and another v. Atlas Bot Lease Co. Limited and 2…
🔒
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