Case Details

Citation(s)
2006 SLG 2917 2006 SLD 2917 2006 CLD 1099
Sindh High Court
H.C.As. Nos. 1 and 2 of 2006, decision dated: 25-05-2006.
SABIHUDDIN AHMED, C.J. AND ALI SAIN DINO METLO, J
S. Ali Bin Adam Jafri for Appellant. Aitezaz Ahsan along with Uzair Bin Adam and Abid S. Zubairi for
Respondent No. 1. Tasawwar Ali Hashmi for
Respondent No. 2. Aziz-ur-Rehman for
Respondent No. 4. Izhar Muhammad for
Respondent No. 5. Rana Ikramullah

Messrs EURO-PLUS MONS BELGIUM through Country Chief

VS

. Messrs KIRAN SUGAR MILLS LTD. through Nauman Shaikh and 8 others

Law:

Section:

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 19(2) & 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, Rr.85, 89, 65, 66 & 67---State Bank of Pakistan 2002---High Court appeal---Decree for sale of property by auction with order of the Court---Execution of decree---Award of compensation to purchaser of -debtor's property---Order of Single Judge of High Court, exercising Banking jurisdiction in execution proceedings setting aside sale of -debtor's assets to appellant on the ground that appellant had failed to deposit the balance 75% amount of the purchase money within time and that the parties i.e. the creditors (including the decree holders) and the -debtor were interested to settle their dispute under the State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular No.29--Validity-Held, order providing for the deposit of money within 15 days was suspended before the expiry of the period and continued to remain so till it was set aside by the Supreme Court and, therefore, the appellant could not be said to have violated the order and committed default in making the payment---Court was also competent to extend the time prescribed by it particularly when matter was still pending before it---Sale, in circumstances was not liable to be set aside on the ground for non-deposit of balance amount---State Bank of Pakistan BPD Circular No.29 of 2002 had a statutory force and when the decree-holders were also willing for a settlement with the -debtor (and on being given a chance they had reportedly settled the matter), it was fair to afford them a chance to do so---Purchaser/appellant at the same time also needed to be compensated and it would be highly unjust to push the appellant out without any fault on its part---If the -debtor wanted to save his property from being sold, it must compensate the purchaser/appellant---Order XXI, R.89, C.P.C. also provided for compensation for the purchaser at the rate of 5% of the amount deposited by it---Judgment-debtor accordingly was directed by the High Court to deposit 5% of the amount deposited by the appellant, within one month from the date of present , to be paid to the appellant---Amount deposited by the…
🔒
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