| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2178 2002 SLD 2178 2002 CLD 723 |
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No. 115 of 1998, decision dated: 13-02-2002.
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J AND MUSHIR ALAM, J.
Saalim Salam Ansari for Appellant. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for
Respondents.
First Appeal No. 115 of 1998, decision dated: 13-02-2002.
SAIYED SAEED ASHHAD, C.J AND MUSHIR ALAM, J.
Saalim Salam Ansari for Appellant. Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for
Respondents.
Mrs. ROSHAN BANG --Appellant
VS
. ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED and 3 others --Respondents
Law:
Section:
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) Ss.9 & 21 Recovery of Bank loan- Decree against mortgagor and guarantor Attorney of the mortgagor and guarantor had executed sale deed in favour of his son prior to the execution of guarantee Banking Court decreed the suit in favour of the Bank Contention of the appellant, who was mortgagor and the guarantor, was that the property was not available for mortgage Transferee of the suit property did not question the and decree Validity Where the appellant had not questioned or disputed the execution of the guarantee, no exception could be taken to the and decree passed against the borrower High Court declined to interfere with the and decree passed by the Banking Court Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. ORDER MUSHIR ALAM, J. The appellant has filed this first appeal under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 challenging the judgment dated 28 3 1998 and decree, dated 30 4 1998 respectively passed by Banking Court No. 1, Karachi, in Suit No.751 of 1997 filed by respondent No.1, Allied Bank of Pakistan against the respondents Nos.2 to 4 and the appellant herein. Briefly stating, facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that the respondent No.1 filed a suit for recovery of Rs.6,182,582 against respondent No.2, Messrs A.H. Traders, Proprietorship concern of one Bahadur Heamani, who is also cited as defendant No.2 in the suit and the respondent No.3 herein, one Muhammad Ali and the appellant as a Mortgagor and Guarantor for the finance advance to the Proprietorship concern of respondent No.3. Main thrust of the arguments of learned counsel for the appellant was that she had never executed any mortgage of the property, by deposit of title documents with the respondent No.1, Bank, It was further claimed that respondent No.3 ire capacity of her attorney was not duly authorized to create a mortgage in respect of the subject property'. Mr. Saalim Salam Ansari, learned counsel for the appellant further contended that before creation of mortgage, subject property was sold by way of registered saledeed on 24th May,…
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