| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2004 SLG 563 2004 SLD 563 2004 CLD 493 |
Lahore High Court
Execution First Appeal No.225 of 2000, heard on 19-02-2003
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE
Ch. Muhammad Amin Javed for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents.
Execution First Appeal No.225 of 2000, heard on 19-02-2003
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, JUSTICE ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, JUSTICE
Ch. Muhammad Amin Javed for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondents.
MUHAMMAD YUSUF
VS
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. THROUGH MANAGER AND 5 OTHERS
Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997
Section: 18
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997)---Ss. 18(6) & 21---Execution of decree---Sale of mortgaged property---Appellant filed- objection petition claiming to be shareholder in mortgaged property---Banking Court while issuing notice to respondent in objection petition imposed condition of deposit of decretal amount---Validity---According to S.18(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, objection petition ought to be investigated and decided within 30 days and in case at the end of inquiry/trial, same was found to be mala fide, a penalty could be imposed up to 20% of sale price of property for delay caused in execution of decree---High Court allowed appeal and set aside impugned order with observations that auction/sale of property other than alleged share of appellant would proceed further in accordance with law. JUDGMENT MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.---In the course of execution of a decree passed in favour of the respondent No.1-Bank and against the remaining respondents/ judgment-debtor, the appellant filed an objection petition stating that he is a share-holder in the property that was mortgaged and later ordered to be sold. The learned trial Court took up the application on 6-6-2000 and proceeded to issue a notice to the respondents. However, a condition was imposed that this will be subject to deposit of the decretal amount. 2. Learned counsel contends that the said condition could not have been imposed in view of the clear provisions of section 18 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. No one has turned up for the respondent No.1-Bank who is represented by a learned counsel whose name stands duly listed in the cause list for today but no one has turned up despite several…
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