Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
Kh ZIA AHMED vs AZAD JAMMU AND KASHMIR EHTESAB BUREAU through Chairman/Chief Prosecutor Criminal Appeal No78 of 2013 decided on 5th March 2015
Summary: Summary pending
SHER WALI VS HAJI SAID MAHMOOD KHAN
Summary: Summary pending.
ARSHAD ALI OTHERSS VS SARTAJ
Summary: Summary pending.
ENG MUHAMMAD ILYAS KHATTAK VS UNIVERSITY OF ENGINEERING TECHNOLOGY PESHAWAR THROUGH VICE CHANCELOR
Summary: Summary pending.
LAL MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
KHUDA NAZAR VS DIRECTOR GENERAL INTELLIGENCE INVESTIGATION FEDERAL BOARD OF REVENUE ISLAMABAD
Summary: Summary pending.
NIZAMUDDIN ALIAS NIZAM VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
STARD CAPITAL SECURITIES
Summary: Summary pending.
DR FAZ RASOQL VS THE ASKARI BANK LIMITEDTHROUGH BRANCH MANAGERAUTHORISED ATTORNEY
Summary: Summary pending.
M/s Capital Poultry Feed& Daal Mills etc VS Atlas Bank Ltd.
Summary: ----Background:
An execution first appeal was filed against an order passed by the Banking Court, Islamabad. The Banking Court had dismissed the appellants' objection petition and granted a sale certificate to the auction purchasers.
The initial suit was filed by a bank against the appellants and another respondent, which was decreed in favor of the bank for a sum of Rs. 37,730,655. The decree led to execution proceedings under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
The bank sought to sell two mortgaged properties: a house in Satellite Town, Rawalpindi, and a plot in the Industrial Area, Islamabad. Notices for auction were issued under Order XXI Rule 66 of the Code of Civil Procedure (CPC).
----Issues:
Whether the auction and sale of the mortgaged property were conducted in accordance with the law.
Whether the appellants received proper notice under Order XXI Rule 66 CPC.
Whether the description of the property in the auction proclamation was accurate and if any prejudice was caused to the appellants due to alleged inaccuracies.
----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
The court held that the auction process complied substantially with procedural requirements. The publication of auction notices in newspapers and at the auction site provided adequate notice to the appellants.
The appellants' objections regarding the lack of notice were dismissed because they had knowledge of the auction proceedings. Fresh issuance of notices was deemed unnecessary.
The court cited precedents that minor procedural irregularities do not invalidate an auction unless substantial injury to the appellants is proven. In this case, the appellants failed to demonstrate any substantial injury.
The auction fetched a price higher than the reserved price, indicating a fair and competitive bidding process. Therefore, the court found no irregularities or fraud in the auction process.
The appeal was dismissed, and the sale in favor of the auction purchasers was confirmed.
----Citations/Precedents:
M/s Nowshera Bricks and Tiles (Pvt.) Limited & others vs. Regional Development Finance Corporation (2002 CLC 904)
Nadeem Akhtar Tabasum vs. MCB Ltd. & others (2014 SCMR 1371)
Ghulam Abbas vs. Zohara Bibi & another (PLD 1972 SC 337)
M/s Nice ‘N’ Easy Fashion (Pvt.) Ltd. & others vs. Allied Bank of Pakistan & another (2014 CLD 1404)