Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 3, 17 & 22--- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.47---Suit for recovery of loan---Grant of costs of funds---Cost of funds in the decree were allowed under Ss. 3 & 17 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Determination of cost of funds by the Executing Court---Executing Court granted cost of funds from the date of institution of suit--- Bank had impugned the order of the Banking Court whereby the cost of funds had been determined from the date of institution of the suit and not from the date of default till realization of amount, as claimed by the Bank---Contentions of the Bank were that under Ss. 3 & 17 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the Bank was entitled to the grant of cost of funds from the date of default till its realization and not from the date of institution of suit and that the date of default was to be considered as the date beyond which the mark-up was not allowed by the Banking Court---Respondents contended that the cost of funds could only be recovered from the respondents from the date of institution of suit and that no date of default was determined by the Banking Court while passing the decree---Validity---Under the provisions of Ss.3 & 17 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the customer was liable to pay cost of funds from the date of default till realization of the cost of funds as certified by the State Bank of Pakistan---Banking Court while passing the decree in favour of the Bank had granted cost of funds under Ss. 3 & 17 of the Ordinance---Although specific date of default was not mentioned in the decree, however, the date of default was defined in a manner that the claim of the Bank of an amount of mark-up charged after the date of default was declined by the Banking Court while passing the decree---Banking Court was mindful of the date of default at the time of passing the decree, after which date no mark-up was allowed to the Bank---Statement of account showed the relevant date of default beyond which the mark-up was not allowed in the decree by the Banking Court, and this date was to be taken as the date of default for the purposes of S.3 of the Ordinance---Argument of the respondents that cost of funds should be from the date of institution of suit was not tenable for two reasons, firstly, that under S.3 of the Ordinance, the cost of funds were to be granted from the date of default, and secondly, that the date of default was already determined in the decree---Executing Court could determine the date of default under S. 47, C.P.C., if no such date was defined in the decree but, in the present case, date of default was defined and could be ascertained from the decree---Impugned order was not sustainable in view of the settled principle of law that an Executing Court could not go behind the decree and was obliged to execute the decree as it was---Impugned order of the Banking Court was set aside and the appeal was allowed by the High Court, in the circumstances. Habib Bank Limited v. Tauqeer Ahmed Siddiqui and another 2009 CLD 312; Allied Bank of Pakistan Limited v. Northern Polyethylene Limited and others 2006 CLD 565; Bank of Punjab through Authorized Officer v. Messrs KNK Infrastructure (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive Officer and 2 others 2012 CLD 961; Messrs Emen Textile through Sole Proprietor and another v. Habib Bank Limited 2010 CLC 547; Industrial Development Bank of Pakistan v. Pakistan Belting (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive and 5 others 2006 CLD 808; Zarai Taraqiati Bank Limited through Branch Manager v. Hassan Aftab Fatiana 2009 CLD 36 and Crescent Commercial Bank Now Samba Bank Ltd. v. Genertech Pakistan Ltd. 2011 CLD 37 ref. Zahid Industries v. Habib Bank 2007 CLD 618; Muhammad Ali v. Zakir Hussain PLD 2005 Lah. 331; Ayesha Bibi v. National Logistic Cell 2002 CLC 747; Hassan Masood Malik v. Additional District Judge and others 1994 MLD 1877 and Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. KF Development Corporation Ltd. 2004 CLC 671 rel. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 3 & 17---Cost of funds---Grant of---Under the provisions of Ss.3 & 17 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, the customer was liable to pay cost of funds from the date of default till realization of, the cost of funds as certified by the State Bank of Pakistan. (c) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 47---Powers of Executing Court---Date of default, determination of---Executing Court could determine the date of default under S.47, C.P.C. if no such date was defined in the decree by the Court. (d) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)--- ----S. 47---Execution of decree---Executing Court cannot go behind the decree and is obliged to execute the decree as it is---Principle. Zahid Industries v. Habib Bank 2007 CLD 618; Muhammad Ali v. Zakir Hussain PLD 2005 Lah. 331; Ayesha Bibi v. National Logistic Cell 2002 CLC 747; Hassan Masood Malik v. Additional District Judge and others 1994 MLD 1877 and Messrs Dawood Cotton Mills Ltd. v. KF Development Corporation Ltd. 2004 CLC 671 rel.

Summary: S.42 SRA,Art.120 Limitation Act,S.42 LRA:Declaratory suit--Gift--Burden of proof,Scope--Entries in Revenue record,its evidentiary value---Limitation

Summary: Art: 199 Constitution of Pakistan, 1973.Contractual obligation, in presence of alternate remedy Writ not maintainable.

Summary: Deceased alleged murdered by the respondent accused being paramour in collusion with deceased's wife--- Fact of illicit relations between respondent accused and co-accused/wife of deceased was allegedly in knowledge of deceased according to prosecution evidence--- After this presence of accused in the house of deceased with his wife does not appeal to prudent mind---Chance witnesses---Complainant and her husband were not happy on marriage of deceased and c0-accused Razia Bibi Admittedly accused and deceased slept in same room after taking meal but no untoward incident took place throughout night despite fact that accused had ample opportunity to fulfill his alleged design of murder but astonishingly he waited for morning when complainant along with other PWs were present outside room where occurrence took place, this fact also speaks volume about authenticity of occurrence because a prudent mind person does not leave any evidence making him culprit---Appeal Dismissed

Summary: The petitioner, Muhammad Imran, sought post-arrest bail in a case registered against him under sections 376/386 of the Pakistan Penal Code (PPC) at Police Station. The case involves serious charges related to sexual assault and blackmail. The court considered the arguments presented by both the petitioner's counsel and the State's counsel. The State argued that the delay in filing the FIR was understandable given the nature of the offense, and the charge had already been framed in the trial. The court took note of the delay in filing the FIR and observed that it was not adequately explained, especially since the complainant was an educated woman and there was no need for her husband's consent to file the report. The court also pointed out inconsistencies in the statements and lack of evidence for some aspects of the case. Ultimately, the court decided that despite the seriousness of the charges, the petitioner's case fell within the scope of further inquiry under section 497(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.). As a result, the court granted bail to the petitioner, Muhammad Imran, on the condition that he would furnish a bail bond.

Summary: Summary pending.