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)
GOVERNMENT OF PUNJAB THROUGH SECRETARY SCHOOLS EDUCATION DEPARTMENT LAHORE VS TAUQEER MAZHAR BUKFLARI
Summary: Summary pending.
MUHAMMAD RIAZ VS TOWN COMMITTEE PEER MEHAL THROUGH ADMINISTRATORTEHSIL NAZIM TEHSIL COUNCIL
Summary: Summary pending.
AKBAR VS CHAUDHRY NAZIR AHMAD
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS NAEEM ASSOCIATES THROUGH PROPRIETOR S VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED THROUGH BRANCH MANAGER
Summary: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) – S. 10 & Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S. 12(2):
Banking suit for recovery––Decree passed without providing sufficient opportunity to defendants––Excessive mark-up charged by the bank––Principles––Respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.64,80,563 against the appellants, including guarantors and mortgagors––Trial Court decreed the suit for Rs.63,58,200 and dismissed appellants’ leave application––Appellants challenged the decree, contending that excessive mark-up was charged, documents were manipulated, and the mortgage agreement was not duly sanctioned––High Court observed discrepancies in the calculation of mark-up, which exceeded the agreed contractual rate and did not reflect deposits made by the appellants––Held, appellants were entitled to leave to defend their case on the issue of excessive mark-up.
(b) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908) – S. 12(2):
Service of notice––Misrepresentation by counsel––Principles––Appellant No.7 contended that he was not served and was not represented by the counsel who filed the leave application on his behalf––High Court treated his application as one under S. 12(2), C.P.C., and directed the Banking Court to decide the matter on the basis of facts presented––Decree against appellant No.7 suspended pending the outcome of the application––If the application under S. 12(2) is allowed, the decree shall stand set aside as against appellant No.7, enabling him to file a fresh leave application.
(c) Administration of Justice:
Fair adjudication––Principles––Courts must ensure substantive justice is served by addressing genuine disputes, including discrepancies in calculations and lack of opportunity to defend––Decree partially set aside to allow appellants to defend claims of excessive and unauthorized charges.
----Disposition
Appeal partially allowed––Decree against appellants modified to exclude disputed mark-up amounts––Appellants granted leave to defend regarding excessive mark-up––Decree against appellant No.7 suspended pending decision of his application under S. 12(2), C.P.C.––Case remanded for further proceedings.
MESSRS CRYSTAL ENTERPRISES THROUGH PROPRIETOR VS MESSRSBOLAN BANK LIMITED THROUGH PRESIDENT
Summary: Summary pending.
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS MST FARKHA
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS POLYMER INTERNATIONAL THROUGH SOLE PROPRIETOR S VS MESSRS BOLAN BANK LTD THROUGH GENERAL MANAGER
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS MUHAMMAD AMIN BROS ISLAMABAD
Summary: Summary pending.
OMAR DARAZ VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
ABDUL RAOOF VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.