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)
ROKHAN ALIAS ROMAN VS ABDUR RAZAQ
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS SAKR SUGAR MILLS S VS MESSRS STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN
Summary: Summary pending.
KHAIR MUHAMMAD VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.
MS SAKR SUGAR MILLS VS STATE BANK OF PAKISTAN
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS MUTUAL TRADING CO PVT S VS MESSRS FAISAL BANK LTD
Summary: Summary pending.
MIAN AFTAB A SHEIKH VS MESSRS TRUST MODARABA
Summary: (a) Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Flotation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980)----Ss. 2(a)(b) & 26(2):
Recovery of finance facility---Jurisdiction of Modaraba Tribunal---Summary procedure under Order XXXVII, C.P.C.
A suit for the recovery of Rs.70,600,240 filed by the respondent Modaraba Company was decreed by the Tribunal and upheld by the High Court. Petitioners argued the suit was not maintainable under Order XXXVII, C.P.C. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, clarifying that under S. 26(2) of the Modaraba Ordinance, the Tribunal is vested with exclusive jurisdiction to try such cases, and it merely follows the summary procedure provided in Order XXXVII. The transaction fell within the scope of a modaraba as defined in S. 2(ab) of the Ordinance, as the respondents provided funds for business purposes using the petitioners' skill, making the suit maintainable.
(b) Limitation Act (IX of 1908)----S. 19 & Art. 5:
Acknowledgment of liability---Extension of limitation period.
Petitioners argued that the suit was barred by time under Article 5 of the Limitation Act. However, the Supreme Court upheld the High Court's finding that the liability was acknowledged by the petitioners’ Chief Executive, thereby extending the limitation period. The suit filed within the extended period was held to be within time.
(c) Lease finance agreements---Status as part of modaraba transactions---Jurisdiction of Tribunal:
The petitioners contended that lease finance agreements were outside the purview of the Modaraba Ordinance. The Supreme Court dismissed this argument, finding that the lease agreements involved the provision of funds from the modaraba fund, making them transactions covered under the Ordinance. The machinery provided as security further reinforced the applicability of the Ordinance.
(d) Leave to defend---General allegations of forgery or fabrication---Rejection:
The Tribunal rightly rejected the petitioners’ application for leave to defend as it lacked bona fide, raising only general allegations of forgery and fabrication without substantial grounds. Execution of the agreements and liability were admitted, and the Court noted that the application appeared intended to delay recovery proceedings.
----Disposition:
Petition dismissed. Leave to appeal refused.
MUHAMMAD BOOTA VS SARDAR MUHAMMAD
Summary: Summary pending.
MITHAN S VS MST JAMEELA
Summary: Summary pending.
MESSRS RADIX CHEMICAL PRIVATE LIMITED THORUGH DIRECTOR VS MESSRS TOP GROWERS CHEMICAL NEWTWORK THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
Summary: Summary pending.
ALI MARDAN VS THE STATE
Summary: Summary pending.