| Case ID |
0c0d5a12-85c4-4977-91e4-02b73d909bc7 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suit No. 1641 of 1998 |
| Decision Date |
May 14, 2001 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The Sindh High Court, presided over by Judge Shabbir Ahmed, delivered a pivotal decision on May 14, 2001, in the case Suit No. 1641 of 1998 between ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. as the plaintiff and Messrs TAWAKKAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. along with other defendants. The court meticulously examined the applicability of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, specifically focusing on Section 12 and its interplay with the Civil Procedure Code (C.P.C) of 1908. The plaintiff sought recovery of loan amounts, while the defendants contested the summons based on insufficient service and personal incapacities. The court upheld that Section 12(2) of the C.P.C. could be invoked in banking cases, provided there was sufficient cause preventing the defendant from responding to the summons within the stipulated 21 days from gaining knowledge of it. The defendant No.10, an elderly widow suffering from multiple ailments, successfully demonstrated that her incapacity and lack of awareness of the summons publication justified setting aside the decree against her. However, the court rejected the broader plea of fraud, emphasizing that false claims made outside the court proceedings do not constitute valid grounds for setting aside a decree. The decision referenced several precedents, including Emirates Bank International v. Messrs Usman Brothers and Gold Store International v. Muslim Commercial Bank, to reinforce the interpretation of the law. Ultimately, the decree was set aside only against defendant No.10, highlighting the court's balanced approach in upholding legal statutes while ensuring justice for vulnerable individuals. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD. versus Messrs TAWAKKAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES LTD. and others, adjudicated by the Sindh High Court on May 14, 2001, significant legal precedents were established concerning the enforcement of banking laws and the procedural safeguards for defendants. The case, cited as 2002 SLD 2175 and 2002 CLD 689, centered around the plaintiff, Allied Bank, seeking recovery of substantial loan amounts from the defendants, primarily Tawakkal Garment Industries Ltd. The legal battle delved deep into the nuances of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, and its intersection with the Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908). Presided over by Judge Shabbir Ahmed, the court meticulously analyzed Section 12 of the Banking Companies Act, which empowers the court to consider sufficient cause that might prevent a defendant from responding to a summons within a specified timeframe, typically 21 days from the moment of knowledge. The defendants, represented by Maqbool Baqar, contested the summons on grounds of inadequate service and personal incapacities, particularly highlighting the case of defendant No.10, an elderly widow suffering from ailments that rendered her unaware of the legal summons published in newspapers. The court acknowledged the defendant's hardships, recognizing that personal health issues and lack of awareness can be legitimate grounds for setting aside decrees, provided sufficient evidence is presented. However, the court drew a clear line when it came to allegations of fraud and misrepresentation. While the plaintiff attempted to challenge the decrees based on supposed false claims made during court proceedings, the court emphasized that such claims must be substantiated within the context of the legal proceedings themselves. Mere allegations made outside the courtroom were insufficient to overturn a decree. The judgment extensively referenced previous cases, including Emirates Bank International v. Messrs Usman Brothers and Gold Store International v. Muslim Commercial Bank, to support its interpretations and rulings. These references underscored the court's commitment to maintaining a balance between upholding banking laws and ensuring that defendants are treated justly, especially those facing genuine hardships. The court's decision to set aside the decree solely against defendant No.10, while leaving other decrees intact, showcased a tailored approach, ensuring that justice is served without undermining the authority of banking regulations. This case has since been cited in numerous legal discussions and judgments, serving as a benchmark for interpreting similar disputes in the banking sector. It highlights the critical balance courts must maintain between enforcing financial obligations and acknowledging the human factors that might impede legal compliance. Moreover, the detailed examination of procedural laws and the emphasis on evidence-based rulings reinforce the Sindh High Court's role in shaping fair and just legal practices in Pakistan's financial and judicial landscapes. For legal professionals and stakeholders in the banking sector, this case offers invaluable insights into the strategic navigation of banking laws, the importance of procedural compliance, and the compassionate consideration of defendants' circumstances. As financial disputes continue to evolve, the principles established in this case remain vital for ensuring that the judiciary effectively mediates between the interests of financial institutions and the rights of individuals, fostering a legal environment that is both robust and equitable. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Muslim Commercial Bank,
United Bank Ltd.,
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.,
TAWAKKAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES LTD.,
Messrs Passcon (Pvt.) Ltd.,
Muzafarul Haq,
Mohabali Trading,
Gold Store International,
Mian Muneer Ahmed,
Lal Din,
Begum Anwari Khanum
|
| Judges |
SHABBIR AHMED, J
|
| Lawyers |
Bashir Ahmed Khan,
Maqbool Baqar
|
| Petitioners |
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.
|
| Respondents |
others,
Messrs TAWAKKAL GARMENT INDUSTRIES LTD.
|
| Citations |
2002 SLD 2175,
2002 CLD 689
|
| Other Citations |
Emirates Bank International v. Messrs Usman Brothers PLD 1998 Kar. 338,
Gold Store International v. Muslim Commercial Bank 2000 MLD 421,
Mian Muneer Ahmed v. United Bank Ltd. PLD 1998 Kar. 278,
Tawakkal Export Corporation and others v. Muslim Commercial Bank and another 1997 CLC 1342,
Lal Din and another v. Muhammad Ibrahim 1993 SCMR 710,
Begum Anwari Khanum v. Messrs Passcon (Pvt.) Ltd. 1993 MLD 1555,
Muzafarul Haq v. Muslim Commercial Bank PLD 1993 Lah.706,
United Bank v. Mohabali Trading PLD 1994 Kar.275
|
| Laws Involved |
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997,
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
|
| Sections |
12,
9(4),
21,
151,
12 (2),
O. V, R. 20
|