| Case ID |
4386b19f-1d2d-49da-96b2-4f17d061774e |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Suits Nos.341 of 1985, 417, 428 and 429 of 1986 an |
| Decision Date |
Dec 23, 1993 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The case revolves around the essential question of what constitutes due service of summons on defendants in suits under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The High Court examined the applicability of the Civil Procedure Code to such suits, determining that the provisions apply except where specifically excluded by the Ordinance. The court emphasized the need for proper service to ensure defendants are adequately informed of proceedings against them. The decision underscored the importance of following established procedures for service, including personal service, registered post, and publication, to uphold the principles of justice and avoid technicalities that could deny defendants their right to be heard. The ruling also addressed the significance of the Limitation Act in relation to such applications, ensuring that the legal framework is adhered to for effective administration of justice. |
| Summary |
The Sindh High Court's decision in the consolidated suits highlights the critical aspects of due service of summons under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The ruling clarifies that while the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code apply to these suits, the specific rules set forth in the Ordinance must be followed to ensure that defendants are adequately informed of the proceedings. The court reiterated that the law favors the advancement of justice over mere technicalities, emphasizing that legal procedures must serve their intended purpose of informing and allowing defendants to respond appropriately. The ruling also discusses the interplay between the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance and the Civil Procedure Code, particularly in the context of service methods such as personal delivery, registered mail, and publication in newspapers. The court's decision serves as a pivotal reference for future cases regarding banking disputes, ensuring that the legal framework remains conducive to fair proceedings. This case is particularly relevant for legal practitioners dealing with banking litigation and emphasizes the importance of adhering to procedural requirements to uphold the integrity of the judicial process. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
M/S. UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI,
M/S. MOHIBALI TANNERY LTD., KARACHI
|
| Judges |
WAJIHUDDIN AHMAD
|
| Lawyers |
Mansrooul Arfin,
Sarmad J. Osmany,
Jawaid Alam,
Zahid Hussain Burhani,
A.I. Chundrigar,
Mansoorul Arfin,
Shamsul Arfin Qureshi,
Noorullah A. Manji,
Abdul Qadir,
A. Aziz Khan,
Abdul Wahecd Kanjo
|
| Petitioners |
M/S. UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI
|
| Respondents |
M/S. MOHIBALI TANNERY LTD., KARACHI AND 8 OTHERS
|
| Citations |
1994 SLD 258,
1994 PLD 275
|
| Other Citations |
Joti Pershad v. Emperor AIR 1921 Lah. 134,
Saleh Muhammad v. Traffic Manager, Port Trust, Karachi PLD 1961 Kar. 349,
Abdul Kafil v. Faqir PLD 1962 Pesh. 51,
Dad Muhammad Khan v. Bassa PLD 1965 Lah. 77,
Ghulam Zamin v. A.B. Khondkar PLD 1965 Dacca 156,
Humayun Khan v. The State PLD 1966 Lah. 287,
H.S.C (Pak.) Ltd. v. Union Council 1982 SCMR 522,
Federation of Pakistan v. Azam Ali 1985 SCMR 386,
Pak Army Furnishing Stores v. Ali Akbar PLD 1985 Kar. 201,
Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. v. Tahir Traders PLD 1986 Kar. 369,
Cannon Products v. ITO, CC Karachi-I, 1985 PTD 549,
Star Trading Co. v. Pak Insurance Corpn. 1987 CLC 61,
Ali Muhammad H. K. Dada v. Sali Corporation PLD 1988 Kar. 279,
Muhammad Ashraf v. Nasreen Begum PLD 1989 Lah. 89,
Emirate Bank International v. Dost Muhammad Cotton Mills Limited 1993 MLD 54,
In Re: D'Souza AIR 1932 All. 374
|
| Laws Involved |
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
Limitation Act, 1908
|
| Sections |
Preamble,
Preamble,
Art. 181 & S.5
|