| Case ID |
46b3444c-c77c-4db2-98f3-18f2553d0cca |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
High Court Appeal No. 292 of 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Jul 17, 2002 |
| Hearing Date |
|
| Decision |
The High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Messrs Doha Bank Limited under section 21 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. The court held that the appeal was valid despite the lack of a decree at the time of filing. The judgment emphasized that the requirement to attach a decree was directory and not mandatory, allowing the appeal on its merits. Furthermore, the court reaffirmed the importance of preserving the sanctity of judicial records, indicating that affidavits could not contradict the statements made by the presiding judge. The ruling underscored that bank guarantees are independent contracts, and encashment should not be hindered by disputes unless substantial evidence of irreparable harm is presented. The court's decision was based on principles of commercial morality and mutual trust in financial dealings, leading to the conclusion that the demand for payment under the bank guarantee was legitimate and lawful. |
| Summary |
This case involves an appeal by Doha Bank Limited against a decree related to a bank guarantee issued in favor of Pangrio Sugar Mills Limited. The appeal raised questions about the procedural requirements for filing an appeal under the Banking Companies Act and the significance of consent decrees. The court examined the validity of the appeal despite the absence of a signed decree at the time of filing, ruling that such requirements are directory in nature. The judgment highlighted the importance of maintaining the integrity of judicial records and established that bank guarantees operate as independent contracts, emphasizing the necessity of upholding commercial trust and morality in banking transactions. The court's decision reinforced the principle that encashment of bank guarantees should proceed unless clear evidence of wrongdoing or irreparable harm is presented. The ruling serves as a critical reference for future banking and commercial law cases, illustrating the balance between legal technicalities and the substantive rights of parties involved. |
| Court |
Sindh High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
Doha Bank Limited,
Pangrio Sugar Mills Limited
|
| Judges |
GHULAM NABI SOOMRO,
WAHID BUX BROHI
|
| Lawyers |
A. I. Chundrigar,
Ilyas Khan Tanoli,
Farid-ud-Din
|
| Petitioners |
Messrs DOHA BANK LIMITED
|
| Respondents |
2 others,
PANGRIO SUGAR MILLS LIMITED
|
| Citations |
2003 SLD 2898,
2003 CLD 661
|
| Other Citations |
Baseer Ahmed Siddiqui v. Shama Afroz 1988 SCMR 892,
Abdullah v. Shaukat 2001 SCMR 60,
Katta R. Venkatesayya v. Muhammad Ghouse Saheb AIR 1994 Mad. 45,
Muhammad Zaman v. Abdul Ghaffar PLD 1980 Lah.582,
National Construction Limited v. Aiwan-e-Iqbal PLS 1994 SC 311,
Army Welfare Sugar Mills Ltd. v. Federation of Pakistan 1992 SCMR 1652,
Zahoor Textile Mill's case PLD 1999 SC 880
|
| Laws Involved |
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997,
Civil Procedure Code, 1908,
Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984,
Contract Act, 1872
|
| Sections |
21,
O.XLI, R.1,
96(3),
O.XXIII, R.1,
129(e),
126
|