| Case ID |
69808198-e879-45c5-ba24-fb7ad089cf10 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
D-2741 of 2016 |
| Decision Date |
Dec 01, 2016 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 19, 2016 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed due to the failure of the appellants to deposit the required 20% of the auction amount as mandated by law. The court emphasized that the decision of the Supreme Court is binding on all lower courts and that any objections raised must adhere to procedural requirements. The appellants were given opportunities to contest the auction but did not comply with the necessary regulations. The ruling reinforced the importance of adhering to the legal framework governing auction sales and the execution of decrees, ultimately upholding the decision of the Banking Court. |
| Summary |
In the case between Jaguar Private Limited and Muslim Commercial Bank Limited, the Supreme Court addressed critical issues surrounding the execution of financial decrees and the conditions for contesting auction sales. The court's ruling highlighted the necessity for appellants to comply with procedural mandates, specifically the requirement to deposit 20% of the auction amount when filing objections. This case serves as a significant precedent in financial recovery processes and emphasizes the binding nature of Supreme Court decisions on lower courts. Legal practitioners and stakeholders in financial institutions must be aware of these requirements to navigate future cases effectively and avoid similar pitfalls. The ruling also reinforces the notion that ex post facto objections in legal proceedings are typically not entertained, further solidifying the importance of timely and appropriate legal actions in financial disputes. |
| Court |
Securities and Exchange Commission of Pakistan
|
| Entities Involved |
Muslim Commercial Bank Limited,
Jaguar Private Limited
|
| Judges |
Muhammad Sajid Mehmood Sethi
|
| Lawyers |
Asim Hafeez,
Hassan Iqbal Warraich,
Nadeem Ahmad Sheikh,
Zain Sikander,
Wasif Majeed,
Zaheer-ud-Din Babar,
Rana Intizar,
Ali Sufyan Faiz
|
| Petitioners |
SHAHID,
JAMIL KHAN,
Jaguar Private Limited
|
| Respondents |
Muslim Commercial Bank Limited,
Asim Hafeez
|
| Citations |
2016 SLD 3443,
2016 CLD 2134
|
| Other Citations |
Muhammad Ramzan and others v. Rahim Shah 2009 CLC 866,
Mst. Hira Rehman v. Chancellor Government College University Lahore and 2 others 2011 CLC 377,
Zainab Garments (Pvt.) Ltd. through Chief Executive and others v. Federation of Pakistan through Secretary Ministry of Housing and Works, Islamabad and another PLD 2010 Kar. 374,
Messrs Nice 'N' Easy Fashion (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Allied Bank of Pakistan and another 2014 SCMR 1662,
Mst. Manzoor Jahan Begum and others v. Haji Hussain Bakhsh PLD 1966 SC 375,
Mohib Textile Mills Limited through Director/Shareholder/Representative, Former Management of the Company v. National Bank of Pakistan Karachi and others 2005 SCMR 1237,
Muhammad Attique v. Jami Limited and others PLD 2010 SC 993,
Messrs Lanvin Traders, Karachi v. Presiding Officer, Banking Court No.2, Karachi and others 2013 SCMR 1419,
National Bank of Pakistan and 117 others v. Saf Textile Mills Ltd. and another PLD 2014 SC 283,
Nadeem Akhtar Tabasum v. Muslim Commercial Bank Limited and others 2014 SCMR 1371,
Mst. Alhamdi Begum v. National Bank of Pakistan, Karachi and 2 others PLD 1976 Kar. 723
|
| Laws Involved |
Constitution of Pakistan,
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance,
Civil Procedure Code
|
| Sections |
189,
9,
19,
XXI, R.90
|