Section 11 : Execution of decree
2016 PLD 995 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIDA BIBI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
11(3)—Property mortgaged with Bank—Execution proceedings—Sale of property by Bank through private treaty/negotiation with auction bidder without intervention of the court—Judgment-debtor not given option to purchase through a notice—Effect—Section 11(3) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 required the Bank (decree holder) in case of sale through private negotiation to give to the judgment-debtor, by a notice, the option to purchase or redeem the property, as the case may be, at the same price within such time as the banking company may supply in such notice—Such option, which was a right conferred upon the judgment-debtor, was never afforded to him in the present case, therefore, the sale was not made as per the law and could not be sustained—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2016 PLD 995 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIDA BIBI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Ss. 7(7), 18 & 28—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997), S.12 [since repealed]—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S. 11 [since repealed]—Execution proceedings instituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, transferred to the Banking Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997, and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Retrospective effect—Scope—Section 28 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, which was a repealing section, did not indicate that the Legislature meant for said Act to be applied with retrospective effect—Question of retrospective application of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, to the execution proceedings, in the present case, did not therefore arise—In the absence of any saving clause, the relevant provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 [and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997] were to apply on the date of transfer of such execution proceedings and thereafter—Banking Court was not required to proceed de novo, rather from the stage which the proceedings had reached immediately prior to the transfer as envisaged by S. 7(7) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2016 CLD 2025 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIDA BIBI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
11(3)—Property mortgaged with bank—Execution proceedings—Sale of property by Bank through private treaty/negotiation with auction bidder without intervention of the court—Judgment-debtor not given option to purchase through a notice—Effect—Section 11(3) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 required the Bank (decree holder) in case of sale through private negotiation to give to the judgment-debtor, by a notice, the option to purchase or redeem the property, as the case may be, at the same price within such time as the banking company may supply in such notice—Such option, which was a right conferred upon the judgment-debtor, was never afforded to him in the present case, therefore, the sale was not made as per the law and could not be sustained—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2016 CLD 2025 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIDA BIBI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Ss. 7(7), 18 & 28—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997), S. 12 [since repealed]—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S. 11 [since repealed]—Execution proceedings instituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, transferred to the Banking Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997, and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Retrospective effect—Scope—Section 28 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, which was a repealing section, did not indicate that the Legislature meant for said Act to be applied with retrospective effect—Question of retrospective application of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, to the execution proceedings, in the present case, did not therefore arise—In the absence of any saving clause, the relevant provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 [and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997] were to apply on the date of transfer of such execution proceedings and thereafter—Banking Court was not required to proceed de novo, rather from the stage which the proceedings had reached immediately prior to the transfer as envisaged by S. 7(7) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2015 SCMR 319 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PARADISE TRADING COMPANY
11(3)—Immoveable property mortgaged with bank—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Auction of immovable property, procedure for—Public auction—Once bank had adopted public auction as procedure for selling mortgaged property, then no other mode or procedure was permissible for selling such property.
2015 SCMR 319 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PARADISE TRADING COMPANY
Ss. 6 & 11(3)—Immovable property mortgaged with bank—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Auction of immovable property by the bank—Judgment-debtor playing fraud by selling the mortgaged property to purported buyer—Purported buyer of such property would be bound by the decree passed by the Banking Tribunal.
2015 CLD 366 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PARADISE TRADING COMPANY
11(3)—Immoveable property mortgaged with bank—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Auction of immovable property, procedure for—Public auction—Once bank had adopted public auction as procedure for selling mortgaged property, then no other mode or procedure was permissible for selling such property.
2015 CLD 366 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PARADISE TRADING COMPANY
Ss. 6 & 11(3)—Immovable property mortgaged with bank—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Auction of immovable property by the bank—Judgment-debtor playing fraud by selling the mortgaged property to purported buyer—Purported buyer of such property would be bound by the decree passed by the Banking Tribunal.
2008 CLD 935 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB VS UNITED BANK LTD
Ss. 2(c) & 11–‘Customer’—Definition—Suit for recovery of loan—Employee—Directors of the company, who had defaulted, as per plaint, could not at all be termed as customers within the meaning of S.2(c), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Judgment and decree to their extent was wholly without jurisdiction.
2007 CLD 618 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ‘ZAHID INDUSTRIES through Managing Partner VS HABIB BANK LTD: through Manager
—S. 11—Executing Court–Powers of —Scope—Executing Court cannot go behind the decree, but is obliged to execute decree as it is.
2007 CLD 618 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ‘ZAHID INDUSTRIES through Managing Partner VS HABIB BANK LTD: through Manager
?
2006 CLD 554 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs CHENAB FLOUR MILLS (PVT.) LTD. Through Director/Chief Executive VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.22 & 18—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.12 & 11—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.181—Execution of decree passed under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Limitation—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 having been repealed on p
2005 CLD 1173 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD AKHTAR VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—Ss. 12 & 11—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 18 & 22—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 19 & 24—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 181—Execution
2004 CLD 940 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
JEHANZEB BURKI VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
—-Ss.10 & 11—Suit for recovery of loan against principal company and the guarantors—Leave to defend the suit—Grant of—Banking Tribunal having not found the defendant’s separate reply as satisfactory or disclosing good defence, decreed the suit–
2004 CLD 779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BARKHURDAR VS AGRICULTRAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.11, 9 & 6—Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.12—Appeal—Ex parte decree was passed against the debtor by the Banking Tribunal–Judgment-debtor, on attaining knowledge about the said ex parte decree, filed
2003 CLD 789 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN VS HABIB BANK LTD.
—-Ss.6 & 11—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.52—Execution of decree- -Objection petition, dismissal of—Factual controversy—Failure to record evidence–Contention of the objector was that the attached property was never mortgaged in fav
2003 CLD 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ ZARAI INDUSTRIES VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 2(a), 6, 9 & 11(4)—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A (as added by General Clauses (Amendment) Act (XI of 1997)]—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Decree for recovery of loan amount with liquida
2002 CLD 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs MUSLIM CORPORATION, OKARA through Managing Partner
—Ss. 6(2) & 11(4)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74— Liquidated damages, recovery of—Suit for recovery of Bank loan included liquidated damages—Banking Tribunal decreed the suit in favour of the Bank but declined to include liquidated damages in t
2002 CLD 1097 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs ASGHAR ENTERPRISES
—-S. 74—Banking, Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.11(4)—Liquidated damages, recovery of—Suit for recovery of Bank loan included liquidated damages—Validity—Claim of liquidated damages not being entertainable was declined.
2002 CLD 915 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through the Manager VS SABTAIN SHAH
—Ss. 6, 9 & 11—Suit for recovery of Rs.21,56,166 alongwith liquidated damages, expenses and costs–Defendant offered to pay decretal amount in instalments, in case he was exempted from paying insurance and cushion charges, costs of suit and liquidated
2002 CLD 417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR IQBAL VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.6(6), 9, 10 & 11—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99–Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Decree not challenged in appeal—Effect—Challenge through Constitutional petition to judgment and decree of Banking Tribunal after two year
2002 CLD 410 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS ZAFAR ULLAH ALIAS MUZAFFAR AHMAD
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.11—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 1991–Constitutional petition—Judgment-debtors, during execution of ex parte decree, produced receipts showing deposit of amount under Prime Minister’s Package, whereupon Banking Tribunal, being satisfied, consigned the execution petition to record —Validity–Banking Tribunal after calculating the amounts had come to the conclusion that judgment-debtors were entitled to deduction of amount deposited by them out of the principal amount—Order passed by the Banking Tribunal was not challenged by the Bank before higher forum, hence, the same attained finality binding the Bank by its terms—Impugned order was well-reasoned and did not suffer from any legal infirmity, therefore, High Court refused to interfere with the same and dismissed the Constitutional petition.
2002 CLD 407 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MST. RUKHSANA
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.11—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Dismissal of execution petition for non-prosecution on a date when proceedings were fixed only for awaiting the reply from Head Office of the decree-holder—Validity—Execution petition could not have been dismissed in default on a date not fixed for hearing—Impugned order could not be said to be a legal order, which was set aside by High Court in exercise of Constitutional jurisdiction—Constitutional petition was accepted.
2002 CLD 94 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS JASARAT HUSSAIN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.11(4)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 74—Liquidated damages—Non-awarding of—Grievance of the Bank was that the Banking Tribunal refused to award the liquidated damages, charges, costs and mark-up while passing decree in favour of the Bank—Validity—No evidence was either presented or sought to be presented by the Bank regarding liquidated damages—Only on failure of Judgment-debtor to pay the decretal amount, the liquidated damages under S.11(4) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, were permissible at the discretion of the Tribunal—Liquidated damages, if allowed automatically, would amount to charging of interest, thereby defeating the intent and purpose of legal change introduced in Banking Laws–Where no reasons to seek such discretion from the Tribunal were given nor did any occasion thereto arise, the Tribunal would be justified in refusing to award liquidated damages to the Bank—Bank failed to produce any evidence on record for other charges and costs and the same was denied by the borrower, therefore, the Bank was not entitled to claim such costs or charges—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2001 MLD 1955 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, FAISALABAD VS ASISHA GARMENTS
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 11(4)—Liquidated damages, levy of—Jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal—Such damages can be levied by Banking Tribunal only after passing of the decree and not before that—Law is specific as regards liquidated damages and impliedly excludes the imposition of liquidated damages in any form other than S.11(4) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984.
2001 CLC 126 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SHAHIDA SALEEM VS HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED
XXI, R.66 & O. XLIII, R.1(j)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.11—Execution proceedings—Setting aside of sale through auction—Failure to give reserve price in auction proclamation of the property under auction—Effect—Contention by the judgment-debtor was that no reserved price of the property was fixed and the same was auctioned at much lower price—Validity—Neither requisite notice was issued to the judgment-debtor nor the reserved price of the property was settled with the result that no one knew about the value of the property and without determining the same offer of the auction-purchaser was accepted—Effect–If in the first attempt for sale of the property sufficient members of bidders were not available at the site, the auction should have been postponed–
2000 YLR 2364 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD FAROOQ
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 11(iv)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74—Suit for recovery of Bank loan–Liquidated damages–Award of–Conditions–Principles-Recovery of liquidated damages, both with reference to the points of time and directions, impliedly related liquidated damages in any other context except where pursuant to an agreement, proof was tendered of any loss upon non-payment, relief for which might be prayed for—Where no such proof was tendered before the Banking Tribunal, damages about loss were rightly/declined disallowed by the Banking Tribunal—Order of the Tribunal which was based on sound reasoning was not interfered with.
1999 CLC 413 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AZMAT RABBANI VS UNITED BANK LIMITED, BANK SQUARE, FAISALABAD
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 11—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.58—Attachment of property—Appeal—Objection petition—Appellant tiled objection petition before Banking Tribunal against attachment of property on basis of agreement to sell with judgment-debtor in respect of attached property, which was rejected–Decree-holder offered a price five times more than the price mentioned in agreement to sell—Attached property was mortgaged in favour of decree-holder and all necessary documents were with the decree-holder—As to how property was agreed to be sold for paltry amount when decree-holder was ready to purchase that property at a much higher price was not explained—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
1997 PLD 17 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ALLLID BANK OF PAKISTAN VS HIGH CLASS ELECTRIC CO.
11(2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Payment of decretal amount through instalments during execution proceedings—Validity—Banking Tribunal would not allow decretal amount to be paid in instalments without consent of decree-holder—Provision of S.11(2), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 being mandatory, Tribunal’s impugned order directing payment of decretal amount through instalments was imperatively prohibited and thus without jurisdiction—Provisions of Art. 199 of the Constitution could be invoked whenever there was question of forum below having acted without jurisdiction—Banking Tribunal during execution proceedings could not go behind decree—When decree was passed no instalments having been fixed same could not be fixed during execution proceedings—Banking Tribunal by fixing instalments during execution proceedings had acted without jurisdiction—Impugned order of Banking Tribunal qua fixation of instalments as mode of payment was set aside in circumstances.