Section 22 : Removal of difficulties
2015 CLD 626 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PAK LIBYA HOLDING COMPANY (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS KOHANOOR EDIBLE OILS LIMITED
22—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S. 5—Appeal—Condonation of delay—Public functionaries—Financial institution filed appeal with a delay of seven days and sought condonation of delay on the plea that its staff, under directions of Federal Government, was busy in preparing list of defaulters for submission to State Bank of Pakistan—Validity—Such plea could not be made a ground for condonation of delay—Financial institution failed to show “sufficient cause” for not making appeal within prescribed time period of limitation—High Court declined to condone the delay caused in filing of appeal—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2011 CLD 842 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Haji MUHAMMAD ASHIQ VS BANK OF OMAN LTD.
22—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.2, O.XXI, Rr.10, 89, 90 & S.48—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.165, 166 & 181—Suit for recovery of loan—Banking Court decreed the suit directing sale of property mortgaged to plaintiff bank—Appellants/owners of the property filed objection petition which was dismissed by the executing court for being time-barred under Art.166 of the Limitation Act, 1908—Scope and application of Arts.165 & 166, Limitation Act, 1908–Appellants/ objection petitioners contended that they never mortgaged the property to the bank—Suit land was not mortgaged to bank by appellants at the time of institution of suit—Judgment-debtor did not obtain non-encumbrance certificate from Revenue Department before filing of the suit—Executing court committed glaring mistake by passing order of attachment of suit property and subsequent auction which dispossessed owners of the property—Executing court did not consider that the execution petition was time-barred—Factual controversy of limitation was decided without framing the issues and recording of evidence—Article 165 of Limitation Act, 1908 did not apply to the application filed by judgment-debtor whereas Art.166 of Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable to application filed by judgment-debtor as well as to an application filed by any of persons mentioned in O.XXI, Rr.89 & 90, C.P.C. for setting aside the sale within thirty days from the date of sale—Provisions of Art.181 of Limitation Act, 1908 provided for period of 3 years for filing first application for the execution of a decree—Executing court made an error by proceeding under S.22 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 which, having been promulgated after the dispute between the parties arose, could not be applied with retrospectively—Appeal was allowed—Impugned order passed by the Banking Court was set aside and the case was remanded to executing court for decision afresh after framing the issues and providing opportunity of hearing to the parties.
2009 CLD 1428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS ARIF NOOR
22(2), proviso—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.130—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.57, 115 & S.19—Suit for recovery of loan—Making of demand by the Bank—Contention of the plaintiff (Bank) was that the demand had been made to the defendants { and they had acknowledged their liability and had finally refused to discharge their liability a week before the filing of the suit, therefore, three years’ time shall commence from the refusal—Validity—Held, on account of vital omissions and lapses on part of the plaintiff (Bank) to give the details and particulars of the demands so made to bring its case within the purview of Arts.57 or 115 of the Limitation Act, 1908 or S.130 or arty other provision of the Contract Act, 1872 rendered the plaintiff s case as barred by time—Principles.
2009 CLD 1428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS ARIF NOOR
22(2), proviso—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.57 & 115—Contentions of the respondents were that Letter of Guarantee would reveal that the status of respondents was not that of guarantors, rather same was of the principal debtors/obligators and therefore, the question of making of demand and their refusal would not have arisen at all; and that neither Art.57 nor 115, Limitation Act, 1908 was applicable to the present case as both related to different circumstances and situations—Validity—Where the guarantor had been described as principal debtor, the question of raising the demand against it was not relevant—Letter of Guarantee having revealed that guarantors were the Principal Debtors, resultantly the plea raised by the Bank that the demands had been made from them but they acknowledged etc., had no force.
2009 CLD 1428 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED VS ARIF NOOR
Ss. 22(2) proviso & 25—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Preamble—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Preamble—Transfer of cases pending under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 to courts established under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Limitation—Revival of cause of action—Scope—“Past transactions” not past and closed transactions”—Provisions of S.22(2), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 by no means give rise to any fresh cause of action for the “interest bearing loan” and therefore, no extension of limitation can be construed in this category of the cases i.e. those earlier covered under the jurisdiction of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and there was no limitation provided for the suits falling in the purview of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Limitation was being provided and enforced for the fresh institution, thus, with an obvious object and view to provide banking companies/institutions with the requisite period of time and in order to avoid the possibility that any suit under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 may not be claimed to have become time-barred, the proviso to S.22(2), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 was added to ensure the noted protection—“Past transaction” did not mean the past and closed transaction”, but only referred to the past transactions, which expression should be strictly construed in the context having nexus and the relevance to the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 alone—Section 22(2), proviso of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 in no manner and by no means had revived the limitation for the purposes of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 as ‘fresh cause of action” shall not be deemed to have arisen for such cases that had become blatantly time-barred even under the said Ordinance—Suit, if only based upon S.22(2), proviso of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 would be barred by time.
2006 CLD 1396 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Messrs FIVE STAR TRAVELS
–S.22(2)—Terns “all cases”—Applicability—Execution proceedÂings—Scope—Tenn “all cases” referred in S.22 (2) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, relates to any suit, application or other proceedin
2006 CLD 706 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. SHAHEEN NOON VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager
-S.9—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S. 22—Recovery of bank loan—Time-barred suit—Interest bearing loan—Provisions of S.22 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Fin
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
2006 CLD 139 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Syed ZULFIQAR ALI SHAH VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through Attorney
—Ss.21 & 22—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29—Appeal—Limitation—Condonation of delay–Appeal filed against judgment and decree passed by Banking Court, was barred by limitation—Appellant filed application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908
2005 SCMR 1014 SUPREME-COURT
Mian AFTAB A. SHEIKH VS Messrs TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
—-Ss. 10 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Leave to appear and defend the suit before Banking Court—Defendants had failed to make out a case for leave to appear and defend the suit and application under S.12(2), C.P.C. moved by the
2005 CLD 1723 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
State VS Messrs Haji Sheikh FAIZ MUHAMMAD DIN MUHAMMAD, IMPORTERS AND
EXPORTERS through Managing Partner and 4 others
— Ss. 22 & 13—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art.85 & S.19—Banker and customer—Suit for recovery of amount by Bank through Custodian of Enemy Property—Limitation—Parties were maintaining a mutual open and current account—Suit was governed by Ar
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
2003 CLD 1419 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Messrs HAQ TRADERS VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 7(6), 9 & 22—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss.2(b), 5, 9 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–ÂConstitutional petition—Suit for declaration and’settlement of accounts by bo
2003 CLD 765 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- AFZAL VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKSITAN LTD.
—-S.22 (1)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5 — Condonation Of delay—Provisions of Limitation Act, 1908—Applicability–Application to set aside ex parte decree was filed with a delay of more than seven months and application under S.5 of Limitatio
2002 CLD 712 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs NAQI BEVERAGES (PVT.) LTD
—-Ss.9 & 22(2), proviso—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Fresh cause of action—Scope—Fresh cause of action arose in favour of the plaintiff on the date of promulgation of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ac
1999 PLD 391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VICTORY CORPN. VS EMIRATES BANK
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Ss. 21 & 22—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts.181, 183 & 3—Suit for recovery of loan under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979—Preliminary decree was passed on 12-2-1989 and final decree on 29-3-1992—Execution application—Limitation—Bank filed execution. application before High Court on 16-10-1997 which was transferred to the Banging Court and was present before the said Court on 7-2-1998—Debtor applied for dismissal of the execution application on the plea of limitation, which was dismissed by the Banking Court—Validity—Jurisdiction exercised by High Court under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 being ordinary original civil jurisdiction, limitation period was to be regulated by Art.183, Limitation Act, 1908—Finding of Banking Court that Art. 183, Limitation Act, 1908 was attracted and that execution was filed before expiry of six years was correct and no exception could be taken to that.
1998 PLD 302 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PUNJAB BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD.
Ss. 10 & 22(2)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.9– Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.9—Suit for recovery of finances based on markup—Past transactions—Fresh cause of action—Terminus quo for filing recovery proceedings—Finances availed by defendant being- evidently based on mark-up, suit for recovery of such finances could be filed by plaintiff under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, without any constraint of time—Terminus quo for filing recovery proceedings having been prescribed under Limitation Act, 1908, same was specifically made inapplicable to mark-up based transactions—Right to sue for recovery of claim did subsist till repeal of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Such right being in existence and enforceable till promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, plaintiff was entitled to benefit of proviso to S.22(2) of the Act and fresh cause of action would be deemed to have accrued to plaintiff for purpose of limitation
1998 CLC 812 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS FAKIR SHIPPING MILLS
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 22(1)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art, 183 & S.3—Right to execute decree stood extinguished on point of limitation—Provision of S.22(1), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 could not be interpreted differently so as to revive rights which stood extinguished before initiation of execution proceedings—Execution application against earlier decree, dated 25-3-1984 was dismissed being barred by time while the same would proceed against decree, dated 4-5-1987.