Lawyers Directory Listing
Chat with us free on WhatsApp — tell us your city and legal matter and our team connects you with the right lawyer. No form, no fee.
Civil Petition for Special Leave to Appeal No. 213 of 1971, decided on 15th May 1972.
(On appeal from the judgment and order of the Lahore High Court at Lahore, dated the 9th July 1971, in L. P. A. No. 44 of 1965).
Constitution of Pakistan (1962),
Art. 58(3)‑Petition for Special Leave to Appeal‑Contention raised pertaining mainly to questions of fact, duly considered and rightly decided by High Court -Special Leave to Appeal refused by Supreme Court.
AL 1hsan‑ul‑Hag, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by S. Majid Hussain, Advocate‑on‑Record for Petitioner.
Nemo for Respondent.
Date of hearing : 15th May 1972.
In proceedings relating to the winding U, up of the Central Exchange Bank Limited, Lahore (in liquidation), Li the Official Liquidator, namely, the State Bank of Pakistan, SG has found the petitioner to be liable as a contributory of A, the Central Exchange Bank in the sum of Rs. 24,685‑2‑9 an account of unpaid call money, uncalled liability and interest on account of 1029 shares of the company of the nominal value of Rs. 50 each held by him. The petitioner applied to the High Court under section 184/38 of the Companies Act, denying his liability for the sum settled against him. He denied the valid transfer to him of 180 shares, and alleged certain payments having been made to the Bank, for which he had not been given credit. The Company Judge dismissed his application after record ing evidence on all the issues that arose from the pleadings of the parties.
All the objections raised by the petitioner against his liability related to questions of fact, which have been duly considered by the High Court on the evidence produced, and have been found against the petitioner. Before us, the learned counsel for the petitioner urged that the Official Liquidator had failed to prove the transfer of 180 shares, as no instrument of transfer was executed in the petitioner's favour, as required by law. It is not denied, however, that the share‑scripts of the aforesaid shares were made over to the petitioner, which he had himself produced before the Company Judge. He was also recorded as a shareholder of those shares in the .Company's books. The other point urged before us is that the petitioner has not been given credit for the sum of Rs. 4,600 in spite of the receipt, Exh. D. W. 2/5, produced by him, which bore the signature of Abdul Majid, who was at the tithe acting as the cashier of the Bank. The aforesaid Abdul Majid appeared as a witness and supported the petitioner's case on this point. The High Court has disbelieved the evidence of this witness, as he was a dismissed employee. of the Bank and had been arrested on the charge of embezzlement. He‑ was employed only as a ledger‑keeper at the time, and no effort was made by the petitioner to show that he was also acting as the cashier with entitlement to receive deposits on behalf of the Bank and to make over receipts thereof. The petitioner failed to summon the original pay‑in‑slip from the Bank, which could have furnished primary evidence of the deposit of the amount, if it had been made, as alleged by the petitioner.
As the contentions raised merely pertain to questions of fact, which have been duly considered and rightly decided in the High Court, we see no ground for interference. This petition is dismissed.
Leave refused.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer