Lawyers Directory Listing
Unlock direct contact details for up to 10 lawyers so you can call or WhatsApp the right legal professional and move your matter forward with confidence.
Regular First Appeal No.175 of 1981, decided on 21st March, 1987.
--Ss.6,7 & 12--Suit for recovery of Bank loans-- Competency of--Stocks of rice and paddy pledged by borrower with appellant-Bank, subsequently taken over by Rice Milling Corporation of Pakistan--There being no relationship .of borrower and creditor between Corporation and Bank, suit instituted by Bank against Corporation in Special Court (Banking), held, was not- competent.
---Ss.6, 7 & 12--Suit for recovery of loans--Dismissal of--Appeal against--Bank being not in a position to return stock, pledged by borrower with such Bank, same, held could not claim recovery of loans from borrower--Suit of appellant-Bank for recovery 'of loans against borrower was rightly dismissed by Trial Court in circumstances.
Muhammad Yaqoob Khan for Appellant.
Nemo for Respondents.
Date of hearing: 21st March, 1987.
-The facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal, which are not in dispute, may be shortly stated. The appellant, National Bank of Pakistan, extended loan facility of Rs.7,00,000 to Messrs National Rice Mills, Okara, respondent 1, against the pledge of the latter's goods, namely, rice and paddy, which the appellant took possession of. Subsequently Messrs Rice Milling Corporation 'of Pakistan, respondent 2, got hold of the stocks of rice and paddy which respondent 1 had pledged with the appellant. The suit brought by the appellant against the respondents for recovery of the outstanding amount of loan was dismissed by the learned Special Court (Banking), Lahore, on the ground that the appellant was not in a position to restore the pledged goods to respondent 1.
2. Admittedly, respondent 2 could not be called a borrower nor the appellant could be termed its creditor. Therefore, the appellants/suit against respondent 2 in the Special Court (Banking) was no competent.
3. The learned counsel for the appellant concedes that as the appellant is not in a position to return the pledged goods to respondent 1, 'it cannot claim the recovery of loan from the latter. In the circumstances the dismissal of the suit recorded by the learned trial Court is in order. The appeal fails and is dismissed. The appellant may seek its remedy, if it is available under law, for recovering the value of the pledged goods taken over by respondent 2. As the respondents have not chosen to contest the appeal there will be no order as to costs.
H.B.T./N-24/L Appeal dismissed.
Dealing with a matter like this? Connect with a verified advocate in your city — free on SJP Lawyers Directory.
🔍 Find a Lawyer