Find a Lawyer

HUDAYBIA TEXTILE MILLS LTD versus ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979 Section 8 (3) Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908), OXI, R92 Supreme Court Rules, 1980, OXVI, R1 Supreme Court Decision Question The question that was raised was that in section 8 (3) of the Ordinance itself, in relation to the implementation of the court-approved orders made under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, as a special power. Provided, the procedure provided for in the Civil Procedure Code 1908 was displaced by the Supreme Court in the decision under consideration. It was further claimed that the auction validity was distinguished by the sale of the powers of the court by the validity of the sale, both of which were the dimensions of power authorized under section 8 (3) of Ordinance XIX of 1979 I was, was ignored and not affected, the sale was to be processed by the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, the trial judge under review on express reservations strongly dealt with this argument. Which was submitted in support of a review request which is presumed. The dispute that now arises is that the decision was made on the basis of the provisions of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908, was not well-established, the question of confirmation of sale under the review was reviewed. Which included the general principles. Appeals for review in the case of judicial sale were excluded from the merit vacancy ask a advocate free from Wah Cantt lawyer