MUHAMMAD HUSSAIN versus INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, HYDERABAD
A. XXI, RR54, 66, 67, 68, 89 and A. XXIII, R1 Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Arts 166 and 181 Financial Institutions (Restoration of Finance) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Section 19 Execution proceedings were auction buyers' request for auction of a mortgaged property lender's request under AXI, R-89, CPC to separate public auction sales. The limit was stopped on the basis of Article 166 of the Act, 1908, which did not confirm the auction. Due to an agreement between the bank and the lender, the sale by the Banking Court, which was to declare the formal duty of the court executed under OXI, R 66, CPC, and after notice to the borrower and the debtor, The announcement was to be made. Specifying the exact time and place of the auction and the details of the auction, neither the adjudicator was presented with the required notice in terms of the XXI, R 66, CPC nor the safe place and location of the auction. Imported auction took place before the auction date ended 30 days, the auction buyer deposited 25% of the bid amount at the end of the auction process, but not immediately. Compliance with the terms and conditions of the auction as a collective, unfair and in violation of the mandatory provisions of the OXI, neither CPC Article 181 nor Article 166 of the Limitation Act, 1908, will apply to the present case, which the court Neither confirmed nor accepted it. The auction, therefore, did not entitle the auction buyer to any right to confirm the auction. Absence in the absence of specific provision of the law relating to the execution of the agreement
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2014
