MIR AFZAL vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN Ltd. And Other
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal against an order of the Peshawar High Court, which had dismissed the petitioner's appeal due to non-compliance with a procedural direction. The High Court had ordered the petitioner to furnish a bank guarantee equivalent to the decretal amount as a condition for proceeding with the appeal, pursuant to the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The petitioner failed to comply with this order and instead requested permission to provide personal security, which was refused. Consequently, the High Court dismissed the appeal for failure to satisfy the statutory condition. The Supreme Court of Pakistan examined the impugned order and held that the High Court's decision was entirely in accordance with the law. The Supreme Court affirmed that the High Court acted correctly in dismissing the appeal when the mandatory condition imposed under the relevant banking legislation was not met, thereby upholding the principle that statutory conditions for filing or proceeding with an appeal must be strictly adhered to by the appellant.
- Can a High Court dismiss an appeal for failure to furnish a bank guarantee as ordered under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979?
- Is a court required to accept personal security in lieu of a bank guarantee when the statute mandates the latter for proceeding with an appeal?
- Section 12(5), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance 1979
ORDER
1. NASIM HASAN SHAH, J.--The Peshawar High Court, while hearing the appealpreferred by the petitioner against the order of the Special Judge Banking Companies, N.W.F.P., Peshawer, directed the petitioner on 6-3-1984 to furnishBank Guarantee equal to the decretal amount within two months before proceeding further with this appeal. He did not comply with this direction and instead submitted an application for permission to furnish personal security instead of a Bank Guarantee. This request was refused and as the petitioner had failed to comply with the earlier direction of the Court made under clause (5) of section 12 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, his appeal was not admitted for regular hearing and ordered to be dismissed. This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the said order of the High Court.
2. The order of the High Court impugned before us is entirely in accordance with law and is not liable to any interference.
Cited by 2 cases
- Messrs CHINA PAINT INDUSTRIES LIMITED And Others vs INDUSTRIAL 1990 CLC 1865
- USMAN HUSSAIN Versus H. B. L. 1988 PLD 628