KARACHI, Sept 5: The provisions of the Civil Procedure Code are not applicable to transactions concluded under the Banking Companies Ordinance, 2001, a division bench of the Sindh High Court ruled on Friday.
The ruling came on a writ petition moved by Advocate Shamsul Islam and his wife, who had purchased a bungalow for Rs10 million in a public auction held by a banking court in execution of a decree in favour of a creditor bank. The court asked the official assignee for execution of a sale deed/certificate in the name of the auction purchasers.
The chief inspector of stamps, Sindh board of revenue, however, declined to sanction registration of the deed as, according to him, the court could only order execution of a sale certificate under the CPC. He said the rate of stamp duty on a sale certificate was five per cent as against three per cent recoverable on a sale deed. He asked the purchasers to pay another Rs 200,000 by way of stamp duty and a fine of Rs 20,000 for defaulting on payment of the amount due. The purchasers challenged the order in the high court.
Justices S. Ahmed Sarwana and M. Mujibullah Siddiqui, who constituted the division bench, held that the CPC was not applicable to transactions under the Banking Companies Ordinance. The chief inspector of stamps did not impound the sale deed nor preferred an appeal against the court order, which became final. He did not even move a reference against the execution order. Setting aside the fine, the bench ordered the chief inspector to release the original sale deed after its registration.
Meanwhile, accepting an application filed by the New Allied Electronic Industries (Pvt) Limited, Justice Shabbir Ahmed warned the chief inspector to be careful in adjudication of stamp duty, particularly in cases involving court sale.
The company had purchased tax-free plazas in Lahore and Karachi for Rs 120 million and Rs 48 million, respectively, in execution of a decree obtained by the Habib Bank against Global Marketing Limited and its chief executive, Fouzi Ali Kazmi, and director Tariq Omer. A sale deed in respect of the Lahore plaza was registered in the Punjab capital. When a conveyance deed in respect of the Karachi plaza was presented to the chief inspector, he refused to stamp it, insisting that since the auction orders emanated from the Sindh High Court and the sale was finalized in Karachi, stamp duty for both the properties be paid in Karachi.
The chief inspector filed a reference in the high court and the auction purchaser moved an application against his order.
Rejecting the reference and allowing the application, Justice Ahmed asked the chief inspector to stamp the conveyance deed in respect of the Karachi plaza within a week and warned him to be careful in future. Additional Advocate-General Abbas Ali appeared for the provincial board of revenue in both the cases.
EJECTION NOTICE: A division bench of Sindh High Court, comprising Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Syed Ali Aslam Jaffery, disposed of a petition by cement block-makers against the ejection notice and asked the petitioners to move an appeal with the concerned officer, add agencies.
Petitioners Mohammad Hanif, Anwar, Mohammad Irfan and Ismail submitted they have been making cement blocks in Landhi 2-B area for the last 30 years.
They stated EDO (Revenue) Landhi issued them notices to vacate the place without giving any chance to hear their opinion which is illegal and court was prayed to declare it void.
The court asked the petitioner to file an appeal to concerned officer of Landhi Town in this regard and if an objection is raised he can again approach the court.
Shaukat Ali Sheikh and Obaid Hamza advocates appeared for petitioners.
INSPECTOR APPOINTED: Justice Zia Pervez of the Sindh High Court on Friday appointed Wasiq Mustufa as inspector to ascertain matters of Tri-Star Energy Limited and directed him to submit report within 90 days.
Petitioner Tahir Mehmood, acting Joint Registrar of Companies, filed an application seeking winding up of the company for its failure to offer shares for a continuous period of five years.
It was submitted that sponsor shares were subscribed to the extent of Rs300 million in 1995. Thereafter initial offer of associated companies were made for subscription in January 1996 and offer to general public ought to have been made by end of 1996 to bring the company into operation.
The court observed that the matter involves subscription of shares to Rs 300 million and amounts appear to be reflected in accounts of the company.
































