Sugar mills owners barred from selling properties

Updated 22 May 2019


The judge adjourned further hearing for arguments till Sept 16. — Dawn/File
The judge adjourned further hearing for arguments till Sept 16. — Dawn/File

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday restrained the owners of Kashmir Sugar Mills from selling the mills properties till the decision on a loan recovery suit filed against them by a private bank.

The bank in its suit contended that the mills’ owners (directors) had obtained a loan against the mortgage of 2,017,400 sugar bags weighing 50kg each in 2013.

It said the directors, including Tariq Shafi, Javed Shafi, Ibrahim Tariq, Zahid Shafi, Ali Pervez, Hasnain Tariq Shafi, Mian Pervez Shafi and Khalida Pervez, believed to be relatives of Sharif family, had also submitted their personal sureties for the loan. However, the mills defaulted on the loan and the bank filed the suit for a decree of Rs640.5 million.

Advocate Shahzada Mazhar represented the Bank Alfalah and requested the court to restrain the respondents from selling out their properties. He said there was an apprehension that the respondents might dispose of the mills’ properties without paying back the loan as they enjoyed political influence.

Justice Muzammil Akhtar Shabbir allowed the request and restrained the respondents from selling and transferring the possession of the properties in question till the final decision on the loan recovery suit.

The judge adjourned further hearing for arguments till Sept 16.

AMNESTY: The Lahore High Court on Tuesday sought replies from federal government and the Federal Board of Revenue (FBR) on a petition challenging the legality of Tax Amnesty Scheme-2019.

A citizen, Waheed Butt, challenged the scheme meant for declaration of ill gotten assets for being a relief to looters of public money.

The petitioner’s counsel argued that the amnesty scheme could not be launched unless approved by the parliament. He said the impugned scheme was only approved by the federal cabinet, which was against the Constitution.

However, he stated that the Constitution had no provision for announcing such schemes to benefit tax evaders. He asked the court to declare the scheme unconstitutional.

The court issued notice to the respondents and sought their replies by June 28.

Published in Dawn, May 22nd, 2019