MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.---Through an agreement, respondent No.1 awarded a modarba finance facility to respondent No.2/Ravi Enterprises (Pvt.) Ltd. Subsequently, for non-discharge of liability by the borrower, the said respondent brought a suit for recovery of Rs.6,076,103 under the Provisions of Modaraba Companies and Modarabas (Floatation and Control) Ordinance, 1980 before the Chairman Modaraba Tribunal, Punjab, Lahore, in which, the present appellants have been arrayed as defendants, but not as the guarantors nor the mortgagors of the said loan, rather, as the real beneficiaries. The appellants, inter alia, applied for the grant of leave to appear and defend the suit on the ground that they are not liable, which application has been rejected through the impugned judgment. Hence this appeal.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that respondent No.2 is a Private Limited Company and is a juristic person and a legal entity. Resultantly, for any liability incurred by the Company, the appellants as the Directors of the Company are not liable to discharge the same. It is further submitted that in the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 and the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans. Advances. Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, though the liability of a real beneficiary, has been created by virtue of the relevant definition of the term 'Customer/borrower' but this is conspicuously missing in the Modaraba Companies and Modarabas (Floatation and Control)
Ordinance, 1980, therefore, being the Director of the Company, the appellants cannot be held responsible for the facility provided to the Company.
3. Confronted with the above, learned counsel for the respondent No.1 by relying upon Ladli Prasad Jaiswa l v. The 'carnal Distillery Co. PLD 1965 SC 221 argued that, in fact, Ravt Enterprises is a Private Limited Company and, therefore, by lifting the veil, it is clear that the appellants. arc the real beneficiary of a Company. thus are liable, on this account.
4. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties in find no force in the plea, raised by the learned counsel for the respondents. Ravi Enterprises is a legal entity and is a juristic person to whom the facility was granted. On the principle of Ladli Prasad Case, which is applicable in the matter relating to liquidation of such Company, the liability of the appellants being the Director of the Company can in no way be created. Resultantly, this appeal is accepted; impugned judgment of learned trial Court is set aside and suit of the respondent against the appellants is dismissed. No order as to costs.