' Ch.Khushi Muhammad lodged claim for Rs,50,000 (Rs,fifty thousand) on the basis of fixed deposit receipt issued by G.T.Road Gujranwala Branch of Adamjee International Finance Ltd. And the official liquidator was directed to submit his report. The official liquidator has verified the claim. The ex- directors have lodged objections to the verification made. It was argued that the claim has been lodged much after the date fixed for submission of the claims and the possibility that the document produced might have been fabricated cannot be ruled out.
' The claimant has produced on record the original receipt but in view of the allegation of fabrication levelled, it will be appropriate to allow the ex-management to substantiate the allegation by producing evidence. Let the evidence a produced by them on the next date of hearing.
' Reports No,17,20,22 and Claims of Ex-Officers & C.M. No, 103/L-87.
' By this order I propose to dispose of reports No,17,20,22, the objections to these reports filed and C.M.No,103/L-87 filed by the. Ex-management. These reports of the official liquidator pertain to the claims filed by the depositors of various branches of the company under liquidation and the claims which are to be deemed to have been filed and verified on the basis of record available with the official liquidator in terms of section 57 for the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962. It will be pertinent to note that in report No,22 the official liquidator has described the different types of claims received by him. Report No,17 relates to the claims filed by the claimants within the date fixed in the notice inviting claims as well as the claims filed after the aforesaid date but entertained either on the direction of the Court or otherwise. In respect of such claims the order for condonation of delay, if necessary, has been sought by the official liquidator. The claims entered at serial No,355 to 634 of report No,17 and the claims entered at serial No,1 to 49 and 52 to 59 pertaining to Nabipura Branch, Lahore, of report No,20 are those claims which are to be deemed to have been filed under section 57 of the Banking Companies Ordinance as these amounts stand recorded in the books of the company as standing to the credit of the depositors. The value of these claims verifiable under section 57 of the said Ordinance comes to Rs,1,41,031/70 (Rs,one lac, forty-one thousand and thirty-one and paisas seventy). The amount of the claims filed by the depositors alongwith the supporting documents comes to Rs,11,16,671/50 (Rs,eleven lacs, sixteen thousand, six hundred and seventy-one and paisas
2. Another category of claims are those which were filed by the Managers of the three Branches on behalf of the depositors of these branches of the company. Munir Ahmad filed claims of the value of Rs,1,58,783/50 (Rs,one lac, fifty-eight thousand seven hundred and eighty-three and Paisas fifty) on behalf of the depositors of Kameer Branch, Sahiwal. These claims have been registered at serial No,75 to 128 of report No,17. It may be added that out of the aforesaid claimants 11 claimants have also, tiled claims individually amounting to Rs,79,179/50 (Rs,seventy-nine thousand one hundred and seventy-nine and paisas fifty). Likewise Mushtaq Janjua Manager Dhoria Branch Gujrat has filed claims on behalf of the depositors of the value of Rs,1,05,561/00 (Rs,one lac, five thousand, five hundred and sixty one) and Amjad Pervaiz Manager Kharian Branch, Gujrat filed claims of the value of Rs,40,641/00 (Rs,forty thousand, six hundred and forty-one).
' The objection pertaining to the claims filed by the Managers of Branches is that these claims have been filed much after the fixed date and that these Managers might have fabricated the record produced by them before the official liquidator in support of these claims. These allegations require inquiry and as such it will be fair to allow the parties to lead evidence in order to substantiate their respective versions. Notice will be issued to Munir Ahmad, Mushtaq Janjua and Amjad Pervaiz to appear on the next date of hearing. The official liquidator will also produce the record as well as the claims filed on the said date. The ex-directors will be free to produce their evidence on the same date.
' Objections against Specific Claims
3. The claim of Mst.Aisha Bibi for Rs,2900/00 (Rs,two thousand and nine hundred) has been entered at serial No,158 as well as at serial No,583. Likewise the claim of Ashiq Hussain Shah has been entered twice at serial No,165 and then at serial No,635 for Rs,1050/00 (Rs,one thousand and fifty).
The entries at serial No,583 and 635 shall be omitted. The value of the claim entered at serial No,338 has been shown as Rs,9030/00 (Rs,nine thousand) it should be Rs,900 (Rs,nine hundred).
The value against claim entered at serial No,438 should be Rs,93.70 (Rs,ninety three and paisas seventy) as against Rs,9370/00 (Rs,nine thousand, three hundred and seventy) wrongly typed. The necessary correction shall be made. Claim No,470 has been verified to Rs,700/00 (Rs,seven hundred) it should be for Rs,470 has been verified to Rs,700/00 (Rs,seven hundred) it should be for Rs,100/00 (Rs,one hundred) as accepted by the official liquidator. The necessary correction is hereby ordered.
4. Aslam Bokhari has filed a claim for Rs,21,000 (Rs,twenty-one mthousand). His claim for Rs,12,000 (Rs,twelve thousand) stands entered at serial No,51. Masood Khan filed claim for Rs,9000 (Rs, nine thousand) which stands entered at serial No,39 of report No,20. Both these amounts stand recorded in the Ledger of the Branch. Masood Khan stated before the official liquidator that as he has received the amount of his claim from Aslam Bokhari the amount of his claim be paid to him and that is how Aslam Bokhari claimed Rs,21,000/00 (Rs,twenty-one thousand). To this the ex- management can have no valid objection.
5. Now the main objection of the learned counsel for ex-management may be considered. It was argued that the liability of the ex-directors to pay the verified amount of the claims filed by the individual depositors is not disputed but the ex-management cannot be held liable to pay any amount on the basis of verification made in terms of section 57 of the Banking Companies Ordinance. It was argued that section 57 of the Ordinance does not apply as the company under liquidation was not a banking company. According to the learned counsel a banking company is one which has been granted a licence under section 27 of the Ordinance and which fulfils other requirements provided and contemplated by various sections of the Ordinance. It was added that neither the company floated by the petitioner applied for licence nor it was granted one nor it fulfilled the other requirements of law as the company under liquidation did not transact bankin business and it cannot be termed and treated as a "banking company' and as such section 57 of the Ordinance does not apply. The argument is misconceived. Admittedly the declaration contemplated by section 43-B was made by the State Bank of Pakistan in respect of the company on 7-3-1981. This declaration for the purpose of Part II-A of the Banking Companies Ordinance 1962 is conclusive. This declaration has remained unchallenged till date. Even in the proceedings initiated by the State Bank by moving C.0.19 of. 1981 under section 43 F of the Ordinance, the aforenoted plea was not taken in all these years though this petition has been coming up for hearing alongwith C.0.112 of 1979 filed under section 162 of the Companies Act 1913 by the creditors.
Even in the connected petition the plea was not taker that the company under liquidation had not been conducting banking transactions or that any one of these directors was not the director of the company. Even otherwise the record in the shape of Ledgers, Vouchers, Pass Books, Cheque Books, Investment Slips available with the official liquidator are sufficient to belie the assertion' that the company was not conducting banking business. It may also be noted that section 57 of the Ordinance has been specifically made applicable to the winding up proceedings (See section 43-B
(3) of the Ordinance). I have, therefore, no doubt in my mind that section 57 of the Ordinance B is applicable to these proceedings and as such every depositor of the company is to be deemed to have filed his claim for the amount shown in the books of the company and standing to his credit and the High Court has to presume such claims to have been proved as neither the official liquidator nor the ex-management have been able to show reason for doubting the correctness of the record. This observation, however, will not apply to the claims submitted by the aforesaid three Managers of the Branches as in respect of those claims the parties have been required to lead evidence. As regards the objection that some of the claims were filed after the fixed date, suffice it to say that under the Scheme of Part-II-A and Part-V of the Ordinance date fixed for filing the claim is not of much importance, if the claims are genuine. Secondly, sufficient cause exists for condoning the delay. I am inclined in the circumstances to condone the delay in filing these claims and I hereby condone 'the delay.
6. Learned counsel then argued that the ex-directors have not been granted proper opportunity of hearing by the official liquidator before submitting his reports respecting the claims. This objection is without merit as earlier the ex-directors have not raised any such plea against the official liquidator. They had the liberty to appear before the official liquidator, to raise their objections and to produce evidence, if any. Even after the submission of the reports sufficient time was allowed to them to raise objections and to produce evidence. Even now an opportunity to lead evidence has been granted where some specific allegation has been raised.
' Claims of Ex Officers
7. Rana Safdar Ali ex-AVP Multan Zone and Muhammad Ali ex- Development Manager, Multan, have respectively submitted claims of the value of Rs,75,863/00 (Rs,seventy-five thousand, eight hundred and sixty-three) and Rs,42,500/00 (Rs,forty-two thousand and five hundred). These claims require further inquiry as reported by the official liquidator. The report of the official liquidator will now be submitted after holding an inquiry in which the ex-management shall be associated. The provisions of section 55 of the Banking Companies Ordinance read with section 405 of the Companies Ordinance 1984 shall also be kept in view while verifying the claims of the officers.
8. Now notice may be taken of the last objection taken by the learned counsel for the ex- management. He, as noted earlier, originally argued that the ex-directors cannot be made liable to pay the amount of the claim verified under section 57 of the said Ordinance only, However, in C.M.No,103/L-87 besides other pleas it was added that the ex-directors cannot be made to contribute more than their fixed liability. By this learned counsel meant that the company being a limited company, the ex-directors would be liable to pay only to the extent of the value of the unpaid shares. This plea is contrary to the stand taken in C.M. No,78/L-87. In this application filed by the ex-management through the same learned counsel it was prayed that scheme of payment be ordered to be submitted after the submission of the claims or the final payment be made by the ex-management/ petitioner to the claimants. In view of this contrary submission it will be appropriate to allow one more opportunity to the ex-directors to make their position clear. The question of liability of the individual directors will now be taken up on the next date of hearing.