Section 7 : Powers of Banking Courts
2016 PLD 995 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIDA BIBI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Ss. 7(7), 18 & 28—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997), S.12 [since repealed]—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S. 11 [since repealed]—Execution proceedings instituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, transferred to the Banking Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997, and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Retrospective effect—Scope—Section 28 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, which was a repealing section, did not indicate that the Legislature meant for said Act to be applied with retrospective effect—Question of retrospective application of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, to the execution proceedings, in the present case, did not therefore arise—In the absence of any saving clause, the relevant provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 [and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997] were to apply on the date of transfer of such execution proceedings and thereafter—Banking Court was not required to proceed de novo, rather from the stage which the proceedings had reached immediately prior to the transfer as envisaged by S. 7(7) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2016 CLD 2025 SUPREME-COURT
SHAHIDA BIBI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Ss. 7(7), 18 & 28—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance (XXV of 1997), S. 12 [since repealed]—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S. 11 [since repealed]—Execution proceedings instituted under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, transferred to the Banking Court established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997, and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Retrospective effect—Scope—Section 28 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, which was a repealing section, did not indicate that the Legislature meant for said Act to be applied with retrospective effect—Question of retrospective application of the provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, to the execution proceedings, in the present case, did not therefore arise—In the absence of any saving clause, the relevant provisions of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Ordinance, 1997 [and then the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997] were to apply on the date of transfer of such execution proceedings and thereafter—Banking Court was not required to proceed de novo, rather from the stage which the proceedings had reached immediately prior to the transfer as envisaged by S. 7(7) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Appeal was dismissed accordingly.
2015 SCMR 1341 SUPREME-COURT
SUMMIT BANK LIMITED VS QASIM AND CO. through Muhammad Alam
Ss. 7(4) & 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 171—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 50—Suit for recovery of money—Lien/right to set off—Determination—Legal heirs of deceased loanee—Extent of liability—Outstanding finance facility of father of plaintiffs, after his death was adjusted by Bank seeking to right of set off against funds of plaintiffs—Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of money against Bank which was dismissed by Trial Court but High Court allowed appeal and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs—Plea raised by Bank was that Banking Court was proper forum for determination of dispute between the parties—Validity—Neither there was any adjudication of claim of Bank against principal debtor or against deceased, nor it was judicially determined as to whether plaintiffs had inherited any property from deceased—No question of Bank seeking to right to set off the alleged liability and/or seeking any recovery from plaintiffs without adjudication of such aspect of the matter—Neither there was any question pertaining to ‘finance’ as defined by S. 9, nor the question as to whether plaintiffs were ‘customer’s in the context of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, involved in the matter and no documents were executed by plaintiffs securing re-payment of alleged liability—Suit for recovery was filed by plaintiffs for the amount that was deducted out of their monies lying in their account, illegally and unauthorized and thus Banking Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the same was constituted to adjudicate upon the matter pertaining to ‘finance’ between bank and its customer—No jurisdictional error having been found in the matter, Supreme Court declined interference in the judgment passed by High Court—Appeal was dismissed.
2015 CLD 1377 SUPREME-COURT
SUMMIT BANK LIMITED VS QASIM AND CO. through Muhammad Alam
Ss. 7(4) & 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S. 171—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 50—Suit for recovery of money—Lien/right to set off—Determination—Legal heirs of deceased loanee—Extent of liability—Outstanding finance facility of father of plaintiffs, after his death was adjusted by Bank seeking to right of set off against funds of plaintiffs—Plaintiffs filed suit for recovery of money against Bank which was dismissed by Trial Court but High Court allowed appeal and decreed the suit in favour of plaintiffs—Plea raised by Bank was that Banking Court was proper forum for determination of dispute between the parties—Validity—Neither there was any adjudication of claim of Bank against principal debtor or against deceased, nor it was judicially determined as to whether plaintiffs had inherited any property from deceased—No question of Bank seeking to right to set off the alleged liability and/or seeking any recovery from plaintiffs without adjudication of such aspect of the matter—Neither there was any question pertaining to ‘finance’ as defined by S. 9, nor the question as to whether plaintiffs were ‘customers’ in the context of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, involved in the matter and no documents were executed by plaintiffs securing re-payment of alleged liability—Suit for recovery was filed by plaintiffs for the amount that was deducted out of their monies lying in their account, illegally and unauthorized and thus Banking Court had no jurisdiction in the matter as the same was constituted to adjudicate upon the matter pertaining to ‘finance’ between bank and its customer—No jurisdictional error having been found in the matter, Supreme Court declined interference in the judgment passed by High Court—Appeal was dismissed.
2009 CLD 1459 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS NAEEM ULLAH MALIK
2(a) & (7)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances), Act (XV of 1997), Ss.2(a) & 7—“Financial Institution”—“Banking Company”—Suit for recovery of loan—Plaintiff was a Banking company and transacted the banking business—“Financial Institution” which transacted banking business was the “Banking Company” within the meanings of S.2(a) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001-Plaintiff ff was banker and defendants were customers—Default of the defendants in payment of the outstanding amount was non fulfilment of obligation—Subject-matter, therefore, exclusively fell within the jurisdiction of Banking Court-No other court except Banking Court, constituted under S.7 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, had jurisdiction over the parties and the subject-matter.
2007 CLD 480 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs NENSER DRUGS (PVT.) LIMITED VS THE BANK OF PUNJAB
—Ss. 7, 9 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan—Leave to appear defend suit—Defendants filed application for leave to appear and defend suit within prescribed period, but said and dismissed by Banking Court, despite serious factual and legal objections w
2007 CLD 1311 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
NATLONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, BRANCH MIRPUR VS MIAN MUHAMMAD SUGAR MILLS, BHIMBER, AZAD KASHMIR
—S.7(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble—Proceedings before Banking Court—Civil Procedure Code, 1908, applicability of—Scope—Court would be bound to apply provisions of C.P.C. in a situation for handling of which no corresponding pro
2006 CLD 1543 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CITIBANK N.A. through Manager and duly authorized Attorney of the Bank VS JUDGE BANKING COURT-III, LAHORE
–S.5—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of’ 1997), S.7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.8—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Non-availÂability o
2006 CLD 1161 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN VS JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO.1, MULTAN
—Ss. 7 & 21—Financial Instihutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001), Ss.7 & 22—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.73(1), Proviso (c)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition–Maintainability—Execution p
2005 CLD 1660 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AWAN ELECTRONICS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager
—Ss. 7, 9, 10 & 12—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend suit—Ex parte decree, setting aside of—Suit by Bank, was decreed ex parte against defendants—Application filed by defendants under S.12 of Banking Companies (Recovery
2005 CLD 1151 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS Mirza NASIM BAIG
—S.7—General Clauses Act (X of 1898), S.24-A—Powers of Banking Court—Scope—Banking Court was duty bound to decide case after applying its independent mind.
2005 CLD 941 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mst. RIFFAT JEHAN VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—Ss. 7, 10 & 21—Qanun-E-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Arts. 84 & 59—Application for grant of leave and defend the case–ÂAllegation of fraud about signatures and thumb impressions on the documents by the defendants—Visual comparison of disputed signatur
2005 CLD 629 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID SHAHBAZ CHAUDHRY VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Vice-President
—Ss. 7, 9, 10 & 15—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A—Operative part of the judgments and decrees of the Banking Court along with grounds of application for leave to defend the suits clearly showed that Banking Court had passed the impugned
2005 CLD 629 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHALID SHAHBAZ CHAUDHRY VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. through Vice-President
—Ss. 7, 9 & 21—Suit for recovery of loan filed before Banking Tribunal under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Contention of the defendants was that suits were filed before incompetent Tribunal, therefore same could not be transferred by operation o
2005 CLD 389 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NAEEM YASIN VS UNITED BANK LIMITED through MUHAMMAD NASEEM, MANAGER
–S. 7—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A—Powers of Banking Court—Scope—Duty of Banking Court is to decide case with application of judicial mind, which is condition precedent—Under S.24-A, General Clauses Act, 1897, public functionaries ar
2005 CLD 361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUHAMMAD ALI AND BROTHERS through Managing Partner VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-S.6(6)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act. (XV of 1997), Ss.4 & 7(6)—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss.5, 6 & 7(6)—Recovery suit–ÂOrder of Banking Tribunal dated 1
2005 CLD 126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE TEXTILE LTD and 7 others VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
—-Ss.7, 9 & 21—Bdnking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.5, 6 & 9—Contention of the appellant was that suits were filed by the Bank before an incompetent Tribunal (Banking Tribunal), therefore the same could not be transferred by operation of
2005 CLD 50 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUBINA JAMSHED VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 7 & 9—Suit for recovery of loan—Public transport financing—Denial of execution of documents by the borrowers—Borrowers had admitted the sanctioning and availing of financial facility, initial deposit of 10% of equity amount by them, joint
2005 CLD 42 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJAMAL HUSSAIN VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through Attorney and 10 others
—–Ss.18, 7 & 21—-Execution of decree—Sale of property through public auction—Issuance of sale certificate and order of “Qufal Shikni” of the house—Application objecting to the sale by auction inviting the attention of the Banking Court to a pat
2004 CLD 1573 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUSHTAQ & CO. through Managing Partner VS Messrs NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-S.7—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Section 12(2), Civil Procedure Code 1908 has no applicability to the proceedings arising out of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advance, Credits and Finances) Act 1997—Application by appell
2004 CLD 1555 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Khawaja MUHAMMAD BILAL VS UNION BANK LIMITED through Branch Manager
—-Ss.7 & 15—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 7 & 17—Erroneous charge of markÂup—Plea of the appellant was that the mark-up was erroneously charged by the Bank—Validity—Leave to defend having not been
2004 CLD 1371 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MADINA RICE MILLS through Managing Partner VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
#NAME?
2004 CLD 1266 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs HI LITE INDUSTRIES VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.7 & 9-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20-Banking Court, territorial jurisdiction-Determination–Such jurisdiction is regulated by the provisions of Civil Procedure Code, 1908-ÂTerritorial jurisdiction is conferred upon Banking Court, under the
2004 CLD 1159 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANWAR VS UNION BANK LIMITED
–Ss.2(f) & 7-Powers and jurisdiction of Banking Court Amount credited twice in the account of the appellant due to clerical error by the Bank Appellant withdrawing the amount in excess of the balance of his credit-Effect-Appellant deemed to have asked
2004 CLD 1152 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUNAAF IFTIKHAR & COMPANY VS JUDGE BANKING COURT No.3 LAHORE
—S.7–Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 7 & 10(8)–Suit for recovery decreed in favour of the Bank-Pleas of the appellants in appeal that during the pendency of suit in the Banking Court their application for se
2004 CLD 535 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MACH KNITTERS (PVT.) LIMITED VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—-Ss. 2(e), 7 & 21—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI -of 2001), Ss. 2(c), 7 & 22—Suit for recovery decreed in favour of the Bank—Plea of the certain appellants, who were alleged to have stood as guarantors for the finan
2004 CLD 112 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZUBAIR MUHAMMAD VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 7(6)(7) & 9(3)(4)—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.12—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. V, R.1, O. VII, R.11(a) & Appendix-B, Form No.4—Suit against Bank for specific performance of agreement of loan and in alternative for recovery of d
2003 CLD 1770 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
Messrs AIMA INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LTD. VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
—-Ss.7, 9, 10 & 21—Suit for recovery of amount–Application for leave to defend suit—Dismissal—Defendant filed appeal against judgment of Banking Court whereby its application for grant of permission to appear and defend the suit was dismissed—A
2003 CLD 1754 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MEHMOOD KHAN VS MAKMA STEEL CRAFT (PVT.) LTD.
—-Ss.9(1) & 7—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.15 & O.XXIX, R.1—Suit filed by Bank —Verification, on plaint not done by authorized officer—Effect—Suit could not be dismissed due to defect of verification on plaint—Omission to verif
2003 CLD 856 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL ELECTRIC COMPANY OF PAKISTAN (PVT.) LIMITED VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 9 & 7—Banking Court —Jurisdiction—Scope— Examination of plaint revealed that suit filed in the Banking Court was for recovery of damages on account of alleged defamatory act committed by the respondent—Competence—Held, it was only brea
2003 CLD 1729 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TECHNO POWERGEN (PVT.) LTD VS AL-ZAMIN LEASING MODARABA MANAGEMENT (PVT.) LTD.
—-Ss. 7, 18 &, 21—Lease of assets (machinery) on rentals–Default in payment of monthly rental by the lessee—Suit for recovery was decreed by the Banking Court in the terms that, in case of default the entire decretal amount shall become due and pay
2003 CLD 326 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 7(1)(a)(2)(4), 10(1), 17 & 27—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 7(1)(a)(2)(4), 15 & 27—Banking Tribunals (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.11—Banking Tribunals Ordinance
2002 CLD 137 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- AFSHAN AHMED VS MESSRS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.7 & 9—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss.6 & 7—Provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979—Comparison–
2001 YLR 1517 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TANVIR RALIQ VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 7(4)—Execution proceedings—Failure to transfer the proceedings to Banking Court—Ex parte decree was passed by Civil Court against the petitioner and mortgaged property was auctioned in execution proceedings—Petitioner objected to the jurisdiction of the executing Court on the ground that the proceedings were to be transferred to the Banking Court—Objection raised was dismissed by the executing Court as well as by Appellate Court —Validity–1~here the matters were to be transferred to the Banking Court under the provisions of S.7(4) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979, the proceedings before the executing Court were without lawful authority and of no legal effect–Execution proceedings having been transferred to the Banking Court exercising powers under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, High Court directed the parties to appear before the Court—Order passed by the Trial Court was set aside.
2001 CLC 737 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BANKERS EQUITY LTD. VS KHANPUR SUGAR MILLS
- 9—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 10, 42 & 55—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIX, Rr.1 & 2—Suit for declaration, mandatory injunction and recovery of amount—Plaintiffs alongwith plaint had filed application seeking interim injunction against Bank restraining it from sending the names of plaintiff-company and its Directors to the State Bank of Pakistan as defaulters—Amount claimed by defendant-Bank had not finally been determined or adjudicated by the competent Banking Court–Apprehension of the plaintiffs that the mark-up had been wrongly and maliciously calculated and that huge penalties had been imposed, could not be ruled out as the amount the plaintiffs were liable to pay was yet to be determined by a competent Banking Court—Before adopting coercive methods in order to recover statutory dues, there should be a well-ascertained and determined sum of money—Efforts of the Banks and the State Bank of Pakistan should be to recover the stuck up loans, but at the same time some efforts should be adopted for recovery of outstanding loans from a non-wilful defaulter without destroying the company which had obtained such loan–Defendant-Bank before forwarding the name of the plaintiff as defaulter to the State Bank of Pakistan should consider all such facts as well as all the circulars of the State Bank of Pakistan issued from time to time.
2000 CLC 1436 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD NADEEM BUTT VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 7(6)(7)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Return of plaint—Trial Court, on application of defendant for return/rejection of plaint, returned the plaint to plaintiff for presentation before appropriate Court instead of transferring the same—Order passed by Trial Court could not be regarded as legal because in terms of S.7(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 suit pending before any other Court had to be transferred and it had to be deemed to have been transferred to Banking Court concerned–Order returning plaint to plaintiff, thus, could not be sustained—Order of .”, Trial Court was declared without lawful authority by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction.
2000 CLC 1405 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
- ZUBAIR LIMITED VS JUDGE, BANKING COURT NO.III, LAHORE
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S.7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.20 & O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3—Proceedings for recovery of loan initiated by Bank against the borrower—Territorial jurisdiction of Banking Court—No specific jurisdictional clause was incorporated in the loan agreement, between the parties—Mere incorporation of defendant-company in U.K. or their residence there at the time of execution of loan agreement would not necessarily exclude the jurisdiction of the Banking Court in Pakistan in the recovery proceedings initiated by tote Rank—Subsequent conduct of borrowers, the change of their ordinary residence the law applicable to the parties and the forum which would be just and proper would also be decisive factors while deciding the question of territorial jurisdiction—Borrowers having given their address in Pakistan tin the affidavit, in the identity card and having admitted in the correspondence with the Bank that they had shifted to Pakistan, they were estopped to raise the question of territorial jurisdiction by asserting that they resided in the United Kingdom when the agreement for loan was executed—Contention of the borrower that since the witnesses which the parties had to produce resided in England and the properties mortgaged against the loan were also in U.K., therefore, a Court in U.K. would be more convenient forum was repelled being not tenable–Borrowers being citizens and residents of Pakistan were subject to ordinary law of the land and S.20, C.P.C. was relatable to the territorial jurisdiction where a suit was to be filed.
2000 CLC 1153 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED VS DIGITAL RADIO PAGING (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 7(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Preamble—Expression “with respect to which the procedure has not been provided for in this Act”–Meaning and scope—Expression means that whenever any provision about procedure for trial has been made in Banking Companies -(Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, the same shall have overriding effect and- the procedure prescribed under C.P.C. shall stand excluded to that extent.
1999 PLD 391 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VICTORY CORPN. VS EMIRATES BANK
Ss. 22 & 7—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Preamble—Proceedings for recovery of mark-up based facility were governed by Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 after repeal of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and S.22(I) of the said Act provided the same relief about limitation which was available under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 in respect of suits, applications and other proceedings which were transferred to the Banking Courts under S.7(6) of the Act—Provisions o1 Limitation Act, 1908 were applicable to all cases filed in the Banking Court after coming into force of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. As regards plea concerning section 22 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finance) Act, 1997 it is noted that by virtue of section 12 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 the provisions of Limitation Act were made inapplicable to proceedings under the said Ordinance. All finances granted under said Ordinance were based on mark-up and the amount due could be recovered under aforesaid Ordinance, There was t1o limitation period for said propose. After repeal of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance the proceedings for recovery of mark-up based facility are governed by the provisions of the Act. Subsection (1) of section 22 provides the same relief about limitation which was available under the provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 in respect of suits, applications and other proceedings, which were transferred to the Banking Court under subsection (6) of section 7 of the Act. As per subsection (2) of section 22 of the Act the provisions of Limitation Act would apply to all cases filed in the Banking Court after coming into force of this Act. So, the provisions of Limitation Act would apply to the categories of the cases falling under subsection (2) of section 22 of the Act
1999 CLC 1953 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- HABIB AHMED VS HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING COMPANY
Ss. 2(b). 5. 7(4)(6), 7(6) & 9(1)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & 0.11, R.3—Transfer of suit to Banking Court—Procedure—Suit filed by plaintiff under S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 on original civil side of High Court, prior to promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loan’s, Advances, Credits arid Finances) Act, 1997, was sought to be transferred to newly-created Banking Court after promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans,, Advances, Credits arid Finances) Act, 1997—Points for determination in the suit were the terms and conditions for grant of two credit facilities extended to two accounts maintained by plaintiff with defendant-Bank and obligations of plaintiff who was borrower and contractual obligations of defendant-Bank as banker—Determinations of all such questions eminently fell within domain of a Banking Court as established under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Transfer of suit to Banking Court was resisted by defendants contending that if suit was transferred to newly-created Banking Court, then defendants would be put under hardship and rigours of a summary proceedings and they would be required to obtain leave to defend from Banking Court—Defendants contended that only those suits were liable to be transferred to Banking Court which were either pending in Special Court constituted under Banking Companies Ordinance, 1979 or under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and suit of plaintiff which was filed under S.9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 was not liable to be transferred to Banking Court—Apprehensions of defendants were misconceived—If suit was transferred to a Banking Court, Banking Court according to S.7(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 would proceed from stage which proceedings had reached immediately prior to transfer and on transfer of case, Banking Court would not be bound to recall and rehear any witness but would act on evidence already recorded or produced before Court or Tribunal from which proceedings were transferred—Provisions of S.7(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances). Act, 1997 further provide that all proceedings including proceedings following the fling of arbitration award and for execution of a decree pending before Banking Court or Banking Tribunals, including any other Court, would stand transferred—Suit filed by plaintiff was transferred to newly-constituted Banking Court as prayed by plaintiffs in circumstances.
1998 CLC 1718 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIMUDDIN SIDDIQUI VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S.7(4)—Powers of Banking Court—Scope—Question whether the Memorandum of Deposit of Title Deeds was the result of any fraud or misrepresentation and that said document created any obligation on the plaintiffs for repayment of loan, is to be decided by the Banking Court—Jurisdiction of High Court is ousted by virtue of S.7(4) of the Act. —-Ss.7 & 5—Powers of Banking Court—Scope—Nature of cases—Cases, inter alia, which can be heard and adjudicated by Banking Court enumerated–Transfer of cases to Banking Court—Principles.
1998 CLC 1263 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PARVEEN JAFFAR VS BANKER EQUITY LTD.
—-S. 42—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 5 & 7—Suit for declaration and mandatory injunction in respect of property in question, whereby plaintiff having deposited title deed of her property
1998 CLC 812 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS FAKIR SHIPPING MILLS
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S.6—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 7(6) & 22(1)—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Art. 183 & S.3—Execution of money decree passed by Banking Court on 25-3-1984 against two defendants while decree in same case was passed against third defendant on 4-5-1987—Application for execution of decree was filed on 31-3-1993—Provision of Art.183, Limitation Act, 1908, being applicable, decree, dated 4-5-1987 passed against third defendant would be deemed to be within limitation—Execution of decree against other two defendants having been passed on 25-3-1984 would, however, be barred by limitation and liable to be dismissed against them.