Section 2 : Definitions
2019 CLD 651 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
GULF COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS CHAUDHRY CABLES (PVT.) LTD.
Ss. 2(d)(iv) & 9(1)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 2(f)(i) & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 10—Suit for recovery of finance—Return of plaint—Banking Court, jurisdiction of—Appellant Bank filed suit against respondents for non-payment/clearance of pending bills but the plaint was returned by Banking Court for lack of jurisdiction—Validity—No statement of account of respondent company was attached to show credit of amounts, pursuant to discounting/ negotiation—Mere showing details of drawee could not establish/prove factum of grant of financing by way of discounting/negotiation—Bank had not pleaded that discounting facility was allowed or extended to respondents— Existence/grant of finance facility to respondents was conspicuous by its absence, which alone denuded Banking Court of any jurisdiction under the law—Bill discounted or purchased constituted finance which overt transaction was lacking in the case—No document was available on record to show that any finance facility, fund or non-fund based, was ever allowed or extended to respondent which disentitled the Bank from invoking jurisdiction under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—No claim could be raised against customer merely on basis of execution of bills of exchange and/or alleged endorsement thereupon by way of acceptance for payment before Banking Court unless it was established that any finance was extended and default in performance of an obligation to repay was committed which essential ingredient was found missing in claim raised by Bank—High Court declined to interfere in order passed by Banking Court whereby plaint was ordered to be returned to be presented before court of competent jurisdiction in wake of lack of requisite jurisdiction of Banking Court to entertain and adjudicate upon claim of bank against respondent—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2015 CLD 269 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNION BANK LIMITED VS REFRIGERATORS MANUFACTURING COMPANY PAKISTAN LIMITED
Ss. 2(d) & 9—Suit for recovery of bank loan—Contract of guarantee—Relationship of customer and banker—Proof—defendant company claimed that it had no relationship of any sort with plaintiff bank—Plea raised by plaintiff bank was that defendant company had executed ‘contract of guarantee’ and ‘letter of comfort’, therefore, was a real beneficiary of the finance—Validity—In view of definitions of ‘contract of guarantee’ and ‘letter of comfort’, in juxtaposition of he contents thereof, defendant company was not liable to make any payment to plaintiff bank—defendant company was not beneficiary of financial facilities granted to and availed by borrower company, therefore, it could not be held liable for outstanding dues of plaintiff bank—plaintiff bank did not obtain any guarantees from Directors of borrower company which omission nonetheless called for wisdom of plaintiff bank—Figures of amount claimed by plaintiff bank was subsequently substituted with other figures on the basis of application filed by plaintiff bank, therefore, such substituted figures were liability of borrower company—defendant company was not liable to pay any amount to plaintiff bank—Suit was decreed accordingly.
2014 CLD 491 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS HIGHWAY GENERAL TRADING CO.
Ss. 2(a)(i), 9 & Preamble— Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) S. 2(a)(i)—Interpretation of S.2(a)(i) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001— “Financial Institution”, meaning of— Finance facilities provided and availed outside Pakistan—Banking business not transacted in Pakistan—Jurisdiction of Banking Court in Pakistan—Scope—Suit for recovery—Plaintiff Bank sought recovery of amount disbursed to defendants under finance facility availed by defendants from branch of Bank located outside Pakistan—Contention of defendants was that since facility was availed outside Pakistan, Banking Court had no jurisdiction in the matter—Validity—Question to determine was whether the plaintiff Bank in the present case, fell within the purview of the definition “Financial institution” as used in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Expression “means and includes” was used in the definition of “Financial Institution” under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) rather than merely “means” which was used in the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, which had clearly broadened the scope of the definition of “Financial Institution”—Definition of a “Financial Institution” in the Ordinance was identical with the definition of “Banking Company” as used in Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997; except certain words—Specific limiting words “in Pakistan” had not been omitted, and new words “through its branches within and outside Pakistan” had simply been added at the end—Said words were clarificatory in nature; as they gave recognition to the fact that the bank concerned may be transacting banking business in Pakistan not merely through branches located herein but also abroad—While cause of action sued upon must relate to arise out of banking business transacted in Pakistan, it was immaterial whether such business originated from within or outside Pakistan and suit under Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 would be maintainable in either case—Under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, banking business may originate any where, that was, either from a branch inside Pakistan or abroad, and all that was essential was that the business be transacted in Pakistan—In order to determine whether banking business was transacted in Pakistan what had to be considered was the effect of the banking business that had been transacted, that was, the purpose or object sought to be achieved by it, and if such purpose or object was in Pakistan, then the suit would be maintainable under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—However if Pakistani bank provided the financing for a project situated outside the country, but the documentation in respect of the loan was executed in Pakistan, and the drawdowns also took in Pakistan, then such a suit would also be maintainable under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—In the present case, the finance and facilities were provided outside Pakistan and banking business was not transacted in Pakistan, therefore, the plaintiff bank was not a Financial Institution under the Ordinance and the suit was not maintainable under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Banking Suit was dismissed, and ordered to be numbered and registered as an ordinary suit, in circumstances.
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.
2009 CLD 1459 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS NAEEM ULLAH MALIK
2(e)—Finance—Definition—Banker and customer—Relationship of—Suit for recovery of loan—Defendants shown as guarantors in the agreement had availed Clean Over Draft Facility, Loan Against Trust Receipt, Local Bill Discounted Letter of Credit, Payment Against Document and Letter of Guarantee—Such transactions pertained to “finance” as defined in S.2(e), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 and created “Banker and Customer” relationship-Transactions inter se the parties and also the subject-matter of the agreement fell within the ambit of definition “finance” as defined in S.2(e) of the Act.
2009 CLD 761 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INTERNATIONAL FINANCE CORPORATION VS SARAH TEXTILES LTD.
S.2(a)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.2—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.2—‘Financial institution’—Scope—Legislative history started with promulgation of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, wherein “Banking Company” was defined and institutions covered under the definition were mentioned—Definition of “Banking company” under S.2 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, ended with word “means” which held that Banking company was to be construed in narrow and restrictive sense; thereafter provisional enactments were made but next substantive enactment Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, was enacted repealing Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Section 2 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, again used word “Banking company” and it ended with the word “means”, such definition was also narrow and restrictive—Finally Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was enacted, wherein clear departure from previous definitions on the subject was made and word “Banking company” was dropped and substituted with word “Financial institution”—With inclusion of word “includes” definition of “Financial institution” stood enlarged in S.2(a) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
2009 CLD 634 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LTD. VS MUHAMMAD SADIQ
Ss.2 (d)(f) & 9—Relationship of customer and bank—Proof–Fraudulent amount, recovery of—Defendant was an employee of bank against whom bank filed suit for recovery of amount withdrawn by him fraudulently which suit was dismissed by Banking Court—Validity—Overdraft facility claimed by bank was actually not overdraft facility but was an amount which had been obtained through fraud by employee, for which a criminal complaint had been filed by bank—Amount which had been obtained by fraud was not obtained under banking system nor it could be considered as a loan, nor the person who had obtained such amount could be termed as a customer—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by Banking Court–Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2009 CLD 629 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LTD. VS MUHAMMAD NASEEM QURESHI
Ss.2 (d)(f) & 9—Banker and customer, relationship of—Proof—Fraudulent amount, recovery of—Defendant was an employee of bank against whom bank filed suit for recovery of amount withdrawn by him fraudulently which suit was dismissed by Banking Court—Plea raised by bank was that even fraudulent actions of employees or any person out of banking system fell within the jurisdiction of Banking Court—Validity—Overdraft facility was not a voluntary facility by bank nor there was permission or condition nor any interest rate while according to bank itself it was obtained by fraud and fraud could not be an element with the business of banking system—Availing of such facility by defendant was out of legal business transaction for which criminal case had been filed—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by Banking Court as the same was plausible and just—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2005 CLD 693 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS FIDA ALI ALLIBHOY
–S.39—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss. 6(4)(a), Proviso & 2(f)(i)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances Act (XV of 1997), S. 2(f)(i)—Recovery of loan—Right of Industrial Development
2005 CLD 1790 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AMJAD POLYTHENE BAG INDUSTRIES through Sole Proprietor VS PUNJAB SMALL INDUSTRIES CORPORATION through Managing Director
—-Ss.2, 9 & 10—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, (XV of 1997), Ss.2, 9 & 10—Punjab Small Industries Corporation was not only covered under the definition of the ‘Banking Company” as given in Banking Companies
2005 CLD 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE INDUSTRIES PVT. LTD. through Chief Executive VS TRUST LEASING CORPORATION LTD.
— Ss. 10, 2(d), 9 & 21—Appeal—Application for leave to defend the suit—Dismissal of such application on valid reasons while discarding the agreement which was executed between the judgment-debtors but the Corporation (plaintiff being not party to
2005 CLD 373 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BASHIR BEGUM VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
–Ss.2(e) & 9—Recovery suit—Sanction of loan on buy back arrangement”—-Mark-up, charging of—Bank could not charge mark-up beyond agreed date and over and above agreed mark-up amount.
2005 CLD 50 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RUBINA JAMSHED VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 2(a)(c)(d), (e) & 9(1)—Institution of suit in Banking Court—Competence—“Banking Company”, “Borrower”, “Customer”—Definition—Provision of S.9(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 empowe
2004 CLD 1289 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS ORIENT RICE MILLS LTD. and others
–Ss. 4 & 5—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199–ÂConstitutional petition—Petitioners, debtors of the Bank, sought direction of the High Court to the Zarai Taraqiati Bank to extend to them the benefit of the “Relief Package” announced by the Ba
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 535 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MACH KNITTERS (PVT.) LIMITED and 3 others VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED through Manager
—-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 239 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
EVERGREEN PRESS VS BANK OF PUNJAB
—-Ss.2(c), 9 & 10—Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to appear and defend the suit—Defendant availed financial facilities from Bank by executing agreement and other loan documents including hypothecation deed—Hypothecated goods were
2003 CLD 1419 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
Messrs HAQ TRADERS VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 7(6), 9 & 22—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss.2(b), 5, 9 & 22—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–ÂConstitutional petition—Suit for declaration and’settlement of accounts by bo
2003 CLD 1165 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Haji MUHAMMAD NAWAZ KHOKHAR VS UNITED BANK LIMITED, KARACHI
—-S.2(c)(d) & (9)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.VII, R.10—Suit for declaration, injunction and damages—Return of plaint—Plaintiff sought decree against Bank and its officials for recovery of damages for his personal malicious prosecution/d
2003 CLD 1601 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ARY TRADERS (PVT.) LTD. VS MULSIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
—-Ss. 2(c)(d)(e)(f) & 9—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss. 2(c)(d)(e) & 9—High Court of West Pakistan (Establishment) Order (XIX of 1955), para. 5—Suit against Bank not relating to loan or finance–Jurisdic
2002 CLD 53 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS SPINNING MACHINERY COMPANY OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss.2(a) & 9—National Development Finance Corporation Act (XVIII of 1973), Ss.15 & 25—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Maintainability—National Development Finance Corporation, a banking company was a body corporate which was transacting business of advancing loan to various enterprises in Pakistan—Credit agreement and other documents, executed by the borrower company established the nature of the Corporations business and the relationship between the Corporation and the company–Objection was raised to the maintainability of the suit on the ground that the Corporation was not a banking company under S.25 of the National Development Finance Corporation Act, 1973 and under the provisions of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962—Validity—From the perusal of the definition of the Banking Company as given in S.2(a)(i)(ii) of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, the Corporation was covered by the definition of a Banking Company–Contention that Corporation was not a Banking Company as defined in the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, was irrelevant because the definition of a Banking Company given in the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962, could not be taken into account for determining whether or not the plaintiff was a Banking Company for the purpose of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Suit was maintainable in circumstances.
2001 SCMR 410 SUPREME-COURT
TRI-STAR POLYSTER LIMITED VS CITI BANK
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 2(f), 18(6) & 21(5)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–Appeal against interlocutory order—Maintainability—High Court acting as Banking Court under the provision of S.2(f) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, was similar to a Special Court—Any such order passed by High Court under the Act was in the capacity of a Banking Court and not the High Court in its ordinary jurisdiction—Where suit was being tried under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, no appeal was competent against interlocutory order—Subject-matter of the petition for leave to appeal being interlocutory order not falling in the categories of orders under S. 18(6) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 petition for leave to appeal was not maintainable.
2000 PLD 162 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAH JEWANA TEXTILE MILLS LTD VS UNITED BANK LTD
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —- Ss. 2(b)(i) & 5 — High Court acting as a Banking Court — Status — While hearing cases under the Banking -Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, High Court acts as a Banking Court and not as the High Court.
2000 CLC 2017 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ATTA MUHAMMAD VS MAIEEDAN
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 2(a)—“Banking company”—Definition—Modaraba company is included , in definition of “Banking company”—Validity—Definition of Banking company under S.2(a) of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 is ‘wide enough and includes “Modaraba” or “Modaraba Management Company” as Banking company.
2000 CLC 1455 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
QATAR AIRWAYS PLC VS ANZ GRINDLAYS BANK
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S. 2(e)—“Finance”—Definition—Term “finance” includes Bank guarantee etc.—Scope—Definition of finance is so exhaustive that it includes Bank guarantees, no matter in which form they are issued, including performance bonds and mobilization advance bond.
2000 CLC 774 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS TAUFIQ IMPEX INC.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —S. 2(d)—“Customer”—Meaning—Real beneficiary of the finance falls in the definition of a “customer”.
2000 CLC 287 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
PICIC VS FRONTIER CERAMICS LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 2(c) & 9—Suit for recovery of Bank loan—Expression “borrower” in S.2(c), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Applicability—Proceedings under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997–Validity—Where defendants had not undertaken any personal liability in relation to the loan in question, recovery proceedings could not be maintained against such defendants—Such defendants were struck off from the recovery proceedings.
1999 CLC 1953 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
- HABIB AHMED VS HONGKONG & SHANGHAI BANKING COMPANY
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 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.
1999 MLD 64 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALLIED BANK LIMITED VS GOLDEN EAGLE ENTERPRISES
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —S. 2—Arbitration Act ~(X-of 1940); -S. 34–Suit for recovery of loan- amount advanced on negotiable instrument—Defendant’s _plea for referring dispute to arbitration in terms of S.34, Arbitration Act, 1940 was misconceived for plaintiff had filed suit against ten defendants viz. principal borrower and nine guarantors while lease agreement containing, arbitration clause was executed only between plaintiff and principal defendant–Loan-amount having been .advanced on negotiable instrument, Special Tribunal had been created to adjudicate specified disputes, which could not be referred to arbitration, even; if there was agreement between parties to ,that effect–Such dispute must be decided by Special Tribunal created for that purpose–Suit, having been .filed under provisions of Banking Companies. (Recovery of Loans, Advances,. Credits and Finances) Act, 1997;and the same being between Bank and customer, had to be, decided by -Special tribunal .created for deciding special disputes .between Bank and its customers—Application for referring dispute to arbitrators was, thus, not maintainable.
1999 PLD 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
VALUEGOLD LIMITED VS UNITED BANK LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 2(b)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss. 16, 20 & 120—High Courts original civil jurisdiction in contradistinction of its jurisdiction as Special . Banking Court—Expression “original civil jurisdiction” as used in S.120, C.P.C. would signify identified class of cases wherein cases entertained as Special Court under S.2(b), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 were not included—High Court, therefore, while hearing matters as Special Banking Court would not act as High Court in exercise of its original civil jurisdiction but as Special Court set up under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Exclusion of principles contained in Ss. 16 & 20, C.P.C. on basis of S.120, C.P.C. therefore, could not be urged while High Court was acting as Special Court—Notwithstanding doctrine of lex situs having been incorporated in proviso to S.16, C.P.C. suit to obtain relief respecting immovable property in possession of defendant or on his behalf could, at the option of plaintiff, be instituted in Court within local limits of whose jurisdiction defendant was carrying on business—Explanation appended to S.16, C.P.C., however, envisages application of proviso to S.16, C.P.C., only to properties situated in Pakistan.
1998 MLD 529 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABAID ULLAH VS STATE
—-Preamble—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S. 2(b)—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 6—Suit for recovery of loans, amount whereof exceeded thirty million rupees–Jurisdiction of High Court
1998 CLC 1718 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NASIMUDDIN SIDDIQUI VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Preamble, Ss.7, 9 & 2???Objects and reasons of the Act???Powers of Banking Court???Scope and extent???Borrower or a customer or a Banking Company is entitled to file a suit when any of them commits a default in fulfilling any obligation with regard to any loan or finance???Requirements???Where a suit is filed by a customer or a borrower claiming that amount received by them was not as a result of loan or finance, same will fall within the jurisdiction of a Banking Court???Suit for specific performance filed by a customer or borrower against the Banking company seeking fulfilment of its obligation in respect of loan or finance will also fall within the jurisdiction of Banking Court.??[Jurisdiction].
1998 CLC 1152 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
U.B.L. VS SINDH TECH. INDUSTRIES LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S.2(d)—Suit for recovery of loan advanced on negotiable instrument–Proceedings against surety and indemnifier could independently be maintained under the Act since definition of word “customer” contained in S.2(d) of the Act had been enlarged by including surety or indemnifier therein
1998 MLD 1734 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS SHAFIQ HANIF (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —Ss. 2(3) & 15—Suit for recovery of amount paid twice to borrower–Borrower not only had admitted that he had received payment twice, but had made certain part payments in that respect to creditor Bank—Borrower who failed to repay balance amount with mark-up thereon, had contested suit filed by Bank on the ground that same was not covered by definition of “finance” as given in Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances. Credits and Finances) Act 1997 and suit was, thus, not maintainable—Limit of loan was granted initially to borrower within the scope of definition “finance”, which not only covered accommodation or facility, hire-purchase, equity, support, lease, rent-sharing, licensing etc. but also included guarantees, indemnities, letters of credit and any other obligation—Double payment would also fall within scope of “finance” as said amount emanated from the limit granted to borrower and was not from any independent transaction—Claim of creditor Bank with regard to double payment made to borrower was covered by definition of “finance” and creditor Bank could recover that amount with mark-up which would be decided by Trial Court as per Cl.(b) of subsection (1) of S. 15 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997