Section 3 : Ordinance not to derogate from other laws
2009 MLD 300 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
LASHKARI VS MANAGER, AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN, DADU BRANCH
Ss. 42 & 54—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.96, 151 & O.VII, R.11(b)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.3—Suit for declaration, injunction and settlement of accounts—Trial Court passed an order requiring the plaintiff to pay ad valorem court-fee on the suit amount of Rs.2,00,00 within a period of 7 days, but said order was not complied with by the plaintiff and plaint was rejected under O.VII, R.11(b), C.P.C.—No legal infirmity, error or irregularity having been pointed out in the impugned order plaint was rightly rejected in circumstances.
2007 SCMR 922 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others VS Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-S. 3—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Leave to appeal was granted by Supreme Court to resolve the contradictory views expressed by Lahore High Court and Sindh High Court as reflected in ?
2007 SCMR 922 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others VS Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED
—S. 3—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2)—Decree setting aside of—Provisions of S.12 (2) C.P.C.—Applicability—Application filed by appellant, under S.12 (2) C.P.C. for setting aside of decree was dismissed by Banking Court being not ?
2007 CLD 683 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others VS Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED
—S.3—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1968), S.12 (2)—Decree setting aside of—Provisions of S.12 (2) C.P.C.—Applicability—Application filed by appellant, under S.12 (2) C.P.C. decree was dismissed by Banking Court being not maintainable under Banking ?
2007 CLD 683 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD YAQOOB and others VS Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED
—S.3—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12 (2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185 (3)—Leave to appeal Supreme Court to resolve the contradictory views expressed by Lahore High Court and Sindh High Court as reflected in judgments in cases ?
2005 CLD 515 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mrs. MUBARAK SHAH VS THE BANKING COURT JUDGE NO.III
—Ss.18(3) & 3—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–ÂConstitutional petition—Execution of decree—Mortgaged property—Rights and obligations of tenant—Banking Court or an auction purchaser can be put in possession of the mortgaged property
2001 CLC 737 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BANKERS EQUITY LTD. VS KHANPUR SUGAR MILLS
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 S. 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 1330 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LTD. VS ZAFAR TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Ss. 3, 12 & 27Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2) & O.IX, R.13Suit for recovery of loansApplications under S.12(2) & O.IX, R.13, C.P.C.MaintainabilityRespondents had filed applications under S.12(2) & O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. for seeking setting aside judgment and decree passed against them by Special Banking Court-Validity-Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, had itself provided a mechanism for challenging decrees and subject to which all orders and decrees passed were deemed to be final and could not be brought under challenge by invoking any other law–Provision of S.12 of the Act had empowered Special Banking Court to set aside decree passed by it on ground stated therein-Provisions of S.12(2) & O.IX, R.13, C.P.C. whereunder applications were filed for setting aside judgment and decree of Special Banking Court, had stood excluded and to allow decree to be questioned by means of application under Civil Procedure Code, would amount to defeat clear intent of Legislature which was spelt out by S.27 of the ActApplications were dismissed in circumstances.
2000 PLD 322 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL BASIT ZAHID VS MODARABA AL-TIJARAH
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-Ss. 3 & 18(1)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.51 & _O.XXI, RAO —Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts.199, 4 & 10–Constitutional petition—Execution of decree through arrest and detention of judgment-debtor—Requirements—Expression “in such other manner as it deems fit in S.18(1), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 only means that apart from the modes prescribed 1n, the C.P.C. and other laws the Banking Court may adopt any other method for execution of the decree provided the same is not repugnant to or in conflict with any existing law—Judgment-debtor, therefore, would not be detained in prison without fulfilling the requirement of S.51 & O.XXI, R.40, C.P.C.—Principles. ?