Section 4 : Establishment of Banking Court
2005 CLD 361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUHAMMAD ALI AND BROTHERS through Managing Partner VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—Ss. 4 & 21—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 84–Communication during ordinary course of business—Visual comparison—Banking Court rejected the leave application and decreed the suit of the plaintiff of sanctioned advice, execution of the finance agreement, the floating charge, the pronote and creation of equitable mortgage were not denied—Payment to supplier Company was disputed- Collective reading of the letters written in ordinary course of business proved that payments were made after full satisfaction about the supplied machinery and letters of request to the Bank to make payments—Visual examination tallied the signatures of the defendant with admitted signatures—Judgment of the Court below was upheld in circumstances.
2005 CLD 287 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AL-MADAN COAL COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED through Managing Director VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
—-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–¬Order of Banking Tribunal dated 18-5-1989 directing defendant to deposit certain amount in cash and furnish security for remaining amount—Banking Court on defendant’s failure to comply with such directions decreed suit on 1-10-2001 under S.6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Validity—Full Bench of High Court in Messrs Chenab Cement’s case [PLD 1996 Lahore 672] had struck down S.6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984; for being ultra vires the Constitution, after repeal of Ordinance, 1984, all cases pending thereunder stood transferred to Banking Courts established under S.4 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Cases pending under Act, 1997, after its repeal stood transferred to Banking Courts established under S.5 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Banking Court could not validly pass impugned decree after repeal of Ordinance, 1984 and without considering the effect of judgment of the Full Bench—High Court accepted appeal, set aside impugned decree and remanded case to Banking Court for its decision afresh in terms of Ordinance, 2001.
2004 SCMR 108 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs FIRST WOMEN BANK LIMITED VS REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
—-S. 4—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 & 54—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Transferring of banking suit having value of less than thirty million rupees- –Jurisdiction of High Court–Consolidation of two suits—Bank filed a suit for recovery of Bank loan against borrower as well as guarantor and the same was pending before Banking Court—Another suit was filed by the guarantor in High Court, alleging that fraud and forgery had been committed upon him as he did not create any lien on his accounts nor pledged his Bonds—High Court transferred the suits pending in Banking Court to High Court for decision of both the suits together—Plea raised by the Bank was that claim in banking suit did not exceed thirty Million rupees, therefore, under S.4 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, trial of the suit before High Court would be without jurisdiction—Validity—Trial of both the suits together would not only be expedient in the interest of justice but also in the interest of both the parties as joint trial of both the suits would obviate the possibility of a conflict of judgments—Order passed by High Court was just, fair and equitable and it did not suffer from any inherent defect or error of jurisdiction—Leave to appeal was refused.
2004 CLD 587 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs C.M. TEXTILES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chairman and 5 others VS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 4 & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII–Suit for recovery of loan—Application for leave to defend–Pleadings—Proper examination of—Duty of Court in case of failure to file written statement or leave to defend—Court was bound to consider and examine the plaint as well as the documents relied upon by the plaintiff forming basis of the pleadings before deciding the suit—Decree could not be passed by a Court in routine or in cursory manner just because defendant failed to file a written statement or a defendant, in a suit under O.XXXVII, C.P.C. or the suit by a banking company, failed to file an application for leave to defend or was unable to raise a triable issue and his application for leave was rejected.
2003 CLD 1578 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs FIRST WOMEN BANK LIMITED VS THE REGISTRAR, HIGH COURT OF SINDH, KARACHI
—-S. 4-Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42. & 54–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Transferring of banking suit having value of less than thirty million rupees—Jurisdiction of High Court–Consolidation of two suits—Bank filed a suit for recovery of Bank loan against borrower as well as guarantor and the same was pending before Banking Court—Another suit was filed by the guarantor in High Court, alleging that fraud and forgery had been committed upon him as he did not create any lien on his accounts nor pledged his Bonds—High Court transferred the suit pending in Banking Court to High Court for decision of both the suits together—Plea raised by the Bank was that claim in banking suit did not exceed thirty million rupees, therefore, under S.4 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, trial of the suit before High Court would be without jurisdiction–Validity—Trial of both the suits together would not only be expedient in the interest of justice but also in the interest of both the parties as joint trial of both the suits would obviate the possibility of a conflict of judgments—Order passed by High Court was just, fair and equitable and it did not suffer from any inherent defect or error of jurisdiction—Leave to appeal was refused.
2003 CLD 349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAKILA RIAZ VS JUDGE BANKING COURT
–Ss. 27, 4, 9 & 18—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99—Constitutional petition—Execution of decree–Review of order—Property of Judgment-debtor was ordered to be auctioned in execution proceedings through Court auctioneer—Reserve price of property was fixed as Rs.30 lacs, but on application of Judgment-debtor reserve price thereof was increased to Rs.80 lacs—When property could not be sold on said reserve price, Banking Court reduced reserve price from 80 lacs to Rs.60 Macs which was not objected to by Judgment-debtor—Court realizing that reserve price of Rs.60 lacs, also was too high, reduced the same from 60 lacs to Rs.50 lacs, which order had been questioned by judgment-debtor through Constitutional petition contending that Banking Court had no Jurisdiction to review its earlier order—Validity—Banking Court by reducing reserve price of property sought to be auctioned had not reviewed earlier order and order reducing reserve price of property would not fall within scope of S.27 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—If such a harmless order could not be recalled by Banking Court then Banking Courts established for speedy disposal of Bank’s recovery cases, could not Function and would standstill—Judgment-debtor did not raise any objection to recalling of previous two orders whereby reserve price of Rs.30 lacs was changed into 80 lacs and thereafter reserve price was reduced from 80 lacs to 60 lacs —Main purpose for establishment of Banking Courts was for expeditious disposal of cases relating to recovery of Bank dues—Banking Courts could not handicapped by some unscrupulous Judgment-debtors under threat of- S.27 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997—Banking Court was to examine facts and circumstances of each and every case and then to decide the same on its merits as to whether case fell within the scope of’reviewing’or’recalling’of order—Order of Banking Court in the present case did not fall within scope of’review’—Judgment-debtor, in circumstances was not entitled for any discretionary and equitable relief in exercise of Constitutional Jurisdiction of High Court—-Constitutional petition was dismissed being devoid of merits.
2001 CLC 158 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD RAMZAN VS CITIBANK N.A.
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 Ss. 4 & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, Rr.2 & 3–Suit for recovery of loan—Leave to defend suit—Defendant who obtained loan from plaintiff-Bank, having failed to discharge his liability in terms of agreement, suit filed by plaintiff-Bank was decreed and application to defend suit filed by defendant was dismissed which was challenged by him in appeal—Legality—-Defendant, who utilised facility of loan, had accepted his liabilities—Suit was based on statement of accounts attached with plaint which was duly verified by Bank Authorities in accordance with Bankers’ Book Evidence Act, 1881 and was not rebutted by defendant—Such statement having presumption of truth by virtue of S.4 of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 suit was rightly decreed and Court had rightly concluded that defendant had failed to make out any plausible case for grant of leave to defend suit.