Section 4 : Establishment banking tribunal
2013 SCMR 120 SUPREME-COURT
EDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs VS MUHAMMAD AZAM CHATTHA
4(b)—Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance (XXIII of 2009), S. 6(2)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.4(1) & 4(3)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Contract employee—Removal from service before expiry of employment period—Reinstatement and regularization of such employee via notification under S.4(b) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010—Validity—Competent authority withdrawing said notification on account of it being issued inadvertently—Legality—Contract employee (respondent) was appointed as Presiding Officer of Banking Tribunal for a period of three years but his contractual appointment was terminated by the competent authority after about two years, however subsequently he was reinstated in terms of S.6(2) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 for remaining period of one year against supernumerary post of BPS-22—Contract employee was not satisfied with the said notification and challenged the same in writ petition before the High Court, claiming that he was entitled to be re-instated on the original terms and conditions entitling him to a salary, allowances and privileges as that of High Court Judge—High Court directed competent authority to consider the case of contract employee as a consequence of which competent authority via notification under S.4(b) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 reinstated and regularized him in government service with entitlement to pay, allowances and privileges as admissible to a Judge of the High Court—Subsequently competent authority withdrew said notification contending that it had inadvertently issued the same—Intra court appeal filed by competent authority was dismissed—Contentions of competent authority were that contract employee was initially appointed for a period of three years, out of which he discharged his functions for two years and in respect of the left over period of one year, he was reinstated and served the left over period, therefore, notification of his reinstatement and regularization was issued on account of inadvertence—Validity—Contract employee was appointed under S.4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, therefore, he was not a person who was in the service of State, nor was he a member of the civil service of the Federation or holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation in a Ministry, Division or Department—Section 4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 prescribed no terms and conditions of service—Contract employee’s status to continue in service was subject to pleasure of the President as was noted in his appointment notification—Reinstatement of employee for a period of one year under S.6(2) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 was illegal, unwarranted and void—Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 dealt with persons who were in employment of a corporation or in government service but the case of contract employee in question was not covered in either of the two categories, therefore, he was not entitled to be regularized as a Government servant— Competent authority had rightly withdrawn the notification by which contract employee was reinstated and regularized in terms of S.4(b) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010— Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly with a direction to the competent authority to probe into the matter as to who was responsible for negligence and/or corrupt practices and proceed against those found responsible.
2013 PLC(CS) 1095 SUPREME-COURT
FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN through Secretary Law, Justice and Parliamentary Affairs VS MUHAMMAD AZAM CHATTHA
4(b)—Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance (XXIII of 2009), S. 6(2)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.4(1) & 4(3)—Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 185(3)—Contract employee—Removal from service before expiry of employment period—Reinstatement and regularization of such employee via notification under S.4(b) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010—Validity—Competent authority withdrawing said notification on account of it being issued inadvertently—Legality—Contract employee (respondent) was appointed as Presiding Officer of Banking Tribunal for a period of three years but his contractual appointment was terminated by the competent authority after about two years, however subsequently he was reinstated in terms of S.6(2) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 for remaining period of one year against supernumerary post of BPS-22—Contract employee was not satisfied with the said notification and challenged the same in writ petition before the High Court, claiming that he was entitled to be re-instated on the original terms and conditions entitling him to a salary, allowances and privileges as that of High Court Judge—High Court directed competent authority to consider the case of contract employee as a consequence of which competent authority via notification under S.4(b) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 reinstated and regularized him in government service with entitlement to pay, allowances and privileges as admissible to a Judge of the High Court—Subsequently competent authority withdrew said notification contending that it had inadvertently issued the same—Intra court appeal filed by competent authority was dismissed—Contentions of competent authority were that contract employee was initially appointed for a period of three years, out of which he discharged his functions for two years and in respect of the left over period of one year, he was reinstated and served the left over period, therefore, notification of his reinstatement and regularization was issued on account of inadvertence—Validity—Contract employee was appointed under S.4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, therefore, he was not a person who was in the service of State, nor was he a member of the civil service of the Federation or holding a civil post in connection with the affairs of the Federation in a Ministry, Division or Department—Section 4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 prescribed no terms and conditions of service—Contract employee’s status to continue in service was subject to pleasure of the President as was noted in his appointment notification—Reinstatement of employee for a period of one year under S.6(2) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Ordinance, 2009 was illegal, unwarranted and void—Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010 dealt with persons who were in employment of a corporation or in government service but the case of contract employee in question was not covered in either of the two categories, therefore, he was not entitled to be regularized as a Government servant— Competent authority had rightly withdrawn the notification by which contract employee was reinstated and regularized in terms of S.4(b) of Sacked Employees (Reinstatement) Act, 2010— Petition for leave to appeal was converted into appeal and allowed accordingly with a direction to the competent authority to probe into the matter as to who was responsible for negligence and/or corrupt practices and proceed against those found responsible.
2004 CLD 1073 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Mian FAZAL AHMAD VS HABIB BANK LIMITED, MAIN MARKET, GULBERG, LAHORE
—-Ss.4 & 6—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Banking Court passed decree on 2-6-1996–Instead of filing appeal against such decree, Constitutional petition was filed on 15-9-1994—Contention of judgment-debtor was t
2003 CLD 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND through Regional Office VS PAKISTAN WIRE PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 4, 6 & 9—Appeal against decree passed on 3-12-1995 by Banking Tribunal—Validity—Constitution and appointment of Banking Tribunal had been declared to be void by Full Bench of Lahore High Court in the case reported as PLD 1996 Lah. 672—Effect of observations made in said Full Bench judgment with regard to past and closed cases was considered by another Full Bench of Lahore High Court in the case reported as 2002 PLD 759, holding that where decrees passed by Banking Tribunal had been challenged by filing first appeals such decrees could not be said to be past and closed transactions—Decree in the present case rendered by Banking Tribunal having no jurisdiction and being coram non judice could not be sustained—High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned decree, resultantly the suit would be deemed to be pending before competent Banking Court and would be proceeded with in accordance with law.
2002 CLD 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD UMAR TARAR VS JUDGE BANKING COURT No. II, LAHORE
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss.4 & 6(6)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constitutional petition—Execution of decree—Banking Tribunal passed decree on 23-11-1992—Judgment-debtor did not file appeal against decree till 1993; but filed Constitutional petition—High Court disposed of Constitutional petition by virtue of judgment rendered in the case of M/s. Chenab Cement Products. (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah.672 with observations that its decision would not affect judgments and decrees, which had become final—Bank thereafter applied for execution of decree—Banking Tribunal repelled the judgment-debtor’s objection to the effect that decree stood- set aside by virtue of said decision of High Court—Judgment-debtor further contended that as appointment of Presiding Officer, who passed the decree, was found to be un-Constitutional, thus, the decree was void and incapable of being acted upon—Bank referred- to judgment of Supreme Court passed in the case of Soneri Bank Limited v. Raja Weaving Mills Limited and another KLR 1997 Civil Cases 742, wherein Supreme Court denied relief to petitioner, who had not challenged the decree passed against him—High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition as having no force.
2000 YLR 2670 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
MUHAMMAD ASHIQ VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 4(2)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Transfer of case from one Tribunal to another–Jurisdiction of Federal Government–Considerations for such transfer—Earlier request for transfer of cases from Tribunal at place “A ” to place “L ” was turned down by the Federal Government but subsequently the cases were so transferred—Such order of transfer was assailed by the petitioners on the ground that train parties to the proceedings were residents of place A, the Bank which initiated the proceedings against the petitioners was also located at place “A” apart from the present proceedings two recovery suits against the petitioners filed by the Bank were also pending adjudication at place “A “—Validity—Federal Government had the power and authority under S.4(2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another for the convenience of the parties and in the interest of justice—Petitioners, however, instead of having a convenience due to transfer of the case to the Tribunal at place “L” would face convenience to defend the case against them—Matter was to be adjudicated by a Court having territorial jurisdiction—Order of Federal Government transferring the proceedings from place “A ” to place “L” was set aside in circumstances–High Court directed that the case be tried by the Court having territorial jurisdiction i.e. the Court at place “A “.
2000 YLR 1484 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ISMAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD. VS HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss.4 & 6(6) [as amended by Finance Act (VII of 1990)]—Constitution of. Pakistan (1973), Arts.2A, 4, 8, 25 & 175—Vires of provisions of Ss.4 & 6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Provisions of Ss.4 & 6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were unconstitutional as the same eroded the independence of judiciary and were hit by Art. 175 read with Arts. 2A, 4, 8 & 25 of the Constitution of Pakistan (1973).
1998 SCMR 1533 SUPREME-COURT
SINDH TECH. INDUSTRIES LTD. VS INVESTMENT CORPORATION OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 305, 309 & 10—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 2(2)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.4–Winding up of company for non-payment of its loan—Petition for winding up was assailed by appellant on the
1997 SCMR 853 SUPREME-COURT
SAHIB KHAN VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.4—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXVII, R.3—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Proceedings for recovery of alleged amount against defendant—No application for permission to defend suit, having been filed by defendant, suit against him was decreed—Defendant filed application for setting aside decree and also for staying execution of decree in question, till decision of his applications—Stay order was granted subject to furnishing of guarantee but on failure of defendant to furnish requisite guarantee, stay order was re-called—Defendant’s Constitutional petition as also his Intra-Court Appeal failed—Validity—Banking Tribunal’s order granting stay subject to furnishing of Bank guarantee could not be deemed to be violative of any law or rule—Defendant having failed to comply with the conditions on which stay was granted, Banking Tribunal was justified in re-calling its stay order—Defendant’s main object in filing Constitutional petition was to nullify effect of his default in furnishing Bank guarantee, therefore, no exception could be taken to the impugned orders of High Court—Orders of High Court did not suffer from any infirmity—Leave to appeal was refused in circumstances.
1996 PLD 77 SUPREME-COURT
TANK STEEL AND RE-ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
—- Ss. 4 & 6(6) — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.2-A — Repugnancy to provision of Constitution — Provision of S.6(6), Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984, sought to be declared ultra vires the Constitution on the touchstone of its Art.2A (being
1996 PLD 238 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AZIZ UR REHMAN VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 4(2) — Constitution of Pakistan (1973). Arts. 90, 99 & 199–Constitutional petition — Transfer of case from one Banking Tribunal to another Banking Tribunal in terms of Federal Government’s Notification dated 25-4-1995, which was issued for distribution of work among Banking Tribunals — Validity — Federal Government in terms of S.4(2), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, has, power to transfer a case from one Tribunal to another — Notification issued by Federal Government on 25-4-1995, ftilfilled requirements of S.4(2) of the Ordinance, whereby specified Banking Tribunal had been asked to distribute the work so that some cases should be tried by another Tribunal having equal jurisdiction — Petitioner’s case having been transferred in-pursuance of said Notification, Banking Tribunal transferring such case could not be deemed to have itself transferred such case instead of Federal Government — Convenience of litigants and securing of speedy justice being the main considerations on which transfer of cases were effected, Federal Government could hot be deemed to have exercised jurisdiction in illegal manner — Decision of a lis by a particular forum is not prerogative of a litigant–Where there were various forams of equal jurisdiction, Competent Authority would have power to transfer/distribute the cases from one forum to another and such act would, neither result in.causing prejudice to litigant nor any vested right to litigant would be adversely affected thereby — Order of transfer of case was, thus, valid in circumstances.
1996 PLD 199 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
RAMZAN SUGGAR MILLS LIMITED VS HBIBI BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 4 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199 — Transfer of suits pending against petitioners from specified Banking Tribunal to other Banking Tribunals in terms of SA, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 — Validity — Provision of S.4(2), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, authorises Federal Government to transfer cases from one Tribunal to another Tribunal in the interest of justice and also for convenience of parties as well as witnesses — Federal Government had issued notification authorising specified Authority to transfer/distribute new work as well as cases pending before it to newly created Tribunals — Reason prompting Government to issue such notification was to provide speedy justice to litigants by constituting more Tribunals — Transfer of cases through specified Authority to whom task of distribution of work had been assigned through notifications could not be deemed to be either illegal or without lawful authority — All the Tribunals who were seized of the cases as a result of transfer thereof, were of equal jurisdiction, therefore, Federal Government could not be imputed to have exercised jurisdiction maliciously, thus, neither constitution of Tribunals nor transfer of cases was tainted with mala fides — Petitioner had failed to show that Government while issuing notification authorising transfer of cases, from one Tribunal- to another had excluded. law or had failed to exercise jurisdiction vesting, in it or had departed from the law in any mar~ner — No prejudice had been alleged or established to have been caused to petitioners by transfer of cases — Choice of forum out of many having same jurisdiction, was not vested right of any, litigant — Petitioners were, thus, not possessed of any reasonable cause. of grievance.
1996 PLD 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CAPITAL FARMS, ISLAMABAD VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss. 2, 4, 5 8—Suit based on agreement of finance—Jurisdiction—Suit based on agreement of finance on mark-up basis was exclusively triable by Banking Tribunal constituted under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984: -[Jurisdiction].
1996 PLD 672 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHENAB CEMENT PRODUCTS VS BANKING TRIBUNA
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss. 4, 6(6) [as amended by Finance Act (VII of 1990) and S. 9, first proviso] — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 175 read with Arts.2A, 4, 8 & 25 — Provision of SsA, 6(6) as amended by Finance Act, 1990 (as it presently stands) first proviso to S.9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 are unconstitutional as these erode the independence of judiciary and are hit by Art. 175 read with Arts. 2A, 4, 8 & 25 of the Constitution — Notifications appointing Presiding Officers of the Banking Tribunals issued under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 are equally unconstitutional and without lawful authority — High Court, while making the declaration and quashing the notifications appointing Presiding Officers of the Banking Tribunals laid down the procedure to be adopted in consequence of the judgment of the High Court.
1989 CLC 524 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SIND GLASS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS PAKISTAN
SsA, 6 & 9–Limitation Act (IX of 1908)–Banking Tribunals–Composition and functions–Recovery of loans–Procedure provided for Banking Tribunals to dispose of cases is analogous to provisions of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of loans–Non-application of Limitation Act, 1908 to proceeding before Banking Tribunal being prerogative of legislature, could not be assailed–Procedure to be followed by Banking Tribunals stated. Subsection (1) of section 4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 provides establishment of as many Banking Tribunals as the Federal Government may consider necessary for the territorial limits to be specified in the Notification, whereas subsection (2) of section 4 deals with the composition of the Tribunal and provides that it shall consist of a person who is or has been or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge who shall be the Chairman and two members to be appointed by the Federal Government.
1987 PLD 81 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
B. L. VS AKBAR AGENCIES LTD.
4(1)-Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 4(3)-Recovery of Bank loan-Filing of plaint–Procedure-Plaint to be filed with Banking Tribunal in accordance with S. 4(1) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance-Notice on defendant would be as per procedure of S. 4(3) of Ordinance-Tribunal would pass decree in favour of Banking Companies where defendant failed to file reply within ten days of service of notice-All suits filed before Banking -Tribunal would be disposed of within ninety days of filing ~~f plaint-Where proceeding continued beyond ninety days, defendant, hell, would be required to deposit in cash or to furnish security acceptable to Banking Tribunal equal in value to claim in suit-On defendants failure to make such deposit or furnishing such security, Banking Tribunal would pass decree in favour of Banking Company as per prayer in plaint.