Section 5 : High Court
2010 CLD 582 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHIMERA (PVT.) Limited through Chief Executive VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
5—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42-Suit for declaration, cancellation, recovery of amount, damages and permanent injunction-Leave to defend-Application for-Subject-matter in both suits same—Scope-Plaintiff filed suit against the bank on the ground that bank had issued irrevocable letters of credit but had failed to play its role-Bank had also filed suit for recovery of Rs.71,150,745.28 against the plaintiff which related to recovery of trust receipt finances obtained in connection with the letters of credit-Plaintiff asserted that the subject-matter in both the suits was the same and leave might be granted in both the suits—Bank had controverted the contention raised by the plaintiff and stated that the petitions for leave to appeal had to be argued separately and disposed of on their own merits-Validity—Petitions for leave to appeal in both the cases had to be argued independently-High Court adjourned the case for arguments on the petitions in both the cases.
2007 CLD 1311 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR
NATLONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN, BRANCH MIRPUR VS MIAN MUHAMMAD SUGAR MILLS, BHIMBER, AZAD KASHMIR
—Ss.5 & 9—Suit for recovery of loan amount–Institution of suit in High Court in its original jurisdiction—Effect—Provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 would not apply to High Court for not b
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
2002 CLD 1 SUPREME-COURT
PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LIMITED, PESHAWAR CANTT VS GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act 1997 —-S.5—Judge of High Court acting as Banking Court–Effect—When a Judge of High Court is nominated by Chief Justice for expeditious disposal of the cases under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, such Judge acts as Banking Court and any order passed by him as such Court is in the capacity of a Banking Court and not the High Court in its ordinary jurisdiction.
2000 PLD 162 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAH JEWANA TEXTILE MILLS LTD VS UNITED BANK LTD
—- 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.
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
?
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