Section 5 : Powers to banking tribunals
2006 CLD 1543 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CITIBANK N.A. through Manager and duly authorized Attorney of the Bank VS JUDGE BANKING COURT-III, LAHORE
–S.5—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of’ 1997), S.7–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.8—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Non-availÂability o
2006 CLD 879 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAUDI-PAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED (SAUDI – PAK) VS SAUDI-PAK KALABAGH LIVESTOCK COMPANY LTD.
–S.5—Decree, setting aside of—Review of judgment—Jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal—Judgment and decree passed by Banking Tribunal was set aside on review application—Validity—Power of review was not available to Banking Tribunal under Banking
2006 CLD 568 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AAMIR KHURSHID MIRZA VS State
–Ss. 5 & 7—Recovery of money—Machinery for dealing with the matter of recovery of money—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was a special law relating to the recovery of money from delinquent/defaulting borrowers—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 a
2005 CLD 619 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs BUKHARI AGRITEK (PVT.) LIMITED through Director VS AGRICULTURAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.9, 7, 3 & 22—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.5—Buy-back agreement—Award of cost of funds—Principles—Suit for recovery of dues, in the present case, was filed when the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984 was in force which did
2005 CLD 126 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SUN RISE TEXTILE LTD and 7 others VS PRIME COMMERCIAL BANK LTD
—-Ss.7, 9 & 21—Bdnking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.5, 6 & 9—Contention of the appellant was that suits were filed by the Bank before an incompetent Tribunal (Banking Tribunal), therefore the same could not be transferred by operation of
2005 CLD 20 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AAMER KHURSHID MIRZA VS THE STATE
—-Ss.5 & 7—Offences in Respect of Banks (Special Courts) Ordinance (IX of 1984), Preamble & S.7—Criminal Procedure Code (V of 1898), S.561-A—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.406/420—Recovery of loan—Bank made a complaint to Federal Investigation A
2005 CLD 1825 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS SAKEENA
—Ss. 5, 6 & 9 — Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.84—Suit for recovery against the borrower and guarantor—Guarantor denied to have stood guarantor of the borrower or to have executed and signed the guarantee papers and alleged that guarantee docu
2004 CLD 1605 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL
—-S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7—Judgment passed under certain statutory provisions by the Banking Tribunal after the pronouncement of an earlier judgment by a superior Court declaring those statutory
2004 CLD 1589 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Malik MUHAMMAD YASIN AWAN VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Powers and jurisdiction—Banking Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any suit or pass any judgment where the superior Court has declared certain provisions
2004 CLD 1557 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FAZAL AHMAD through Hamidah Begum VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Powers and jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal—Scope—Banking Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any suit or pass any judgment where the superior Court had
2004 CLD 1150 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS MUHAMMAD ANWAR
—S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7–Liquidated damages, award of —Recovery suit partly decreed by the Banking Tribunal that declined to award liquidated damages and _future mark-up to the Bank–ÂPlea of
2004 CLD 1146 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS BAKHSH
—S.5–Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5-Powers and Jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal-Banking Tribunal had no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any suit or pass any judgment where the superior Court had declared cer
2004 CLD 956 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS ARSHAD ALI
—-S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XLVI of 2001), S.7—Liquidated damages, award of—Recovery suit was decreed by the Banking Tribunal but declined to award liquidated damages and future mark-up to the Bank —Validity–
2004 CLD 953 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS ABDUL WAHEED
—S.5—Fial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7—Liquidated damages, award of–Recovery suit was decreed by the Banking Tribunal without awarding, liquidated damages and future mark-up to the Batik—Plea of the Bank in ap
2004 CLD 949 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL
—-S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Judgment, validity of—Judgment passed under statutory provisions by the Banking Tribunal after the pronouncement of an earlier judgment by a superior Court declaring
2004 CLD 927 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS SARWAR
—-S.5—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.7 –Amount asserted by the respondents as having been paid was not denied by the Bank—Conceding to the said assertion and not controverting the same, would be deemed to
2004 PCRLJ 464 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Ch. MUHAMMAD ASIF VS THE STATE
—-S: 498—Penal Code (XLV of 1860), Ss.380/409—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.2(d) & 5(6)—Bail, grant of—Jurisdiction of Banking Court—Scope—Allegation against accused was that because of his alleged act, the complainant had
2004 CLD 260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS WAFAQI MOHTASIB, ISLAMABAD
#NAME?
2003 CLD 59 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PAKISTAN WIRES PRODUCTS (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-S. 39—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.3 & 5(3)—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 114—Petition by Bank for recovery of loan amount—Maxim: “secundum allegata et probata”—Applicability—Show-cause notice issued to appellants
2003 CLD 1612 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DIGITAL RADIO PAGING LTD. VS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION
—-S.5—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.II, R.2–Damages, claim of—Omission to sue for relief regarding damages—Cause of action accrued on 10-12-1991 and suit for damages was filed on 16-1-1998—Plaintiff claimed damages on account of breach co
2003 CLD 326 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KHAIRPUR TEXTILE MILLS LTD. VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 7(1)(a)(2)(4), 10(1), 17 & 27—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 7(1)(a)(2)(4), 15 & 27—Banking Tribunals (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.11—Banking Tribunals Ordinance
2000 PLD 10 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
FARMAN ULLAH KHAN VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 152—-Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.5???Bering Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.6???Suit for recovery of loan???Amendment of judgment or order???Scope and extent??Principles ???Suit was finally decreed, full decretal amount was paid by defendant borrower to plaintiff?Bank and decree having been satisfied, a certificate was issued by plaintiff?Bank in that respect???Plaintiff?Bank after lapse of two years sought amendment of judgment and decree on ground that there was a mistake in the plaint with regard to claimed amount???Validity???Provision of S.152. C.P.C. dealt with the situation where there was a clerical mistake in the judgment, decrees or orders???Where there was no such mistake in the judgment and decree of the Court and claim of the Bank had been decreed in its totality, Bank could not avail the benefit of S.152. C.P.C
2000 YLR 1769 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT LEASING CORPORATION LTD. VS CHAIRMAN, BANKING TRIBUNAL COURT-II,FAISALABAD
—-S.34—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.5—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Suit for recovery of Bank loan–Parties to suit different from the parties to arbitration agreement—Four other defendants
2000 CLC 819 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LTD. VS GOLDEN TEXTILE MILLS LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 5—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.15—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIV, Rr.l & 2—Suit for recovery—Credit facility on mark-up basis–Award of mark-up on decretal amount—Plaintiff/Bank paid suit amount in relation to 7 bills of exchange till filing of the suit—Plaintiff/Bank could not claim any mark-up on the amount of bills which had rightly been converted into Pakistani currency on the respective dates of maturity—Subsequent payments made by the plaintiff/Bank in relation to the remaining bills of exchange could not be taken into consideration in the suit, since the amount of such bills had not become due on the date of filing of the proceedings–Plaintiff/Bank might have filed separate proceedings for recovery of the amount which became due during the pendency of the suit—Suit was decreed accordingly, with mark-up and excise duty
1997 PLD 62 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL RAHIM VS U.B.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 5—Procedure to be adopted by Banking Tribunal while deciding suit.
1997 CLC 1342 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAWAKKAL EXPORT CORPORATION VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S.5—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)—Banking Tribunal–Jurisdiction—Scope—Banking Tribunal shall have, in exercise of its jurisdiction all those powers which are vested in Civil Court and shall follow procedure laid down in Civil Procedure Code, 1908—Banking Tribunal’s jurisdiction thus, extends to recalling order, judgment or decree tainted with fraud, misrepresentation and lack of jurisdiction.
1997 CLC 886 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS SHAFIQ TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED
8 (2)(b)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Ss.2(e) & 5— Suit for recovery of Bank loan on basis of negotiable instrument filed in High Court—Objection to jurisdiction of High Court—Banking Tribunal had jurisdiction in respect of claims filed by Banking Company against customer in respect of, or arising out of, finance provided by it—No Court other than Banking Tribunal would have jurisdiction with respect to any matter to which jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal extended—Provision of S.5 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance being substantive provision would exclude jurisdiction of all Courts, including that of High Court to entertain suits of such kind as referred to in S.5(1)(a), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Jurisdiction of Special Courts to entertain cases included in S.8(2)(b), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 has thus, been excluded—High Court having no jurisdiction to entertain and decide such cases returned plaints to plaintiffs for presenting such plaints before proper forums.
1996 PLD 77 SUPREME-COURT
TANK STEEL AND RE-ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 5(3) — Regional Development Finance Corporation Ordinance (XXXII of 1985), S.32 — Loan advanced by Regional Development Finance Corporation — Recovery of loan — Jurisdiction — Provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, were in addition to and not in derogation of provisions of Regional Development Finance Corporation, 1985 — Banking Tribunal would have exclusive jurisdiction to adjudicate upon the claim of Corporation in addition to its right conferred thereon in Cl.(a) or (b) of proviso to S. 5, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984.–[Jurisdiction].
1996 MLD 248 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD. VS ASSETS DEVELOPERS (PVT.) LTD
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.5(d)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLIII, R.1 for recovery of loan—Plaintiff’s suit dismissed for non-prosecution which Application for restoration of suit dismissed summarily—Validity—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, which is special law has not provided any procedure to be adopted in cases where suit was therefore, in terms of S.5(d), Banking Tribunals Ordinance,1984, provisions of C.P.C., would be applicable—Suit having been dismissed in default provisions of O.IX, R.9, C.P.C. would be applicable and eventually appeal against order of dismissal of application for restitution of suit would be competent in terms of O.XLIII, R.1(c), C.P.C.—Banking Tribunal, having powers to pass order of dismissal had inherent jurisdiction to undo the same—Summary manner adopted by Banking Tribunal in dismissing application for restoration of suit was not warranted-
1996 CLC 422 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MANZOOR TEXTILE MILLS LTD, VS SPECIAL JUDGE BANKING, LAHORE
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 5(1((a)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Dismissal of stay application by Special Banking Tribunal —Validity—Dismissal of stay application by Special Banking Tribunal was not appealable order—Interference in Constitutional jurisdiction would thus, amount to circumventing the law—Even otherwise discretionary order passed by Tribunal of special jurisdiction was not liable to be interfered with in exercise of discretionary jurisdiction of High Court especially when order in question, was not proved to be arbitrary or whimsical.
1996 PLD 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CAPITAL FARMS, ISLAMABAD VS NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
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 CLC 1718 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ORIENT MATCH COMPANY (PVT.) LTD. VS TANKING TRIBUNAL FOR KARACHI AND SUKKUR
Ss. 2(a)(iii), (e) 5(3) & 13–=Constitution of Pakistan (1,973), Art. 199–Constitutional jurisdiction—Jurisdiction of Tribunal—Validity—“Finance”– Definition—Petitioner-Company which took on lease five motor vehicles from respondent, having failed to pay to respondent lease amount according to terms of agreement arrived at between the parties, respondent filed suit for recovery of lease amount against petitioner before Banking Tribunal—Petitioner had challenged jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal contending that transaction in question was not covered by definition of “finance” as appearing in Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Tertn “finance” included an accommodation or facility under a system which provided on the basis of participation in profit and loss, mark-up or mark-down in price, hire-purchase, lease, rent sharing and licensing etc. —Accommodation/facility as envisaged in the agreement arrived at between the parties, was availed by petitioner-Company and agreement in essence related to financial transaction between the parties—Terms of agreement clearly showed that agreement in question was .covered by definition of “finance” as given in S. 2(e) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and respondent was a company within meaning . of S. 2(a)(iii) of that Ordinance—Tribunal under S. 5(3) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 had exclusive jurisdiction to decide question as to existence or otherwise of the “finance”—Tribunal, thus, was the only forum available to respondent for deciding his claim—Contention of petitioner that Tribunal had no jurisdiction to decide case of respondent, was repelled. —[Words and phrases–Jurisdiction].
1996 CLC 981 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS ATLAS BOT LEASE CO. LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss. 5, 6, 9 & 10—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Suit for recovery of amount—Constitutional petition—Competency—Suit for recovery of amount was decreed in terms of compromise arrived at between parties according to which borrowers were to pay amount in dispute through instalments—After the decree had been passed, borrowers/petitioners filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. in which it was contended that petitioners being Public Limited Company, suit could not be filed unless an authority was given by the Board of Directors—Banking Tribunal after hearing parties, rejected that application and petitioners instead of filing appeal before High Court against order of Banking Tribunal, filed Constitutional petition against that order—Appeal against order of Banking Tribunal having been provided, Constitutional petition filed against that order, was not competent as remedy of appeal available to petitioners having not been availed by them, Constitutional petition filed by them, was incompetent.
1995 PLD 360 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD SHAFI & CO VS NATIONAL BANK
Ss. 5 & 2(c)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss.6 & 2(b)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.24—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.203—Suit filed by Banking Company against customer (petitioner) pending adjudication before Banking Tribunal—Petitioner’s suit for damages against Banking Company pending adjudication before Banking Court—Petitioner’s application before High Court for consolidation of both suits and transfer to one Court/Tribunal—Maintainability—Distinct scope of two Ordinances viz. Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979—Suits based on loan repayable with interest are to be tried by Special Courts established under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 while cases of financing of non-interest bearing character ate triable by Banking Tribunal established under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Term “borrower” has been used in S.2(b), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 while term “customer” has been used in S.2(c), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Banking Tribunal-has no jurisdiction to adjudicate suit filed by a “customer” while “borrower” . can sue Banking Company in terms of S.6(a), Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979—Tribunals/Special Courts have exclusive jurisdiction in the matters assigned to them under the statutes which are responsible for their creation—Tribunals/Special Courts, thus, possess limited jurisdiction which could not be equated with Courts of general jurisdiction—Suit pending in Banking Tribunal, therefore, could not be transferred to Banking Court constituted under Ordinance of 1979 and suit of petitioner pending in Banking Court could not be sent to Banking Tribunal–Subject-matter of suits being distinct these could not be consolidated–Application for consolidation and transfer of suit to one Court/Tribunal being misconceived, was not maintainable in circumstances.
1995 PLD 6 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ARSHAD AZIZ, MANANGING DIRECTOR, IMRAN CORPORATION (PVT). LTD. VS BANK OF OMAN LTD.
Ss. 10 & 5(3)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Jurisdiction of High Court in all matters which come within the purview of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 is ousted.–[Jurisdiction].
1994 PLD 67 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ALI AZHAR NAQVI VS GOVT. OF PAKISTAN
5(3)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of—Miscellaneous application moved before Banking Tribunal—Banking Tribunal was possessed of jurisdiction to hear matter in miscellaneous application—Order of Tribunal on miscellaneous application did not suffer from any illegality muchless a jurisdictional error—Invocation of Constitutional jurisdiction was not justified.
1993 MLD 1253 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION, KARACHI VS HABIB AHMED
—-Ss.24, 151, O.VII, R.10 & OXXXVII, Rr.2 & 3—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.7—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.5—Suit for recovery of amount—Transfer of suit—Credit facilities were granted by pl
1993 PLD 107 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SAHFIQ HANIF PVT. LTD. VS BANK OF CREDIT.
Preamble, S.5-Objcct, scope and import of the Ordinance — Banking Tribunals Ordinance,, 1984, has provided part of the enforcing machinery itself, for the rest, recourse becomes available to Civil Courts.
1990 PLD 17 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
ABDUS SALAM VS HABIB BANK LTD
—S. 6—Banking Tribunals Ordinance ( LVIII of 1984), S.5—Jurisdiction of Special Court under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and that of Tribunal under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 distinguished.
1990 MLD 309 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LTD. VS BANKING TRIBUNAL FOR SINDH AND BALOCHISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.5—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.1, R.10 & O.II, R.2—Procedure of Banking Tribunal—Exclusion of provisions of Civil Procedure Code —Effect–Procedure of the Banking Tribunal, regulating the exercise of its jurisdiction is covered by Civil Procedure Code, 1908, and if not more, at least principles deducible from Civil Procedure Code, would apply to the Tribunal—Even in respect of forums where some or more of the provisions of the Civil Procedure Code have been expressly excluded, principles and provisions of Civil Procedure Code as are in consonance with equity, justice and fairplay in a lis, would still apply.
1987 PLD 81 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
B. L. VS AKBAR AGENCIES LTD.
5(3)-Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 9-Word “Court” and expression, “no Court other than the Tribunal”, connotation of-Word “Court” used in S. 5(3) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 does not include “High Court”-.Ouster clause of jurisdiction would indicate that Tribunal alone was conferred exclusive jurisdiction to try suit under Ordinance-Where, however, Tribunal was unable to exercise its functions having been rendered ineffective by Government’s inaction, High Court, on its original side would have jurisdiction to entertain such suits under S. 9, C. P. C. till such time, that Tribunal starts functioning.