Section 6 : Inspection of books by order of Court or Judge
2000 YLR 2527 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ANDREW JEHHINGS, DETECTIVE COSNTABLE IN METROPOLITAN POLICE, U.K. VS DAUTACHE BANK A.G. LAHORE BRANCH, DAVIS ROAD, LAHORE
—-Ss.2(S)(6) 8c 6—Issuance of certified copies of transactions in account—Applicant, a foreign Police Officer, through his application filed under S.6 of Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, had prayed that Bank be directed to provide hire certified copies of all transactions in accounts maintained by a person who was facing trial in a Court abroad for misappropriation of huge amount—Validity—Court could only give such direction if any legal proceedings were pending before it, but no such restriction regarding pendency of legal proceedings was placed on Judge of High Court as powers of High Court Judge under Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891 had not been conditioned, but High Court was empowered to issue such like direction even if no proceedings were pending before it—Unless powers of Courts were specifically excluded, they Would retain jurisdiction and power to make such direction for advancement of justice—Express words or clear intendment of necessary implication were required to take away jurisdiction of superior Courts—Superior Courts not only jealously guard their jurisdiction, but are always on the look to extend same to advance cause of justice—Legal technicalities would not come into the way so as to hamper the course of justice—What was not prohibited specifically, was permitted, provided same would not violate any express provision of law—High Court, in circumstances, directed Bank to issue certified copies as prayed for by the applicant.
1990 PLD 99 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS SARTAJ INDUSTRIES
S.6 – Penal interest -Mortgage deed showed that mortgagors had agreed to the payment of penal interest chargeable from the date of default in payment as agreed to and the interest was to remain chargeable till actual payment, and adjustment of the entire amount due-Amended statement of account having been filed by plaintiff Bank by charging the penal interest at specified rate of 2 per cent. per annum without any rests and the claim of the Bank having been accordingly reduced, there remained no avenue for making this point as one for trial as no triable issue in this regard remained in the field.