Section 6 : Procedure of banking tribunal
2020 CLD 49 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
FIRST DAWOOD INVESTMENT BANK LIMITED VS BANK ISLAMI PAKISTAN LIMITED
9—Banking Tribunals’ Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) S. 6—Procedure of Banking Court—Persons authorized to file plaint on behalf of Financial Institution—Provision of S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Nature and scope—Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was different and independent from provisions of C.P.C., Banking Tribunals’ Ordinance, 1984 and Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 in so far as institution of proceedings by way of filing of plaint was concerned— Section 6 of the Banking Tribunals’ Ordinance, 1984 was not pari materia with S. 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and basic difference between the two was that under the later, suit could be filed by an authorized officer on basis of power of attorney duly executed in favour of such officer whereas under the first, suit could be filed by Bank with approval of the Board of Directors of the Bank and not otherwise.
2015 SCMR 319 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PARADISE TRADING COMPANY
Ss. 6 & 11(3)—Immovable property mortgaged with bank—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Auction of immovable property by the bank—Judgment-debtor playing fraud by selling the mortgaged property to purported buyer—Purported buyer of such property would be bound by the decree passed by the Banking Tribunal.
2015 CLD 366 SUPREME-COURT
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PARADISE TRADING COMPANY
Ss. 6 & 11(3)—Immovable property mortgaged with bank—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Auction of immovable property by the bank—Judgment-debtor playing fraud by selling the mortgaged property to purported buyer—Purported buyer of such property would be bound by the decree passed by the Banking Tribunal.
2007 CLD 652 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SHAHEEN FOODS LIMITED through Chief Executive VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION LIMITED through Managing Director
—-S.6—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLI of 2001) S.13—Civil. Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.13—Suit for recovery of finances–Service of notices to defendants in prescribed manner–Reply to show-cause notice was rec
2007 CLD 618 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs ‘ZAHID INDUSTRIES through Managing Partner VS HABIB BANK LTD: through Manager
?
2006 CLD 123 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHARAFAT HAFEEZ GOREJA VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through President
—S.6(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.IX, R.6(a)(b)—Suit for recovery of loan—Service of show cause notice under S.6(2), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Two defendants were residing abroad—Process server reported that said defendants h
2006 CLD 123 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHARAFAT HAFEEZ GOREJA VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through President
–S.6—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R.11 & S.151—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.176—Suit for recovery of loan—Contesting defendants had moved tux) applications one under O. VII, R. 11, C.P.C. and the other under S.176, Contract Act, 1872
2006 CLD 842 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LTD. VS KARACHI PIPE MILLS LTD.
–S.3—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.15—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6—Recovery of loans—Powers of Courts—Comparison—Grant of mark-up over mark-up—Courts were empow
2006 CLD 491 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Mrs. NIGHAT JAVED VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
–S. 6(8) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.22—Transfer of Property Act (IV of 1882), S.41—Civil Procedure Code (V of 191)8), O.XXXIV, S.14—Sale of mortgaged properly—Appeal to High Court—Decree passed by
2006 CLD 394 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED VS Messrs M. ESMAIL AND COMPANY (PVT.) LIMITED
—Ss.6 & 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss.73 & 74-Suit for recovery of loan amount and liquidated damages—Claire for liquidated damages was solely based on the terms of the loan agreement executed between the parties—No assertion had been made in th
2005 CLD 1799 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs TERMIZI OIL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Director VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Senior Vice-President Regional Office, Lahore
—Ss.12 & 6—Suit for recovery of loan—Limitation—Law of limitation did not apply to the suits filed under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984.
2005 CLD 1799 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs TERMIZI OIL INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Director VS INDUSTRIAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Senior Vice-President Regional Office, Lahore
—Ss.6 & 9—Suit for recovery of loan—Three Directors of the borrowing Company had executed various documents at the time of availing of the loan, including the personal guarantees of said three Directors of the borrowing Company—Said three Director
2005 CLD 1391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED LEATHER EXPORTS through Haji Muhammad Iqbal VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager
—Ss.6 &. 9–Recovery of Bank loan—Future mark-up, award of—Scope—Banking Tribunal had no power to award such mark-up at the time of passing decree.
2005 CLD 1391 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED LEATHER EXPORTS through Haji Muhammad Iqbal VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager
?
2005 CLD 1247 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs SAHARA MOTORS (PVT.) LIMITED through Managing Director VS HABIB BANK LIMITED through General Attorneys
—-S.6(2)–41nancial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), Ss.9 & 10—Recovery of bank loan—Notice under S.6 (2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was given to borrower which was replied by borrower but the suit was decreed
2005 CLD 1053 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS FOUNTAIN DAIRY FARM through Proprietor
#NAME?
2005 CLD 361 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs MUHAMMAD ALI AND BROTHERS through Managing Partner VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-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–ÂOrder of Banking Tribunal dated 1
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 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 1664 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AURANGZEB SHAAFI BURKI VS REGIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION
—S.6(2)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.10–ÂReply to show-cause notice issued under S.6(2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Validity—Such reply was treated as petition seeking leave t
2004 CLD 1657 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager VS ALLAH DITTA
—S. 6–Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.6–Â-Banking Tribunal—Jurisdiction—Non-claiming of, set-off—ÂDirection to refund excess amount—Suit was disposed of by Banking Tribunal as the total liability had been paid by the defendant–
2004 CLD 1649 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS ZAMAN ALI
—-S.6(2)—Liquidated damages and future mark-up, recovery of—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal did not include such damages and mark-up—Validity—Bank was not entitled to recover liquidated damages as per principle laid down in case titled Allied
2004 CLD 1263 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS MUHAMMAD ALI RAZA SHAH
#NAME?
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
2004 CLD 836 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Mst. BALQEES BEGUM
—-Ss.6 & 9—Suit for recovery of Bank loan with liquidated damages and insurance charges—Banking Tribunal decreed suit, but excluded amount of agreed return from claim of Bank as well as liquidated damages and insurance charges—Validity—Impugned
2004 CLD 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs DASTGIR COLD STORAGE IRRIGATION WORKSHOP
#NAME?
2004 CLD 830 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PERVEZ AKHTAR HUSSAIN
#NAME?
2004 CLD 779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BARKHURDAR VS AGRICULTRAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.11, 9 & 6—Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.12—Appeal—Ex parte decree was passed against the debtor by the Banking Tribunal–Judgment-debtor, on attaining knowledge about the said ex parte decree, filed
2004 CLD 766 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULUTRAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS Mst. MUHAMMAD KHATOON and 2 others
—-Ss.6 & 9—Suit for recovery of loan amount with liquidated damages and agreed return—Refusal of Banking Tribunal to award liquidated damages and agreed return–Validity—Bank was not entitled to amount of liquidated damages—Banking Tribunals Ord
2004 CLD 760 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
LAHORE DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY through Director General VS HABIB BANK LTD. and 7 others
—-Ss.6(8) & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.62—Land Acquisition Act (I of 1894), Ss.4, 11 & 16—Sale in execution of decree—Bank (decree-holder) claimed that suit-land was mortgaged with Bank on 12-12-1990 by judgment-debtor, who was
2004 CLD 752 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager VS SAKANDAR HAYAT
—-Ss.6 & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.6–Suit for recovery of loan amount—Banking ‘Tribunal while decreeing suit directed Bank to refund Rs.1, 61, 911 to defendant excessively- received from him —Validity–Banking Tribunal had no
2004 CLD 506 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs VICTORY STEEL RE-ROLLING MILLS
—-Ss.6(2) & 9—Suit for recovery of loan amount by the Bank—Entire transaction, as highlighted in the plaint, revolved around a “cash finance facility” which was secured through pledge of stocks and the mortgage of property–Plaint did not show that
2004 CLD 495 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNION BANK LIMITED VS Messrs BLUESKY TRAVELS (PVT.) LIMITED
#NAME?
2004 CLD 444 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs FANCY MANUFACTURES LIMITED VS EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND
—-Ss.6 & 9—Appeal against decree for recovery of loan amount—Statement of accounts filed alongwith suit was nor disputed by appellant—High Court on its own examined statement of accounts and found that respondent-company had charged a sum of Rs.1,
2004 CLD 389 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
BHATTI EXPORT PRIVATE LTD VS UNITED BANK LTD
—-Ss.6 & 9—Suit for recovery or loan amount—Failure of defendant to furnish required surety by specified date–Application for extension of time to furnish surety was rejected and suit was decreed on basis of such failure–Validity–Son of Managing
2004 CLD 1490 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LTD.
—S.6—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.172—Companies Ordinance (XLVII of 1984), S.121—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Sale proceeds of stock-in-trade, entitlement to–ÂHypothecation of stock-in-trade in favour of plaintiff-Bank and subsequent pledg
2004 CLD 260 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS WAFAQI MOHTASIB, ISLAMABAD
—-S.6–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition—Suit for recovery of loan by the Bank—Borrowers, in their written statement, while praying for dismissal of the suit also made a counter-claim of Rs.325 Million for the actual
2003 SCMR 1161 SUPREME-COURT
Syed FARASAT ALI SHAH VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD
—-S.6—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R. 23-A & S.151— Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Recovery of Bank loan–ÂExecution of decree—Objection to maintainability of decree—Non-filing of appeal—Judgment and decree passed
2003 CLD 952 SUPREME-COURT
Syed FARASAT ALI SHAH VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD
—-S.6—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.23-A & S.151—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)–ÂRecovery of Bank loan—Execution of decree—Objection to maintainability of decree—Non filing of appeal—Judgment and decree passed by
2003 CLD 1779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED VS NEW MALIK FOUNDRY AND ENGINEERING WORKS
#NAME?
2003 CLD 812 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS LAL KHAN
—-S. 6—Recovery of mark-up beyond agreed period—Suit was decreed by Banking Tribunal in favour of Bank and mark-up awarded up to the period when the default was committed and the suit was filed—Contention of the Bank was that the agreement was to
2003 CLD 789 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD ANWAR KHAN VS HABIB BANK LTD.
—-Ss.6 & 11—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXI, R.52—Execution of decree- -Objection petition, dismissal of—Factual controversy—Failure to record evidence–Contention of the objector was that the attached property was never mortgaged in fav
2003 CLD 506 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LTD. VS HUMAYUN TRADERS
—-Ss.6(2) & 9—Suit for recovery of amount —Deductions–Suit filed by’Bank against defendants for recovery of amount was decreed after deducting three amounts comprising liquidation damages; amount of excise duty and amount deposited by defendants—
2003 CLD 354 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAUDI-PAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6 & 9—Appeal against Judgment of Banking Tribunal—Plaintiff a financial institution had extended financial facilities to the defendant, through another scheduled Bank—Amount received by the defendant was payable within 12 months together with mark-up at the agreed rate and the said scheduled Bank issued guarantee—Defendant having not paid amount after expiry of stipulated date, plaintiff invoked Bank Guarantee and filed claim with the guarantor Bank through a suit for recovery of amount—Banking Tribunal found that plaintiff had failed to lodge its claim within stipulated date as provided by guarantor and that guarantor Bank was not liable to make payment under Bank guarantee—Guarantor Bank had asserted that time for filing claim was specifically mentioned as 10-3-1991 in the Bank guarantee whereas claim had been lodged by the plaintiff on 18-3-1991–Validity—Bank guarantee issued by the guarantor Bank on 18-.3-1990 was valid up to 15-3-1991 as amount was received by the plaintiff on 18-3-1990 for 12 months which was payable on 18-3-1991—View taken by Banking Tribunal that claim was required to be filed by 10-3-1991 and thereafter no claim was entertainable was based on an erroneous assumption that validity period of guarantee was up to 10-3-1991—Even if any date prior to validity period was mentioned in the Bank guarantee that would not discharge liability of guarantor under the guarantee before expiry of period of validity—Filing of claim was merely a mode of convenience—Bank guarantee being for a period of 12 months from 18-3-1990, liability of guarantor Bank could not be discharged before 18-3-1991—Claim filed by plaintiff within a period of validity was proper and tenable–Guarantor Bank was legally bound to honour its commitment and obligation arising under guarantee issued by it and was liable to make payment to the plaintiff.
2003 CLD 278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS Dr. QUDRATULLAH CHAUDHRY
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6 & 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.133—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Banking Court decreed suit against principal debtor, but disallowed the claim against respondents-guarantors on the ground that plaintiff had got executed supplementary agreements relating to finances, thus, they were not liable to pay any amount on basis of such supplementary agreements—Contention of plaintiff was that Banking Tribunal had fallen in error as record showed that respondents had executed personal guarantees to secure even supplementary agreements —Validity–Guarantees executed by respondents were very much part of record available to Banking Tribunal, but same had been overlooked—No justification for failure, of Banking Tribunal to pass decree against respondents s prayed for in the plaint—High Court passed decree against respondents in circumstances.
2003 CLD 206 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
EQUITY PARTICIPATION FUND through Regional Office VS PAKISTAN WIRE PRODUCTS (PVT.) LTD.
—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—Effec
2003 CLD 204 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UMAR HAYAT VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss. 15 & 21—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6(2)—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Legal and factual pleas raised by defendant to reply to show-cause notice issued to him under S.6(2) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were rejec
2003 CLD 109 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TAJ ZARAI INDUSTRIES VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
—-Ss. 2(a), 6, 9 & 11(4)—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S.24-A (as added by General Clauses (Amendment) Act (XI of 1997)]—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Decree for recovery of loan amount with liquida
2003 CLD 51 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS MEHMOOD SABRI BUSINESS CORPORATION
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6 & 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VI, R.17–Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.9—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Suit was decreed against two defendants, but was dismissed against third defendant—Bank contended that all defendants were jointly liable to pay the suit amount and prayed for amendment of plaint—Validity—Banking Tribunal due to clerical error in plaint had not considered the matter properly—Application contained particulars of such clerical errors in plaint vis-a-vis a reference to various defendants—Proposed amendment, if allowed, would not change the nature and scope of suit and same was necessary for effective decision of entire controversy between parties—High Court permitted Bank to amend plaint, accepted appeal, set aside impugned judgment/decree to the extent of third defendant and remanded case to Banking Court, where Bank would file amended plaint and a notice in terms of S.9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 would be issued to such defendant and matter would then be decided in accordance with law.
2003 CLD 39 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS BLESSED INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6, 9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.96 & O.XLI, R. 22—Banking Tribunal partly decreed the claim of the Bank—Appeal by Bank in respect of its claim rejected by Banking Tribunal—Cross-objections by respondents under O.XLI, R.22, C.P.C., praying for dismissal of suit filed by Bank and decree for amount claimed by them as set off–Validity—Judgment and decree passed by Banking Tribunal could not be challenged through any other mode/manner, except by way of appeal under S. 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, which too could be entertained after deposit of decretal amount—Special law overrides the general law—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 being a special statute overrides the provisions of C.P.C.—Provisions of S. 96 of C.P.C. had not been made applicable to Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Respondents had failed to adhere to the provisions of S. 9 of the Ordinance —Cross-objections filed by respondents and converted into appeal being not entertainable were dismissed by High Court in circumstances.
2002 CLD 1776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TRADE LINES VS BANK OF PUNJAB
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss.6; 9 & 10—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Ss.12(2), 151 & O.XXVII-A, R.1—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199 & Fourth Shed., Entry No. 28—Constitutional petition—Concealment of facts by petitioner—Effect—Suit for recovery of Bank dues—Banking Tribunal decreed the suit after finding reply to show-cause notice to be time-barred–Defendants filed three applications i.e. under S.6(5) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and S.12(2) and O.XXVII-A, R.1, C.P.C.—Banking Tribunal dismissed all applications—Contention of defendants was that Banking Tribunal established by Federal Government had no jurisdiction to take cognizance of the suit filed by Bank, a Provincial Corporation—Validity—High Court had decided such question of law vide judgment dated 11-7-1996 passed in the case of M/s. Chenab Cement Products (Pvt.) Ltd. and others. v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others (PLD 1996 Lah.672), whereby judgments and decrees of Banking Tribunal passed prior thereto had been saved on the basis of well-known principle of past and closed transaction–Present decree was passed on 23-5-1995 i.e. prior to said decision of High Court—Defendants had alternative remedy to file appeal under S.9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 which had not been filed—Defendants by not attaching copy of reply to show-cause notice with Constitutional petition had concealed material facts from High Court regarding raising or non-raising the point of jurisdiction in such reply—Defendants had not approached the Court with clean hands—High Court declined to exercise discretion in favour of defendants—Defendants had made such applications in order to frustrate the decree granted to Bank, which otherwise had attained finality—High Court dismissed the Constitutional petition as having no merits.
2002 CLD 1772 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS BIO-TECH. (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art.17(2)—Decree for recovery of loan amount against defendants-guarantors—Non-attestation of personal guarantees by witnesses—Effect—Such judgment and decree not void merely because Banking Tribunal had found that personal guarantees furnished by defendants had not been attested in accordance with law.
2002 CLD 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs BANDAGI AGRO SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6 & 9—Suit for recovery of finance based on markup—Refusal of Banking Tribunal to award mark-up for cushion period five times—Contention that Bank was empowered to claim the amount of cushion period as debited in the statement of accounts five times—Validity—Bank could not cite any Circular of State Bank of Pakistan or any law on the subject to substantiate its such contention–Concept of charging of amount of mark-up for cushion period was introduced in Islamic Banking System in order to compensate financial institutions and conclusion of proceedings for recovery—Bank could charge mark-up only for cushion period of 210 days and that too only once at the time of institution of suit commencing from the date of default committed by the customer till the institution of suit—Mark-up in the present case had been charged five times and that too on different occasions and during the currency of the account—Banking Tribunal had rightly taken notice of such legal infirmity and declined to award amount of cushion period, to which no exception could be taken by Bank—Impugned judgment/ decree was legal not warranting modification as prayed for—High Court dismissed appeal as being devoid of merits.
2002 CLD 1663 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MUHAMMAD UMAR TARAR VS JUDGE BANKING COURT No. II, LAHORE
—-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—Hi
2002 CLD 1418 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD AFZAL JURA
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6(5)—Ex parte decree, setting aside of—Amendment of decree—During execution proceedings borrower filed application under S.6(5) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, for setting aside of ex parte decree—While deciding application under S.6(5) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, the Tribunal amended the decree—Validity—When there was no application on behalf of either of the parties seeking amendment of the decree, the Tribunal could not amend the same while processing application for setting aside ex parte decree.
2002 CLD 1417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Mst. NASEEM AKHTAR
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.6—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74—Recovery of Bank loan– -Liquidated charges, mark-up and costs of suit–Grievance of the Bank was that such charges were not allowed by the Banking Tribunal in the decree against the borrower—Loan amount was deposited by the borrower with the Tribunal—Effect—Tribunal had rightly refused the liquidated damages and also the costs as the Bank was left with no cause of action—Bank, in the present case, was not entitled to grant of mark-up—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 1297 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MUHAMMAD TARIQ
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.6—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74—Recovery of bank loan—Liquidated charges, insurance claim and cushion charges—All such charges were included in the statement of accounts filed by the Bank at the time of filing of the suit for recovery of bank loan—Banking Tribunal decreed the suit but did not allow the charges—Validity—Banking Tribunal had rightly declined liquidated charges to the Bank as the Tribunal had no authority to allow the same under the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984–Insurance claim and cushion charges could not be recovered/ charged from the borrower as the same were not agreed between the parties—Reasons given by the Banking Tribunal for refusal of the insurance claim and cushion charges were in accordance with law—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by .the Banking Tribunal—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 1290 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Messrs AGRO FOOD LIMITED through Chief Executive VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.6—Recovery of bank loan—Loss in business—Claim against insurance company- —Defendants in their application for leave to appear and defend the suit admitted the claim of the Bank and had stated that they had suffered loss due to heavy floods—Trial Court decreed the suit in favour of the Bank—Plea raised by the defendants was that as the project was insured on the direction of the Bank, therefore, it was the responsibility of the Bank to persuade the insurance company for the claim of defendants —Validity–Defendants who were aggrieved of the action of the insurance company in refusing to admit their claim could seek their remedy in a suit against the insurance company—Merely because the defendants had suffered loss on account of ,floods would not relieve them of their liability under the agreement —Triable issue, according to the defendants in the application for leave to appear and defend was the damage to the project and the liability of the Bank to get the claim settled from the insurance company, which was not the responsibility of the Bank—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by the Banking Tribunal—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 1280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Malik IFTIKHAR AHMED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6 & 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.20—Appeal–Incentiue Scheme, withdrawal of—Mistake of fact—Incentive letter was issued by Bank to the borrower for deposit of certain amount as full and final payment—Borrower in compliance of the letter deposited the amount so demanded with the Bank—Banking Court, in the light of amount deposited under the letter decreed the suit in favour of the Bank—Plea raised by the Bank was that the letter was issued to the borrower under mistake of fact, therefore, the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court was liable to be set aside—Validity—Bank had itself offered the borrower to deposit certain amount on which the remaining amount would be waived—By depositing the requisite amount, the borrower accepted the offer, thus, an agreement enforceable under law came into existence—After deposit of the requisite amount and having accepted the terms of offer by the borrower, the Bank had no lawful authority to unilaterally retrieve from the terms of the offer, which to all intents and purposes were implemented—Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court being valid in law—High Court declined to interfere with the same.
2002 CLD 1279 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMJAD LATIF VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
—S.22—Banking Tribunal Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6–Appeal—Conditional leave to appear and defend the suit, non-compliance of—Decree without trial —Banking Court while passing judgment and decree had neither referred to the leave granting ord
2002 CLD 1276 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS NOOR BIBI
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.6—Recovery of bank loan—Unauthorized entries in statement of accounts—Borrower disputed certain entries made by the Bank in the statement of accounts—On the direction of Banking Tribunal the Bank prepared a fresh statement of accounts—Banking Tribunal found that two entries in the statement of accounts were not in accordance with law—Suit was decreed by the Tribunal after deducting the unauthorized entries—Validity—While deducting the unauthorized entries from the statement of accounts, in the present case, the Banking Tribunal did not commit any illegality—No legal infirmity could be found with the judgment and decree which was legal, unexceptionable and not calling for any interference by High Court—Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 1261 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB BANK LIMITED, FAISALABAD VS Messrs AWAN TEXTILE MILLS LIMITED COMPANY, FAISALABAD
—Ss. 12(2)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) S.6(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)–Setting aside of ex parte decree—Time-barred reply to show-cause notice—Service on appellants (minor defendants) was effected through their
2002 CLD 1252 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
KHURSHID ANWAR VS UNITED BANK LIMITED., BANK SQUARE BRANCH, FAISALABAD through General Attorneys
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 133 & 135—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Variance in terms of guarantee enhancing rate of interest from 1396 to 1496—Defendantguarantor contended that such variation made without his concurrence was sufficient to discharge him from personal liability for debts of Company—Validity—Enhancement in rate of interest had been approved by borrower-company in a meeting of its directors held four years before filing of suit by Bank—Defendant as one of the directors was present in the meeting and had certified the minutes of meeting, which had been sent to Bank—Defendant had not, at any point of time claimed discharge from his personal liability nor he could urge now that such enhancement had been made without his concurrence—Defendant could not be allowed to benefit from provisions of Ss. 133 & 135 of Contract Act, 1872 as the liability of borrowing company and that of defendant stood created when rate of interest was enhanced—Defendant as such was personally liable for the amount payable by borrowing-company.
2002 CLD 1099 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs MUSLIM CORPORATION, OKARA through Managing Partner
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6(2) & 11(4)—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74— Liquidated damages, recovery of—Suit for recovery of Bank loan included liquidated damages—Banking Tribunal decreed the suit in favour of the Bank but declined to include liquidated damages in the decree—Validity—Claim of liquidated damages was not entertainable—High Court declined to interfere with the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal in view of Allied Bank of Pakistan v. Aisha Garments reported as 2001 MLD 1955.
2002 CLD 1097 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs ASGHAR ENTERPRISES
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6(2) & 9—High Court (Lahore) Rules and Orders, Vol.I, Chap. 16-B, Rr.18 & 19—Counsel fee, award of –Grievance of the plaintiff was that the Banking Tribunal at the time of passing the decree in its favour did not include fee of the counsel in the decretal amount—Validity—Matter of omission of grant of counsel fee pertained to the costs —For the purposes of assessment of costs with reference to counsel fee, a certificate had to be filed by the counsel for the plaintiff or for that matter of the defendant—No such certificate was filed in the present case even the amount which was being claimed to be awarded was neither mentioned in the plaint nor in the memorandum of appeal–Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 1018 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS FIRST TAWAKAL MODARABA through Tawakkal Management (Pvt.) Ltd.
—-Ss. 2(c)(e) & 6—Modaraba Companies and Modaraba (Floatation and Control) Ordinance (XXXI of 1980), Ss.2(a) (b)(c) & 24—Suit for recovery of money was filed by Bank before Banking Tribunal—Plaintiffs case was that it negotiated the export bills o
2002 CLD 1018 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS FIRST TAWAKAL MODARABA through Tawakkal Management (Pvt.) Ltd.
—Ss.3(2), 10 & 29—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.10–Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6—Bankers’Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S.4—Amended application for leave to defen
2002 CLD 1004 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Zonal Head, City Zone, Lahore VS Messrs LIFE PAPER STORE
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6 & 9—Liquidated damages and mark-up, entitlement to—Banking Tribunal decreed the suit, but did not award liquidated damages and mark-up to the Bank for cushion period—Validity—Liquidated damages could not be granted by Banking Tribunal as per reasons given in Allied Bank’s case reported as 2001 MLD 1955—Mark-up for 210 days (cushion period) was added in the statement of accounts appended with plaint, which had been erroneously and illegally disallowed by Banking Tribunal, though it was bound under law to award mark-up to Bank for such period—High Court accepted the appeal and modified the impugned judgment and decree by awarding mark-up to Bank for cushion period.
2002 CLD 1001 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Attorney VS Haji FAQIR MUHAMMAD
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6 & 9—Suit for recovery of finance by Bank–Liquidated damages, entitlement to—Banking Tribunal while decreeing the suit refused to award liquidated damages to Bank—Validity—Liquidated damages could not be granted by Banking Tribunal as per reasons given in Allied Bank’s case reported as 2001 MLD 1955—High Court dismissed the appeal having no merits.
2002 CLD 953 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAKARIYA VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.6(5)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99–Constitutional petition—Petitioners not coming to Court with clean hands—Concealing of material facts—Effect—Ex parte judgment and decree was passed against the petitioners by the Banking Tribunal—Petitioner’s application under S.6(5) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, for setting aside the ex parte judgment and decree was dismissed by the Tribunal—Petitioners without disclosing the fact of dismissal of the application, assailed the ex parte judgment and decree before High Court in Constitutional petition–Validity—He who seeks equity must come with clean hands—Where the petitioners did not approach the High Court with clean hands by concealing the material facts, High Court declined the exercise of discretion in their favour—Petition was dismissed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 915 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through the Manager VS SABTAIN SHAH
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —Ss. 6, 9 & 11—Suit for recovery of Rs.21,56,166 alongwith liquidated damages, expenses and costs–Defendant offered to pay decretal amount in instalments, in case he was exempted from paying insurance and cushion charges, costs of suit and liquidated damages—Bank did not agree to waive such charges and payment of decretal amount in instalments—Banking Tribunal decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.16, 76, 806 including mark-up up to date of suit in 12 quarterly instalments—Contention of Bank was that without its consent, defendant could not be permitted to pay decretal amount in instalments; Bank was entitled to mark-up from the date of suit till date of decision; and that Banking Tribunal had declined the insurance and cushion charges, liquidated damages and costs of suit on the assumption that matter was being disposed of with the consent of parties—Validity—Since no evidence had been recorded in the case it was not possible to finally determine the claim of Bank—Appellate Court allowed the appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and decree and remanded the case to Banking Court for its fresh decision in accordance with law.
2002 CLD 609 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
PERVEZ AHMAD KHAN BURKI, ADVOCATE VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Financial Institutions (Recovery Finances) Ordinance (JAW of 2001), S.7(4)(6)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O.VII, R.11—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 &. 54—Bank fled suit for recovery of money against petitioner and company before Banking Tribunal—Petitioner thereafter filed in Civil Court suit for declaration and injunction that he never stood guarantee in the matter of loan provided by Bank to the company—Trial Court rejected the petitioner’s plaint holding that the matter was related to jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal—–Appellate Court upheld such order–Validity—Banking Tribunal no longer existed and the matters were being dealt with by Banking Courts and the law covering the jurisdiction of such Courts provided for filing of suit by company as well as the customer or borrower—High Court disposed of revision petition with a direction that file of the case, which otherwise automatically stood transferred to Banking Court, would be sent to Banking Court, where the same would be taken up alongwith the suit fled by respondent-Bank, and the question as to whether or not petitioner had executed a valid guarantee or had otherwise guaranteed repayment of loan, would be decided by Banking Court.
2002 CLD 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB CREDIT & EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED, L.D.A. PLAZA, LAHORE VS EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6 & 9—Decree for recovery of money—Alleged guarantor Bank denied its liability under guarantee contending that it had not executed the same in favour of creditor Bank to secure the liabilities of the borrowers—Validity—Creditor Bank would be entitled to enforce the guarantee against guarantor Bank, if the same was executed by said Bank, otherwise same could not be enforced against the alleged guarantor Bank—Creditor Bank could not show instrument of guarantee on the basis of which it had filed claim against the alleged guarantor Bank, but instead produced some letters having no relevance with the case—Such letters could not be used against the alleged guarantor Bank on any legal principle—Guarantor Bank, in circumstances, was not liable to creditor Bank under any letter of guarantee—High Court allowed the appeal and set aside impugned judgment and decree against the alleged guarantor.
2002 CLD 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MST. PARVEEN AMIR VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6 & 9—Contract Act (IX of 1872), Ss. 62, 128, 129 & 134–Decree for recovery of money—Liability of guarantor-Appellant guaranteed the liabilities of respondent-Corporation arising out of agreement, dated 5-6-1989, whereunder finance facility had to expire on 30-6-1990—Such liabilities were fully repaid and adjusted on 16-9-1990—Respondent-Bank then allowed fresh finance to the Corporation on 16-9-1990—Appellant was sued as guarantor for such new/fresh liability—Banking Tribunal decreed the claim of the Bank—Validity—Guarantor could only be burdened to the extent and in accordance with the terms of guarantee executed by him—Finance facility under agreement dated 5-6-1989 expired on 30-6-1990, whereunder entire ability of the Corporation stood cleared as was apparent from settlement of accounts—Neither to new facility allowed on 16-9-1990 nor to variation of terms of agreement, dated 5-6-1989, appellant had given her concurrence nor fresh guarantee had been obtained from her for such new/ renewed facility– Appellant was not liable for any, amount advanced to the Corporation by way of fresh facility or renewal of earlier facility—Banking Court was not justified in passing decree against appellant in favour of the Bank in circumstances.
2002 CLD 417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR IQBAL VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss.6(6), 9, 10 & 11—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. l99–Constitutional petition—Maintainability—Decree not challenged in appeal—Effect—Challenge through Constitutional petition to judgment and decree of Banking Tribunal after two years of its passing—Validity—Constitutional petition was not maintainable, because petitioner had not challenged the judgment and decree in appeal provided under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984–Petitioner had acquiesced in the matter and as such was bound by the terms of decree—Constitutional petition was also hit by the principle of laches, because petitioner had agitated the matter after lapse of two years, which was a past and closed transaction—High Court refused too exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter and dismissed the Constitutional petition.
2002 CLD 407 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS MST. RUKHSANA
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Decree—Mark-up—Remission of—While passing decree in a suit for recovery of amount, Banking Tribunal has no jurisdiction to give direction to Bank for remission of mark-up.
2002 CLD 403 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MESSRS SHARIF COTTON GINNING, PRESSING AND OIL FACTORY VS MESSRS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Suit for recovery of money—Some of the defendants filed reply to show-cause notices, while rest of them, although duly served, did not choose to file the reply and abandoned the proceedings—Banking Tribunal, after taking into consideration the points/questions raised in reply to show-cause notices: passed the decree—Such decree could not be said to be an ex parte decree.
2002 CLD 362 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MST. ZAMURAD AFZA VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6(8)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXXIV, R.2–Recovery suit—Execution of decree for recovery through sale of mortgaged property—Preliminary decree, non-passing of—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal was assailed on the ground that the Tribunal instead of passing preliminary decree in the first instance had passed final decree—Validity—Banking Tribunal passed the decree for recovery through sale of mortgaged property in terms of S.6(8) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and the Tribunal was not required to pass a preliminary decree as provided in O.XXXIV, C.P.C.—Banking Tribunal was within its jurisdiction to order execution of the same through sale of the mortgaged property.
2002 CLD 349 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FIRM MUSLIM TRADERS GENERAL MERCHANT AND RICE DEALERS, PATTOKI VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6(8)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XXMV, R.2–Preliminary decree, non passing of—Non-adherence to provisions of O.XXMV, C.P.C. by Banking Tribunal in not passing a preliminary decree—Effect –Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, was promulgated to provide a mechanism of recovery of finance provided by Banking Companies under a system or financing not based upon interest—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, provided for a special procedure for recovery suits as also the mechanism for execution of the decree in consequence thereof–Where Banking Company claimed enforcement of mortgage of immovable property, decree passed by the Banking Tribunal was a final decree for foreclosure, sale or redemption as per provisions of O.XXXTV, C.P.C.—Such non-adherence to the provisions of O.XXXIV, C.P.C. had no effect in circumstances.
2002 CLD 303 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MESSRS EXTRACTION PAKISTAN LTD.
THROUGH CHIEF EXECUTIVE
VS CHAIRMAN, BANKING TRIBUNAL COMMERCIAL III,
LAHORE
—-Ss. 2(a)(e), 6, 13 & Sched.—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.7(6)—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLV1 of 2001), Ss. 5, 7(6) & 29—Constitution of Pakistan (1973),
2002 CLD 301 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD.,
MCLEOD ROAD, BRANCH, LAHORE
VS MESSRS LUCKY AUTOS AND RICKSHAW EXCHANGE,
1-ROYAL PARK, MCLEOD ROAD, LAHORE
Ss. 2 & 6 Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1983), Ss. 2, 4 & 5 Execution of decree passed by Civil Court during the period between the date of promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance (II of 1983) and 17-4-1988 i.e. the date of judgment of Supreme Court passed in Yasmeen Nighat’s case (PLD 1988 SC 391) settling the law qua absence of jurisdiction in Civil Courts as to suits for recovery of Bank loans valuing Rs.1,00,000 or below???Special Banking Court dismissed the Bank application for execution of such decree holding same as void???Contention of the Bank was that decree passed by Civil Court prior to judgment of Supreme Court had become final by non?filing of appeal by respondents, and thus, had assumed character of “past and closed transaction”??? Validity??Judgment and decree so passed by Civil Court being a judgment in personam, had become “final” in absence of challenge arid was thin “a past and closed transaction”??Special Banking Court had exceeded its jurisdiction by dismissing execution application of the Bank???Appellate Court accepted the appeal and set aside the impugned order as a result of which, execution petition filed by the Bank would be deemed to be pending before Banking Court, who would decide same in accordance with law.
2002 CLD 251 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
M.ANWAR SALEEM VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
—-Ss.5, 7(6) & 29(2)—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OVII, R.10 & -O.XXXVII—Banff Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.6(1)(a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), Ss. 7(6) & 28– Constitution o
2001 YLR 1549 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LTD., KARACHI VS GRAVURE PACKAGING (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Recovery of Bank loan—Roll-over agreement of Bank loan—Void agreements–Charging of mark-up on roll-over agreement—Validity—Roll-over agreements that had been entered into and not acted upon, as no disbursements had been made, were void—No claim could be made by the Banks on the basis of the agreements—All documents, whether negotiable instruments or otherwise were, as a consequence, also void—No roll-over could be allowed, and that the amount payable would be the amount on the basis of the agreement against which disbursement had been made—Where the statement/break-up of liability filed by the plaintiff-Bank was not from the actual disbursement, the suit was decreed in the sum of amount actually disbursed.
2000 YLR 1484 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ISMAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD. VS HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss.6(6) & 9—Appeal—Judgment and decree of Banking Tribunal was declared invalid and inoperative by High Court in exercise of its Constitutional jurisdiction–Where the decree in itself was assailed in a Constitutional petition and such petition had already been accepted, and the decree had been declared invalid and inoperative, the proceedings in the suit stood revived and transferred to the respective Banking Court–Execution petition could not continue as the decree dirt not exist any longer.
1999 SCMR 85 SUPREME-COURT
WAQAS ENTERPRISES VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN
- IX, R. 13 — Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 6 — Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S. 6 — Suit for recovery of loan — Ex parte decree — Setting aside of—Suit was decreed ex parte against defendants/borrowers as they failed to appear before Banking Tribunal on date of hearing despite process was issued in accordance with prescribed procedure — Order sheets pertaining to proceedings recorded by Banking Tribunal had revealed that notices under S. 6 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were issued and all methods stipulated by law including proclamation were adopted — Defendants/borrower, in circumstances, were rightly proceeded ex parte and suit filed by Bank was rightly decreed taking into consideration documents produced by plaintiff in proof of its claim.
1999 MLD 3402 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
EAST WEST TRADING VS EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 6(6)—Appeal—Bank filed suit for recovery of money against debtor—Suit was not decided in three months—Banking Tribunal directed debtor to deposit suit amount as required under S. 6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984–Suit was decreed on account of non-deposit of the suit amount by debtor–Validity—Section 6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 having been declared ultra vires the Constitution, decree was set aside and case remanded for decision on merits.
1999 CLC 1643 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
HABIB BANK LIMITED VS SHIELDS (PRIVATE) LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 6—Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.73—Suit for recovery of loan—Bank claimed the amount of loan alongwith mark-up, liquidated damages and amount paid towards the central excise duty—Defendants objected to recovery of damages and amount of central excise duty—Validity—Compensation by virtue of S.73 of Contract Act, 1872 could not be given for any remote and indirect loss or damage by reason of breach of contract—Party claiming compensation for breach of terms of agreement was required to prove the loss—Where no such evidence was available on record, liquidated damages could not be granted—Statement of account as submitted by the plaintiff proved the payment of central excise duty by the Bank in relation to the finance in question and, as such, the amount was recoverable from defendant—Suit was decreed accordingly.
1998 CLC 816 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LTD. VS GHULAM HUSSAIN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 6(4)—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 4—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 30—Duty of Banking Tribunal in deciding cases based on negotiable instruments—Banking Tribunal was not required by law to accept ipsi dixit of plaintiff qua its suit for any amount it might choose to claim from defendant—Banking Tribunal would be under legal duty to first ascertain as to whether according to record of case before it, amount claimed in suit could legally be so claimed, failing which suit as a whole or to the extent of amount found to be not recoverable as the case may be, must be dismissed.
1997 CLC 675 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WAQAS ENTERPRISES VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN., LAHORE
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss.6 & 9—General Clauses Act (X of 1897), S. 27—Qanun-e-Shahadat (10 of 1984), Art. 129—Ex parte decree—Refusal to set aside such decree by Banking Tribunal —Validity—Factum of despatch of notices through registered post by Banking Tribunal to appellants was not only borne out by postal receipts on record but was not even disputed by appellants—Appellants had not claimed that addresses to which notices were despatched through registered post were not their addresses—Presumption that notices must have reached appellants had arisen both under S.27, General Clauses Act, 1897 and Art. 129, Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984—Presumption arising under both enactments was although rebuttable yet appellants had failed to rebut that presumption by producing cogent evidence—Parties having agreed before Banking Tribunal not to produce any evidence and to have application decided on basis of affidavits produced by them, appellant’s affidavit stood rebutted by respondent’s counter-affidavit leaving nothing on record on basis of which presumption about due service through registered post could be deemed to have stood rebutted—When notices were presumed to have reached appellants, they were obliged to produce sufficient proof to rebut such presumption which they failed to do—Parties themselves having agreed not to produce any evidence and to rely upon affidavits filed by them, it did not lie in the mouth of appellants to raise any objection subsequently that they were not allowed to produce evidence–Indications, however, existed on record to show that appellants were aware of Court proceedings in the suit most important of which being that one of guarantors of appellants had admittedly received process and had also appeared before Tribunal—Guarantor and principal debtors (appellants) both having been sued, natural reaction of guarantor on receipt of notice, would be to establish contact with person on whose behalf he had furnished guarantee—Dismissal of application for setting aside ex parte decree was thus for right and valid reasons which did not warrant interference.
1997 PLD 62 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDUL RAHIM VS U.B.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 6—Whether person filing suit has to do so under an express authority backed by a resolution from the banking company—Principles.
1997 MLD 2738 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ABDULLAH & COMPANY VS BANKING TRIBUNAL-II, SINDH
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.6—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Act. 199—Constitutional petition–suit for recovery of loan—Borrower against whom suit for recovery of loan was filed by Bank was duly served with summons and publication—Borrower having failed to file written statement within prescribed period of ten days from service of summons suit against him was ordered to be proceeded ex parte—Held, borrower who from the very beginning had deliberately adopted delaying tactics was rightly proceeded ex parte.
1997 CLC 679 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MALAH RICE MILLS, JACOBABAD VS PRESIDING OFFICER, BANKING TRIBUNAL, LARKANA
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S.6(6)—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition–Banking Tribunal’s direction to petitioner to furnish Bank guarantee to the extent of specified amount within 15 days—Validity—Petitioners claimed that provisions of S.6(6), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 being directory and not mandatory they were entitled to stay of proceedings without furnishing Bank guarantee—Object of promulgating Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was to provide machinery for expeditious recovery of money due to financial institutions—No equitable construction could be placed while dealing statute relating to recovery of money—Plain reading of provisions of S.6(6), Banking Tribunals Ordinance reveals that they were mandatory and not directory–Operation of impugned order, therefore, could not be stayed except on furnishing Bank guarantee.
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 CLC 1378 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INDUS MATCH CO. LTD. VS UNITED BATIK LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss. 6 & 9—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Rules, 1980, R.8–Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance . (XIX of 1979), S.4–Defendant before Banking Tribunal in a suit for recovery of loan has to file reply to notice within 10 days of service of such notice—Mode of service of notice to defendant and starting point of limitation of 10 days stated.
1996 PLD 672 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
CHENAB CEMENT PRODUCTS VS BANKING TRIBUNA
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S, 6 — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. XXXVll — Leave to defend suit –Contention was that framers of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 had neither spelt out any grounds or basis for rejection of the reply nor any guiding principles had been laid down regulating the discretion’, ‘ powers for rejecting the reply — Validity — Held, mere fact that in case of failure to file a reply to the show-cause notice or the reply being found unsatisfactory and decree was to follow did not make any difference as similar provisions were found in O.XXXVII, C,P.C. which was being followed by the normal Civil Courts–Grounds in presence of which the reply was to be found unsatisfactory and was to be rejected having been settled by superior Courts and precedents having provided for the alleged vacuum by controlling the exercise of jurisdiction vested in the Tribunal or the Court in such a situation, contention was repelled.
1996 CLC 1710 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DEEDAR ALI VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 –Ss. 6 & 9—Suit for recovery of amount—Bank had filed suit for recovery of amount against defendant/borrower at time when defendant/borrower had already died—Legal representatives of deceased defendant/borrower, unless having been joined in case without exception, would be non-parties in. the proceedings ..and could not be subjected to obligation of depositing amount claimed by Bank in suit or decretal amount as a condition precedent for filing appeal under S.9 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984.
1996 CLC 981 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS ATLAS BOT LEASE CO. LIMITED
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 409 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KHURSHID ALAM VS UNITED BANK LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Alternate adequate remedy provided by law—Non-availing of—Effect—Constitutional petition–Competency—Constitutional petition was not substitute of appeal or revision and being discretionary remedy could only be granted when circumstances so warranted—Where any condition precedent for preferring appeal had been imposed and same was not against established judicial norms, such embargo could not be deemed to be against law—Constitutional jurisdiction ‘of High Court could not be invoked when another adequate remedy was provided by law—Banking Tribunal’s decision/decree was appealable with a condition precedent of depositing decretal amount—Petitioner did not file appeal and thus, avoided deposit of decretal amount by filing Constitutional petition–Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked simply to frustrate any provision of law, providing adequate remedy—Constitutional petition was thus, not maintainable in circumstances.
1995 MLD 1546 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ZARAT INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LTD. VS BANKING TRIBUNAL NO.L, KARACHI
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss. 6 & 9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Arts. 8; 270-A & 199–Repugnancy to provisions of Constitution —Vires of Ss. 6 & 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 challenged as being violative of Fundamental Rights—Constitution is to be read as a whole giving every Article its meaning which should be consistent with other Articles of the Constitution–Article 270-A of the Constitution was inserted into the Constitution with effect from 30-12-1985, whereunder all laws made between 5th July, 1977 and 30-12-1985 were affirmed, adopted and declared, notwithstanding any judgment of any Court. to have been validly made by Competent Authority and notwithstanding anything contained in the Constitution, could not be called in question in any Court on any ground whatsoever—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, having come into force with effect from 31-12-1984, was covered by Art. 270-A of the Constitution and has complete protection from being examined regarding its validity on any ground whatsoever—Courts being creature of the Constitution were bound to act within limitations imposed by Constitution, and then could not declare any provision of the Constitution to be invalid—Provisions of Ss. 6 & 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, were thus, intra vires of the Constitution.—[Vires of Legislation].
1994 PLD 233 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SIRAJ-UD-DIN VS HABIB BANK LTD
Ss. 9(1) & 6(6)—Appeal—Essentials—In order to appeal against order of Banking Tribunal, defendant must deposit with the Banking Tribunal amount claimed in suit or the decretal amount—Use of word “shall” in S.9(1), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, would suggest its operation as mandatory—Provision of S.9(1) of the Ordinance does not provide for any other sufficient security for entertainment of appeal—Decree appealed against whether on merits or question of jurisdiction could only be entertained if decretal amount was deposited.
1994 CLC 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS OVER IMPEX
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss. 6 & 9—Mark up—Entitlement to—Bank filed suit against borrowers for recovery of amount and other dues—Suit filed by Bank was not resisted by borrowers, but by an application they only requested for extension of time for payment of amount as claimed by Bank in suit and further requested that mark-up on amount be charged according to rules—Tribunal though decreed Bank’s suit, but declined to allow Bank’s claim for mark-up—Nothing could be spelt out from judgment of Tribunal to indicate that claim for mark-up put forth by Bank was not in accordance with circular of State Bank—Claim of Bank with regard to mark-up having not been denied by borrowers, no clog was in the way of Tribunal to allow such claim in full—Observation of Tribunal that when payment was not forthcoming Bank should have instituted recovery proceedings against borrowers without wasting time, did not justify rejection of part of claim in respect of mark-up.
1993 PLD 94 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
NASIR TRADERS VS HABIB BANK LTD.
Ss. 9 & 6(6) — Condition precedent for filing appeal under S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 — Right of appeal has been conferred, subject to the condition of depositing decretal amount which had been awarded in terms of S.6(6), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 with the Banking Tribunal before presenting appeal — Non-depositing of the decretal amount would be construed to bye pass the mandatory command of S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 — Appellate Court has no lawful authority to add or delete any provisions by putting different constructions on the provision of S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 for the purpose of achieving the object that a decree-holder could be exempted from depositing the decretal amount because valuable properties had already been mortgaged with the Bank.
1989 CLC 524 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SIND GLASS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 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.