Section 9: Appeal
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.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 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 1269 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through MANAGER VS MUHAMMAD KHAN
—-S.9—Appeal—Principle of past and closed transaction–ÂSetting aside of judgment passed by Banking Tribunal on the basis of judgment passed by High Court in case titled Messrs Chenab Cement Product Private Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal Lahor
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 through Manager and another
—-S.9—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.5—Appeal—Dismissal for non-prosecution—Application for condonation of delay in filing the application for the re-admission of the said appeal—Contents of the application for condonation of delay were suppor
2004 CLD 766 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULUTRAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Mst. MUHAMMAD KHATOON
—-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 VS HABIB BANK LTD.
—-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 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 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
2003 CLD 1779 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LIMITED VS NEW MALIK FOUNDRY AND ENGINEERING WORKS
#NAME?
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 453 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SUHAEL AHMED VS MICRO ELECTRONICS INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-Ss.9 & 10—Appeal/cross-objections against judgment and decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Limitation—Any judgment and decree passed by Banking Tribunal had to be assailed only through filing of appeal, which too would be entertained after deposit of decretal amount—Said judgment and decree would not be called in question through any other mode/manner, except by way of appeal—Right of appeal was creation of Statute and was to be exercised according to provisions of that Statute– -Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was a special law and would override general law—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, in circumstances, would override provisions of C.P.C.—Period of limitation for filing first appeal before High Court, provided in a special law and general law were different as in case of decree passed by Banking Tribunal, an appeal was to be filed within thirty days, while under ordinary law, first appeal lay to High Court within a period of ninety days—Provisions of S.96, C.P.C. had not been made applicable to provision of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—If appellants were aggrieved from any order, judgment or decree passed by Banking Tribunal, they could have assailed the same through filing of appeal under S.9 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and that too after fulfilling the requirements, enunciated in the said section, necessary before entertaining the appeal—Appellants having failed to adhere to provisions of S.9 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, cross-objections filed by them which were converted into appeal, were not maintainable.
2003 CLD 359 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SHAHID ALI BABAR VS CITIBANK HOUSING FINANCE COMPANY LIMITED, LAHORE
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29—Delay in filing appeal —Condonation of—First appeal filed under S.9 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was barred by time and appellant had filed application for condonation of delay under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908—Period of 90 days had been prescribed under ordinary law for filing regular first appeal before High Court, while the present case was covered by provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 which was a special law which had prescribed a period of 30 days for filing first appeal before High Court against decree passed by Banking Tribunal—Special law having provided a different period of limitation, provisions of S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 were neither applicable nor attracted in the case as provided under S.29 of Limitation Act, 1908–Appeal being barred by time was devoid of merits and was dismissed.
2003 CLD 354 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
SAUDI-PAK INDUSTRIAL AND AGRICULTURAL INVESTMENT COMPANY (PVT.) LTD., ISLAMABAD VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LTD., LAHORE
—-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 wit
2003 CLD 278 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL DEVELOPMENT FINANCE CORPORATION VS Dr. QUDRATULLAH CHAUDHRY
—-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
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 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
—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 defenda
2003 CLD 39 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS BLESSED INTERNATIONAL (PVT.) LIMITED
—-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.
2002 CLD 269 SUPREME-COURT
MESSRS LYALLPUR OIL & GENERAL MILLS VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9– Appeal—Failure to deposit decretal amount–Appellants did not deposit the decretal amount for the reason that the mortgage was sufficient security for the recovery of decretal amount—Validity—Appellants were required to deposit the decretal amount—Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High., Court whereby appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal was dismissed.
2002 SCMR 1746 SUPREME-COURT
Messrs LYALLPUR OIL & GENERAL MILLS VS HABIB BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9—Appeal—Failure to deposit decretal amount—Appellants did not deposit the decretal amount for the reason that the mortgage was sufficient security for the recovery of decretal amount —Validity–Appellants were required to deposit the decretal amount—Supreme Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by High Court whereby appeal against the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal was dismissed.
2002 CLD 1776 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
TRADE LINES VS BANK OF PUNJAB
—-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
2002 CLD 1772 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS BIO-TECH. (PVT.) LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 29—Appeal–Condonation of delay—Filing of time-barred appeal without application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay—Office returned appeal after raising objection in regard to limitation–.7e filing of appeal with application under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 for condonation of delay—Validity—Appeal was admittedly barred by time—Period of filing of. appeal having been specified in S.9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, provisions of S.29 of Limitation Act, 1908 were applicable–Delay in filing of appeal could not be condoned under S.5 of Limitation Act, 1908 or any other legal provision.
2002 CLD 1686 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Messrs BANDAGI AGRO SERVICES (PVT.) LIMITED
—-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 fi
2002 CLD 1280 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN VS Malik IFTIKHAR AHMED
—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
2002 CLD 1004 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Zonal Head, City Zone, Lahore VS Messrs LIFE PAPER STORE
—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
2002 CLD 1001 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Attorney VS Haji FAQIR MUHAMMAD
—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
2002 CLD 953 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAKARIYA VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-Ss.6(5) & 9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199–Constitutional petition—Alternate remedy available not availed—Failure to file appeal—Application for setting aside ex parte decree passed against the petitioners was dismissed by the Banki
2002 CLD 950 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AMAN ULLAH KHAN VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —S.9—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Appeal—Principle laid down by Full Bench of Lahore High Court in case titled Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Limited and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others reported as PLD 1996 Lah. 672—-Applicability—Judgment and decree was passed by the Banking Tribunal before the date rendering of the judgment in Chenab Cement Product’s case and the same was challenged through the filing of present appeal–Contention of the appellant was that the judgment subject of the present appeal was liable to be set aside as the same was not saved by the said judgment—Validity—Where the appeal was filed according to the provisions of S.9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 the decree under appeal .was not saved, and did not fall within the terms `past and closed cases’within the meaning and scope of the judgment in the Messrs Chenab Cement Product’s case—Judgment and decree passed by the Banking Tribunal was set aside and the suit for the recovery of Bank loan would be deemed to -be pending before the newly-constituted Banking Courts established under S.5 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Appeal was allowed in circumstances.
2002 CLD 915 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
AGRICULTURE DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through the Manager VS SABTAIN SHAH
—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
2002 CLD 759 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Syed FARASAT ALI SHAH VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9—Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Constitutional petition—Decrees passed against petitioners by Banking Tribunal was not assailed in appeals, but was assailed in Constitutional petitions after expiry of period of limitation prescribed for filing appeal—High Court disposed of the Constitutional petitions by virtue of judgment rendered in the case of Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore anti. others (PLD 1996 Lah. 672)—Bank thereafter initiated execution proceedings, over which petitioners objected that in view of case Chenab Cement Product (supra), such decrees would be deemed to have been set aside, thus, was not executable—Banking Tribunal dismissed the objection petition—Validity—Such decrees were saved and would be considered to be past and closed cases and had become final by virtue of judgment passed in the case of Chenab Cement Product (supra) and there was no legal impediment in executing the same—Where decree passed by Banking Tribunal had been challenged through filing of appeal and simultaneously by way of filing Constitutional petition, and the latter had been disposed of in pursuance of the case of Chenab Cement Product (supra), then in such event, the decree would not be covered within the scope of said judgment and would not fall within the term “past and closed case”, but would be deemed to be set aside—High Court dismissed the Constitutional petitions being devoid of force, resultantly the decrees passed in the petitioners cases would be executed by the Banking Courts established under S.5 of Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
2002 CLD 524 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
HABIB CREDIT & EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED, L.D.A. PLAZA, LAHORE VS EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL LIMITED
—-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
2002 CLD 509 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
MST. PARVEEN AMIR VS NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-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 h
2002 CLD 417 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ZAFAR IQBAL VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
—-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 year
2001 SCMR 1 SUPREME-COURT
HAFIZ BROTHERS (PVT.) LTD VS PAKISTAN INDUSTRIAL CREDIT AND INVESTMENT CORPORATION LTD
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.7—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Recovery of Bank loan—Failure to issue process in accordance with the provisions of S.7 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 —Effect—Banking, Tribunal decreed the suit and the judgment was upheld by High Court on the ground that the petitioners had been served in accordance with law and the Rules applicable when the suit was filed—Leave to appeal was refused.
2001 MLD 1955 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, FAISALABAD VS ASISHA GARMENTS
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), Os.LXI, R.33 & XXII, R(3)–Appeal—Filing of appeal against dead person—One of the defendants died during pendency of the suit —Failure to implead legal heirs of the deceased defendant —Effect—Without impleading legal heirs of deceased defendant, the plaintiff filed appeal against judgment and decree passed by Banking Tribunal wherein the deceased defendant was arrayed as respondent—Effect—Failure to implead the legal heirs in the appeal was a serious lapse on the part of the plaintiff—High Court, however, under the provisions of Os.XXII, R.4(3) & LXI, R.33, , C.P.C. proceeded with the appeal as any order made or judgment pronounced would have the same force, a, if the same was pronounced before the death took place.
2000 YLR 1484 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ISMAN DRUG HOUSE (PVT.) LTD. VS HABIB CREDIT AND EXCHANGE BANK LIMITED
#NAME?
1998 SCMR 2352 SUPREME-COURT
CENTRAL COTTON MILLS LIMITED VS ATLAS BOT LEASE CO. LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 12(2) & O. XXIII, R. 3–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)—Suit for recovery of specified amount was compromised between parties in terms of O. XXIII, R. 3, C.P.C.–Defendants thereafter, filed application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. against such compromise but the same was dismissed—Defendant’s Constitutional petition against dismissal of their application under S. 12(2), C.P.C. was also dismissed—Validity—Order passed by High Court dismissing Constitutional petition was on the ground that remedy of appeal in terms of S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, being available to defendants, they could not have resorted to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court without having availed such remedy; that decree passed on basis of compromise could not be called in question in any proceedings except in appeal under S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984; that decree passed on basis of compromise could not be set aside in Constitutional jurisdiction that Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked if any other adequate or alternate remedy was available in special law; and even if such matter was considered from the angle of applicability of Civil Procedure Code, 1908, then also revision application could have been filed against order in question—No flaw or legal infirmity having been found in the order passed by High Court, leave to appeal was refused in circumstances
1998 SCMR 1504 SUPREME-COURT
RAHIM K. SHAIKH VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), OXXIII, R.3—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185(3)—Appeal against decree of Banking Tribunal was disposed of by High Court with consent of parties—Validity—Modification and alteration of terms of written agreement—Effect—Agreement between parties could always be modified and altered by consent—Impugned order being consent older, parties by consent could always modify, add or alter terms of existing agreement between parties—Parties to civil appeal could always request , Court to dispose of appeal by consent despite the fact that on the day when such request was made, appeal in question, might not be fixed for final hearing–When appeal was fixed for hearing of application for disposal of appeal, parties were represented by their counsel and representatives of petitioners were also present—No plea had been advanced that counsel appearing for petitioners had no authority to get the appeal disposed of by consent—One of petitioners was, however, present before High Court when consent application was presented and consent order was being recorded—High Court, therefore, was not debarred from disposing of entire appeal with consent of parties—Compromise recorded in impugned order of Full Bench of High Court was neither disowned by petitioners or their counsel before High Court nor any application was made before High Court alleging that terms of compromise were not being consented by them—Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances
1998 MLD 1351 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
SIRAJUDDIN VS HABIB BANK LTD.
—-Arts. 199 & 247—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), Preamble, Ss. 9 & 10—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)Ordinance (XIX of 1979), Ss. 4 & 6—Suit for recovery of outstanding amount—Constitutional petition, maintainability of—Pre
1998 CLC 816 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
UNITED BANK LTD. VS GHULAM HUSSAIN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9—Negotiable Instruments Act (XXVI of 1881), S. 118—Agreements without consideration—Such agreements would be treated as void—Supporting material of such agreements also suffered from same fatal defect—Such material could not be looked into in holding respondents to have incurred any financial liability on basis thereof.
1998 PLD 302 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN VS PUNJAB BUILDING PRODUCTS LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 Ss. 10 & 22(2)—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.9– Limitation Act (IX of 1908), S.9—Suit for recovery of finances based on markup—Past transactions—Fresh cause of action—Terminus quo for filing recovery proceedings—Finances availed by defendant being- evidently based on mark-up, suit for recovery of such finances could be filed by plaintiff under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, without any constraint of time—Terminus quo for filing recovery proceedings having been prescribed under Limitation Act, 1908, same was specifically made inapplicable to mark-up based transactions—Right to sue for recovery of claim did subsist till repeal of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Such right being in existence and enforceable till promulgation of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, plaintiff was entitled to benefit of proviso to S.22(2) of the Act and fresh cause of action would be deemed to have accrued to plaintiff for purpose of limitation
1998 PLD 199 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK. LTD. VS NOVELTY ENTERPRISES LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S, 9—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.34-B—Suit for recovery of loan amount—Tribunal decreed plaintiff’s suit to the extent of principal amount plus one year mark-up at latest rate prescribed by State Bank of Pakistan—Claim of liquidated damages at specified rate was not granted for no evidence was led by plaintiff to show that it suffered any loss or damages nor such plea was raised in plaint—Validity—Banking Tribunal had rightly found that plaintiff was not entitled to any liquidated damages for its failure to show that it had suffered any loss on account of non-payment of specified amount by defendant on or before stipulated period—No liquidated damages, however, could be allowed in favour of Bank—Banking Tribunal having passed impugned judgment and decree for very valid reasons and having taken into consideration relevant law on the subject, no interference with such judgment and decree was warranted.
1998 MLD 866 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
TAWAKKAL EXPORT CORPORATION VS MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LTD.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —–S. 9—Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S.6—Sale of attached property—Suit filed by Bank for recovery of amount was decreed, properties of judgment-debtor were attached and were ordered to be sold through auction—Sale of properties was objected to by judgment-debtor contending that auction-purchaser having not deposited 25 % of bid price with the Auction Commissioner immediately after acceptance of his bid, auction of properties was illegal which should have been cancelled—Failure of auction-purchaser to deposit 25 % of bid price with Auction Commissioner immediately after acceptance of bid and not making payment by auction-purchaser, would not be sufficient to declare auction sale of property as illegal—Deposit of 25% of bid price by way of pay-order and in late hours as well payment of balance 75% beyond statutory period were violations of technical provisions of law and technicalities were meant to aid and assist in the administration of justice and not to create obstacles and impediments, moreso, when no loss or prejudice had been caused to the judgment-debtor.
1997 SCMR 1149 SUPREME-COURT
MUHAMMAD RAFIQ VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 9(1), first proviso—Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XLI, R.19–Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3) Plaintiff’s suits, for specified amount having been decreed by Banking Tribunal, defendants filed appeals which were admitted for regular hearing —Decretal amount not deposited by defendants either before filing of appeal or thereafter—Competency of appeal–Non-compliance of S.9(1) of Ordinance—Effect—Plaintiff on being served in appeals moved application pointing out to Court that in view of non-compliance of provision of S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, appeals were wrongly admitted and that same could not have been entertained—Notice of application was served upon defendants and hearing was fixed on specified date—Defendants failed to appear on that date whereupon appeals were dismissed on the ground that defendants having not deposited decretal amount, appeals were not competent—Defendants then moved application for recalling ex parte order but same was dismissed—Validity—Order of admission of appeals having been passed by High Court in ignorance of provisions of first proviso to S.9(1), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, same was nullity in law, which was rightly recalled on application of plaintiff—High Court while declining to recall ex parte order had fully considered contention of defendants on merits and its conclusion that requisite amount having not been deposited, before filing of appeals same were not maintainable, was not open to any exception—No case for interference with judgment of High Court was made out—Leave to appeal to Supreme Court was refused in circumstances.
1997 PLD 87 QUETTA-HIGH-COURT-BALOCHISTAN
HITEC METAL PLAST (PVT) LTD VS H.B.L
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-O. XXXVII, R.2—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.9–Liability of defendants to pay Bank loan—Extent—Defendants during pending of appeal had deposited various amounts under direction of High Court which would necessarily require adjustment towards decretal amount, costs and future expected profits calculated at agreed rate of mark-up—If after taking accounts (without taking into consideration liquidated damages) any liability still subsisted same was to be recovered from securities furnished by defendants before High Court—On clearance of entire decretal amount with costs and future mark-up (excluding liquidated damages) securities would stand discharged–Property which had already been mortgaged in favour of respondent (Bank) would remain under lien till entire decretal amount was completely satisfied.
1997 CLC 1812 PESHAWAR-HIGH-COURT
KHALID MEHMOOD VS BANKING TRIBUNAL, N.-W.F.P., PESHAWAR
Art. 199—Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.9–Constitutional petition—Alternate remedy—Decree for recovery of loan was passed against petitioner—Petitioner had a legal right of appeal under S.9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Non-availing of such remedy spoke of mala fides on the part of petitioner—Petitioner had also concealed the fact of filing of suit by Bank in the proceedings before Ombudsman—Petitioner having not come with clean hands, Constitutional petition was dismissed in circumstances.
1997 CLC 675 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
WAQAS ENTERPRISES VS ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN., LAHORE
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.
- 9(1), first proviso—Appeal—Proviso to S.9(1), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 is rot mandatory but directory in nature—Just because the said proviso expresses a consequence that an appeal shall not be entertained unless the defendant first deposits the decretal or other amount would not make the proviso mandatory in nature—Word “shall” will not make a particular provision mandatory in nature.
1997 MLD 3132 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
ANWAR-UL-REHMAN VS MODARBA AL-MALI
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S. 9—Dismissal of review application —Appeal—Maintainability—Appeal was filed after’ dismissal of review application before Banking Tribunal during pendency of execution proceedings—Competence—Neither any application for review was competent before Tribunal nor order passed by Tribunal in review could be challenged in appeal before High Court—Held, no appeal was provided for in respect of any order passed on review application.
1997 PLD 208 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
NAYA DAUR MOTORS (PVT.) LTD. VS PAKSITAN BANKING COUNCI
Ss. 9 & 10—Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), S.42—Suit for declaration and possession—Maintainability—Incidental order passed by Banking Tribunal—No remedy of appeal having been provided against incidental order, remedy of revision, even if available, was too limited and same was always discretionary with High Court to admit such revision—Availability of remedy by way of revision, however, would not in any way bar maintainability of suit for declaration and injunction.
1996 PLD 77 SUPREME-COURT
TANK STEEL AND RE-ROLLING MILLS (PVT.) LTD. VS FEDERATION OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —- S. 9 — Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.185 — Non-compliance of Appellate Court’s order — Remedy of appeal to Supreme Court not availed by petitioners — Effect — Decree of specified amount by Banking Tribunal — High Court being seized of appear directed petitioners to deposit with Banking Tribunal decretal amount by specified date — Petitioner’s failure to comply with order of High Court, which was condition precedent for entertaining appeal, resulted in dismissal of their appeal — Petitioners could have but did not challenge order of High Court before Supreme Court — Having not availed of such remedy, order of dismissal of appeal by High Court attained finality.
1996 PLD 331 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
FARM AIDS VS DEUTCHE BANK
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9, proviso — Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.151 — Decree of specified amount against defendant — Defendant while filing appeal against such decree failed to comply with proviso of S.9,. Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, whereby no appeal filed by defendant could be entertained unless he had deposited, decretal amount with the Banking Tribunal—Plaintiff’s application in terms of S.151, C.P.C. praying dismissal of appeal for non-compliance with proviso of S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 — Defendant’s plea that hearing of application be adjourned on the ground that in some connected matters his lis was pending adjudication before Supreme Court, was not acceded to. on the ground that question before Supreme Court was not in issue before the Court–Defendant having filed appeal without compliance with S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, same was not competent — High Court, however, declined to dismiss appeal without providing opportunity to defendant to deposit requisite amount in terms of S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984–Defendant. was directed to deposit. amount claimed in suit within three months and on deposit of such amount proceedings in execution would remain stayed
1996 CLC 1755 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL WAHEED VS BANKING TRIBUNAL.
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9—Limitation Act (IX of 1908), Ss.5 & 14—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199—Decree passed by Banking Tribunal —Appeal—Limitation–Non-filing of appeal within limitation—Effect—Entitlement for condonation of delay—Limitation for filing appal against decree passed by Banking Tribunal is 30 days under S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Such decree could not be challenged in Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—No concession, therefore, regarding condonation of delay could be granted for the time consumed during pendency of Constitutional petition—Appeals were also’ incompetent on the ground that decretal amounts in terms of S. 9 of the Ordinance were not deposited which being a condition precedent had not been complied with—Appeals against decree passed by Banking Tribunal were dismissed being time-barred—Applications for condonation of delay, permission to furnish security equal to decretal amount were also dismissed.
1996 CLC 1378 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
INDUS MATCH CO. LTD. VS UNITED BATIK LTD.
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. 9, first proviso — Appeal — Right of appeal having been made subject to condition of deposit, such condition amounted to negation of right of appeal itself — Proviso to S.9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 thus places an unreasonable restriction on the right of appeal and cannot, , therefore, be upheld — High Court, however, desired the need of enacting a law in the same nature as S. 12, Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 which vests discretion in the Court to dispense with the condition of deposit of decretal amount and instead order furnishing of security so that public dues especially those advanced under the Islamic System of Banking are not stuck up.
1996 CLC 1710 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
DEEDAR ALI VS AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition— Maintainability. —Petitioner in his Constitutional ,petition had assailed judgment of. Banking Tribunal recorded under Banking Tribunals .Ordinance, 1984–Judgment of Banking Tribunal was appealable with a condition precedent of depositing decretal amount, but petitioner to avoid deposit of decretal amount, did not file appeal before Banking,. Tribunal as provided under S.9 of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and instead had taken recourse to Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court—Constitutional jurisdiction could not be invoked simply to frustrate any provision of law providing adequate remedy–Constitutional petition, thus, was not maintainable.
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 MLD 1960 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
ABDUL WAHID VS BANKING TRIBUNAL, BAHAWALPUR
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 —-S.9—Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199—Constitutional petition–Suit for recovery of loan amount decreed by Banking Tribunal—Petitioners instead of filing appeal against decree filed Constitutional petition to challenge the same—Maintainability of Constitutional petition—Remedy of appeal has been provided against judgment and decree of Banking Tribunal and such appeal has to be heard by a Bench of not less than two Judges of High Court–Plea, that petitioners were poor persons and were not in a position to deposit decretal amount which was necessary requirement for entertainment of appeal, would not be available to them—Efficacious and initial remedy of preference of appeal could not be side tracked—For the convenience of litigant public substantive and procedural law could not be amended or altered which function was within jurisdiction of Legislature—Constitutional petition was not maintainable—Since decree of Banking Tribunal could only be set aside by a Bench of not less than two Judges of High Court, therefore, in case of admission of Constitutional petition, assumption of jurisdiction would be violative of law according to which Bench of not less than two Judges could scrutinize impugned judgment and decree passed by Banking Tribunal—High Court had no jurisdiction to hear Constitutional petition in circumstances.
1995 PLD 409 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
KHURSHID ALAM VS UNITED BANK LTD.
- 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
—-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
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 2292 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MAJEED ENTERPRISES VS UNITED BANK LIMITED
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9—Appeal against decree of Banking Tribunal—Application seeking exemption from furnishing security as a precondition of filing of appeal–Validity—Even if appellant wanted to furnish security, Court could not accept it in view of mandatory provision in the first proviso to S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984—Requisite deposit of decretal amount having neither preceded nor being contemporaneous with the appeal, application seeking exemption from furnishing security has got to be dismissed as also the appeal.
1994 CLC 1 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED VS OVER IMPEX
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.
1991 CLC 1743 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
UNITED BANK LIMITED VS SHAHID CORPORATION
Banking Tribunals Ordinance 1984 S. 9—Decree for recovery of loan—Liability of respondent/debtor to pay liquidated damages—Banking Tribunal refusing to grant plaintiff liquidated damages had overlooked provisions of agreement, wherein respondent was specifically held liable to pay liquidated damages at the rate of twenty per cent of amount advanced as loan—Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, did not place any restrictions on payment of such liquidated damages—Banking Tribunal having not allowed liquidated damages to plaintiff, case was remanded to it with direction to dispose of suit in accordance with law.
1990 MLD 909 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
MIDDLE EAST BANK LTD. VS ZUBAIR AHMED KHAN AFGHANI
—Ss. 10 & 9—Civil Procedue Code (V of 1908), S. 115–Revision application under S.115, etc. is not competent against any order passed by Banking Tribunal and orders other than those against which an appeal can be filed under S.9 of the Ordinance are c
1989 CLC 524 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH
SIND GLASS INDUSTRIES LIMITED VS PAKISTAN
SsA, 6 & 9–Limitation Act (IX of 1908)–Banking Tribunals–Composition and functions–Recovery of loans–Procedure provided for Banking Tribunals to dispose of cases is analogous to provisions of Civil Procedure Code for recovery of loans–Non-application of Limitation Act, 1908 to proceeding before Banking Tribunal being prerogative of legislature, could not be assailed–Procedure to be followed by Banking Tribunals stated. Subsection (1) of section 4 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 provides establishment of as many Banking Tribunals as the Federal Government may consider necessary for the territorial limits to be specified in the Notification, whereas subsection (2) of section 4 deals with the composition of the Tribunal and provides that it shall consist of a person who is or has been or is qualified for appointment as a Judge of the High Court or a District Judge or an Additional District Judge who shall be the Chairman and two members to be appointed by the Federal Government.