Case Details

Citation(s)
2014 SLG 2185 2014 SLD 2185 2014 CLD 1452
Lahore High Court
Writ Petition No.3108 of 2012, decision dated: 11-04-2014.
M. SOHAIL IQBAL BHATTI, J
Nadeem Iqbal Chaudhary for Petitioners. Muhammad Farhan Masud for
Respondent No. 2.

Messrs UMAR AUTO STORE and others

VS

The JUDGE BANKING COURT and others

Law:

Section:

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Preamble---Nature of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 was a "remedial statute" and remedial acts/statutes were those which were enacted in order to improve and to facilitate remedies already existing for redress of wrong or injury as well as to correct defects, mistakes and omissions---"Remedial statues" were ones which were made to supply such defects and bridge such difficulties which arose either from general imperfection of all human laws from change of time and circumstances. Crawford in Statutory Constructions rel. (b) Interpretation of statutes--- ----Remedial statutes/acts, nature of--- Remedial acts/statutes were those which were enacted in order to improve and to facilitate remedies already existing for redress of wrong or injury as well as to correct defects, mistakes and omissions---Remedial statues were ones which were made to supply such defects and bridge such difficulties which arose either from general imperfection of all human laws from change of time and circumstances. Crawford in Statutory Constructions rel. (c) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 22 & 27---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court--- Scope---Interlocutory order---Maintainability of constitutional petition against interlocutory order passed by Banking Court---Perusal of S.22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 revealed that where legislature did not provide appeal against interlocutory order, the same could not be challenged by way of constitutional petition as allowing the same would amount to negating provisions of the Ordinance, which did not provide for appeal against an interlocutory order---Section 27 Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 explicated the intention of the legislature that interlocutory orders passed by the Banking Courts should not be called into question in any proceedings---Constitutional petition against interlocutory order of Banking…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492