Law: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962

Section: 82A,82A(3),82B,82E(1)(c)

Law: Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms (Amendment) Ordinance, 2013

Section: 10,14

Law: Payment Systems and Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 2007

Section: 50,55

(a) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)-- ----Ss. 82A & 82B---Banking Mohtasib---Powers and jurisdiction of Banking Mohtasib---Vicarious liability for acts of employees of Banks---Scope--- Contention that a Bank was not vicariously liable for fraud committed by its employee(s), and that Banking Mohtasib did not have jurisdiction to hold such Bank vicariously liable, was misconceived---Employer's vicarious liability extended also for fraudulent acts of the employee(s) if such fraud was perpetuated in the course of employment, and it did not matter whether such fraud was for employer's benefit or for employee's own---Remedy provided to a complainant against a Bank before Banking Mohtasib proceeded on principle of vicarious liability which was the intent of Legislature manifested in S. 82A(3) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. (b) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)-- ----Ss.82B & 82D---Adjudication of complaints by Banking Mohtasib---Recording of evidence---Scope---Under S.82B of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 it was not required that Banking Mohtasib shall decide each complaint after formal recording of evidence but rather intent was to enable Banking Mohtasib, should he so deem expedient in circumstances of a case, to take evidence of any party or witness by way of affidavit---Such intent was manifest when S.82B(4)(c) was read with S. 82D(3) of the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962---Had the intent of Legislature been that complaints before the Banking Mohtasib could, in each and every case, only be decided after formal recording of evidence, then S. 82D(3) of Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962 would have been omitted---Where findings in the Bank's own internal investigation reports and per acknowledgments made by Bank before Banking Mohtasib, fraud/maladministration was accepted by the Bank, or in cases where fact that Bank's employees were acting in the course of employment when they committed the fraud/maladministration was accepted, then in such cases formal recording of evidence to establish fraud and vicarious liability was not required---Section 82E(1)(c) also enabled Banking Mohtasib to pay reasonable compensation to the…

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