Case Details

Citation(s)
2022 SLG 2430 2022 SLD 2430 2022 CLD 1448
Balochistan High Court
C.Ps. Nos. 121 of 2021, 872 of 2020 and (s) 173 of 2019, decided on 19th July, 2021.
MUHAMMAD HASHIM KHAN KAKAR AND ABDULLAH BALOCH, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

HABIB BANK LIMITED

VS

MUHAMMAD AYUB MENGAL and others Sana Ullah Ababaki, Additional Attorney General and Syed Iqbal Shah, Deputy Attorney General for the State.

Law: Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reform Act, 2013

Section: 9

Law: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962

Section: 82-D

Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973

Section: 199

Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013)--- ----S. 9---Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962), S. 82-D---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Federal Ombudsman, decision of---Account holders filed complaints against petitioner Bank that funds were transferred from their accounts unauthorizedly through Internet Banking Funds Transfer---Banking Mohtasib accepted claim of respondents/account holders and directed petitioner Bank to compensate them---Validity---Petitioner Bank failed to detect fraud timely and to initiate criminal proceedings through FIA against beneficiaries---High Court declined to interfere in the order passed by Banking Mohtasib as there was a gross negligence on the part of petitioner Bank---No material illegality or irregularity in the order passed by Banking Mohtasib---Constitutional petition was dismissed, in circumstances. Respondent No. 1 in person (in C.P. No. 121 of 2021). Respondent No. 1 in person (in C.P. No. 872 of 2020). Date of hearing: 1st July, 2021. JUDGMENT ABDULLAH BALOCH, J.---Since common question of facts and law is involved in Constitutional Petitions Nos. 121 of 2021, 872 of 2020 and 173 of 2019, thus the same are being decided through this common judgment. The C.P. No.121 of 2021 carries the following prayer: "It is, accordingly respectfully prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set-aside both the impugned orders dated 10-02-2020 passed by the respondent No.2, in complaint No.2019-266, and dated 24-11-2020, passed by the respondent No.3, in presentation No.36/BM/2020, in the interest of justice." While in C.P. No.872 of 2020 the petitioner sought the following reliefs: "It is, accordingly respectfully prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside both the impugned orders dated 11-11-2019 passed by the respondent No.2, in complaint No.2019-281, and dated 19-05-2020, passed by the respondent No.3, in presentation No. 154/BM/2019, in the interest of justice." While in C.P. No.(S) 173 of 2019 the petitioner sought the following reliefs: "It is, accordingly respectfully prayed, that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to set aside both…
🔒
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