| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 152 2024 SLD 152 2024 CLD 25 |
Sindh High Court
First Appeal No. 68 of 2021, decided on 30th October, 2023.
Before Irfan Saadat Khan, ACJ and Ms. Sana Akram Minhas, J
Khaleeq Ahmed for Appellant. Ms. Afsheen Aman and Faraz Mahar for
Respondent.
First Appeal No. 68 of 2021, decided on 30th October, 2023.
Before Irfan Saadat Khan, ACJ and Ms. Sana Akram Minhas, J
Khaleeq Ahmed for Appellant. Ms. Afsheen Aman and Faraz Mahar for
Respondent.
ZAFAR HASSAN KHAN---Appellant
VS
HABIB BANK LIMITED---Respondent
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 2(b),5,9,22,27
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 2(b), 5, 9, 22 & 27---Recovery suit---Admitting of appeal---Pre-conditions---Stay, grant of---Provisions of S. 22(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Scope---Appellate Court/High Court on request of the respondent/Bank while the counsel of appellant/customer was occupied before another bench, directed him (appellant/customer) to deposit decretal amount (without even granting stay or admitting the appeal)---Appellant/customer moved application to recall/review the said order contending that impugned order had been passed in violation of provisions of the S. 22(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001')---Plea of the respondent/Bank was that the order was rightly passed in view of bar contained in S. 27 of the Ordinance 2001---Validity---Under S. 22(3) of the Ordinance 2001, the Court could consider an order for submitting security at the stage of admitting appeal and a direction for deposit of decretal amount to be issued in the event of grant of stay order, however reasonable order was required to be passed---In the present case, none of said circumstances/pre-conditions existed on the date when the impugned order was passed, or even later than such day/date---Plea of the respondent/Bank was misconceived as the bar contained in S. 27 of the Ordinance 2001 (which was subject to the provision of S. 22 of the Ordinance 2001) would be applicable to Courts and Authorities other than the Banking Courts---"Banking Court" was defined in S. 2(b) of the Ordinance 2001 in which (i) the claim does not exceed Rs. 100 million (as was in the present case); and for the trial of offences under the Ordinance 2001 the Court established under S. 5 of the Ordinance 2001 and (ii) in respect of any other case, the High Court---Whereas, in the present case, High Court as an Appellate Court was exercising jurisdiction when seized of appeal under S. 22 of the Ordinance 2001, and not of a suit under S. 9 of the Ordinance 2001---High Court on the original side also exercises jurisdiction of a Banking Court;…
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