Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Section: 19, 22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)-------Ss. 19 & 22---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 51, proviso & O.XXI, R. 40---Issuance of arrest-warrant---Scope---Decree-holder/bank filed application before the Banking Court seeking issuance of arrest warrant of the customer/judgment-debtor on the ground that as the decree was not materialized yet, hence the warrants were inevitable---Customer/judgment-debtor preferred appeal against acceptance of said application contenting that ground taken by the decree-holder was not enough for issuance of such warrants---Validity---Issuance of warrant in respect of decrees, which were unaccomplished, is not a routine matter---Section 51 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, provides for execution of a decree though arrest and detention of the judgment-debtor and the proviso thereof furnishes certain safeguards against the deprivation of liberty and contemplates that such power can only be exercised under certain given situations---In the present case, such situations were not considered prior to the issuance of warrants---High Court set aside impugned judgment and remanded the matter to the Banking Court, observing that unless the requirement of S. 51 & O. XXI, R. 40 of the Civil Procedure Code, 1908, are fulfilled, the ultimate recourse of arrest of the judgment-debtor may not be made---Appeal filed by the judgment-debtor was disposed of accordingly.JUDGMENTMUHAMMAD SHAFI SIDDIQUI, J.----By virtue of the impugned order dated 23.01.2016 passed on application for issuance of arrest warrants against the judgment-debtors, inadvertently the Banking Court Judge disclosed that the instant application merits no consideration, as in the later part of the order the court has allowed it as prayed, the appellant preferred this appeal. We would presume that the word "no" in the first part of the order was inadvertently typed, as the application for issuance of arrest warrant was allowed.2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.3. The record reflects that there were two suits filed before the Banking Court being Suit Nos.104/2003 and 105/2003…

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