| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2025 SLG 3779 2025 SLD 3779 = 2025 CLD 834 |
Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, Rawalpindi
Writ Petition No.983 of 2025 (with other connected Petitions), decided on 2nd May, 2025.
Before Asim Hafeez, J
M. Wisal Khan, Ahmad Hassan and Tanzeela Nazar for Petitioner (in this and connected Petitions Nos.3875, 3876, 910, 911 and 983 of 2024). Syed Hasnain Ibrahim and Saleem Iqbal for Petitioners (in connected Petitions Nos.2358/2021, 685/2022, 686/2022, 1484/2022, 1485/2022, 1802/2020 and 1803/2020). Barrister M. Shayan Homayon for HBL. Barrister Babar Shahzad Imran for Petitioners Allied Bank Limited (in connected petitions). Sagheer Ahmed for Petitioner (in connected W.P. No.1478/2022). Barkat Hussain for Petitioner (in connected W.P. No.518/2025). Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Additional Attorney General. Ms. Hifza Bukhari, Deputy Attorney General. Qasim Abbas, Assistant Attorney General. Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General. Syed Zain-ul-Abideen for
Respondent No.5 (in connected W.P. No.911/2025). Barrister Raja Ammad Jillani, Muhammad Adeel Arshad, Abdul Hameed Qureshi and Raja Abid Mehmood for
Respondent (in W.P. No.1485/2022). Ch. Attique-ur-Rasool for
Respondent No.1 (in W.P. No.1018 and 1019 of 2025). Hafiz Muhammad Kalim Ullah for
Respondent No.3 (in connected W.P. No.910/2025). Ziafat Kayani for
Respondent (in W.P. No.1438/2019), in person. Changraiz Khan in person. Sheikh Iftikhar Ali in person (in W.P. No.938/2025).
Writ Petition No.983 of 2025 (with other connected Petitions), decided on 2nd May, 2025.
Before Asim Hafeez, J
M. Wisal Khan, Ahmad Hassan and Tanzeela Nazar for Petitioner (in this and connected Petitions Nos.3875, 3876, 910, 911 and 983 of 2024). Syed Hasnain Ibrahim and Saleem Iqbal for Petitioners (in connected Petitions Nos.2358/2021, 685/2022, 686/2022, 1484/2022, 1485/2022, 1802/2020 and 1803/2020). Barrister M. Shayan Homayon for HBL. Barrister Babar Shahzad Imran for Petitioners Allied Bank Limited (in connected petitions). Sagheer Ahmed for Petitioner (in connected W.P. No.1478/2022). Barkat Hussain for Petitioner (in connected W.P. No.518/2025). Haseeb Shakoor Paracha, Additional Attorney General. Ms. Hifza Bukhari, Deputy Attorney General. Qasim Abbas, Assistant Attorney General. Barrister Zain Mansoor, Assistant Attorney General. Syed Zain-ul-Abideen for
Respondent No.5 (in connected W.P. No.911/2025). Barrister Raja Ammad Jillani, Muhammad Adeel Arshad, Abdul Hameed Qureshi and Raja Abid Mehmood for
Respondent (in W.P. No.1485/2022). Ch. Attique-ur-Rasool for
Respondent No.1 (in W.P. No.1018 and 1019 of 2025). Hafiz Muhammad Kalim Ullah for
Respondent No.3 (in connected W.P. No.910/2025). Ziafat Kayani for
Respondent (in W.P. No.1438/2019), in person. Changraiz Khan in person. Sheikh Iftikhar Ali in person (in W.P. No.938/2025).
UNITED BANK LIMITED---Petitioner
VERSUS
PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN and others--Respondents
Law: Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962
Section: LVII,82B,82E
Law: Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reform Act, 2013
Section: XIV,14
Law: Payment Systems and Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 2007
Section: IV,14
Law: Constitution of Pakistan, 1973
Section: 199
(a) Banking Companies Ordinance (LVII of 1962)-------Ss. 82-B & 82-E---Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), S. 14---Banking Mohtasib (Ombudsman), jurisdiction of---Scope---Law entitles and empowers Mohtasib to adjudicate upon subject-matter complaints, wherein complainants alleged incidences of banking malpractices, violations of banking laws, rules, regulations and guidelines, instances of maladministration, fraud in relation to transfer of funds and complain against fraudulent or unauthorized withdrawals or debit entries in the accounts.(b) Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013)-------S. 14---Payment Systems and Electronic Fund Transfers Act (IV of 2007), S. 41--Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Banking Mohtasib--Jurisdiction---Electronic Fund Transfers---Contributory negligence and comparative negligence, principles of---Scope---Petitioners / banking companies were aggrieved of orders passed by Banking Mohtasib pertaining to unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer (EFTs)---Customers asserted that they were deceptively and fraudulently induced by callers impersonating as bank or government officials, resulting into sharing of personal information, identity, access codes, one-time-pass codes (OTPs) on the assumption that information was required for the purposes of periodical checks---Banking Mohtasib directed petitioners / banking companies to reimburse / compensate the victims, i.e. the customers---Validity---Jurisdiction conferred on the Mohtasib is in the nature of quasi-judicial jurisdiction, where Mohtasib is entitled to receive evidence on affidavits, without necessity of strictly following evidentiary principles---One must not overlook, evidently the significant role of Mohtasib, which is to act as mediator for the purposes of resolving disputes amicably, which makes application and adoption of evidentiary principles inapplicable for such mediation proceedings---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 are not applicable to arbitration proceedings, which leads to an inference that meditators are not bound by the rigours of Qanun-e-Shahadat,…