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

Section: 9, 22

(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) Ss. 9 & 22---Suit of recovery of damages---Maintainability---Mental stress and agony---Suit filed by respondent / customer was decreed against appellant / bank for recovery of damages---Banking Court granted damages of Rs.5,000,000/- on account of mental stress, agony etc. suffered by respondent / customer---Validity---Such damage did not occur out of any contractual or financial obligation between the parties---Respondent / customer might have a right to institute a claim against appellant / bank for seeking such damages, and those could only be awarded by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction, and not by Banking Court in its special jurisdiction---Division Bench of High Court set aside judgment and decree to such extent as Banking Court had travelled beyond the scope of its jurisdiction---Respondent / customer remained at liberty to file any civil suit for damages etc. against appellant / bank in a court of competent jurisdiction for seeking his claims of damages, in accordance with law---Intra Court Appeal was allowed accordingly.        2015 SCMR 1341; 2025 CLD 1; 2024 CLD 1536 and 2023 CLD 1464 rel. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) Ss. 9 & 22---Suit for recovery of money---Negligence of bank---Respondent / plaintiff was aggrieved of deduction of disputed bill of credit card, five years after the card was stolen and had been so reported to appellant / bank---Judge in Chambers of High Court decreed the suit in favour of respondent / plaintiff and directed to return disputed amount along with markup---Validity---Appellant / bank was not without some fault and blame and was negligent in its approach and dealing with the entire matter---Appellant / bank accepted to have initially closed investigation into the complaint of respondent / plaintiff in year 2001, then unilaterally re-opened it and withdrew disputed amount from respondent / plaintiff five years post-closing the investigation---This was negligence and mismanagement on the part of appellant / bank---Amount in question was adjudicated by appellant /…