| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 1993 SLG 1506 1993 SLD 1506 = 1993 PLD 107 |
Sindh High Court
Suits Nos.672, 736 of 1990, Nil, 203, 432, 433, 155 of 1991 and 167 of 1992, decided on 23rd December, 1992.
Presented By: Before Wajihuddm Ahmed, J
Muhammad Sharif, Syed lqbal Ahmad, B.M. Bangash, A.I. Chundrigar, Niaz Ahmad Khan, Mansoorul Arfin, Iqbal Kazi~ Muhammad Ah Sayeed, Anwar Man%oor, Mustafa Lakhani, Mchmood Iqbal, Fazle Ghani Khan, Abdul Rauf, Habibur Rehman, Muhammad Saleem, A.R. Akhtar for the Parties.
Suits Nos.672, 736 of 1990, Nil, 203, 432, 433, 155 of 1991 and 167 of 1992, decided on 23rd December, 1992.
Presented By: Before Wajihuddm Ahmed, J
Muhammad Sharif, Syed lqbal Ahmad, B.M. Bangash, A.I. Chundrigar, Niaz Ahmad Khan, Mansoorul Arfin, Iqbal Kazi~ Muhammad Ah Sayeed, Anwar Man%oor, Mustafa Lakhani, Mchmood Iqbal, Fazle Ghani Khan, Abdul Rauf, Habibur Rehman, Muhammad Saleem, A.R. Akhtar for the Parties.
Messrs SHAF10 HANIF (PV]r.) LTD., KARACHI--Plaintiff
VERSUS
BANK OF CREDIT AND COMMERCE INTERNATIONAL (OVERSEAS) LIMITED, KARACHI--Defendant
Law: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans), Ordinance, 1979
Section: 6 , 9
Law: Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)
Section: 3 , 5
Law: Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984
Section:
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)- ---- S.6 --- Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), S.5 --- Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 --- Jurisdiction of High Court whether taken away by or under the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 in matters relating to recovery of Bankloan --- If so, extent --- While jurisdiction of a Banking Tribunal, purports to be exclusive in matters failing within the parameters of its authority, what that jurisdiction precisely is, has not as such, been categorically spelt out-- Where intendment of Legislature was clear and words spelling out ouster could readily and conveniently be found in it, same would suffice to constitute ouster --- Civil Courts alone would have jurisdiction, if called upon to determine as to how far the statute in question, had curtailed their jurisdiction --- Despite purported exclusiveness of jurisdiction conferred on the Banking Tribunals by Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, ouster of Civil Courts' jurisdiction was only conditional upon the functioning of the Banking Tribunals --- Remedy vesting in Civil Court was, thus, not totally barred --- Ouster of jurisdiction of Civil Court is not to be readily inferred ---Where a domestic forum had exceeded its jurisdiction or that jurisdiction did not arise, at the overall jurisdiction of Civil Courts was extended thereto. Perusal of sections 5(l)(a) and 5(3), Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, postulates that while the jurisdiction of a Banking Tribunal purports to be exclusive, in matters falling within the parameters of its authority what that jurisdiction precisely is has not, - as such, been categorically spelled out. However, since the jurisdiction of a Civil Court may be barred either expressly or impliedly, though in either case it should -be clearly and manifestly barred categorisation by nomenclature of the Tribunal's jurisdiction may not have been essential for exclusion of the jurisdiction of Civil Courts (section 9, C.P.C.). Speaking broadly, if intendment of the legislation was clear and words spelling out ouster could readily and conveniently be found in it that would suffice to constitute ouster. Thus,…