Case Details

Citation(s)
1991 SLG 1016 1991 SLD 1016 1991 SCMR 590
Supreme Court of Pakistan
Civil Petition for Leave to Appeal No.549-K of 1989, hearing DATE : 7-05-1990. decided on 24-05-1990 (On appeal from the judgment of the Sindh High Court, dated 13-4-1989, in C.P.No.D-183 of 1982)
ZAFFAR HUSSAIN MIRZA AND ABDUL HAFEEZ MEMON, JJ

Deprecated: str_replace(): Passing null to parameter #3 ($subject) of type array|string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 395

SHAIKH GULZAR ALI & Co. Ltd and others

SPECIAL JUDGE, SPECIAL COURT OF BANKING and others

Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)--S. 12---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199---Appeal---Constitutional Petition---Petitioners had filed an appeal but later on at the hearing of the appeal and the Constitutional petition together they gave up the appeal by withdrawing the same---High Court, under its Constitutional jurisdiction, cannot take over the function of the machinery provided by the Statute---Appeal provided by S.12 of the Ordinance, because of the pre-condition of furnishing security for the decretal amount imposed by the Court in its discretion, could not be said to be a negation of the right of appeal for the simple reason that right of appeal is not an inherent right ensured by any higher law to be available to the citizens in every case---Right of appeal is creature of the law.--[Appeal (civil)]. (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973)-- ----Art. 199---Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), S. 6---Constitutional jurisdiction, exercise of---Mere erroneous exercise of jurisdiction does not render the order passed by a Civil Court of competent jurisdiction to be illegal and without lawful authority so as to be amenable to be questioned in the Constitutional jurisdiction of the High Court under Art. 199 of the Constitution. (c) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)-- ----S. 6---Constitution of Pakistan (1973), AK. 199---Constitutional jurisdiction--­Severity of conditions imposed by the Banking Court in granting leave to defend suit was a matter falling within the discretion of that Court---Only ground on which the order passed by the Special Banking Court was challenged was that by prescribing harsh and impossible conditions to the order granting leave to defend, the petitioner's right of hearing was taken away in violation of the rules of natural justice and the Constitution---Held, Special Banking Court, having jurisdiction, had placed conditions on its being satisfied after considering the relevant matter and in accordance with the requirements of the statute which did not contravene the rules of natural justice---Rules of natural justice could be modified by statute.…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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