| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2002 SLG 2160 2002 SLD 2160 2002 CLD 609 |
Lahore High Court
Civil Revision No.750 of 1996, decision dated: 23rd January, 2002.
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J
Asad Munir for Petitioner. M. Yaqub Khan for
Respondent.
Civil Revision No.750 of 1996, decision dated: 23rd January, 2002.
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J
Asad Munir for Petitioner. M. Yaqub Khan for
Respondent.
PERVEZ AHMAD KHAN BURKI, ADVOCATE er
VS
. UNITED BANK LIMITED through Principal Officer and General Attorney --Respondent
Law:
Section:
Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) S.6 Financial Institutions (Recovery Finances) Ordinance (JAW of 2001), S.7(4)(6) Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.9 & O.VII, R.11 Specific Relief Act (I of 1877), Ss. 42 &. 54 Bank fled suit for recovery of money against petitioner and company before Banking Tribunal Petitioner thereafter filed in Civil Court suit for declaration and injunction that he never stood guarantee in the matter of loan provided by Bank to the company Trial Court rejected the petitioner's plaint holding that the matter was related to jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal --- Appellate Court upheld such order ¬Validity Banking Tribunal no longer existed and the matters were being dealt with by Banking Courts and the law covering the jurisdiction of such Courts provided for filing of suit by company as well as the customer or borrower High Court disposed of revision petition with a direction that file of the case, which otherwise automatically stood transferred to Banking Court, would be sent to Banking Court, where the same would be taken up alongwith the suit fled by respondent Bank, and the question as to whether or not petitioner had executed a valid guarantee or had otherwise guaranteed repayment of loan, would be decided by Banking Court. ORDER The petitioner filed a suit against the respondent Bank stating that he had not stood guarantee in the matter of loan facility provided by the respondent Bank to Messrs Shafie Woollen Industries Ltd., Lahore. It was stated that he had not executed any such document and came to know about its existence only when the respondent Bank had filed a suit for recovery of the money against the said company and the petitioner. Prayer. made in the plaint was that the said document be declared to be illegal and void and ineffective upon the rights of the petitioner. The respondent Bank contested the suit and also raised objection that the Civil Court would not be having jurisdiction as the matter relates to the jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal. This objection found favour with the learned trial Court who rejected the plaint vide order, dated 29 7 1990. First appeal filed by the petitioner was dismissed…
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