 |
In an appeal against the Banking Court, the High Court held that the order under the (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 to deposit the amount prior to the hearing of the appeal was illegal as the appeal had not yet been disposed of and no stay order had been issued. was done
2024 C L D 25 |
ظفر حسن خان بمقابلہ حبیب بینک لمیٹڈ کیس میں ظفر حسن خان نے حبیب بینک کے خلاف اپیل دائر کی تھی جس میں بینک نے ان سے ایک مخصوص رقم کی وصولی کے لیے درخواست کی تھی۔ جب ظفر حسن خان کے وکیل دوسرے بینچ پر مصروف تھے، ہائی کورٹ نے بینک کی درخواست پر انہیں اس رقم کو جمع کرانے کا حکم دے دیا، حالانکہ اپیل کو نہ تو منظور کیا گیا تھا اور نہ ہی اسٹے آرڈر جاری کیا گیا تھا۔
ظفر حسن خان نے اس حکم کو غلط قرار دیتے ہوئے اس کے واپس لینے کے لیے درخواست دائر کی، اور کہا کہ یہ حکم فنانشل انسٹی ٹیوشنز (رِیکوری آف فنانسز) آرڈیننس 2001 کے سیکشن 22(3) کی خلاف ورزی ہے۔ ہائی کورٹ نے ان کی درخواست منظور کرتے ہوئے اس حکم کو واپس لے لیا اور کہا کہ اپیل کے دائر ہونے اور اسٹے آرڈر کے بغیر ایسی رقم کی جمع کرائی کا حکم نہیں دیا جا سکتا۔ اس طرح عدالت نے بینک کے موقف کو مسترد کر دیا اور ظفر حسن خان کے حق میں فیصلہ سنایا۔
2024 C L D 25
[Sindh]
Before Irfan Saadat Khan, ACJ and Ms. Sana Akram Minhas, J
ZAFAR HASSAN KHAN---Appellant
Versus
HABIB BANK LIMITED---Respondent
First Appeal No. 68 of 2021, decided on 30th October, 2023.
(a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---
----Ss. 2(b), 5, 9, 22 & 27---Recovery suit---Admitting of appeal---Pre-conditions---Stay, grant of---Provisions of S. 22(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Scope---Appellate Court/High Court on request of the respondent/Bank while the counsel of appellant/customer was occupied before another bench, directed him (appellant/customer) to deposit decretal amount (without even granting stay or admitting the appeal)---Appellant/customer moved application to recall/review the said order contending that impugned order had been passed in violation of provisions of the S. 22(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001')---Plea of the respondent/Bank was that the order was rightly passed in view of bar contained in S. 27 of the Ordinance 2001---Validity---Under S. 22(3) of the Ordinance 2001, the Court could consider an order for submitting security at the stage of admitting appeal and a direction for deposit of decretal amount to be issued in the event of grant of stay order, however reasonable order was required to be passed---In the present case, none of said circumstances/pre-conditions existed on the date when the impugned order was passed, or even later than such day/date---Plea of the respondent/Bank was misconceived as the bar contained in S. 27 of the Ordinance 2001 (which was subject to the provision of S. 22 of the Ordinance 2001) would be applicable to Courts and Authorities other than the Banking Courts---"Banking Court" was defined in S. 2(b) of the Ordinance 2001 in which (i) the claim does not exceed Rs. 100 million (as was in the present case); and for the trial of offences under the Ordinance 2001 the Court established under S. 5 of the Ordinance 2001 and (ii) in respect of any other case, the High Court---Whereas, in the present case, High Court as an Appellate Court was exercising jurisdiction when seized of appeal under S. 22 of the Ordinance 2001, and not of a suit under S. 9 of the Ordinance 2001---High Court on the original side also exercises jurisdiction of a Banking Court; which does not mean that the Appellate Court when seized of an appeal becomes a Banking Court ---In the present case, neither the present appeal had been admitted nor any stay order had been sought nor passed---Passing of the impugned order due to an incorrect exposition of law regarding S. 22 of the Ordinance 2001 was untenable and unsustainable---High Court recalled the impugned order---Application to review/recall was allowed, in circumstances.
M. A. Kareem Iqbal v. Presiding Officer, Banking Court 2003 CLD 1447 and Askari Bank Limited v. DCD Services Limited 2016 CLD 449 ref.
(b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)---
----Ss. 2(b), 5, 9, 22 & 27---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S. 114 & O. XLVII---Review, exercise of---Powers of the Court---Scope---Appellate Court/High Court on request of the respondent/bank while the counsel of appellant/customer was occupied before another bench, directed him (appellant/customer) to deposit decretal amount (without even granting stay or admitting the appeal)---Appellant/customer moved application to recall/review the said order contending that impugned order had been passed in violation of provisions of the S. 22(3) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ('the Ordinance 2001')---Validity---Power of review can be exercised for any sufficient reason which is wide enough to include a misconception of fact or law---Court is in fact obliged to correct itself and undo the wrong done to a party by the act of Court through a review/recall of its own order which suffers from an obvious error and is also causing miscarriage of justice---Record revealed the fact that neither the present appeal had been admitted nor any stay order had been sought nor passed---Passing of the impugned order due to an incorrect exposition of law regarding S. 22 of the Ordinance 2001 was untenable and unsustainable---High Court recalled the impugned order---Application to review/recall was allowed, in circumstances.
Khaleeq Ahmed for Appellant.
For more information call us 0092-324-4010279 Whatsapp
Dear readers if u like this post plz comments and follow us. Thanks for reading .as you know our goal is to aware people of their rights and how can get their rights. we will answer every question, so we need your help to achieve our goal. plz tell people about this blog and subscribe to our youtube channel and follow us at the end of this post.
Comments
Post a Comment