2002 PLP 261 (CLD)

The petitioners, employees of Union Bank Limited, have instituted the present writ petition challenging the assumption of jurisdiction by the respondent No. 1, with a prayer that notice dated 24‑7‑1995 issued by the said respondent for initiating contempt proceedings against the petitioners may be declared as having been issued without lawful authority.

2. Facts, as narrated in the writ petition are that Union Bank Limited filed a suit against respondent No.2, its three Directors and the two guarantors before the then Chairman, Banking Tribunal, Faisalabad, who dismissed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 29‑5‑1995. Feeling aggrieved the Union Bank Limited filed an appeal, in this Court, which is, statedly, pending. It has been narrated in the writ petition that National Bank of Pakistan addressed two letters to the Union Bank Limited, whereby they sought confidential report regarding the credibility of Messrs Sunny Garments, Onex Garments and Kamil Cotton Industries (Pvt.) Limited, which according to the normal banking practice were responded by the Union Bank. Subsequently, respondent No. 1 issued a notice to the petitioners calling upon them to appear personally as according to the notice, a complaint was filed by the respondent No.2 against the petitioners for initiating proceedings for committing contempt of Court. In response to the said notice, when the learned counsel appeared before the Banking Tribunal, the learned Tribunal ordered for the personal appearance of the petitioners, hence, the present writ petition.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioners has contended that there are no provisions in the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, (since repealed) for initiating contempt proceedings and that even according to the contents of the complaint no case for initiating contempt proceedings was made out. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondent No.2 has contended that since the factual controversies are involved in this case and the wilt petition has been filed against an inter locatory order, therefore, the petitioners are precluded from invoking Constitutional jurisdiction of this Court under the facts and circumstances of the case.

4. It is discernible from the record that the judgment and decree dated 29‑5‑1995 was called in question by the Union Bank Limited by way of filing the appeal in this Court, which is reportedly pending. I do find a confidential letter on record written by the National Bank of Pakistan to the Manager, Union Bank Limited, Faisalabad, seeking their confidential opinion regarding credential of certain persons, in response to that letter the Manager, Union Bank Limited must have imparted some information to National Bank of Pakistan. Obviously, this was a confidential communication between two financial institutions in the best interest of both of them. National Bank of Pakistan was within its rights to ask for the reliability and credibility about the persons to whom they are dealing with the financial matters. Similarly, the Union Bank Limited was under an obligation to respond to the said communication addressed to it and to divulge the true facts to another financial institution. Moreover, these were the privileged communications exchanged between the two financial institutions, to which no exception could have been taken by the petitioners.

5. I have gone through the contents of an application, filed, by the respondent No. 2 before respondent No. l for initiating contempt of Court proceedings against petitioners. I am afraid, even from the bare reading of the contents of the application no case of contempt of Court is even prima facie made out. It appears that the learned Banking Tribunal without perusing the contents of the application and in complete oblivion of the law on the subject has mechanically issued the impugned I notice to the petitioners, whereas no case of contempt of Court is at all made out. I am sure if the learned Tribunal would have read the application, he should not have issued such a notice. In these circumstances, the Banking Tribunal has acted in excess of his jurisdiction and has grossly violated the provisions of law. Even if any loss was caused to the respondent/Directors/guarantors, the appropriate remedy was to file a suit for damages and not to initiate contempt proceedings.

6. So far as the objection of the learned counsel of the respondent No.2 regarding the non‑maintainability of the writ petition is concerned, suffice it to say that the same are mis?placed and have no legal foundation. Bare reading of the writ petition and the complaint shows that no factual controversies have been raised. The impugned notice is without jurisdiction, therefore, this Court can exercise its Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter. In the present scenario, the assumption of jurisdiction by the learned Banking Tribunal while initiating proceedings for committing contempt of Court, are not supported, to say the least, by any law.

7. In view of the above reasons and conclusions, I am inclined to exercise Constitutional jurisdiction in the matter, consequently, the writ petition stands accepted and the issuance of impugned notice dated 24‑7‑1995 and ensuing proceeding initiated by the respondent No. I against the petitioners are declared to be illegal, without lawful authority and having no legal effect. No order as to costs. S.A.K./M‑855/L????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????? Petition accepted.