2004 PLP 1557 (CLD)
FAZAL AHMAD through Hamidah Begum and others‑‑‑‑Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2004 PLP 1557 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ |
| Parties | FAZAL AHMAD through Hamidah Begum and others‑‑‑‑Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 1557 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 1557 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Syed Zahid Hussain, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 1557 (CLD) (FAZAL AHMAD through Hamidah Begum and others‑‑‑‑Appellants Versus AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Imran Ahmad Ch. for Appellants.
- Mian Nasir Mehmood for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 26th June, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑S.5‑‑‑Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5‑‑‑Powers and jurisdiction of Banking Tribunal‑‑‑Scope‑‑‑Banking Tribunal has no jurisdiction to adjudicate upon any suit or pass any judgment where the superior Court had declared certain provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and the notifications appointing the Presiding Officers of that Tribunal as unconstitutional and without lawful authority. Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah. 672 ref. (b) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑S.7‑‑‑Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S.5‑‑‑Past and closed cases‑‑‑Decree passed by the Banking Tribunal after the pronouncement of the judgment wherein the superior Court had declared certain provisions of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 and the notifications appointing the Presiding Officers of that Tribunal as unconstitutional and without lawful authority, was not covered by the saving clause provided in the said judgment as according to the said clause of the judgment of superior Court was not to affect past and closed cases or invalidate the judgments/decrees, which had become final‑‑‑Case was remanded to the Banking Court. Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lah. 672 ref.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑‑On 15‑10‑1996 the respondent filed a suit against Fazal Ahmad, predecessor‑in- interest of the present appellants, for recovery of sum of Rs.6,84,
468. This suit was filed before a Chairman Banking Tribunal‑I, Faisalabad. The said Fazal Ahmad put in appearance and filed an application for leave to defend the suit. The application was contested by the respondent‑Bank. The Chairman Banking Tribunal heard the parties and proceeded to pass a decree in the sum of Rs.6,81,
907. This included a sum of Rs.1,14,081 as liquidated damages. This decree was passed on 15‑10‑1996.
2. We find that the impugned decree has been passed by the Chairman Banking Tribunal on 15‑10‑1996 i.e. at a point of time when judgment in the case of Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others .v. Banking Tribunal, Lahore and others PLD 1996 Lahore.672 had already been rendered by a learned Full Bench of this Court on 21‑7‑1996. Vide the said judgment section 4, section 6(6), as it stood after amendment by Act VII of 1990 and first proviso to section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 were declared unconstitutional. Further the notifications appointing the Presiding Officers of the Banking Tribunals issued under the Banking Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, were declared without lawful authority and were quashed.
3. The effect of the said judgment is that on 15‑10‑1996 the Chairman Banking Tribunal‑I, Faisalabad was not possessed of the jurisdiction or lawful authority to pass the impugned decree, notification of his appointment having been quashed by this Court. As a corollary, Honourable Judges further directed that the cases pending before the Banking Tribunals, shall stand transferred to the respective Banking Courts. It was clarified that in cases where the value of the suit is more than Rs.10 millions, the files be transmitted to the High Court and in cases where the value is less than Rs.10 millions, the files will be sent to the Banking Court of the respective Districts. The value of the suit being less than Rs.10 millions, the file of the case was liable to be transferred to the Banking Court of Faisalabad District.
4. When confronted with the said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank has not much to say. Needless to state that the decree having been passed after pronouncement of the said judgment, it is not covered by saving clause 12 of the same. We, therefore, allow this R.F.A. and remand back the case to the learned Judge, Banking Court at Faisalabad. The parties shall put in appearance before the said Court on 24‑7‑2003. The records of the case be also immediately, remitted to the said learned Court for further proceedings it accordance with law. No order as to costs. A copy of this judgment be also remitted to' the learned Banking Court, Faisalabad. M.A.W./F‑188/L Case remanded.