1994 PLP 2292 (CLC)
Messrs MAJEED ENTERPRISES and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 1994 PLP 2292 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Wajihuddin Ahmed and Muhammad |
| Parties | Messrs MAJEED ENTERPRISES and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1994 PLP 2292 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1994 PLP 2292 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Wajihuddin Ahmed and Muhammad.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1994 PLP 2292 (CLC) (Messrs MAJEED ENTERPRISES and others‑‑‑Appellants Versus Messrs UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Jawaid Ahmad Siddiqui for Appellants.
- Masood Shaheryar for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIB of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appeal against decree of Banking Tribunal‑‑‑Application seeking exemption from furnishing security as a precondition of filing of appeal‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Even if appellant wanted to furnish security, Court could not accept it in view of mandatory provision in the first proviso to S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984‑‑‑Requisite deposit of decretal amount having neither preceded nor being contemporaneous with the appeal, application seeking exemption from furnishing security has got to be dismissed as also the appeal. (b) Appeal (civil)‑‑‑ .... Where appeal provides deposit of claimed amount as a precondition, right of appeal was illusory and. not in the nature of adequate remedy.
Judgment & Decree
‑‑‑‑S. 9‑‑‑Appeal against decree of Banking Tribunal‑‑‑Application seeking exemption from furnishing security as a precondition of filing of appeal‑‑ Validity‑‑‑Even if appellant wanted to furnish security, Court could not accept it in view of mandatory provision in the first proviso to S. 9, Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984‑‑‑Requisite deposit of decretal amount having neither preceded nor being contemporaneous with the appeal, application seeking exemption from furnishing security has got to be dismissed as also the appeal. (b) Appeal (civil)‑‑‑ .... Where appeal provides deposit of claimed amount as a precondition, right of appeal was illusory and. not in the nature of adequate remedy. Jawaid Ahmad Siddiqui for Appellants. Masood Shaheryar for Respondent. WARHUDDIN AHMED, J.‑‑This is an application filed by the appellant for exemption to file the original Power of Attorney. The application is not resisted by Mr. Masood Shaheryar and is granted.
2. Through this application learned counsel for the appellant seeks exemption from furnishing security as a precondition of the filing of this appeal. In fact even if the appellant wanted to furnish security we could not accept it in view of the mandatory provision in the first proviso to section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984. Since the requisite deposit of the decretal amount has neither preceded nor is contemporaneous with this appeal, the application has to be dismissed and the appeal also simultaneously has to meet the same fate. We do so accordingly. However, it is the consistent view of the superior Courts in this country that where an appeal provides deposit of the claimed amount as a precondition, the right of appeal is illusory and not in the nature of an adequate remedy. In such circumstances Constitutional jurisdiction of the Court is attracted. The appellant may if it chooses file a Constitutional petition. A.A./M‑1968/K Appeal dismissed.