2009 PLP 844 (CLD)
Messrs CHILTAN TRANSPORT COMPANY through Proprietor — Petitioner Versus Messrs ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LTD. through Manager and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2009 PLP 844 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs CHILTAN TRANSPORT COMPANY through Proprietor — Petitioner Versus Messrs ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LTD. through Manager and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2009 PLP 844 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2009 PLP 844 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2009 PLP 844 (CLD) (Messrs CHILTAN TRANSPORT COMPANY through Proprietor — Petitioner Versus Messrs ORIX LEASING PAKISTAN LTD. through Manager and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Azizur Rehman Akhund for Petitioner.
- Kumail Ahmed Shirazee for Respondent No. 1.
- Admittedly suit for recovery of the due amount has been A filed by the respondent before the, Banking Court in March, 2008 and during pendency of proceeding of Suit bearing No.83 of 2008 alleged act is said to had been committed. As such proper forum for the petitioner would be to approach Banking Court being the first available forum. Learned counsel for petitioner concedes that he has not approached to the Banking Court and directly came to this Court.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.7 & 9
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art.199
Constitutional petition
Petitioner had assailed the alleged seizure of vehicle on account of non-payment of instalment against the financial facility provided to him by the Bank
Suit for recovery of the due amount had been filed by the Bank against the petitioner before the Banking Court; and during pendency of proceedings of said suit alleged act was said to have been committed
Proper forum for the petitioner, in circumstances, would be to approach Banking Court, same being the first available forum
Constitutional petition was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
Petitioner has approached to this Court against the alleged seizure of vehicle bearing Registration No.ILD-142 on account of non-payment of instalment in against to the financial facility provided to him by the bank. Admittedly suit for recovery of the due amount has been A filed by the respondent before the, Banking Court in March, 2008 and during pendency of proceeding of Suit bearing No.83 of 2008 alleged act is said to had been committed. As such proper forum for the petitioner would be to approach Banking Court being the first available forum. Learned counsel for petitioner concedes that he has not approached to the Banking Court and directly came to this Court. In view of above discussion, petition being not maintainable is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./C-10/K Petition dismissed.