2019 PLP 1925 (SCMR)

SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, J.

This Petition impugns the Judgment of the learned High Court of Sindh (Sukkur Bench) in 1st Appeal No. 17 of 2012 filed by the Petitioner whereby same was dismissed and the Judgment and Decree of the Learned Banking Court in the suit filed by the Respondent Bank against the Petitioner was upheld.

2. Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho, learned ASC appearing for the Petitioner has only raised one issue i.e. as to the maintainability of the suit of the Respondent against the Petitioner. In this regard he has referred to the two powers of attorney given by the Respondent's Chief Executive Officer to Ms. Talat Shamim Naz, an officer of the Respondent Bank and Mr. Mansoor Ahmed, another officer of the Respondent Bank for the purpose of filing of suits etc. and conducting legal proceedings on behalf of the said bank. Learned ASC's contention is that in the said powers of attorney although they have been executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the bank per Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 but they are not on behalf of the bank but "on behalf of the credit administration department of the bank located at the head office, Karachi and "on behalf of the Legal Department". According to learned ASC the words 'on behalf of the credit administration department of the bank" are mentioned in the opening paragraph/recitals of the powers of attorney and hence control the remaining part." Consequently the same are not in accordance with section 9 of the Ordinance which categorically provides that a financial institution can file a suit in the banking Court by presenting a plaint which shall be verified on oath in the case of a financial institution by the Branch Manager or such other officer of the financial institution as may be duly authorized in this behalf by the Chief Executive Officer of the Bank.

3. In support of his submission, learned ASC has relied upon Trading Corporation of Pakistan Ltd. v. Haji Khuda Bux Amir Umar Ltd. (2007 YLR 1741), Ediga Seshanna and another v. R. Venkataramana Rao (AIR 1941 Madras 60), Notified Area Committee, Okara v. Kidar Nath and others (AIR 1935 Lahore 345) and Messrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar and another v. The Australsia Bank Ltd. (PLD 1966 SC 684).

4. On the other hand, Mr. Muharram G. Baloch, learned ASC appearing for the Respondent has fully supported the impugned Judgment whereby this technical objection has been overruled.

5. We have heard both the learned ASCs and perused the impugned Judgment as well as the record with their assistance.

6. In our opinion, Mr. Abdul Hafeez Lakho's contention that the powers of attorney were issued on behalf of the credit administration department and the Legal Department and not by the bank itself, is negated on the face of the same as they have been executed by the Chief Executive Officer of the bank and authorizes the two officers of the bank to file suits etc. for recovery of money and other purposes before the Courts in Pakistan and hence the words appearing in the power of attorney in the recitals i.e. on behalf of the legal department or the credit administration department are merely explanatory. Insofar as the cases cited by the learned ASC are concerned, we find that they are not at all relevant to the facts of the instant case.

7. For all the foregoing reasons, this Petition is dismissed and Leave declined. MH/F-8/SC Petition dismissed.