1993 PLP 1356 (CLC)
ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through its President
| Citation | 1993 PLP 1356 (CLC) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | Nasir Aslam Zahid and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ |
| Parties | ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through its President |
| Primary Law | Banks (Nationalization) Act (XIX of 1974)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1993 PLP 1356 (CLC)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banks (Nationalization) Act (XIX of 1974)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1993 PLP 1356 (CLC)?
The case was heard and decided by the Karachi bench comprising: Nasir Aslam Zahid and Nazim Hussain Siddiqui, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1993 PLP 1356 (CLC) (ZULFIQAR ALI ‑‑‑Petitioner Versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through its President). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shaukat Muhammad Khan and Tanveer Zahidi for Petitioner.
- Rizwan Ahmed Siddiqui for Respondent No.1..
- Date of hearing: 28th April, 1992.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑S. 11(5)(c)‑‑‑Letter written at behest of Member National Assembly (M.NA) for appointment of petitioner as gunman in Bank, could not be treated as direction under S.11(5)(c) and letter addressed by Bank according to which petitioner was called upon by Bank to report, neither was appointment letter nor it could be treated as such even impliedly.
Judgment & Decree
Date of hearing: 28th April, 1992. NASIR ASLAM ZAHID, J.‑‑‑Comments were called for from the Bank which have been received and have been perused. The following three contentions have been raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner:‑‑‑ "(1) By letter dated 6‑12‑1989 addressed to the President M.C.B. Limited, it was stated in connection with the appointment of a gunman as follows by the Pakistan Banking Council: It has been decided to appoint Mr. Zulfiqar Ali son of against abovementioned post in your bank. Further necessary action may please by taken under intimation to the undersigned." Copy of this letter was sent to the petitioner care of Ch. Anwar Aziz, M.N.A. It is contended that this letter dated 6‑12‑1989 be considered as a direction under section 11(5)(c) of the Banks Nationalization Act, 1974. We have seen the relevant provision. We are of the view that this letter dated 6‑12‑1989, apparently written at the behest of an M.NA. for the appointment of petitioner as gunman, cannot be treated as a direction under section 11(5)(c) of the Act.
2. The second contention is that the letter dated 24‑12‑1989 of the Bank addressed to the petitioner in effect amounted to an appointment order or it implies that the appointment had been made. We have perused the said letter dated 24‑12‑1989 (Annexure `B' to the petition) and we are of the view that the petitioner had only been called upon by the Bank to report and it was neither an appointment letter nor it can be treated even impliedly as a letter of appointment.
3. The third contention is that, thereafter, several letters were written by the petitioner to the bank that he should be given posting order but no reply has been received. This also does not make out any case for the petitioner. Admittedly, there is no appointment order issued by the Bank. No case is made out. Petition No.D‑473 of 1992 is accordingly dismissed in limine. H.B.T./Z‑202/K Petition dismissed.