1999 PLP 3402 (MLD)
EAST WEST TRADING and others — Appellants Versus EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL and others — Respondents
| Citation | 1999 PLP 3402 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | EAST WEST TRADING and others — Appellants Versus EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (b) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), (a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 3402 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (b) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984), (a) Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 3402 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 3402 (MLD) (EAST WEST TRADING and others — Appellants Versus EMIRATES BANK INTERNATIONAL and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Hamid Khan for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 6(6)
Bank filed suit for recovery of money against debtor
Suit was not decided in three months
Banking Tribunal directed debtor to deposit suit amount as required under S. 6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984-- Suit was decreed on account of non-deposit of the suit amount by debtor-- Validity
Section 6(6) of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 having been declared ultra vires the Constitution, decree was set aside and case remanded for decision on merits.
S. 6(6) --Declaration of High Court to the effect that S. 6(6) Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 was ultra vires of the Constitution was not applicable to past and closed transaction having not been challenged any further
Judgment & Decree
MALIK MUHAMMAD QAYYUM, J.
This judgment shall dispose of R. F. A. No 140 of 1995 and R. F. A. No. 141 of 1995 as the question falling for determination in both these appeals is the same.
2. In view of limited controversy before this Court it is unnecessary to state the facts in detail. Suffice it to say that respondent in both these appeals has filed suits for recovery of money against the appellants which were decreed on 13-3-1995 by the Banking Tribunal on account of non-compliance of its earlier order dated 6-2-1995 requiring the appellants to deposit the suit amount on account of non-decision of the suit within a period of three months.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants has argued that section 6(6) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 has already been declared as ultra vires the constitution by a Full Bench of this Court in the judgment reported as Messrs Chenab Cement Product (Pvt.) Ltd. and others v. Banking Tribunal Lahore and others (PLD 1996 Lahore 672) and as such the decree passed under that provision is liable to be set aside.
4. Mr. Hamid Khan, learned counsel for the respondents on the other hand submitted that the ratio in the precedent case is applicable only to those cases which were decided after the decision of the Full Bench and not earlier.
5. We are unable to agree with the learned counsel for the respondents. In Chenab Cement's case (supra) this Court was called upon as to decide whether section 6(6) of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, which required the Banking Tribunal to order the deposit of certain amount of money or furnishing of security if the suit was not decided within the prescribed period, was ultra vires the Constitution. That decision is based upon interpretation of the relevant section 6(6) (ibid) and it is clearly applicable to all cases decided under the said provision except those in which the matter has become past and closed transaction having not been challenged any further. In the present case the appellant filed the present appeals against the impugned decrees within the period of limitation. In view of the Full Bench judgment, we have no option but to accept these appeals set aside the impugned decree and remand the cases for determination afresh on merits. As the Banking Tribunals have been demolished the case shall now be tried by Banking Court concerned in accordance with provision, of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997. Order accordingly. No order as to costs. Q. M. H. /M. A. K./E.13/L Appeals accepted.