2005 PLP 192 (CLD)
AHMED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through ATTORNEY — Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI and 2 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 192 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AHMED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through ATTORNEY — Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI and 2 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 192 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 192 (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: 2005 PLP 192 (CLD) (AHMED CONSTRUCTION COMPANY through ATTORNEY — Petitioner Versus HABIB BANK LTD., KARACHI and 2 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner.
- K.B. Bhutto for Respondents.
- Zia Kiyani for Respondents.
- Ismail Merchant for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss.7 & 9
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O.XVII, R.1-- Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 199
Banking Court had discretion to grant adjournment either conditional or unconditional
Witness, in the present case, having come from Rawalpindi to Karachi, adjournment was rightly granted conditionally subject to costs to meet traveling expenses of witness
Discretion having properly been exercised by the Court, same could not be disturbed under Constitutional jurisdiction of High Court.
Ss.7 & 9
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)-- Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.
Maintainability-- Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was maintainable in proceedings emanating from Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001.
Judgment & Decree
Ss.7 & 9
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), S.12(2)-- Application under S.12(2), C.P.C.
Maintainability-- Application under S.12(2), C.P.C. was maintainable in proceedings emanating from Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. Ch. Muhammad Iqbal for Petitioner. K.B. Bhutto for Respondents. Zia Kiyani for Respondents. Ismail Merchant for Respondents. Date of hearing: 12th May, 2004. In the instant petition the grievance of the petition is that the while granting adjournment the Presiding Officer Banking Court imposed cost of Rs.6,382 to the witness, who had come to depose on behalf of the opposite party in support of an application under section 12(2), C.P.C. The Court has discretion to grant adjournment conditional or unconditional. Here the adjournment was conditional subject to costs for the reason that, the witness had come from Rawalpindi to meet the traveling expenses were awarded. We are, therefore, of the view that the discretion exercised was proper and cannot be disturbed under Constitutional jurisdiction. The petitioner has also made a feeble attempt to challenge the jurisdiction of the Banking Court to entertain application under section 12(2), C.P.C. It is now well-settled that application under section 12(2), C.P.C. is maintainable in proceedings emanating from the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. With the above observation, the petition is dismissed in limine with cost. H.B.T./A-115/K Petition dismissed.