2010 PLP 894 (CLD)
NAZIR AHMED TUNIO — Applicant Versus STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 2010 PLP 894 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Karachi |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NAZIR AHMED TUNIO — Applicant Versus STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2010 PLP 894 (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 2010 PLP 894 (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: 2010 PLP 894 (CLD) (NAZIR AHMED TUNIO — Applicant Versus STANDARD CHARTERED BANK (PAKISTAN) LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- ----S. 7(5) (b) (6) (7)---Transfer of Banking suit---Application for---Banking suit pending before Banking Court at place 'K' had been sought to be transferred on the ground that Presiding Officer of the court could be prejudiced against counsel for the applicant, who had assisted the Senior Advocates of Supreme Court, in constitutional petition filed against all those Judges of Superior Judiciary who took oath under P.C.O. which was in violation of the earlier order passed by the Bench of Supreme Court---Validity---Nothing had been said in the transfer application except the apprehension in the mind of the counsel that the Presiding Officer would be prejudiced against him, which was not sufficient for transfer of the case---Transfer application was dismissed in circumstances.
- SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, C.J.---I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant for transfer of Banking Suit No.405 of 2009 pending before the Banking Court No.IV at Karachi, is that the learned Presiding Officer, Mr. Arshad Noor Khan, may perhaps be prejudiced against him as he had assisted Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi and Mr. Hamid Khan, Senior Advocates of Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.9 of 2009 entitled as Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan and others before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. According to learned counsel, the said C.P., was filed against all those Judges of the superior judiciary who took oath under the P.C.O., which was in violation of the earlier order passed by the Bench of the honourable Supreme Court, therefore, they ceased to be the Judges as the PCO was declared unlawful and ultra vires of the Constitution and void ab initio. Further that all these honourable Judges who were administered Oath under the PCO or appointed/confirmed by Justice (R) A.H. Doghar also ceased to be the Judge as he was not the Constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 7(5) (b) (6) (7)
Application for
Banking suit pending before Banking Court at place 'K' had been sought to be transferred on the ground that Presiding Officer of the court could be prejudiced against counsel for the applicant, who had assisted the Senior Advocates of Supreme Court, in constitutional petition filed against all those Judges of Superior Judiciary who took oath under P.C.O. which was in violation of the earlier order passed by the Bench of Supreme Court
Nothing had been said in the transfer application except the apprehension in the mind of the counsel that the Presiding Officer would be prejudiced against him, which was not sufficient for transfer of the case
Transfer application was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SARMAD JALAL OSMANY, C.J.
I have heard learned counsel for the applicant. The main ground taken by the learned counsel for the applicant for transfer of Banking Suit No.405 of 2009 pending before the Banking Court No.IV at Karachi, is that the learned Presiding Officer, Mr. Arshad Noor Khan, may perhaps be prejudiced against him as he had assisted Mr. Rasheed A. Rizvi and Mr. Hamid Khan, Senior Advocates of Supreme Court of Pakistan in C.P. No.9 of 2009 entitled as Sindh High Court Bar Association v. Federation of Pakistan and others before the honourable Supreme Court of Pakistan. According to learned counsel, the said C.P., was filed against all those Judges of the superior judiciary who took oath under the P.C.O., which was in violation of the earlier order passed by the Bench of the honourable Supreme Court, therefore, they ceased to be the Judges as the PCO was declared unlawful and ultra vires of the Constitution and void ab initio. Further that all these honourable Judges who were administered Oath under the PCO or appointed/confirmed by Justice (R) A.H. Doghar also ceased to be the Judge as he was not the Constitutional Chief Justice of Pakistan. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/ Bank has opposed this application on the ground that it is not the applicant who is seeking transfer of the case but his counsel. In such circumstances, personal affidavit of the counsel should have been filed in support of the transfer application. I have heard both the learned counsel. In my opinion, although the learned counsel for the applicant may have assisted or conducted any case before the honourable Supreme Court which has impacted negatively on the learned Presiding Officer Mr. Arshad Noor Khan insofar as the judicial proceedings are concerned, is not sufficient to assume that he would be prejudiced towards the learned counsel. Nothing has been said in the transfer application except the anticipation in the mind of the learned counsel that the learned Presiding Officer shall be prejudiced against him, which in my opinion is not be sufficient for transfer of the case. The transfer application is accordingly dismissed. H.B.T./N-32/K Application dismissed.