Disposal of application
Disposal of application legal meaning, translation and judicial precedents.
Meaning & Judicial Interpretation: (اردو مفہوم اور قانونی تشریح)
Application for leave to defend is completely alien and contrary to spirit and provision of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Application for leave to defend has to be either "rejected" or "allowed" by Banking Court.
Defendants assailed judgment and decree passed by Banking Court on the ground that application for leave to appear was disposed of and parties were directed to settle their claim by submitting relevant documents and fresh breakup
Validity
Held, in order to succeed in application for leave to defend, defendant was to show that his application was competent with all mandatory requirements of S. 10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Likewise, plaintiff was to show, even if there was no application for leave to defend the suit or leave was refused to defendant, that his plaint was competent with all mandatory requirements of S. 9 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 and suit was not barred by any law
No provision existed in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 to provide further opportunities to parties to file their accounts or fresh breakups thereof after filing suit or application for leave to defend
Banking Court was not justified in granting such opportunity to parties after disposing of application for leave to defend
High Court set aside judgment and decree and remanded matter to Banking Court for decision afresh on application for leave to defend
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
"Disposal of application", Pakistan Law Portal, available at: https://paklawportal.com/words-terms-maxims/124957712
Precedents & Case Laws citing "Disposal of application"
1986 C L C 2652
MUNIR AHMAD KHAN — Petitioner Versus SAMIULLAH KHAN and 7 others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1993 P Cr
MUHAMMAD AFZAL — Petitioner Versus NAZAR MUHAMMAD and others — Respondents
Court: Lahore1986 M L D 1312
PLAYBOY ENTERPRISE INC. — Appellants Versus REGISTRAR OF TRADE MARKS and another Respondents
Court: Karachi1999 P Cr
Mst. RACHEL JOSEPH‑‑‑Applicant Versus AFTABUDDIN QURESHI and others‑‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi2004 P T D 1781
Messrs ASIF CERAMICS, SHEIKHUPURA Versus SECRETARY, REVENUE DIVISION, ISLAMABAD
Court: Federal Tax OmbudsmanP
Mst. JIWAI‑Appellant Versus SUBHAN‑Respondent
Court:1985 P Cr
MAQBOOL HASSAN‑‑Petitioner Versus MASOOD BUTT and others Respondents
Court: LahoreP L D 1982 Lahore 234
PIRAN DITTA‑Petitioner Versus Haji HABIB ASHRAF AND 3 others‑Respondents
Court: ‑‑ O. XXXIX, rr. 1, 2 & 3 read with O. XLIII, r. 1 (r)‑Temporary injunction‑Appealability of an order‑To be determined with reference to law whereunder order passed and not with reference to party likely to be hit by such order‑Order granting or refusing interim injunction pending disposal of application for temporary injunction‑Held, can be appealed against by party unhappy with that order Shakoor Hasam Patel v. Muhammad Hussain Shakoor and another P L D 1957 Kar. 435 dissented from.‑Injunction.1991 S C M R 1981
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF and 12 others — Petitioners Versus ABDUL KHALIQ and others — Respondents
Court: High Court1988 M L D 257
MUHAMMADUL HAQ USMANI‑‑Petitioner Versus JUDGE OF SPECIAL COURT OF SIND (BANKING) and another‑‑Respondents
Court: Karachi