Step 1 of 8
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Step 1 of 7
Welcome!
Let's learn how to use the search features effectively.
Latest Judgments (All Jurisdictions within Pakistan)
Taufeequddin Siddiqi VS Election Commissioner of Pakistan and Others
Summary: Pending
Muhammad Nawaz Khan Niazi VS Province of Sindh and Others
Summary: Pending
Altaf Ali Gadehi VS The State
Summary: Pending
Gul Muhammad and others VS The State
Summary: Pending
Fahad Siyal and Others VS The State
Summary: Pending
Rehan Khan Jalbani VS The State
Summary: Pending
Barkat Ali Machi VS The State
Summary: Pending
Abdul Jabbar and others VS The State
Summary: Pending
S.S.G.C. L VS Irshad Ali Bhutto and antoher
Summary: The suit filed by SSGC was hopelessly time-barred. Gas Utility Court is not obliged to decide the question of maintainability after its decision on the leave to defend application. Gas Company's allegation that the Defendant-Customer was involved in the theft of gas, no ground to condone limitation..
MCB Bank Limited VS EMAD UL HASAN
Summary: Background:
MCB Bank Limited filed a civil suit under the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court of Sindh at Karachi against Emadul Hassan, a former employee, for the recovery of a house loan amounting to Rs. 9,196,729. The suit remained pending for 11 years, during which time the Court settled issues, recorded evidence, and was on the verge of final arguments. The Plaintiff-Bank's appeal led to framing two primary issues concerning the maintainability of the suit under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (FIO, 2001).
-----Issues:
1- Whether finance granted to an employee of a financial institution changes the nature of the transaction, thus affecting the definition of ‘finance’ under the FIO, 2001.
2- Whether the suit should have been filed under the Banking jurisdiction of the FIO, 2001, instead of the ordinary civil jurisdiction of the High Court.
-----Holding/Reasoning/Outcome:
The court concluded that finance granted to an employee of a financial institution does not change the nature of the transaction, and it falls within the definition of ‘finance’ under the FIO, 2001. Therefore, issue (a) was decided in the negative.
The court agreed that the suit should have been filed under the Banking jurisdiction of the FIO, 2001, and issue (b) was decided in the affirmative.
Following this, the court examined the broader question of whether the High Court exercising its ordinary civil jurisdiction should proceed with the case or return the plaint to be filed in the Banking Court.
The court identified that the claims in the plaint included several heads, some of which might not fall under the definition of "finance" under the FIO, 2001. However, the Plaintiff-Bank's counsel indicated willingness to withdraw those heads not covered by the definition of "finance."
The court noted that subject-matter jurisdiction could not be conferred or waived by consent of the parties. Even with the delay in raising the issue of jurisdiction, it remained essential to determine the correct jurisdiction to avoid rendering any decree unenforceable.
Based on the nature of the claims and the statutory mandate of the FIO, 2001, the court concluded that the proper jurisdiction for the suit was the Banking Court.
The court ordered that the plaint in Suit No. 563/2007 be returned to MCB Bank Limited to file under the jurisdiction of the Banking Court as per the FIO, 2001.