Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: he appellant's primary contention was that the Banking Court lacked the requisite powers and jurisdiction to entertain the suit filed by the respondent, who was a bidder in a public auction for a mortgaged property and had defaulted on the payment of the auction price.The factual backdrop involved the appellant bank attempting to sell a mortgaged property through a public auction, where M/s Noorani Traders emerged as the highest bidder. The respondent was appointed by the bidder to complete the payment and formalities of the sale/auction. However, the respondent failed to pay the remaining 85% of the bid amount within the stipulated 30 days, leading to the forfeiture of the deposited 15% and the cancellation of the sale.The respondent, after a lapse of four years, filed a suit for the declaration and recovery of the forfeited amount along with damages, which the appellant argued was not maintainable under section 15 of the Ordinance 2001 before the Banking Court.The High Court, after reviewing the arguments and the legal provisions under the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001, concluded that the Banking Court erroneously assumed jurisdiction over the matter. It was determined that the dispute did not pertain to the sale of the mortgaged property per se, but rather to the recovery of the forfeited amount arising from a contract formed by the public auction. Therefore, the dispute was not within the purview of the Banking Court as defined under the Ordinance.The Court referred to various precedents and legal provisions, including the Contract Act 1872, to establish that the transaction constituted a contract and that the nature of the dispute did not fall under the jurisdiction of the Banking Court as outlined in the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001.In conclusion, the High Court set aside the impugned judgment and decree of the Banking Court and returned the plaint to the respondent for filing before a court with appropriate jurisdiction, subject to law and any applicable limitations. The appeal was thereby disposed of, highlighting the importance of proper jurisdictional authority in legal proceedings. ---- ''Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ] We may observe that the aforesaid provision of Section 9 of the FinancialInstitutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 is not comprehensive andexhaustive in deriving conclusion regarding the jurisdiction of the Court as therecourse in terms of Section 15 have to be made to discover as to what is the precisejurisdiction vested on the Banking Court under the Ordinance in terms of Section 15.No doubt that the preamble/title of the Ordinance provides that it has been primarilyfor the purpose of recovery of finance. The other recourse that is available undersection 15 of the Ordinance, 2001 is off-course is the mechanism which provides forthe recovery of the loan by way of sale of the mortgaged property with or withoutintervention of the Court and the jurisdiction in terms of Section 15 of the Ordinance,2001 is also open and extended as far as the disputes of the sale of the mortgagedproperty is concerned. Such disputes if at all, raised are to be dealt with in terms ofSection 15 of the Ordinance, 2001. There is no cavil to this proposition and perhapsto this extent the jurisdiction of the Banking Court extends so far as it relates to adispute for the sale of the mortgaged property, which is not the case here.''

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.