Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: (a) Constitution of Pakistan (1973): ----Arts. 4, 23, 25, 175 & 199 Challenge to the vires of Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001—Parallel judicial system—Validity—Petitioner contended that Section 15 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which allowed financial institutions to recover outstanding amounts by selling mortgaged properties without court intervention, violated fundamental rights guaranteed under Articles 4, 23, 25, and 175 of the Constitution—It was argued that the provision created a parallel judicial system, depriving individuals of their right to due process—Petitioner relied on Mehram Ali’s case (PLD 1998 SC 1445) to support the argument that absolute powers could not be conferred on any authority to unilaterally determine liabilities and enforce them without judicial oversight—Held, the petition raised substantial constitutional questions regarding the validity of Section 15, warranting examination—The petition was admitted for hearing. (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVII of 2001): ----S. 15 Sale of mortgaged property without court intervention—Comparison with other statutes—Respondents contended that provisions similar to Section 15 existed in other laws, such as Section 69 of the Transfer of Property Act, Agricultural Development Bank Ordinance, Income Tax Ordinance, and Ushr Ordinance, allowing for independent recovery mechanisms—Held, the validity of Section 15 required scrutiny to determine whether it violated constitutional provisions by granting unbridled powers to financial institutions without judicial oversight—Case admitted for detailed examination. (c) Constitutional Petition—Maintainability: ----Jurisdiction of High Court under Article 199—Territorial jurisdiction—Respondents challenged the maintainability of the petition, arguing that all mortgaged properties were located in Sindh, beyond the territorial jurisdiction of the Balochistan High Court—Held, the petitioner demonstrated that partial financial transactions were conducted at the Quetta branch of the respondent bank and that notices were served on the petitioner in Quetta Jail—Where fundamental rights and the vires of law were challenged, the High Court had jurisdiction to entertain the petition—Petition admitted, subject to arguments on maintainability. (d) Banking Law—Secured Liability and Suspension of Recovery Notices: ----Surety requirement for interim relief—Petitioner sought suspension of impugned recovery notices issued by the respondent bank, arguing that the entire liability was already secured by mortgaged properties—Respondents countered that the outstanding liability amounted to Rs. 1.2 billion, including markup and costs, while the mortgaged properties were valued at only Rs. 30 crore—Held, the operation of the impugned notices was suspended, subject to the petitioner furnishing solvent surety of Rs. 500 million to the satisfaction of the Registrar of the High Court—Petitioner was also directed to deposit rental income from the mortgaged properties until the final decision of the petition. (e) Disposition: Petition admitted for hearing—Operation of the recovery notices was suspended, conditional upon the petitioner providing a surety—Case fixed for hearing after one month.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.

Summary: Summary pending.