| Case ID |
04ab849d-f4a3-4877-94d3-701c7a83b961 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.F.A. No. 11 of 2022 |
| Decision Date |
May 17, 2022 |
| Hearing Date |
May 17, 2022 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court set aside the decree passed by the Banking Court on the grounds that the suit was not instituted by a competent person with the required authority under Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001. The plaint did not include any power of attorney and was not instituted by a manager. The Banking Court had previously framed an issue regarding the authority for the institution of the plaint and its verification. The plaintiff produced one witness and submitted sixteen documents, but failed to provide any evidence demonstrating that the individual who instituted the suit had the requisite authority. As a result, the High Court allowed the appeal, emphasizing the necessity for compliance with legal requirements for instituting such cases. |
| Summary |
In this landmark ruling by the Lahore High Court, the court addressed critical issues surrounding the authority required for the institution of bank loan recovery suits. The case involved an appeal concerning the validity of a decree passed by the Banking Court. The High Court underscored the importance of adherence to the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, particularly Section 9, which mandates that the plaint must be instituted by an authorized person. The court found that the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate proper authority in instituting the suit, as no power of attorney was included, and the suit was not filed by the bank manager. This decision reinforces the legal standards that must be met in financial dispute resolutions, ensuring that only duly authorized individuals can initiate legal proceedings on behalf of financial institutions. The ruling serves as a precedent for similar cases and emphasizes the need for compliance with procedural requirements in financial litigation. Keywords: bank loan recovery, legal authority, Financial Institutions Ordinance, Lahore High Court, banking law. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
BANK OF PUNJAB
|
| Judges |
JAWAD HASSAN,
SULTAN TANVIR AHMAD
|
| Lawyers |
Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar,
another
|
| Petitioners |
another,
ABDUL HAQ KHAN
|
| Respondents |
another,
BANK OF PUNJAB
|
| Citations |
2023 SLD 538 = 2023 CLD 290
|
| Other Citations |
Messrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar and another v. The Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684,
Bashir Ahmad v. Plastic Bag Packaging Limited and others PLD 1991 Lah. 386,
The Bank of Punjab v. Arif Ali Shah Bukhari 2016 CLD 1301,
Ehsan-ul-Haq v. MCB Bank Limited through Manager 2016 CLD 1874,
Zarai Tarakiyati Bank Limited through Authorized Officer v. Haji Audho through Attorney 2018 CLD 1327,
Khan Iftikhar Hussain Khan of Mamdot (represented by 6 heirs) v. Messrs Ghulam Nabi Corporation Ltd., Lahore PLD 1971 SC 550,
Bankers Equity Ltd. through Attorney and 5 others v. Sunflo Cit-Russ Ltd. (formerly known as Sunflo Juices Ltd.) through Managing Director PLD 1999 Lah. 450
|
| Laws Involved |
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
|
| Sections |
9,
22
|