MALIK GUL HASAN & CO. and 5 others vs ALLIED BANK OF PAKISTAN LIMITED, QUETTA
This matter concerns a petition for leave to appeal before the Supreme Court of Pakistan regarding the jurisdictional implications of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992. The core legal question presented for examination is whether the change in jurisdiction introduced by the 1992 Amendment Act was merely procedural in nature and thus operated retroactively, thereby rendering proceedings before a Special Court, established under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979 and presided over by a High Court Judge, as being without jurisdiction. The Supreme Court granted leave to appeal to address this specific issue of law. Pending the final adjudication of the appeal, the Court directed the petitioner to furnish fresh security for the decretal amount before the executing court, allowing the utilization of existing security provided under a previous order, subject to its sufficiency and satisfaction. The Court further ordered that the appeal be prepared for final disposal within a period of two months.
- Whether the change in jurisdiction brought about by the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992 was procedural and operated retroactively?
- Did the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992 render proceedings before a Special Court presided over by a High Court Judge without jurisdiction?
- Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Act, 1992
- Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979
ORDER
' SHAFIUR RAHMAN, J.---Leave to appeal is granted to examine, inter alia, the following question of law:- "Whether the change in jurisdiction brought about by Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)
(Amenmdent) Act, XVII of 1992 was procedural and operated retroactively so as to make the proceedings before the Special Court established under Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans)
Ordinance, 1979 presided over by a Judge of the High Court without jurisdiction thereafter."
2. The petitioner shall furnish fresh security before the executing court for the decretal amount. He is permitted to do so by utilizing the same security as was furnished under order dated 24-7-1993 in appeal, provided it is sufficient and satisfactory.
3. The appeal be made ready within two months for disposal.
Cited by 1 case
- ZARAI TARAQIATI BANK LTD through President and 2 others vs MASOOD 2020 P C T L R 1008, 2019 CLD 1248