SONERI BANK LIMITED THROUGH CONSTITUTED ATTORNEYS/AUTHORIZED OFFICERS versus PAK LAND CORPORATION (PVT.) LIMITED
Sections 82D (4), 82 (C) and 82 (A) of the Civil Procedure Code (v. 1908) A. XXXIX, Rr 1 and 2 interpreted, under section 82D of the Court or other legal forum, the Ordinance of Contemporary Banking Companies, 1962 The criminal proceedings were not related to the purpose of Section 82D of the Ordinance of the Banking Companies; the bank sought to withhold the proceedings before the banking ombudsman on the basis that the complainant company itself had initiated a criminal proceeding which, before the special court. Was under hearing when the complaint was filed. Prior to the banking venture by the aforesaid company and for that reason, the banking ombudsman could not make any decision on it and argued that the complaint would be against the section 82D (4) of the Ordinance of Banking Companies, 1962, which is section 82D. I mentioned. 4) The Ordinance of Banking Companies, 1962, should have a court of civil jurisdiction or a forum that can give relief to a citizen's nature (for example, an arbiter of reference to an arbiter); and this matter cannot be a court of criminal jurisdiction. This is because the matter which falls under the jurisdiction of the Banking Mehtab was that of Article 82D ()) of the civil nature of the ordinance which clearly considered that the matter should be before the Ombudsman. Just like a person who is pending trial before a court or other legal forum and seeking relief from another court or other legal forum (or he can provide assistance) may not be claimed by Mutisib. For the purposes of (or section 8282d () of the Ordinance), it was a matter that was relevant and decisive, and the fact that the situation could have led to both criminal and civil liability, and each had to deal on its own terms. And your own kind
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
