NADEEM ATHAR versus DUBAI ISLAMIC BANK (PAKISTAN) LTD.
Sections 22 (6) and 22 (1) of the Law Reform Ordinance (XII of 1972), Section 3 (2) of the High Court observed the Sections 22 (1) and 22 (6) of the Financial Institutions Plaintiff's Interpretation (Customer) rejected the Banking Court order under which it dismissed the application for the grant of secondary evidence under Article 74 of the Martyrdom of the Law, 1984, Defendant's Bank argued that It was held that the existing appeal as per the provisions of section 22 (6) is not enforceable. The appeal of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, against any mutual order passed by the banking court, was not, for all intents and purposes, an arbitrary order as the lease was still before the banking court. Was pending, under which not yet a final decision was made, the Legislature made such orders as invalid by making provisions in this regard, especially on section 22 (6) of the financial institutions. (Recovery of Taxes) Ordinance, 2001 When the legislature specifically banned the appeal against an interstate order, no exception to the intention of such legislation can be made, which would otherwise have been filed by the plaintiff. Appellant's defeat of the legislature's clear intent. Therefore, under the circumstances, the merit was rejected without
Related judgments — Karachi High Court Sindh, 2013
