SAFDAR ENTERPRISES PVT. (LIMITED) THROUGH JAVED HUSSAIN versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH PRESIDENT
Article 2 (b) (ii) and 22 of the Gilgit-Baltistan (Empowered and Self-Government) Order, 2009, Arts 69 and 71 (2) Writ Petition for Recovery of Loans, Chief Court for entertaining litigation filed under financial institutions Jurisdiction (Recovery) Finance Ordinance, 2001 In the Scope Intra Court of Appeals, the Chief Court of SCOP (Defendant) filed a recovery case against the applicants (applicants), and since the claim has exceeded fifty million, That is being considered under section 2 (b) (ii) of the Financial Institution (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, the Chief Justice of the Chief Justice filed a writ petition against the order of the Chief Justice of the case. Or in which it was claimed that a judge of the Chief Justice, who was nominated and handed over, defamed section 2 (b) (II) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) Ordinance, 2001, which section Had considered only the High Court, not the Chief Court, and that the Chief Justice had nothing to do with the approval of the joint intra-court appeal and if the nominee judge approved any decision against the defaulters, he would have appealed to the intra-court appeal. Will lose the truth. Legality Chief Justice extended all the powers of the High Court under the general rules to the Gilgit Baltistan Chief Court. Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finance) was authorized to entertain cases under the Ordinance 2001, as the Chief Judge of the High Court exercised jurisdiction of the Banking Court under the Ordinance and in its ordinary jurisdiction the High Court Did not work as a judge Therefore, against any order / decision / decree passed by them, the financial institutions (recovery of finances) are before the Chief Court under Section 22 of the Ordinance 2001
