HAJI DAD MUHAMMAD versus MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED
Section 2 (c) (d), 7, 9 and 22 suits for recovering money and damages \ Customer \ and \ Finance Banking Court scope Defendant's jurisdiction in his claim alleged that he was an accountant in the plaintiff's bank. Maintained, which account was not properly maintained and the bank failed to pay its obligations. That they deposited various amounts in cash through checks and other negotiating instruments, but the bank failed to deposit the money into their account and the bank was illegally detained. Was taken and he was not ready to pay the plaintiffs. On the lawsuit filed by the plaintiffs, the bank alleged that the banking court case had no jurisdiction because the plaintiffs / clients did not come within the definition of claim. Has also not come under the definition of \ Finance. Section 2 (c) (d) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Financial Issues) Ordinance, 2001, accepting the objection of the Plaintiff Bank, the valid words of the plaintiffs in Section 2 (c) of the Financial Affairs Returned both requests to both. ) The Ordinance, 2001 was limited to the person to whom the finance was extended and this included a person to whom a letter of guarantee or assurance was issued by the finance company and the person, mentioned above. Except as defined in the section, a user will not be defined except as a bank account holder, the claimant cannot be considered as a consumer. And the money allegedly deposited by the plaintiffs will not fall under the purview of opening an account and depositing money through an account holder.
Related judgments — Quetta High Court Balochistan, 2011
