MUNIR AHMAD BHATTI versus GOVERNMENT OF PAKISTAN, MINISTRY OF INTERIOR THROUGH SECRETARY
Section 2 State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. BSD (RU51) / 47 / ECL / 17913/2001 Dated 7 12 2001 2001 State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. BSD (RU51) ECL / 47 / 20162/2000, Article 5 12 2000 Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Article 199 Constitutional Request Response Bank Named the applicant through the State Bank of Pakistan, one of the contracting parties of the State Bank of Pakistan, External Control of Banks Was successful in adding to the list. It was discriminatory for a customer to put his name in the ECL. On a simple request from the lending bank, no court order was upheld, the State Bank of Pakistan does not have the authority to send the request to the federal government in the name of the customer. The ECL has, in the same way, taken any action against the Bank Guideline and Circular User issued by the State Bank of Pakistan, especially Circular No. BSD (RU51) / 47 / ECL / 17913/2001. Before, the federal government must also make up its mind. 7 12 2001 and BSD (RU 51) ECL / 47/20162/2000, dated 5 12 2000, were in accordance with the orders of the competent court. These two notifications indicate that the State Bank of Pakistan has made a mistake. As well as gave the banks the power to decide that the consumer was the default without hearing it. The guidelines / circulars framework intended that the assessment had no legal value for the agreement between the customer and the bank and that the bank was always right, no law was intended and they did not realize that Note that Pakistan is a democratic country where the Constitution was in force and everyone had to act according to the law.
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
