MIAN MEHMOOD AHMAD versus HONG KONG AND SHANGHAI BANKING CORPORATION LTD. THROUGH MANAGER
Section 2 (a), 2 (d) and 9 Banking Courts Determining Jurisdiction For the exercise of jurisdiction as a banking court, it is fundamental, imperative, imperative and slow that no two conditions are fulfilled. Must be mutually exclusive and exhaustive, especially since the special court should have jurisdiction over the matter, which means that the defendant's right to a breach of liability is due to the action presented in the plaintiff Or enforcement complaint to be resolved but related to the finance. Should it be considered a matter of jurisdiction \ if the dispute is not based on InterC \ financial institution \ and \ customer \ or vice versa \ finance and there is still a failure of liability in this regard, the Special Court shall have Is not a jurisdiction The other aspect of the jurisdiction of the matter is on their parties, which can be called jurisdiction over the parties and it is implied that the banking court has jurisdiction only in the matters where the parties are concerned. The customer \ 's ship exists, considering both aspects of the jurisdiction, the broader question of jurisdiction is whether the dispute should be between \ customer \ and "financial institution" as defined in the law. In connection with the failure. In order to fulfill his / her obligations in relation to finance, which is specifically and reasonably stated in Section 9 of the Financial Institutions (Financing Recovery) Ordinance, 2001, the key to the special law And as provided in the permanent clause of the law, if the relationship between the parties is not a \ customer \ and \ financial institution of
Related judgments — Lahore High Court Lahore, 2010
