MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD — 2022 CLD 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Citation: 2022 CLD 84 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE
Court: Lahore High Court
Year: 2022
Reporter: CLD
Parties: MUHAMMAD SALEEM vs PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD
Subject matter: Criminal
Provisions referred to: S. 7---S; S. 8---C; S. 10; Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908)

Fields are extracted from the reported citation and judgment text. Where a detail is not stated in the record, it is not shown.

Judgment text as reported

MUHAMMAD SALEEM VS PAK BRUNEI INVESTMENT COMPANY LTD. Ss. 9, 10, 7 & 22---Court Fees act (VII of 1870), S. 7---Suits Valuation act (VII of 1887), S. 8---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VII, R. 11---Procedure of Banking Court---Determination of pecuniary jurisdiction---Rejection of plaint by Banking Court --- application for leave to defend---Scope---Plaintiff impugned order of Banking Court whereby plaintiff's suit against Financial Institution was rejected on ground of lack of pecuniary jurisdiction---Validity---Pecuniary jurisdiction had to be determined with reference to valuation given in plaint, and if Banking Court disagreed with valuation assessed by plaintiff, it should fix value of suit under provisions of Suits Valuation act, 1887 after holding inquiry and collecting material as deemed expedient by Banking Court, and thereafter matter could have been referred to court of competent jurisdiction---after examining the plaint, once Banking Court had proceeded to issue summons to defendant, and application for leave to defend had been filed, then Banking Court could not take any further steps under C.P.C. without first deciding application for leave to defend under S. 10 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---Impugned order was made without first deciding application for leave to defend, and therefore Banking Court had gone outside scope of S. 10(8) of the Ordinance---Impugned order was set aside, and Banking Court was directed to decide application for leave to defend and only thereafter in case leave to defend was granted, it could frame issue with regard to pecuniary jurisdiction---appeal was allowed, accordingly.

Other judgments reported in 2022 CLD

2022 CLD 1051 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIMADINA BREEDING (PVT.) LIMITED VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY S. 1---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Envi…
2022 CLD 626 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHISINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY VS DIAMOND RESIDENCY through Owner/ Chief Executive Officer Ss. 17 & 1---Initial environmental examina…
2022 CLD 502 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIARIF BELGAUMI VS SINDH ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (SEPA) S. 17---Sindh Environmental Protection Agency (Review of Initial Environmental…
2022 CLD 233 ENVIRONMENTAL-PROTECTION-TRIBUNAL-KARACHIRAFHAN MAIZE PRODUCTS COMPANY LTD. VS DIRECTOR GENERAL, ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY, GOVERNMENT OF SINDH Ss. 11, 13 & 14---Prohibition o…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED S. 5(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963 [since repe…
2022 CLD 970 SUPREME-COURTSHEZAN SERVICES (PRIVATE) LIMITED VS SHEZAN BAKERS AND CONFECTIONERS (PRIVATE) LIMITED Ss. 6, 8(a) & 10(1)---Revised Trade Marks Rules, 1963…

Back to the case-law library · Search Pakistani case law in Urdu or English