UNITED BANK LIMITED vs PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Ss

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

UNITED BANK LIMITED VS PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Ss. 82-B & 82-E---Federal Ombudsmen Institutional Reforms Act (XIV of 2013), S. 14---Banking Mohtasib (Ombudsman), jurisdiction of---Scope---Law entitles and empowers Mohtasib to adjudicate upon subject-matter complaints, wherein complainants alleged incidences of banking malpractices, violations of banking laws, rules, regulations and guidelines, instances of maladministration, fraud in relation to transfer of funds and complain against fraudulent or unauthorized withdrawals or debit entries in the accounts. Citation Name: 2025 CLD 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHOREBookmark this Case UNITED BANK LIMITED VS PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN S. 14---Payment Systems and Electronic Fund Transfers Act (IV of 2007), S. 41---Constitution of Pakistan, Art. 199---Constitutional petition---Banking Mohtasib---Jurisdiction---Electronic Fund Transfers---Contributory negligence and comparative negligence, principles of---Scope---Petitioners / banking companies were aggrieved of orders passed by Banking Mohtasib pertaining to unauthorized Electronic Fund Transfer (EFTs)---Customers asserted that they were deceptively and fraudulently induced by callers impersonating as bank or government officials, resulting into sharing of personal information, identity, access codes, one-time-pass codes (OTPs) on the assumption that information was required for the purposes of periodical checks---Banking Mohtasib directed petitioners / banking companies to reimburse / compensate the victims, i.e. the customers---Validity---Jurisdiction conferred on the Mohtasib is in the nature of quasi-judicial jurisdiction, where Mohtasib is entitled to receive evidence on affidavits, without necessity of strictly following evidentiary principles---One must not overlook, evidently the significant role of Mohtasib, which is to act as mediator for the purposes of resolving disputes amicably, which makes application and adoption of evidentiary principles inapplicable for such mediation proceedings---Provisions of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 are not applicable to arbitration proceedings, which leads to an inference that meditators are not bound by the rigours of Qanun-e-Shahadat, 1984 - and so is the Mohtasib---Statute per se supports adjudication of questions of fact, to an extent and the extent is determinable by Mohtasib---Mohtasib ignored and overlooked to consider the effect and consequence of 'contributory negligence' and 'comparative negligence'---Absolute responsibility was shifted by Mohtasib on banks by placing reliance on S. 41 of Payment Systems and Electronic Fund Transfers Act, 2007---High Court set aside decisions made by Banking Mohtasib and orders of dismissal of representations of petitioners / banking companies by the President---High Court remanded the complaints of customers to Banking Mohtasib, for decisions afresh after affording opportunity to the parties to produce documents, affidavits and evidence, in support of their respective claims---Constitutional petition was allowed accordingly.

UNITED BANK LIMITED vs PRESIDENT OF THE ISLAMIC REPUBLIC OF PAKISTAN Ss — 2025 CLD 834 LAHORE-HIGH-COURT-LAHORE

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 CLD