Mst. SHAMIM RAZA vs HABIB BANK LTD — 2025 PLC 216 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

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

Mst. SHAMIM RAZA VS HABIB BANK LTD. S. 9---Specific Relief act (I of 1877), S. 42---Declaratory suit against Bank filed by aggrieved bank employee---Maintainability---Civil Court, powers of---Master and servant, concept of---Rights of aggrieved person, infringement of---Remedy---"Ubi jus ibi remedium"---Bank suspended Employee (lady Manager) from her services by leveling multiple allegations like fake loan sanction, opening a fake account, etc.; she filed an appeal against her suspension order before the competent authority of the bank but the same was not decided, and thereafter she challenged the proceedings made against her by the Bank authorities through a suit filed before the Civil Court---Civil Court , after recording of evidence of the parties , restored the plaintiff / lady with all back benefits---appellants (defendants / Bank) raised objection regarding maintainability of a civil suit against them---Validity---Civil Court is a Court of ultimate jurisdiction---admittedly, remedy of writ is not available against private banks, thus, the only remaining remedy available to plaintiff (Bank Manager) was to approach Civil Court---In terms of S. 9 of Civil Procedure Code, 1908 ('C.P.C.'), the Courts have jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature, excepting suits of which their cognizance is either expressly or impliedly barred---The well-recognized maxim "ubi jus ibi remedium" means that "where there is a right there is a remedy "---By virtue of provisions of S. 9 of C.P.C., Civil Courts have been conferred with the general jurisdiction to try all suits of civil nature---It would indeed be anomalous to suggest that a victim of illegal action has to go without redress because sub-constitutional legislation does not lay down the mode for enforcing his her rights---For this reason too, the provisions of S. 42 of Specific Relief act, 1877, being not exhaustive seemed to be preferable---Concept of master and servant is being consciously discarded in all spheres due to rapid industrialization---Modern trend is to provide safeguard to all kinds of employees and efforts are being made to cover more and more fields of employment by statutory provisions and thereby the relationship of master and servant is being eliminated even in industrial and commercial organization---a civil suit can be filed as a matter of right for the recognition of a civil right, and even vires of a law can be challenged before a civil Court---In the present case, the Trial Court had rightly restored plaintiff's service along with other privileges---Impugned judgment and decree of the additional District Judge was purely in accordance with law which needed no interference at all---appeal, filed by the Bank, having no force, was dismissed, in circumstances. Citation Name: 2025 PLC 216 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIRBookmark this Case Mst. SHAMIM RAZA VS HABIB BANK LTD. Ss. 42, 12, 39 & 54---Suit for declaration, cancellation of adverse order(s) issued by the Bank, specific performance and restoration of services---Cognovits filed by defendant / bank---Effect---Evidence adduced by the defendant---Deficient--- Bank suspended employee (lady Manager) from her services by leveling multiple allegations like fake loan sanction, opening a fake account, etc.; she filed an appeal against her suspension order before the competent authority of the bank but the same was not decided and thereafter she challenged the proceedings made against her by the Bank Authorities through a suit filed before the Civil Court---Civil Court, after recording of evidence of the parties, restored the plaintiff / lady with all back benefits---Validity---Record showed that Appellants / Bank, being Defendants, had filed cognovits which meant that they had admitted the stance of plaintiff ; and besides that, the said defendants had also recorded their statements which manifested that no financial loss was caused to the account holders due to any act of the plaintiff as the accounts were rightly opened, so, it negated the version of the defendants/Bank (that after opening the account the plaintiff made the transactions of the amount against the law)---Account holders themselves repudiated and contradicted the version of the bank in the inquiry report---Neither any sort of nature of loss nor its value had been determined, so, without determination of the quantum of loss punishing plaintiff was totally against the natural justice as well as basic principles of Islam---In rebuttal the defendants/Bank also filed documentary evidence which neither supported their claim as after filing the cognovit and statements of the account holders, the same had become futile, ineffective and baseless, which was rightly turned down by the Court below---Trial Court had rightly restored service of the plaintiff (bank manager) along with other privileges, Impugned judgment and decree of the Additional District Judge was purely in accordance with law which needed no interference at all---Appeal, filed by the Bank, having no force, was dismissed, in circumstances.

Mst. SHAMIM RAZA vs HABIB BANK LTD — 2025 PLC 216 HIGH-COURT-AZAD-KASHMIR

Case information

Judgment text as reported

Other judgments reported in 2025 PLC