process janiye.Leave to defend.(PLA) Banking Court.
 |
| Banking Court PLA |
 |
| Leave to defend (PLA) Banking Court |
What is Banking Court and banking laws.
In Pakistan, banking court laws primarily fall under the jurisdiction of the Banking Courts established by the Banking Companies Ordinance, 1962. These specialized courts deal with offenses related to banking transactions, fraud, and financial crimes. The State Bank of Pakistan Act, 1956, Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 plays a crucial role in regulating the banking sector.
For detailed and up-to-date information on banking court laws in Pakistan, it's advisable to consult with our legal professionals.
پاکستان میں، بینکنگ کورٹ کے قوانین بنیادی طور پر بینکنگ کمپنیز آرڈیننس، 1962 کے ذریعے قائم کردہ بینکنگ کورٹس کے دائرہ اختیار میں آتے ہیں۔ یہ خصوصی عدالتیں بینکنگ لین دین، دھوکہ دہی اور مالیاتی جرائم سے متعلق جرائم سے نمٹتی ہیں۔ اسٹیٹ بینک آف پاکستان ایکٹ، 1956، مالیاتی ادارے (مالیات کی وصولی) آرڈیننس، 2001 بینکنگ سیکٹر کو منظم کرنے میں ایک اہم کردار ادا کرتا ہے۔ پاکستان میں بینکنگ کورٹ کے قوانین کے بارے میں تفصیلی اور تازہ ترین معلومات کے لیے، ہمارے قانونی ماہرین سے مشورہ کرنے کا مشورہ دیا جاتا ہے۔
تعارف
بینکنگ قوانین کے تحت ریکوری کے مقدمات میں Leave to Defend (PLA) نہایت اہم مرحلہ ہوتا ہے۔ اگر مدعا علیہ اس مرحلے پر قانون کے مطابق اپنا دفاع ثابت نہ کر سکے تو بینک کا دعویٰ بلا ٹرائل ہی ڈگری ہو جاتا ہے۔ زیرِ نظر فیصلہ اسی اصول کی واضح مثال ہے۔Leave to Defend (PLA) کیا ہے
Leave to Defend ایک درخواست ہوتی ہے جو مدعا علیہ، بینک کے دعوے کے جواب میں دائر کرتا ہے۔ یہ درخواست دراصل جوابِ دعویٰ (Written Statement) کا متبادل ہوتی ہے، جس کے ذریعے مدعا علیہ عدالت سے اجازت مانگتا ہے کہ اسے مقدمہ لڑنے اور ثبوت پیش کرنے کا موقع دیا جائے۔مقدمے کا پس منظر
United Bank Limited نے Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 کے تحت Banking Court-III، ملتان میں ایک دعویٰ دائر کیا، جس میں کریڈٹ کارڈ سہولت کے تحت واجب الادا رقم Rs. 2,70,179.67 کی ریکوری مانگی گئی۔ مدعا علیہ شیخ تنویر احمد عدالت میں پیش ہوا اور Section 10 کے تحت Leave to Defend (PLA) دائر کی۔
Banking Court کا فیصلہ
بینکنگ کورٹ نے دونوں فریقین کو سننے کے بعد مدعا علیہ کی Leave to Defend مسترد کر دی۔ عدالت نے قرار دیا کہ مدعا علیہ نے اپنی درخواست میں نہ تو کوئی ٹھوس قانونی نکتہ اٹھایا اور نہ ہی واجب الادا رقم کے حوالے سے Section 10(4) کے تقاضوں کو پورا کیا۔ نتیجتاً بینک کا دعویٰ ڈگری کر دیا گیا۔High Court میں اپیل
بینکنگ کورٹ کے فیصلے کے خلاف مدعا علیہ نے Section 22 کے تحت لاہور ہائی کورٹ (ملتان بنچ) میں اپیل دائر کی۔ اپیل میں مؤقف اختیار کیا گیا کہ بینکنگ کورٹ نے شواہد کا درست جائزہ نہیں لیا، فیصلہ عجلت میں کیا گیا اور معاملہ باقاعدہ ٹرائل کا متقاضی تھا۔High Court کے مشاہدات
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے ریکارڈ کا تفصیلی جائزہ لینے کے بعد قرار دیا کہ بینک نے تمام متعلقہ دستاویزات دعوے کے ساتھ منسلک کی تھیں، جن کی دستخط یا موجودگی سے مدعا علیہ نے انکار نہیں کیا۔ مزید یہ کہ Leave to Defend میں محض عمومی انکار کیا گیا تھا، کوئی واضح قانونی یا حقائق پر مبنی نکتہ پیش نہیں کیا گیا۔Section 10 Ordinance, 2001 کی تشریح
عدالت نے واضح کیا کہ Section 10(3) کے تحت Leave to Defend ایسی درخواست ہونی چاہیے جو خلاصہ کے طور پر اہم قانونی اور حقائق سے متعلق سوالات پر مشتمل ہو۔ اسی طرح Section 10(4) کے مطابق مدعا علیہ پر لازم ہے کہ وہ واجب الادا رقم، ادائیگی یا دیگر متعلقہ تفصیلات واضح طور پر بیان کرے، جو اس کیس میں نہیں کی گئیں۔کریڈٹ کارڈ لمٹ کا اعتراض
مدعا علیہ نے یہ مؤقف بھی اختیار کیا کہ اس کی کریڈٹ کارڈ لمٹ Rs. 2,00,000 تھی، اس سے زائد رقم کی ڈگری غیر قانونی ہے۔ عدالت نے ریکارڈ کی بنیاد پر اس اعتراض کو مسترد کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ ادائیگیوں اور بقایا جات کے بعد یہی رقم واجب الادا تھی جو ڈگری کی گئی۔حتمی فیصلہ
لاہور ہائی کورٹ نے بینکنگ کورٹ کے فیصلے سے مکمل اتفاق کرتے ہوئے قرار دیا کہ اس میں کوئی قانونی سقم یا بے ضابطگی موجود نہیں۔ چنانچہ اپیل کو بے بنیاد قرار دے کر خارج کر دیا گیا اور بینک کے حق میں ڈگری برقرار رکھی گئی۔قانونی اہمیت
یہ فیصلہ واضح کرتا ہے کہ بینکنگ کورٹ میں Leave to Defend محض رسمی کارروائی نہیں بلکہ ایک سنجیدہ قانونی ذمہ داری ہے۔ اگر مدعا علیہ ٹھوس قانونی نکات اور حقائق پر مبنی دفاع پیش نہ کرے تو عدالت کو مکمل اختیار حاصل ہے کہ وہ Leave to Defend مسترد کر کے بینک کا دعویٰ ڈگری کر دے۔
Banking Court case search
Following ( Appeal)judgement Banking law ke bare main hai.
Jiss main leave to defend (PLA) kharaj kar di gai Banking Court ki taraf se
Leave to defend (PLA)
Leave to defend aik application hoti hai jo ke respondent file karta hai jawab dawa ki jaga. Or respondent ko Ijazat lena hoti hai mamla ko defend karne ke liye
Following Judgement main United Bank ne aik dawa Banking court main file kia recovery ke liye. Jiss ke jawab main respondant ne PLA file kia.
Dono parties ko sunne ke baad PLA kharaj hu gia
Jiss ke baad court ne Bank ka case decree kar dia
Jiss ke khalaf respondent ne Appeal High court main file ki
High court ne bhi Appeal dismiss kar di or qarar dia
Observation of the High Court
We, therefore, fully agree with the findings of the Banking Court and do not find
any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree which has been passed in consonance
with the spirit of law, hence, does not call for interference by us.
10. In the above circumstances, this Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby
dismissed with no orders as to cost.
(Y.A.)
Must read Judgement
PLJ 2021 Lahore 507 (DB)
[Multan Bench, Multan]
Present: CH. MUHAMMAD IQBAL AND JAWAD HASSAN, JJ.
Sheikh TANVEER AHMAD--Appellant
versus
UNITED BANK LIMITED--Respondent
R.F.A. No. 182 of 2018, heard on 2.3.2021.
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001)--
----Ss. 22 & 10--Suit for recovery--Decreed--Application for grant of unconditional leave--
Dismissed--Banking facility--Credit card limit--Outstanding amount--Challenge to--It
evinces from record that Respondent Bank had appended with suit all relevant documents
which were executed between parties and that were not denied, therefore, Banking Court
after appreciating grounds taken by Appellant in application under Section 10 of
Ordinance as well as all documents available on record, has passed impugned judgment
and decree, as such no exception can be made to it--We have considered leave to defend
filed by Appellant wherein he has generally denied all allegations without any cogent
reasons--Section 10(4) of Ordinance specifically states about amount of finance under
Section 10(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) which he has failed to mention in his leave to defend Banking
Court under Section 10 of Ordinance, after hearing parties, has option to reject leave to
defend and pass judgment--We, therefore, fully agree with findings of Banking Court and
do not find any illegality in impugned judgment and decree which has been passed in
consonance with spirit of law, hence, does not call for interference by us--Appeal
dismissed.
[P. 509] A, C & D
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (XLVI of 2001)--
----S. 10(3)--Application for leave to defend--Application for leave to defend shall be in form
of a written statement, which shall be summary of substantial questions of law and
facts. [P. 509] B
Ch. Muhammad Aslam Jatt, Advocate for Appellant.
Ch. Saleem Akhtar Warraich, Advocate for Respondent-Bank.
Date of hearing: 2.3.2021.
JUDGMENT
Jawad Hassan, J.-- Through this Appeal, filed under Section 22 of the Financial
Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the "Ordinance"), the Appellant has
challenged the validity of the judgment and decree dated 23.04.2018 passed by the Judge
Banking Court-III, Multan (the "Banking Court") whereby the Petition for Leave to Defend
was dismissed and the suit filed by the Respondent Bank was decreed.
2. Precise facts of the case are that the Respondent Bank filed a suit against the
Appellant for recovery of a sum of Rs. 2,70,179.67. The Appellant appeared and filed
application under Section 10 of the Ordinance for grant of unconditional leave (the "PLA") to
defend the suit. The said petition for leave to appear and defend the suit was dismissed and
resultantly the suit was decreed by the Banking Court vide the impugned judgment and
decree to the tune of Rs. 2,70,179.67 with costs in favour of the Respondent Bank and against
the Appellant. Hence, this appeal.
1
3. Learned counsel for the Appellant inter alia contended that the impugned judgment
and decree is against the law and facts; that the Banking Court has passed the impugned
judgment and decree in a hasty manner without applying its Judicial Mind; that the
documents appended with the record have not been duly taken into consideration, as such
there is misreading and non-reading of material available on record; that the impugned
judgment and decree is sketchy in nature; that the Banking Court has failed to take into
consideration the fact that application of the Appellant for grant of credit card was rejected by
the Respondent Bank; that the matter required evidence by both the parties, as such the PLA
should have been allowed.
4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the Respondent Bank supported the
impugned judgment and decree and submitted that all the documents were executed and duly
signed by the Appellant as such the impugned judgment and decree has been passed strictly
in accordance with law and does not require any interference by this Court.
5. We have heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record.
6. One of the contention of the Appellant is that the Banking Court has not taken into
consideration that credit card limit was upto Rs. 2,00,000/- but has decreed the suit of the
Respondent Bank to the tune of Rs. 2,70,179.67 as such the impugned judgment and decree is
not sustainable in the eye of law. The bare examination of the record reveals that the
Respondent Bank filed a suit for recovery against the Appellants in the sum of Rs.
2,70,179.67 as on 23.07.2015 on account of banking facility/credit card alongwith fee
charges of 3% per month of outstanding amount coupled with late payment charges @ 10%
from the date of filing of suit till realization of the amount. But the Banking Court in the
impugned judgment and decree specifically observed that "the defendant deposited Rs.
2,601.36 on 28.06.2014 and on the said date, a sum of Rs. 2,70,179.67 was the balance
amount outstanding against defendant". So this ground of the Appellant is not tenable hence
turned down.
7. It evinces from record that the Respondent Bank had appended with the suit all the
relevant documents which were executed between the parties and that were not denied,
therefore, the Banking Court after appreciating the grounds taken by the Appellant in the
application under Section 10 of the Ordinance as well as all the documents available on
record, has passed the impugned judgment and decree, as such no exception can be made to
it.
8. Moreover, the Appellant had all the opportunity to defend his case before the
Banking Court under Section 10 of the Ordinance. Section 10(3) of the Ordinance clearly
states that the application for leave to defend shall be in the form of a written statement,
which shall be summary of the substantial questions of law and facts. Section 10(3) of the
Ordinance clearly provides that leave to defend shall also be in such form which contain a
summary of the substantial questions of law as well as fact in respect of which evidence
needs to be recorded and it should be filed according to Section 10(4) of the Ordinance. This
solid ground to defend his case was available to the Appellant having all the opportunity to
file necessary documents to prove his case after recording of evidence before the Banking
Court, then leave, might be granted to him. But in this case, we have considered the leave to
defend filed by the Appellant wherein he has generally denied all the allegations without any
cogent reasons. Section. 10(4) of the Ordinance specifically states about amount of finance
under Section 10(4)(a)(b)(c)(d) which he has failed to mention in his leave to defend The
Banking Court under Section 10 of the Ordinance, after hearing the parties, has the option to
reject the leave to defend and pass the judgment.
9. We, therefore, fully agree with the findings of the Banking Court and do not find
any illegality in the impugned judgment and decree which has been passed in consonance
with the spirit of law, hence, does not call for interference by us.
10. In the above circumstances, this Appeal, being devoid of any merit, is hereby
dismissed with no orders as to cost.
(Y.A.)