Category News
LHC clarifies execution of banking decrees under Financial Institutions Recovery Ordinance
MULTAN, September 17, 2026: The Lahore High Court, Multan Bench, has held that a banking decree automatically enters execution proceedings upon its pronouncement under Section 19(1) of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, and that a decree-holder is not required to institute a fresh execution petition merely because an earlier execution application was dismissed.
The judgment was authored by Justice Jawad Hassan, who, sitting with Justice Abid Hussain Chattha, allowed MCB Bank Limited’s appeal in MCB Bank Limited v. M/s Azam Traders etc. (F.A.O. No.29 of 2019). The judgment was approved for reporting.
The case arose after the Banking Court had dismissed the bank’s application seeking restoration/revival of execution proceedings. The original execution petition had been dismissed as not pressed in 2012, after which the Banking Court took the view that the bank was required to institute a fresh execution petition within the prescribed period.
Justice Jawad Hassan’s judgment focused on the statutory distinction between the existence of execution proceedings and the procedural manner in which a decree is executed. The Court held that Section 19(1) contains mandatory language providing that a suit automatically stands converted into execution proceedings immediately upon pronouncement of judgment and decree. Section 19(2), by contrast, governs the modes and procedural mechanics of execution and does not override the automatic statutory conversion contemplated by Section 19(1).
The judgment further held that dismissal of an individual execution application could not extinguish the execution proceedings that had already come into existence by operation of law. Treating such dismissal as requiring a completely fresh execution proceeding, the Court observed, would effectively make the statutory mechanism dependent upon the survival of a particular application and would undermine the legislative scheme of Section 19.
In reaching this conclusion, the Bench relied upon a series of precedents, including the Sindh High Court’s decision in Faysal Bank Limited v. Masood Asghar (2024 CLD 744), as well as earlier decisions of the Lahore High Court concerning revival and execution of banking decrees. The judgment also considered The Bank of Punjab v. Messrs Agri International (2026 CLD 432), which recognised Section 19 as a comprehensive statutory framework providing multiple modes for execution of banking decrees.
The Court also invoked the Supreme Court’s recent pronouncement in Province of Punjab through the District Collector, Bhakkar v. Muhammad Chiragh etc. (PLD 2026 SC 53), emphasising that procedural rules should not be applied in a manner that defeats substantive rights where the circumstances do not involve contumacious or intentional misconduct.
Justice Jawad Hassan concluded that the Banking Court had adopted an unduly technical approach by treating 13 March 2012—the date on which the earlier execution petition was dismissed—as the starting point for a fresh six-year limitation period. Since Section 19(1) did not require a fresh execution petition, that premise was held to be legally unsustainable.
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the Banking Court’s order, allowed the application for restoration/revival, and directed the Banking Court to treat the decree as forming part of the execution proceedings contemplated by Section 19(1) and to proceed with execution in accordance with law.
Key takeaway: The judgment reinforces the statutory character of execution proceedings under Section 19 of the 2001 Ordinance and clarifies that a procedural dismissal of an execution application does not, by itself, erase the automatic conversion of a banking suit into execution proceedings upon pronouncement of the decree.
The judgment has been reported at 2026 LHC 5668 and can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.
LHC rules only ATC can allow foreign travel for accused under ATA
Rawalpindi, March 18, 2026 — In a significant ruling on the scope of travel restrictions under anti-terrorism law, the Lahore High Court (Rawalpindi Bench) has held that only the Anti-Terrorism Court (ATC) can permit an accused person to travel abroad where their passport stands impounded under Section 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, 1997.
The judgment came in an intra-court appeal filed by the Federation of Pakistan against an earlier order of a Single Judge that had allowed Sheikh Rasheed Ahmed to travel to Saudi Arabia for the purpose of performing Umrah. The Division Bench, comprising Justice Jawad Hassan and Justice Tariq Mahmood Bajwa, set aside that order, holding that the High Court had overstepped by granting relief in a matter squarely falling within the statutory domain of the trial court.
At the heart of the case was the interpretation of Section 28-A of the Anti-Terrorism Act, a provision the Court described as both mandatory and overriding. The Bench explained that once an accused is charge-sheeted under the Act, their passport is deemed to be impounded automatically by operation of law. While the restriction is not absolute, any relaxation — including permission to travel abroad — can only be granted by the ATC seized of the matter, which is best placed to assess the circumstances of the case.
The Court was particularly critical of the manner in which the earlier relief had been granted. It noted that the Single Judge’s order was primarily based on a statement by a law officer indicating that the government had “no objection” to the respondent’s travel. Rejecting the legal effect of such a concession, the Bench held that a statement made without lawful authority cannot override a statutory command or a subsisting judicial order.
Addressing arguments grounded in fundamental rights, the Court reaffirmed that the right to movement under Article 15 of the Constitution is not absolute and remains subject to reasonable restrictions imposed by law in the public interest. In this context, Section 28-A was held to be a lawful mechanism aimed at ensuring the presence of an accused during trial and preventing evasion of the judicial process.
The Bench also took note of the respondent’s subsequent conduct, observing that he had approached the ATC during the pendency of the appeal seeking similar relief, thereby implicitly acknowledging it as the proper forum.
Allowing the appeal, the Court set aside the impugned order but directed that the respondent’s application pending before the ATC be decided on its own merits, in accordance with law.
The ruling underscores the primacy of statutory forums in matters governed by special laws and reiterates that constitutional jurisdiction cannot be invoked to bypass procedures expressly laid down by the legislature.
The judgment can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.
Justice Jawad Hassan Leads ADR Movement with Another Mediation Order
In another landmark step, Honourable Mr. Justice Jawad Hassan of the Lahore High Court, Rawalpindi Bench, has solidified his reputation as a trailblazer in Alternative Dispute Resolution (ADR). On January 15, 2025, he appointed Barrister Chaudhary Imran Hassan Ali, ASC, as the mediator in a high-profile corporate dispute involving shareholders of South Avenue (Private) Limited, a major real estate company.
Justice Jawad Hassan’s order reflects his unwavering commitment to promoting ADR as a cornerstone of modern justice. As a prominent advocate for integrating mediation into Pakistan’s legal framework, Justice Hassan continues to champion its potential to deliver cost-effective, timely, and amicable dispute resolutions, reducing the burden on courts and fostering collaboration among disputing parties.
The parties in the case have embraced the mediation process, signaling a collective shift toward cooperative resolution.
This case is a testament to Justice Jawad Hassan’s visionary leadership in driving ADR forward, ensuring that Pakistan’s judiciary aligns with global standards for accessible and efficient justice.
Stay tuned for updates as this mediation unfolds.
AJK High Court Dismisses Corporate Disputes Between Brothers; Refers Case to Commission for Investigation
In a recent judgment, the Company Bench of the Azad Jammu and Kashmir High Court dismissed three interconnected petitions involving allegations of fraud, mismanagement, and financial embezzlement between two brothers, Mansoor Ahmed Khan and Zulfiqar Abbasi. The cases revolved around disputes in two companies, Mangla Metals (Pvt.) Ltd. and Kohsar Hydropower (Pvt.) Ltd., both co-owned by the parties.
The petitions accused Mr. Abbasi, the CEO, of fraudulent activities, breach of fiduciary duties, and misuse of company funds. Mr. Khan alleged oppressive conduct, fraudulent audits, and illegal transfer of shares. Conversely, Mr. Abbasi denied the allegations and countered with claims of embezzlement and misconduct by Mr. Khan.
Justice Syed Shahid Bahar consolidated the petitions due to overlapping facts and issues. The court ruled that the matters required detailed investigation beyond its jurisdiction, referring them to the statutory Commission established under the Companies Act, 2017. It highlighted the need for alternative dispute resolution mechanisms like arbitration and mediation to avoid prolonged litigation.
The judgment emphasized that allegations of fraud and financial mismanagement require substantial evidence and proper investigation. It directed the petitioners to seek redress through the Commission, equipped with investigative powers under the Companies Act, urging swift resolution to safeguard corporate integrity.
This decision underscores the judiciary’s preference for specialized forums to handle complex corporate disputes efficiently while promoting alternative dispute resolution.
Lahore High Court Hearing on Hazardous Air Quality in Lahore
In a groundbreaking case, the Lahore High Court has admitted a petition filed by a three-year-old child, Amal Sukhera, seeking action against the Punjab government over severe air pollution in Lahore. The petition, filed under the fundamental right to a clean and healthy environment, argues that the government has failed to enforce laws aimed at controlling air pollution, particularly from vehicular emissions.
Presented by Senator Barrister Syed Ali Zafar, the petition emphasizes the child’s right to a clean environment, a concept recently enshrined in Pakistan’s Constitution under Article 9A. The petitioner argues that the pollution crisis in Lahore, one of the world’s most polluted cities, is depriving future generations of their environmental rights.
The case highlights the government’s lack of action despite the Punjab Environmental Protection Act, 1997, which mandates pollution control measures. According to the petitioners, air pollution is severely affecting public health, particularly through vehicle emissions, which account for up to 83% of the pollution in Lahore. The petition seeks a directive to the government to take immediate steps to enforce existing environmental regulations, particularly those requiring the installation of pollution control devices on vehicles and regular inspections to limit emissions.
The petition was heard by Justice Jawad Hassan who considered the issue of child justice, invoking the “Doctrine of Intergenerational Responsibility,” drawing parallels to a similar case in the Philippines, where children successfully sought legal remedies to protect the environment for future generations.
The case is poised to set a significant precedent in the protection of environmental rights in Pakistan, especially in the context of intergenerational justice. The court has issued notices to key government officials, including the Secretary of the Environmental Protection Department, to explain the measures taken to control air pollution in Lahore. The next hearing is scheduled for November 12, 2024.
This case marks an important step in strengthening environmental protections and upholding the rights of children and future generations to a sustainable and clean environment.
The order can be downloaded from the Lahore High Court website by clicking here.