Low Graphics Site
White bar
Daily SectionMarker

Misc SectionMarker

Horoscope Recipes Weekly SectionMarker

Weekly SectionMarker

Pakistan's Internet Magazine
Herald
Dawn GroupMarker

Archive, Search, Feedback & HelpMarker

Dawn Classified



FrontPage National International Local Business KSE Forex Sports Editorial Opinion Letters Features Today's Cartoon TV Guide Cowasjee Ayaz Irfan Hussain Review Dawn Magazine Young World Images Dawn Group Subscription To Advertise

DINA
Previous Story DAWN - the Internet Edition Next Story

February 9, 2002 Saturday Ziqa’ad 25, 1422


KARACHI: Hearing of account freezing case put off



By Our Reporter


KARACHI, Feb 8: A division bench of the Sindh High Court put off on Friday the hearing of the petition of the Al-Rasheed Trust, which has challenged freezing of its bank account, to Feb 25 after the counsel for Habib Bank was provided with the relevant documents.

The State Bank and the Habib Bank Ltd were, on Jan 25, put on notice for Feb 8 by a division bench of the SHC in the amended petition filed by the Al- Rasheed Trust regarding freezing of its account.

The bench comprised Justice Sabihuddin Ahmed and Justice Zia Pervez. When the matter came up the State Bank’s counsel was not present. The SBP was again put on notice.

The petitioner, represented by counsel Raja M. Irshad, has challenged the Sept 25 letter of the SBP through which bank accounts of the Al-Rasheed Trust had been frozen after the United States decided to freeze assets of the Trust following the Sept 11 incident.

The Al-Rasheed Trust was formed on February 13, 1996 as an NGO. It opened an account with the HBL (42457-74). On Sept 25, Cheque No 0869292 of rupees four hundred thousand was dishonoured and the HBL verbally informed the Trust that their account had been frozen.

On Oct 2, 2001, the petitioner wrote a letter to the Bank. On Oct 6, the HBL replied and referred to the SBP letter BSD(RU-02/UNX13660/2001 of Sept 25 under section 41 of the Banking Companies Ordinance of 1962.

The counsel for the petitioner termed it a violation of articles 23 and 24 of the constitution. His contention was that section 41 of the Banking Companies Ordinance was not relevant in this case.

The petitioner prayed the court to direct the bank to honour the cheque and release his amount.






Previous Story Top of Page Next Story

Seprater
Contributions
Privacy Policy
© DAWN Group of Newspapers, 2005