2019 PLP 1873 (SCMR)
Mrs. ASMA HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus ASKARI BANK LIMITED — Respondent
| Citation | 2019 PLP 1873 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Faisal Arab, Sajjad Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, JJ |
| Parties | Mrs. ASMA HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus ASKARI BANK LIMITED — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2019 PLP 1873 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), (b) Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2019 PLP 1873 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Faisal Arab, Sajjad Ali Shah and Munib Akhtar, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2019 PLP 1873 (SCMR) (Mrs. ASMA HASSAN and another — Petitioners Versus ASKARI BANK LIMITED — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sathi M. Ishaque, Advocate Supreme Court assisted by Mrs. Shabana Ishaq, Advocate for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
(Against the judgment dated 31.05.2019 passed by the High Court of Sindh, Karachi in First Appeal No. 82 of 2018)
S. 9
Mark-up based running finance facility
Mark-up allowed only till date of repayment of amount
Recovery suit filed by respondent Bank was decreed for the principal amount along with mark-up that was chargeable under the agreement upto 31.12.2010
Mark-up beyond such period though was claimed in the suit but was not granted, and only cost of funds was allowed to be recovered beyond such period
Held, that the contract on the basis of which financial facility was lastly availed was executed on 03.03.2010, under which the amount was repayable by 31.12.2010, hence the Banking Court rightly allowed claim of mark-up only upto 31.12.2010 and beyond such period only cost of funds was awarded
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
S. 9
Plea of forged documents negated by admission
Petitioner-customer contended that the banking suit had been filed on basis of forged documents
Held, that record showed that petitioner had admitted availing the financial facility in question and there was not specific denial as to the quantum of financial facility nor any calculation error in the statement of accounts had been pointed nor any entry in the statement of accounts was questioned
Petition for leave to appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
FAISAL ARAB, J.
For a mark up based running finance facility availed by the petitioner, the respondent filed recovery suit. The suit was decreed for the principal amount along with markup that was chargeable under the agreement upto 31.12.2010. Markup beyond this period though was claimed in the suit but was not granted. Only cost of funds was allowed to be recovered beyond this period.
2. We have noted that the contract on the basis of which financial facility was lastly availed was executed on 03.03.2010 under which the amount was repayable by 31.12.2010, hence the learned Judge of the Banking Court rightly allowed claim of markup only upto 31.12.2010 and beyond this period only cost of funds was awarded. The decision of Banking Court was upheld by the High Court vide impugned judgment. Before this Court, learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that based on forged documents banking suit has been filed. We pointed out to the counsel for the petitioner that there is an admission with regard to availing the financial facility in question and there is no specific denial as to the quantum of financial facility nor any calculation error in the statement of accounts has been pointed nor any entry in the statement of accounts was questioned to which he had no answer. Even the markup was allowed only upto 31.12.2010 whereas the amount was utilized well beyond this period and is still outstanding against the petitioner. In these circumstances, we find no reason to upset the findings of both the courts below. This petition is, therefore, dismissed and leave is declined. MWA/A-24/SC Petition dismissed.