2005 PLP 1114 (CLD)
NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager-Appellant Versus Messrs FOOTCARE (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1114 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager-Appellant Versus Messrs FOOTCARE (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (LXVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1114 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (LXVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1114 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1114 (CLD) (NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager-Appellant Versus Messrs FOOTCARE (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Jahangir Sarwar for Respondents Nos.2 to 4.
- Ch. Hamid Nazir for Respondents Nos.1, 5 and 6.
Headnotes / Summary
S.3
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997), S.9
Charging of mark-up not agreed in finance agreement
Banking Court decreed the suit in favour of bank but disallowed the mark-up and costs of fund to the bank
Provision of costs of fund in Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, would not have retrospective effect to the suits which were instituted before the repealed law
Bank had failed to show if the mark-up was chargeable under arty agreement or agreement between the parties
If there was no agreement for the charge of mark-up, the bank was not entitled to claim the same
Banking Court had rightly refused the claim of mark-up to the bank and no illegality was committed in the judgment passed by Banking Court
Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
The appellant-Bank, brought a suit for recovery of an amount of Rs.60,942,067,15 against the respondents on 22-1-1999, which has been decreed by the learned Banking Court only to the extent of Rs.51.541 Million. However, the mark-up of certain period and the costs of fund, have not been allowed to the appellant. It is this part of the judgment and decree, disallowing the mark-up and costs of fund, which have been challenged by the appellants through the present appeal.
2. When confronted, learned counsel for the appellant concedes, that awarding of costs of fund has been provided in section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, whereas the present suit, pertains to the period prior thereto, which was filed under section 9 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, under which, there is no provision for the award of the costs of fund. Thus, the provision of costs of fund in the Ordinance, 2001, would not have retrospective effect to the suits, which were instituted before the repealed law. Resultantly, to the extent of costs. of fund, this appeal has no force.
3. As regards the refusal to the grant of mark-up is concerned, the learned Banking Court has come to the conclusion: "Plaintiff has charged mark-up beyond the date of expiry of the agreement of financing. The plaintiff is not entitled to charge mark-up, like interest, beyond the period agreed upon by the parties in their financing agreement or arrangement. The mark-up so charged is disallowed." Learned counsel for the appellant has failed to show, if the mark-up was chargeable under any agreement or arrangement between the parties. It is settled law that if, there is no agreement for the charge of the mark-up the bank is not entitled to claim the same. Thus, the learned Banking Court has rightly refused the claim of mark-up to the appellant. No illegality in the impugned judgment in this behalf, is shown. Resultantly, this appeal has no merits, and is hereby dismissed. M.H./N-373/L Appeal dismissed.