1988 PLP 1661 (MLD)
R.MA. Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑Defendant
| Citation | 1988 PLP 1661 (MLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mahboob Ahmad J |
| Parties | R.MA. Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑Defendant |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1988 PLP 1661 (MLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979)‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1988 PLP 1661 (MLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mahboob Ahmad J.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1988 PLP 1661 (MLD) (R.MA. Ltd.‑‑Plaintiff Versus UNITED BANK LIMITED‑‑Defendant). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑S. 2(1)(i)(ii) & S. 6 [as amended by Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) (Amendment) Ordinance (Il of 1983)]‑‑Suit for prohibitory injunction against charging of penal interest on loan‑‑Bank waiving a part of penal interest and consequently subject‑matter of suit falling below minimum amount regarding which jurisdiction conferred upon High Court under Ordinance‑‑Suit before High Court, held, was not presented before Court of competent jurisdiction‑‑Such suit would be competent before a Special Court defined in sub‑clause (i) of Clause (f) of S.2 of Ordinance‑‑Plaint returned. Muhammad Naazar Khan for Plaintiff.
Judgment & Decree
This suit for prohibitory injunction has been filed by the plaintiff under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. It has, inter alia, been prayed that the Bank may be called upon not to charge penal interest on the loan as it had not been agreed between the parties at the time of sanction. The amount of penal interest regarding which relief is being claimed has been mentioned as Rs.2,48,762 in para. 12 of the plaint. By Letter No.SOD/10/808/83, dated 14‑5‑1983 from defendant No. 1 to the Director, of the plaintiff the aforesaid penal interest has been waived off to the extent of Rs.1,14,426 thus leaving the balance of Rs.1,34,
336. The learned counsel for the plaintiff when confronted with the position that the subject of this suit would be the same regarding which the relief is being claimed had to concede that this position is correct. That being so, the subject matter of the suit falls below rupees one Million which is the minimum amount regarding which the jurisdiction has been conferred on this Court under the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. That being so, this suit has not been presented before Court of competent jurisdiction as it would be competent before a Special Court as defined in sub‑clause (i) of clause (f) of section 2 of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance, 1979. The plaint may, therefore, be returned to the plaintiff for presentation before the Court of competent jurisdiction. M.Y.H./2797/L Plaint returned.