2005 PLP 1569 (CLD)
Messrs A.M. RICE CORPORATION through Sole Proprietor and another — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager as Attorney — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1569 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Messrs A.M. RICE CORPORATION through Sole Proprietor and another — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager as Attorney — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1569 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1569 (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 1569 (CLD) (Messrs A.M. RICE CORPORATION through Sole Proprietor and another — Appellants Versus BANK OF PUNJAB through Manager as Attorney — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Shuja Baba for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 10
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001), S. 3
Application for leave to appear and defend suit
Charging of mark-up
Appellant had admitted liability to pay amount, but his grievance was qua the rest of the decretal amount which had been awarded by Banking Court as mark-up
Appellant had contended that decree had been passed under S.3 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 which did not provide for allowing mark-up, rather only costs of funds could have been awarded to the Bank
Contention of appellant was repelled because suit had been brought by the Bank under Provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997 wherein Court had ample power to grant mark-up from date of institution of suit till realization of amount
Provisions of S.3 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 which was a subsequent Legislation, were inapplicable to the case.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.
Respondent-Bank brought a suit for recovery of Rs.4,133,542 against the appellant on the basis of running finance facility. The appellant-defendant resisted the suit by moving an application for leave to appear and defend, which application, has been rejected and the suit had been allowed.
2. Learned counsel for the appellant at the very outset of his submissions today, has conceded that the admitted liability of the appellant is to the tune of Rs.3,914,
367. However, his grievance is qua the balance decretal amount which has been awarded by the learned Banking Court as mark-up. The submission in this behalf is that the decree had been passed under section 3 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, which does not provide for allowing the mark-up, rather only costs of funds could have been awarded to the respondent-Bank.
3. We are afraid, that this contention has no force; the suit in this case has been brought by the Bank under the provisions of Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, 1997, in which, the Court has ample power to grant mark-up from the date of institution of the suit till realization of the amount. This is exactly what has been done by the Court below, therefore, the provisions of section 3 of the Ordinance, 2001, which is a subsequent legislation, were inapplicable, resultantly, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant has no merit, which is hereby repelled. This appeal, therefore, has no force and is hereby dismissed. H.B.T./A-858/L Appeal dismissed.