2020 PLP 892 (CLD)
AL-MADINA ALUMINIUM WORK and others — Appellants Versus HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK — Respondent
| Citation | 2020 PLP 892 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | AL-MADINA ALUMINIUM WORK and others — Appellants Versus HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2020 PLP 892 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2020 PLP 892 (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: 2020 PLP 892 (CLD) (AL-MADINA ALUMINIUM WORK and others — Appellants Versus HABIB METROPOLITAN BANK — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Malik Muhammad Umer Awan for Respondent-Bank.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 10(4), 9 & 22
Leave to defend, application for
Application for leave to defend was dismissed, and suit was decreed in favour of the plaintiff-Bank
Contention of defendants, inter alia, was that their signatures were obtained on blank papers and that after alleged renewal of said finance facility, no disbursement was made to defendants
Record showed that defendants duly applied for such renewal of finance facility and offer letters issued by plaintiff-Bank were also accepted by defendants by putting their signatures thereon
Transactions were also duly reflected in the statement of accounts and therefore no reason existed to interfere with judgment and decree of Banking Court
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
SHAHID KARIM, J.
This regular first appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) calls into question judgment and decree dated 06.09.2013 passed by the banking court.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the respondent bank filed a suit against the appellants seeking recovery of Rs. 11,484,617.05 due under a running finance facility. The appellants contested the suit by filing their application for leave to defend. The defense taken by the appellants was not found to be bona fide by the banking court and accordingly their application for leave to defend was dismissed and decree in the suit was passed in favour of the respondent bank and against the appellants in the sum of Rs.10,054,434/-.
3. Learned counsel confined his arguments by the pleading only two grounds. It is submitted that the respondent bank had obtained signature of the appellants on blank documents and that renewals of the facility carried out after the year 2008 was sham as no disbursement was made thereunder. Learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, supported the judgment and decree passed by the banking court.
4. Arguments heard record perused.
5. The submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants are not supported by the record. It is manifest from the record that the appellants duly applied for renewal of the finance facilities for the year 2009 till the year 2011. The respondent bank issued the offer letters from time to time which were duly accepted by the appellants by putting their signatures thereon. Similarly, the appellants executed the finance documents which are also available on record. These documents include the finance agreements in which the particulars regarding the sale price, purchase price and the date of repayment are duly reflected. Likewise, the statement of account clearly reflects that transactions in the account continued up to the year 2011. In the circumstances, the appellants have failed to make out any case for interference in the judgment and decree passed by the banking court.
6. This appeal fails and is accordingly dismissed. KMZ/A-34/L Appeal dismissed.