2022 PLP 892 (CLD)
HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Versus AMIR RAFI and others — Respondents
| Citation | 2022 PLP 892 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Versus AMIR RAFI and others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2022 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 2022 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: 2022 PLP 892 (CLD) (HOUSE BUILDING FINANCE CORPORATION — Appellant Versus AMIR RAFI and others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Iftikhar Ullah Malik for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 3, 9 & 22
Cost of funds
Future rent
Insurance charges
Appellant/House Building Finance Corporation was aggrieved of judgment and decree passed by Banking Court wherein insurance charges and future rent were declined
Claim of insurance charges were liable to be paid by respondent/borrower and was validly claimed by appellant/ Corporation
Banking Court had allowed costs of funds, therefore, appellant/Corporation was not entitled to claim future rent
Cost of funds were allowed from date of suit which was to be allowed from the date of default in terms of S. 3 of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
High Court modified judgment and decree passed by Banking Court
Appeal was allowed accordingly.
Judgment & Decree
This regular first appeal is filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) for calling into question judgment and decree dated 18.04.2018 passed by the banking court whereby a decree was passed in a suit filed by appellant bank.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the appellant bank filed a suit against the respondent seeking recovery of Rs.1,310,811/- due as on 30.04.2012. The respondent contested the suit by filing his application for leave to defend. The banking court after granting hearing to the parties passed a decree in the sum of Rs.121,612/- together with cost of funds from the date of the suit.
3. Learned counsel submits that the finance facility was in regard to the house under which payment of rent was liable to be made by the respondent which aspect of the matter was overlooked by the banking court. Similarly, it is stated that the penalty and insurance charge levied by the appellant bank were also illegally disallowed by the banking court. Learned counsel for the respondent bank, on the other hand, supported the judgment and decree passed by the banking court.
4. It is on admitted fact that the respondent during the pendency of the suit paid an amount of Rs.1,060,000/- to the appellant on 06.04.2018. The banking court disallowed the claim for penalty and insurance charges totaling Rs.79,632/- and after deducting the amount paid by the respondent during the pendency of suit held the appellant entitled to the decree for Rs.121,612/-.
5. In so far as the claim for insurance charges amounting to Rs.26,132/-, the same were liable to be paid by the respondent and was validly claimed by the appellant. As the banking court allowed costs of funds, the appellant was not entitled to claim future rent. The banking court, however, allowed costs of funds from the date of suit which ought to have been allowed from the date of default in terms of section 3 of the Ordinance.
6. In the circumstances, we partially allow this appeal and modify the judgment and decree of the banking court to the extent that it shall be deemed to have been passed for an amount of Rs.147,744/- against the respondent and in favour of the appellant bank together with cost of funds in terms of section 3 of the Ordinance. All the other terms and conditions of the decree shall remain intact. MH/H-14/L Order accordingly.