2002 PLP 1297 (CLD)
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1297 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ |
| Parties | AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1297 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1297 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Mian Hamid Farooq, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1297 (CLD) (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN‑‑‑Appellant Versus MUHAMMAD TARIQ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Nemo for Appellant
Headnotes / Summary
Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.6‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74‑‑‑Recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Liquidated charges, insurance claim and cushion charges‑‑‑All such charges were included in the statement of accounts filed by the Bank at the time of filing of the suit for recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Banking Tribunal decreed the suit but did not allow the charges‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Tribunal had rightly declined liquidated charges to the Bank as the Tribunal had no authority to allow the same under the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984‑‑ Insurance claim and cushion charges could not be recovered/ charged from the borrower as the same were not agreed between the parties‑‑‑Reasons given by the Banking Tribunal for refusal of the insurance claim and cushion charges were in accordance with law‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by .the Banking Tribunal‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Faisalabad v. Messrs Aisha Garments and others 2001 MLD 1955 ref.
Judgment & Decree
Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑S.6‑‑‑Contract Act (IX of 1872), S.74‑‑‑Recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Liquidated charges, insurance claim and cushion charges‑‑‑All such charges were included in the statement of accounts filed by the Bank at the time of filing of the suit for recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Banking Tribunal decreed the suit but did not allow the charges‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Banking Tribunal had rightly declined liquidated charges to the Bank as the Tribunal had no authority to allow the same under the provisions of Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984‑‑ Insurance claim and cushion charges could not be recovered/ charged from the borrower as the same were not agreed between the parties‑‑‑Reasons given by the Banking Tribunal for refusal of the insurance claim and cushion charges were in accordance with law‑‑‑High Court declined to interfere with the judgment passed by .the Banking Tribunal‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in circumstances. Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd. Faisalabad v. Messrs Aisha Garments and others 2001 MLD 1955 ref. Nemo for Appellant None represent the appellant. Dismissed for non- prosecution. Besides, we also intend to dispose of this appeal on merit.
2. The case of the Bank is that in a suit for recovery filed by the Bank against the respondent under the provisions of Bank Tribunal Ordinance, 1984, the Tribunal has refused to grant liquidated charges to the appellant to the tune of Rs. 1,15,204; moreover the insurance and cushion charges amounting to Rs.1,617 and Rs.4,936 respectively, have also been erroneously disallowed.
3. We have considered the above and perused the record and hold that as regard the liquidated charges are concerned, the Tribunal had no authority to allow the same. In this behalf, ratio and reasoning of the judgment reported in Allied Bank of Pakistan Ltd., Faisalabad v Messrs Aisha Garments and others 2001 MLD 1955 be considered as a part of this judgment. For disallowing of insurance claim and cushion charges, suffice it to say that as per entries in statement of account, read with agreement between the parties, such amount could not be recovered /charged from the respondent, and the reasoning given by the Court in this behalf, is absolutely in accordance with law. Dismissed for non‑prosecution as also on merits. Q.M.H./M.A.K./A‑472/L