2005 PLP 1006 (CLD)
UNITED BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus Messrs SHIFA MEDICO and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1006 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus Messrs SHIFA MEDICO and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and nuances) Act (XV of 1997) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1006 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and nuances) Act (XV of 1997) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 1006 (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 1006 (CLD) (UNITED BANK LIMITED — Appellant Versus Messrs SHIFA MEDICO and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Sh. Zia Ullah for Respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
S. 9
State Bank of Pakistan Circular No. 19, dated 5-6-1997-- Recovery of bank loan
Incentive scheme
During pendency of suit filed by bank, the defendants deposited the amount under 'Incentive Scheme' issued by State Bank of Pakistan vide its Circular No. 19, dated 5-6-1997
After the amount had been deposited by the defendants, the bank raised additional claim on the ground that at the time of settlement of loan under the scheme, less liability was calculated inadvertently
Defendants were invited by the Bank to avail of the benefit of incentive scheme
Defendants in response to the scheme, made a settlement with the Bank
As a consequence of the settlement the defendants had deposited the amount in terms thereof and after performance of their part of settlement, the Bank could not claim any further amount from them due to its own mistake
Banking Court had committed no illegality while passing the judgment and decree and High Court declined to interfere in the same--Appeal was dismissed in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of judgment‑debtor‑respondents has vehemently opposed the arguments addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant contending that in view of the invitation letter addressed to the respondents by the appellant all outstanding amount under incentive scheme has been deposited by them and the appellant cannot take benefit of its own mistake/error.
5. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. It is admitted fact that under the incentive scheme/relief package announced by the State Bank of Pakistan vide Circular No.19, dated 5‑6‑1997 the respondents applied for settlement of defaulted amount. The case of the respondents had been examined by the Bank and determined their liability as under:‑‑
1. Original amount advanced Rs.1,903,039.00
2. Other charges Rs.66,000.00
3. Principal amount Rs.1,969,039.00
4. Plus 5% of Principal Rs.98.452.00
5. Grand Total Rs.2.067,491.00 It was settled that payment be made either in lump sum as early as possible but not later on 5‑7‑1997 or to enter into an agreement with at least 10% down payment and arrangement for payment of balance amount by 5‑12‑1997. Another letter was addressed to the respondents by the Bank on 11‑10‑1997, stating therein that .on rechecking of accounts it has been observed that the amount payable by the respondents has been inadvertently calculated as Rs.2067491 instead of Rs.2756655. The respondents had already deposited 10% amount equal to rupees two lacs and thereafter deposited remaining amount as Rs.1867491. This fact has not been denied by the learned counsel for the appellant.
6. The respondents/judgment‑debtors were invited by the appellant‑Bank to avail of the benefit of incentive scheme and the respondents in response thereto made a settlement with the Bank and as a consequence whereof deposited the communicated outstanding amount in accordance with the terms of settlement referred to in letter dated 2‑8‑1997 addressed to respondents by the appellant‑Bank and after performance of their part of settlement the appellant cannot claim any further amount from respondents due to its own mistake, therefore, we find that the trial Court had committed no illegality while passing the impugned judgment and decree. Accordingly, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
7. Resultantly, this appeal having no force is dismissed. M.H./U‑69/L Appeal dismissed.