2005 PLP 1198 (CLD)

A suit for recovery of Rs.22,71,786.97 filed by the respondent-Bank against the appellants was decreed by the learned, Banking Court-III, Lahore on 28-11-2002, whereagainst this appeal has been filed.

2. It is contended that the Banking Court has failed to apply its mind to the grounds urged for leave to defend inasmuch as that there was a specific stipulation that the accounts shall be operated jointly by any two authorized Directors of the Company and that the application for production of original cheques filed by the appellants had remained un-decided. It is further contended that the issues raised in the petition for leave required the recording of evidence without which the suit could not have been decreed. According to the learned counsel, the order lacks reasoning and is violative of principle, stated in Messrs Taj Zarai Industries through Sole Proprietor and another v. Habib Bank Limited through Manager-Sub-Manager/General Attorneys 2003 CLD 109 and Muhammad Ibrahim Khan v. Secretary, Ministry of Labour and others 1984 SCMR 1014. The learned counsel for the respondent on the other hand has contended that appellants Nos.2 to 4 are sons and father who manage the appellant-Company whose Chief Executive is appellant No.2. It is contended that the Chief Executive has been transacting with the respondent-Bank on the basis of a resolution of the Company dated 13-12-1999, having been authorized to act singly. It is further contended that the cheques used to be issued by appellant No.2, whereas rest of the appellants never objected to the same. Reference has been made to T.R. Pratt (Bombay) Ltd. v. E.D. Sasson & Co. Ltd. and another AIR 1936 Bombay 62; A.R. Mohamed Siddik and others v. The Trans Oceanic Steamship Co. Ltd. and another 1988 CLC 299 and Trading Corporation of Pakistan Limited v. Messrs Amin Hayat Corporation Ltd. and 2 others 1992 SCMR

783. According to him the liability was fully established and the learned Banking Court declined leave on consideration of the relevant aspects and decreed the suit which judgment does not suffer from any illegality.

3. Record has been perused and respective contentions of the learned counsel for the parties have been considered. Original of the resolution dated 13-12-1999 which bears the signature of appellants Nos.2 to 4 has been shown to us, perusal whereof indicates that 'The R.F. account and current account, and all other documents for LC., L.G. will be negotiated, accepted and signed by Mr. S.M.S. Bokhari, Managing Director and Chief Executive of the Company singly." It is thus plain and beyond doubt that appellant No.2 had the authority and power to transact with the respondent-Bank not only on the strength of the said resolution but also his position in the Company as Managing Director and Chief Executive. Any objection sought to be raised in their defence to the suit was an afterthought and a hollow ruse, which is liable to be repelled. We are also of the view that the learned Banking Court had duly applied mind to the grounds urged before him by the appellants for seeking leave and on consideration thereof and perusing the record, it was found that the running finance which had once been sanctioned for Rs. 1 million was enhanced to Rs.2 million later on and the said facility was availed by the appellants who had even executed agreement of finance, promissory notes, guarantees, letters of hypothecation and letter of continuation, as required by the Bank. In such circumstances sanctioning and availing of the facility could not be disputed. The liability so established could not be escaped by the appellants. There was thus no such serious and triable issue for which leave could be granted by the Court. It may be observed that even the non-decision of the application filed by the appellants for the production of cheques, besides the competency of any such application at that stage, was of no material effect in presence of the claim of the respondent-Bank supported by other documents brought on the record. We have for our satisfaction glanced, through the documents and even cheques have been shown to us which as mentioned above bear the signature of appellant No.2, the Managing Director and Chief Executive of the Company. Thus no illegality has in the circumstances been committed by the Banking Court in declining leave to defend and passing decree in favour of the respondent-Bank. Finding no merit in the appeal, the same is dismissed accordingly. M.H./B-84/L Appeal dismissed.