2005 PLP 404 (CLD)
Messrs FINE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES through Managing Partner and 7 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMTIED, FAISALABAD ‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 404 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Sardar Muhammad Aslam, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs FINE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES through Managing Partner and 7 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMTIED, FAISALABAD ‑‑‑Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XL VI of 2001)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 404 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, (XL VI of 2001)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2005 PLP 404 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Sardar Muhammad Aslam, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 404 (CLD) (Messrs FINE TEXTILE INDUSTRIES through Managing Partner and 7 others‑‑‑Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMTIED, FAISALABAD ‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Ijaz Hussain for Appellants.
- Abid Aziz Sheikh for Respondent No. 1.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss. 9 & 10‑‑‑Recovery of bank loan‑‑‑Conditional grant of leave to defend the suit‑‑‑Non fulfilment of condition imposed by Banking Court‑‑‑High Court acting as Banking Court allowed application for leave to appear and defend the suit subject to deposit of certain amount within a specified date‑‑‑Borrowers did not deposit the amount, resultantly the leave granting order was withdrawn by the Banking Court‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Neither before Banking Court, nor before Division Bench of High Court even a word had been stated by the borrowers as to why the condition imposed by Banking Court was not complied with‑‑‑Borrowers also failed to give any reason whatsoever for the non‑compliance of the condition‑‑‑Judgment and decree passed by High Court did not have any error of law or fact‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed in limine.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Ijaz Hussain for Appellants. Abid Aziz Sheikh for Respondent No.
1. Respondent No. l filed a suit for recovery of Rs.71,196,764.40 against the appellants and respondent No‑
2. The appellants were served in the manner prescribed. They put in appearance and filed an application for grant of leave to defend. In this application liability .to the extent of Rs.49,350,000, was admitted. Regarding the remaining amount the contention raised was that the entries in the statement of accounts being relied upon by the respondent‑bank are not correct. The learned Single Judge granted leave to appear and defend the suit subject to deposit of Rs.49,350,
000. This was done vide order dated 24‑4‑2003 and deposit was directed to be made up to 24‑6‑2002. Admittedly the deposit was not made. Learned Single Judge finding that the condition for grant of leave to defend having not been fulfilled, withdrew the same and decreed the suit in the sum of Rs.59,330,
637. The records were examined and claim of the respondent‑Bank to the extent of Rs.11,866,127.04 was disallowed. This was done vide judgment and decree dated 16‑7‑2003.
2. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that his clients were and are willing to pay the decretal amount provided reasonable instalments are fixed. He has also tried to demonstrate that the entries in the statement of accounts are wrong and that mark‑up has been added. Learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank contends that initial finance facility and availing thereof stands admitted. He has taken us through the statement of accounts to demonstrate that there is no compounding of the mark‑up.
3. We have given some thought to the contentions of the learned counsel for the appellants. We have already noted above that the leave was withdrawn by the learned Single Judge on the ground that the condition imposed had not been complied with. Now we find that neither before the learned Single Judge and certainly not before us even a word has been stated as to why the condition was not complied with, as to whether there is any reason, sufficient or otherwise, for the same. This being so, no error of law or fact is to be found in the impugned judgment and decree.
4. So far as the said contentions of learned counsel for the appellants are concerned, the same can be taken care of after consideration by the learned Single Judge who is presently executing the decree. Learned counsel for the respondent also states that earlier offer made was for payment of the decretal amount in the instalments of Rs.5,00,000 per month which according to the learned counsel for respondent is not a feasible proposal. Learned counsel for the appellants states that he will be in a position to make a better proposal. If such a proposal is made the same may be considered by the learned Single Judge subject of course, to any objection by the respondent. With these observations, this R.F.A. is dismissed in limine. M. H. / F‑31 / L Appeal dismissed.