1999 PLP 1119 (SCMR)
Messrs UNISAM ENTERPRISES and others — Petitioners Versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB — Respondent
| Citation | 1999 PLP 1119 (SCMR) |
| Forum / Court | Supreme Court of Pakistan |
| Bench Members | Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ |
| Parties | Messrs UNISAM ENTERPRISES and others — Petitioners Versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB — Respondent |
| Primary Law | (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 1999 PLP 1119 (SCMR)?
This judgment primarily cites: (a) Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans) Ordinance (XIX of 1979), (b) Constitution of Pakistan (1973) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 1999 PLP 1119 (SCMR)?
The case was heard and decided by the Supreme Court of Pakistan bench comprising: Irshad Hasan Khan and Ch. Muhammad Arif, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 1999 PLP 1119 (SCMR) (Messrs UNISAM ENTERPRISES and others — Petitioners Versus THE BANK OF PUNJAB — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- M. Anwar Ghuman, Advocate Supreme Court instructed by C.M. Latif, Advocate-on-Record for Petitioners.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 8th July, 1998.
Headnotes / Summary
(On appeal from the order dated 14-4-1998 passed by Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No.235/97).
S. 6
Constitution of Pakistan (1973), Art. 185(3)
High Court on basis of evidence on record had concluded that decretal amount was not that as alleged by borrower, but was as claimed by Bank
Finding of fact recorded by High Court based on cogent reasons could not be interfered with petition for leave be appeal was dismissed.
Art. 185
Appeal to Supreme Court under Art. 185
Scope
Where controversy raised in a case is concluded by a finding of fact, such finding is not open to challenge in appeal under Art. 185 of the Constitution.
Judgment & Decree
IRSHAD HASAN KHAN, J.
This petition for leave to appeal is directed against the order dated 14-4-1998, passed by the Lahore High Court, Lahore in R.F.A. No.235 of 1997.
2. The dispute herein relates to recovery of decretal amount of Rs.7,97,094 pursuant to the decree passed by the Banking Court No.II, Lahore vide judgment dated 8-7-1997.
3. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner applied for loan through petitioner No.2 from the respondent-bank and petitioner No.3 stood surety as guarantor. It is also an admitted fact that the petitioner executed charge documents etc.- and mortgaged the property in favour of the respondent-bank through registered deed dated 27-6-1990. The petitioner took the plea before the High Court that the respondent-bank put in an inflated claim of Rs.7,97,094 whereas only a sum of Rs.3,50,000 was advanced as loan in the first instance and, later on, another amount of Rs.50,000 was advanced as loan, making total liability of Rs.4,00,000 out of which Rs.15,000 had already been returned.
4. Mr. M. Anwar Ghuman, learned counsel for the petitioners, submits that in addition to this, the petitioner has deposited a sum of Rs.175,000.
5. The learned Division Bench of the High Court repelled the contention raised on behalf of the petitioners in the following terms:-- "Learned trial Court, after perusing the record found that the amount actually advanced as loan Was not Rs.4,00,000 but Rs.5,85,
000. On that basis after adding the due mark-up amount, the total outstanding liability of the appellants was worked at Rs.7,97,094 and suit was decreed accordingly.
4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties we find no merit in this appeal. The claim of the respondent bank is based on documents execution whereof, with the exception of memo. of deposit of title deeds, stood admitted by the appellants. Presumption of correctness was attached to the statement of account furnished by the respondent. Neither before the Banking Court nor before us it was pleaded by the appellants that any amount paid by them towards liquidation of loan liability had been omitted in the said statement of account. No evidence was produced to rebut the claim of the respondent bank. "
6. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the material available on record. The controversy raised herein is concluded by a finding of fact, which is not open to challenge in these proceedings. The impugned judgment of the High Court is based on cogent reasons warranting no interference.
7. Resultantly, the petition is dismissed and leave declined. H.B.T./U-12/S Petition dismissed