2004 PLP 968 (CLD)
UNITED BANK LIMITED through Attorneys‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ITTAFAQ TRADERS and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 968 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED through Attorneys‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ITTAFAQ TRADERS and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 968 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 968 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Syed Zahid Hussain and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 968 (CLD) (UNITED BANK LIMITED through Attorneys‑‑‑Appellant Versus Messrs ITTAFAQ TRADERS and 2 others ‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 3rd April, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Financial Institution (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ --‑‑Ss.3(2) & 7‑Suit for recovery decreed in favour of the Bank‑‑ Plea of the Bank in appeal that the Banking Court while passing the decree had erroneously declined to award interest from the late of disbursement of the principal amount to the respondents end had instead awarded it from the date of filing of the suit‑‑ Validity‑‑‑View taken by the Banking Court was not consistent with the pleadings of the parties and the statement of account on cord and appeared to be based on the mere assumption that the Bank was entitled to the decree from the date of filing of the suit‑‑‑Proper application of mind was not made by the Banking Court‑‑Matter was remanded to the Banking Court by the High Court.
Judgment & Decree
ABDUL SHAKOOR PARACHA, J.‑‑A suit for recovery of Rs.1,76,944.50 was instituted by the appellant‑Bank, which was decreed by the Special Court, Banking, Faisalabad on 15‑4‑1996 to the extent of Rs.50,000, i.e. principal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 14% per annum with quarterly rests, costs and other charges (excluding penal interest and insurance charges) from the date of filing of the suit till the realization of the loan amount.
2. The learned counsel for the appellant contends that while passing the impugned judgment and decree the trial Court has declined to grant the interest from the date of disbursement of the principal amount of Rs.50,000 for no valid reasons.
3. On perusal of the material on the record, we find that in paras.4 to 7 of the plaint the terms of the finance facility availed by the respondent were stated. Leave to appear and defend has been refused by the learned trial Court. While declining the interest from the date of disbursement of the principal amount, the learned Special Court Banking has passed the preliminary decree to the extent of Rs.50,000, i.e. the principal amount alongwith interest at the rate of 14 per cent with quarterly rests and costs and other charges (excluding penal interest and insurance charges) from the date of filing of the suit. Referring to the statement of accounts, we find some merit in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that inasmuch as the decree passed and the view taken by the learned trial Court is not consistent with the pleadings of the parties and the statement of account on the record rather proceeds on the assumption that the appellant was entitled for the decree from the date of filing of the suit. It is, thus, apparent that due arid proper application of mind was not made by the learned trial Court while dealing with this aspect of the matter. In view of above, we are inclined to remand the matter to the learned Special Court Banking Faisalabad for consideration of the claim of the appellant‑Bank qua the amount of interest from the date of disbursement of the principal amount of Rs.50,
000. This, however, will be done after giving due opportunity of hearing to the parties in accordance with law. The appeal succeeds to the extent mentioned above. No order as to costs. M.A.W./U‑51/L Case remanded.