2021 PLP 361 (CLD)
MCB BANK LIMITED through Manager — Appellant Versus SHARIF CORPORATION, MULTAN through Partners and 3 others — Respondents
| Citation | 2021 PLP 361 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore (Multan Bench) |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MCB BANK LIMITED through Manager — Appellant Versus SHARIF CORPORATION, MULTAN through Partners and 3 others — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2021 PLP 361 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2021 PLP 361 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore (Multan Bench) bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2021 PLP 361 (CLD) (MCB BANK LIMITED through Manager — Appellant Versus SHARIF CORPORATION, MULTAN through Partners and 3 others — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Shahid Mumtaz Piracha for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9, 7 & 22
Computation of decretal amount
Plaintiff Bank impugned order and decree of Banking Court on the ground that "reversal entries" in statement of account had been treated as payments made by defendants, thereby suit was decreed for lesser amount than sought by plaintiff Bank
Record showed that after expiry of finance facility, defendants had continued making deposits from time to time and same was reflected in statement of account, and after adjusting the same, Banking Court had rightly arrived at correct decretal amount, to which no exception could be taken
Appeal was dismissed, in circumstances.
Judgment & Decree
This appeal filed under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 (the Ordinance) seeks enhancement of the amount awarded by judgment and decree dated 06.12.2013.
2. Facts of the case in brief are that the appellant bank filed a suit against the respondents seeking recovery of Rs.2,230,144/-. The Banking Court, however, passed decree in the sum of Rs.1,136,226/- on the terms mentioned in the said decree.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the banking court while passing the judgment and decree excluded from the claim certain reversal entries of the statement of account by treating the same as payments having been made by the installments. It was accordingly contended that the judgment and decree was passed for a lesser amount than what was actually due to the appellant bank. Learned counsel for the respondent, on the other hand, stated that the respondents had made payments to the appellant bank more than the purchase price mentioned in the finance agreement.
4. Arguments heard record perused.
5. The expiry date of the finance facility was 31.03.2007 on which date an amount of Rs.1,499,546/- was shown to be outstanding in the statement of account. The respondents, however, continued making deposit of the amount from time to time as is reflected in the statement of account. After adjusting the said amounts, the banking court rightly passed the judgment and decree for an amount of Rs.1,136,226/- to which no exception can be taken.
6. This appeal being devoid of any merit is accordingly dismissed. KMZ/M-150/L Appeal dismissed.