2004 PLP 922 (CLD)
UNITED BANK LIMITED‑-‑Appellant Versus Messrs ILAM DIN & COMPANY and 13 others ‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 922 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED‑-‑Appellant Versus Messrs ILAM DIN & COMPANY and 13 others ‑‑‑Respondents |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 922 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 922 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Mian Saqib Nisar and Jawwad S. Khawaja, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2004 PLP 922 (CLD) (UNITED BANK LIMITED‑-‑Appellant Versus Messrs ILAM DIN & COMPANY and 13 others ‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Mushtaq Ahmad Khan and Mian Nasir Mahmood for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 19th March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑‑S.7‑‑‑State Bank of Pakistan Incentive Scheme (Circular No.36) applicability of State Bank of Pakistan Circular No.36‑‑‑Plea of appellant Bank was that it was entitled to simple and penal interest which was refused in the decree by the Banking Court‑‑‑Respondents were found entitled for the Incentive Scheme issued under Circular No.36 of State Bank of Pakistan to pay only principal amount plus 5%‑‑‑Respondents found to have deposited with the Bank an amount more than the said requirement under the Incentive Scheme‑‑‑Bank failed to show disability of respondents in qualifying for the Incentive Scheme‑‑ Held, the total debt of the respondents having been discharged in terms of the Incentive Scheme they were not required to make any further payment to the Bank‑‑‑Appeal was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
MIAN SAQIB NISAR, J.‑‑‑Both the matters, (R.F.A. No.504 of 1996 and E.F.A. No.254 of 1999), are inter‑linked, therefore, are being disposed of together.
2. The appellant Bank, brought a suit for recovery against the respondents, to the tune of Rs.1,91,886, for the loan, disbursed to the respondents in the year 1978. The suit was filed in the year 1988. The suit was contested by the respondents, by filing a leave application, but the leave was not granted. However, the learned Banking Court, had allowed the suit only to the extent of Rs.40,000, which is the principal amount, and disallowed the suit for the remaining amount, as being penal interest.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant contends that, the entire amount, charged in the category of interest, was not penal, rather some amount was simple interest, whereas, the other was penal in nature, but that too, under the agreement between the parties, the Bank was entitled to charge from the respondents.
4. Heard. On perusal of statement of accounts, we would have interfered in the matter, because certain entries are of simple interest, and this amount could not have been disallowed to the appellant. However, we are persuaded not to allow this appeal for the reasons, that subsequently, on account of incentive scheme, issued by the State Bank of Pakistan, in pursuance of the Prime Minister Package, vide Circular No.36 dated 17‑7‑1997, the respondents were entitled to pay the principal amount plus 5%, and according to the findings of the learned Court below in the impugned order in E.F.A. No.254 of 1999, the respondents have already deposited an amount of Rs.86,00p, which covers the total debt, as envisaged by the scheme. Resultantly, as the respondents were entitled to the incentive scheme, therefore, there is no reason to interfere in appeal.
5. The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant in E.F.A., that the respondents did not qualify under the scheme, suffice it to say that, he has not been able to show any such disability in this behalf, especially when notwithstanding, the respondents applying to the bank for availing the scheme, the debt in terms of the decree and in the light of the scheme, had been discharged and, therefore, the application was mere a formality, when the scheme had provided the benefit to the respondents and they were not supposed to make any further payment to the bank under the scheme. In the light of above, this appeal has no force and is hereby dismissed. M.A.W./U‑53/L Appeal dismissed.