2005 PLP 1564 (CLD)
UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager and Attorney — Appellant Versus Messrs SHAFIQUE PLASTIC and another — Respondents
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1564 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager and Attorney — Appellant Versus Messrs SHAFIQUE PLASTIC and another — Respondents |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1564 (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 2005 PLP 1564 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: N/A.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2005 PLP 1564 (CLD) (UNITED BANK LIMITED through Manager and Attorney — Appellant Versus Messrs SHAFIQUE PLASTIC and another — Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Nemo for Respondents.
- The respondents engaged Mr. Amjad Aftab Malik, Advocate who had filed his power of attorney on 17-9-1989. The office has issued cause-list which contains the name of Mr. Amjad Aftab Malik, Advocate for respondents. Despite the repeated calls nobody, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, therefore, we have no alternative except to pass ex parte order against the respondents.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Claim for mark-up
There being no buy-back agreement between the parties, Banking Court was justified not to grant Mark-up to Bank
No infirmity and illegality was found in impugned judgment and decree, furthermore by efflux of time same had already been satisfied
Appeal having no merit, was dismissed.
Judgment & Decree
CH. IJAZ AHMAD, J.
The brief facts out of which the present appeal arises are that the respondents secured loan from the appellant and an agreement was also executed between the appellant and the respondents. According to the agreement the respondents have to repay the loan to the appellant in easy instalments. The respondents failed to repay the loan to the appellants in terms of the agreement arrived at between the parties. The appellants being aggrieved filed suit for the recovery of Rs.3,04,558.04 along with mark-up and costs before the Chairman, Banking Tribunal, Lahore, respondent No.4. The learned Banking Tribunal decreed the suit vide judgment and decree dated 7-11-1996. The Banking Tribunal did not award mark-up to the appellant. The appellant being aggrieved filed this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Banking Tribunal erred in law not to grant the mark-up to the appellant. He further submits that learned Banking Tribunal erred in law to misinterpret the agreement arrived at between the parties. He further submits that the learned Banking Tribunal passed the order by misreading and non-reading of the record which was produced by the parties before it. The list of old cases was sent to the respective members of the Bar with the following note:-- "Old cases will not be adjourned except with prior adjustments and with the consent of opposite counsel." The respondents engaged Mr. Amjad Aftab Malik, Advocate who had filed his power of attorney on 17-9-1989. The office has issued cause-list which contains the name of Mr. Amjad Aftab Malik, Advocate for respondents. Despite the repeated calls nobody, has entered appearance on behalf of the respondents, therefore, we have no alternative except to pass ex parte order against the respondents. We have considered the contentions of learned counsel of the appellant and perused the record ourselves. The IB-6 (Mark-A) clearly reveals that there is no buy-back agreement between the parties, therefore, learned Banking Tribunal was justified not to grant mark-up to the appellant as there is no agreement between the parties on this point, so we do not find any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment and decree coupled with the fact that by efflux of time the same has already been satisfied, hence the appeal has no merits and the same is dismissed. H. B.T. /U-61 /L Appeal dismissed.