2004 PLP 836 (CLD)
AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. BALQEES BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents
| Citation | 2004 PLP 836 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Syed Zahid Hussain and Abdul Shakoor Paracha, JJ |
| Parties | AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. BALQEES BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents |
| Primary Law | Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2004 PLP 836 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)‑‑‑ as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2004 PLP 836 (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 836 (CLD) (AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Manager‑‑‑Appellant Versus Mst. BALQEES BEGUM and another‑‑‑Respondents). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant.
- Nemo for Respondents.
- Date of hearing: 11th March, 2003.
Headnotes / Summary
‑‑‑‑Ss.6 & 9‑‑‑Suit for recovery of Bank loan with liquidated damages and insurance charges‑‑‑Banking Tribunal decreed suit, but excluded amount of agreed return from claim of Bank as well as liquidated damages and insurance charges‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Impugned judgment did not show any reason and logic for denying amount of agreed return and excluding same from decree‑‑‑High Court maintained view of Banking Tribunal as to denial of liquidated damages and insurance charges, and partially allowed appeal by remanding case for re‑consideration of only matter of "agreed return" after hearing parties.
Judgment & Decree
Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant. Nemo for Respondents. Date of hearing: 11th March, 2003. SYED ZAHID HUSSAIN, J.‑‑‑A suit instituted by the appellant‑Bank for the recovery of Rs.6,86,797 was decreed by the learned Chairman, Banking Tribunal No. 1, Faisalabad, on 10‑4‑1996 by adjusting and excluding certain amounts from the claim of the appellant. This appeal has been filed by the plaintiff‑Bank that a sum of Rs.1,21,197 has illegally been denied to the appellant.
2. The respondents are not represented despite service. The appeal has thus been heard ex parte.
3. It is contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that no reason whatsoever has been given by the learned Chairman, Banking Tribunal, for denying such a claim of the Bank which was based on the agreement between the parties.
4. The perusal of the judgment of the learned Chairman, Banking Tribunal shows that whereas the amounts found to have been paid by the respondent- borrower were ordered to be adjusted and excluded from the claim of the appellant‑Bank and the claim for liquidated damages and insurance charges was also declined, the amount of Rs.1,21,197, which, according to the appellant‑Bank, was an agreed return, has also been declined. The judgment does not state any reason for denying such a claim of the appellant‑Bank and excluding the same from the decree.
5. Maintaining the view of the learned Chairman as to the denial of liquidated damages and insurance charges, we are unable to find any logic and reason for declining the amount of agreed return. The appeal of the appellant Bank is thus partially allowed to that extent and matter remanded to the Banking Court, Faisalabad having jurisdiction in the matter, to re‑consider the claim of the appellant‑Bank qua the amount of Rs.1,21,
197. The learned Banking Court shall determine this aspect confining itself only to the "agreed return" after notice and hearing the parties concerned. Disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. S.A. K./ A‑743/L Appeal partly allowed.