2005 PLP 1574 (CLD)
Haji ABDUL REHMAN and 5 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent
| Citation | 2005 PLP 1574 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | Haji ABDUL REHMAN and 5 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2005 PLP 1574 (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 1574 (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 1574 (CLD) (Haji ABDUL REHMAN and 5 others — Appellants Versus NATIONAL BANK OF PAKISTAN — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
State Bank of Pakistan BPD, Circular No.29 of 2002
Judgment and decree passed by Banking Court in favour of Bank, had been challenged by appellants in appeal contending that Bank had illegally compounded the mark-up
Only objection regarding mark-up taken by appellants was to the effect that same was against Injunctions of Islam and that they had moved State Bank of Pakistan under the incentive scheme and matter was under active consideration and some amount had been deposited as well
High Court declined to consider the contention about mark-up and observed that if the appellant had applied to the State Bank of Pakistan to get the benefit of-Incentive Scheme, the Executing Court would duly consider said matter before proceeding to execute decree.
Judgment & Decree
The records called for have been received and perused with assistance of the learned counsel.
2. On 22-3-1995 the respondent-Bank filed a suit against the appellants for recovery of Rs.7,39,
825. In the plaint it was stated that appellant No.1 through appellant No.2 approached the respondent-Bank for a finance facility under Small Finance Scheme. The facility in the sum of Rs.8,00,000 was provided and availed by the appellants. Several documents and security details in paras.2 and 3 were furnished. Liability was to be finally adjusted by 30-7-1990 and was subject to payment of mark-up at the rate of Rs.45 paisas per Rs.1,000 on daily products. Agreed mode of repayment in monthly instalment of Rs. 10,000 while the balance amount on the said date was to be paid in lump sum. Several documents mentioned in para.4 of the plaint were also executed. With reference to the statement of account appended with the plaint it was stated that the suit amount is due. The appellants were duly served. They put in appearance, in response to show-cause notice (the suit had been filed before a learned Banking Tribunal, Lahore). A reply was filed. Later the matter stood transferred to learned Judge Banking Court-III, Lahore, who treated the reply as an application for grant of leave to defend. The matter was heard. Vide order dated 22-3-1999 the leave was refused and the suit was decreed in the said amount.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the respondent-Bank has illegally compounded the mark-up. According to the learned counsel mark-up could not have been charged after 31-7-1990.
4. Now we have examined the reply and we find that only objection regarding mark-up taken in the said reply is to the effect that the same is against the Injunction of Islam. We, therefore, are not inclined to consider the said contention of the learned counsel. He then states that his clients have moved the State Bank of Pakistan under some incentive scheme and the matter is under active consideration and some amount has been deposited as well, if this is so the learned Executing Court shall duly consider the said matter before proceeding to execute the decree, in terms of State Bank of Pakistan, Circular No.29. With these observations the R.F.A. is dismissed in limine. Records of the learned Banking Court be remitted back immediately. H.B.T./A-293/L Appeal dismissed.