2015 PLP 1243 (CLD)
MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHISHTI — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager — Respondent
| Citation | 2015 PLP 1243 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | N/A |
| Parties | MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHISHTI — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager — Respondent |
| Primary Law | Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001) |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2015 PLP 1243 (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 2015 PLP 1243 (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: 2015 PLP 1243 (CLD) (MUHAMMAD YOUSUF CHISHTI — Appellant Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED through Manager — Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Laws Cited
Representation
- Muhammad Nazim Khan and Sardar Riaz Kareem for Respondent.
Headnotes / Summary
Ss. 9 & 22
Car (vehicle) finance
Suit for recovery was decreed in favour of plaintiff Bank
Contention of defendant was, inter alia, that the plaintiff Bank had already recovered amount of mark-up in monthly installments and that the defendant was also entitled to recovery of security deposit paid to the plaintiff Bank
Held, that the Banking Court had rightly decreed the suit, and the plaintiff Bank, at stage of appeal, conceded to the claim of the defendant regarding amount of mark-up which had been recovered in monthly installments
Defendant was not entitled to the security deposit as per terms of the lease agreement
Decree of the Banking Court was modified by excluding amount of mark-up already recovered by the plaintiff bank in monthly installments
Judgment & Decree
This first appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 15-4-2010 passed by the learned Judge, Banking Court No.III, Multan whereby the suit filed by the respondent bank for recovery of Rs.12,13,341/90 was decreed and the application filed by the appellant under section 10 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance 2001 for leave to defend, was dismissed.
2. The respondent bank instituted a suit for the recovery of Rs.12,13,341/90 advanced to the appellant on the basis of lease rental charges of a leased vehicle. The appellant to contest the suit, filed an application for leave to defend, wherein it was stated, that the vehicle in question was snatched on 21-10-2005 by the dacoits on the way from Lahore to Multan, for which an FIR was lodged with the Police; that a claim was also lodged with the insurance company which was turned down; that the statement of accounts was not attached with the suit, therefore, the appellant be allowed to contest the suit.
3. The application was dismissed and the suit was decreed.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant during the course of arguments submitted, that the amount of Mark-up of Rs.3,00,338/90 is not payable by the appellant as the same has already been recovered by the bank in monthly installments and secondly, that the appellant is entitled to recover the amount of security of Rs.2,37,800 lying with the bank.
5. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent bank stated that the amount of mark-up be deleted from the decretal amount and as regards the security amount, the learned counsel submits, that it can only be returned to the appellant in case the appellant hands over the vehicle to the bank. The learned counsel also referred to clauses Nos. 11.5 and 3.5 of the lease agreement which disentitle the appellant to ask for return of the security amount.
6. After hearing the arguments of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the opinion, that the learned Banking Court has rightly decreed the suit and in appeal, the respondent bank has frankly conceded to the claim of appellant regarding the amount of mark-up, already recovered by the bank in monthly installments. As regards the security amount, according to the terms of the lease agreement, the appellant is not entitled to ask for the said amount.
7. We see no reason to interfere with the judgment passed by the learned Banking Judge, therefore, the appeal in hand is dismissed. However, the decree awarded in favour of the bank shall be modified by excluding only the mark-up amount of Rs.3,00,338/90. No order as to costs. KMZ/M-45/L Order accordingly.