2002 PLP 1735 (CLD)
WAQAR QAMAR and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent
| Citation | 2002 PLP 1735 (CLD) |
| Forum / Court | Lahore |
| Bench Members | Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Parvez Ahmed, JJ |
| Parties | WAQAR QAMAR and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent |
Q1: What are the key laws and sections cited in 2002 PLP 1735 (CLD)?
This judgment primarily cites: statutory provisions as referenced in Pakistani case law index.
Q2: Which judicial bench decided the case 2002 PLP 1735 (CLD)?
The case was heard and decided by the Lahore bench comprising: Maulvi Anwarul Haq and Parvez Ahmed, JJ.
Q3: What is the official citation format for this judgment on Pakistan Law Portal?
Cite this legal precedent as: 2002 PLP 1735 (CLD) (WAQAR QAMAR and another‑‑‑Appellants Versus HABIB BANK LIMITED‑‑‑Respondent). Read the full summary and cross-referenced laws free on Pakistan Law Portal.
Representation
- Ziaullah for Respondent.
- Date of hearing: 19th June, 2002.
Headnotes / Summary
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)‑‑‑ ‑‑‑‑Ss. 9, 17 & 22‑‑‑Suit for recovery of loan amount with mark‑up and legal charges‑‑‑Payment of principal amount in terms of the incentive scheme during pendency of suit‑‑ Defendant filed in Court an application to that effect alongwith deposit receipts‑‑‑Such application remained pending, till the time Court decreed the suit with observation that amount paid during pendency of suit would be adjusted‑‑‑Contention of defendant was that he did not owe any amount to Bank as mark‑up and legal charges, and thus, the impugned decree was illegal‑‑‑Validity‑‑‑Incentive scheme, provided that only principal amount was payable and there was 10096 remission in all types of mark‑up‑‑‑Legal charges of Rs.15, 000 as court fee and Rs.5, 000 as counsel fee claimed by Bank though entered in decree sheet, were also admitted by defendant‑‑‑High Court accepted appeal and set aside impugned judgment and decree with observations that defendant would pay to the Bank Rs.20,000 within one month, failing which Bank could resort to recovery thereof through Executing Court. Appellant in person.
Judgment & Decree
MAULVI ANWARUL HAQ, J.‑‑‑On 1‑4‑1996 the respondent‑Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,23,079 against the appellants. According to the plaint on the application of appellant No. 1 a finance was sanctioned to the extent of Rs.3,00,000 under the Prime Minister Self Employment Scheme. Appellant No.2 stood guarantee for repayment of the said amount which was to be repaid with mark‑up at the rate of 49 paisas per thousand per day in quarterly instalments of Rs.19,535 within the period of five years. The amount was accordingly disbursed on 28‑6‑1992. There was then a reference to another agreement where under the appellant No. 1 sold his stocks and goods to the Bank for Rs.3,00,000 and promised to purchase it back for Rs.5,40,
000. Requisite documents were also executed. It was then stated that the suit/ amount stands due against appellant No. 1 in the Books of respondent‑Bank. A decree was accordingly prayed for. The suit was filed in the Banking Tribunal. In his reply to the notice the appellants admitted having received the said facility but asserted regular repayment till 2‑4‑1995 when appellant No. 1 was defrauded by a person who took him abroad wherefrom he was deported; that even thereafter he had been paying the amount. This statement was filed on 17‑4‑1996. The suit remained pending and ultimately was transferred to a learned Banking Court‑I, Gujranwala. On 18‑12‑2000 appellant No. 1 stated before the learned trial Court that he intends to deposit the amount under the incentive scheme. The case was adjourned to 12‑2‑2001. On the said date an application was filed by appellant No. 1 in Court appending deposit receipts and stating that he has paid off the entire principal amount in terms of the incentive scheme before 31‑12‑2000. The application remained pending. The learned trial Court took up the matter on 7‑5‑2001 when it proceeded to refuse the application' for leave to defend and further to decree the suit as prayed for. A note, however, was made that the amount paid during the pendency of the suit shall be' adjusted.
2. Appellant No. 1 with reference to the said incentive scheme issued by the respondent‑Bank on 9‑9‑2000 argues that he has paid the entire principal amount before 31‑12‑2000 and as such he did not owe any amount to the 'Bank arid the impugned decree is illegal. Learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank, on the other hand, does not deny that the entire principal amount has been paid but insists that the amount paid by appellant No. 1 and already adjusted against mark‑up cannot be adjusted towards the principal amount and the said amount will have to be paid.
3. It should not take us long to reject the said contention of the learned counsel for the respondent‑Bank. According to the scheme only principal amount is payable and there is a 100% remission in all types of mark‑ups. Admittedly the entire principal amount has been paid before 31‑12‑2000. When confronted with the provisions of the said incentive scheme, learned counsel states that the legal charges will have to be paid by appellant No.
1. These charges according to the learned counsel are a sum of Rs.15,000 towards the court‑fee and Rs.5,000 towards the fee of the learned counsel. We find that the said charges are also entered in the decree‑sheet. Appellant No. 1 stated that he is ready to pay the said amount.
4. This R.F.A. is accordingly allowed. The impugned judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court‑I, Gujranwala Division on 7‑5‑2001 is set aside and the suit of the respondent‑Bank, is dismissed. However, appellant No. 1 shall pay or deposit with the respondent‑Bank a sum of Rs.20,000 within one month. In case he fails to make the deposit the respondent‑Bank can resort to the recovery of the said amount through the Executing Court. No orders as to costs.
5. Records of the learned Banking Court be remitted back immediately. S.A.K./W‑59/L Appeal allowed.