Miscellaneous charges

2014 CLD 1255 KARACHI-HIGH-COURT-SINDH Judicial Precedent

Ss.3 (2), 9 & 10State Bank of Pakistan BCD Circular No. 32 dated 26-11-1984Suit for recovery of financeStatement of accountsCost of fundsMiscellaneous charges

Despite service of process through all mode prescribed under law, defendants remained unrepresented and nobody filed application to seek leave to defend the suit

Plea raised by bank was that suit be decreed in terms of amount reflected in statement of accounts along with cost of funds, miscellaneous and EDS charges

Validity

Presumption of correctness was attached to entries made in certified statement of accounts but such presumption attached to statement of accounts was only to the extent that entries/figures made in statement of accounts were true per books of accounts

Merely on the basis of such presumption, bank's suit could not be straight away decreed as prayed

Bank, per break-up of liabilities given in certified statement of accounts also claimed/debited other charges and EDS charges but the same were declined for want of requisite documents and proof, as in absence of materials, vouchers etc. the same could not be granted

Payment of 'penalty' in the event of delay in payment of agreed purchase price was prohibited in Islamic System of Finance read with in juxtaposition of State Bank of Pakistan BCD Circular No.32, dated 26-11-1984

High Court declined markup beyond the date of expiry of finance agreements, as it could not be allowed

Even in absence of leave to defend application in terms of S.10(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001, courts were supposed to do justice and not perpetuate injustice

Jurisdiction vested in courts was to advance cause of justice instead of causing miscarriage of justice

High Court decreed the suit in favour of plaintiff bank and against defendants including cost of funds in terms of S.3(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001

Suit was decreed accordingly.