Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)

Section: 9,10,22

Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 10, 9 & 22---Application for leave to defend---Adjudication---Principle---Charges imposed by Financial Institution on finance availed by customer---Suit filed by customer seeking declaration that customer was not liable to pay "appreciation charges" on finance facility, was decreed after Banking Court dismissed leave to defend application of defendant Financial Institution---Validity---Suit was decreed by Banking Court without considering arguments raised by defendant in its application for leave to defend and there was nothing before the Banking Court on basis of which it could conclude that said appreciation charges were contrary to applicable State Bank Regulations---Impugned order was set aside and case was remanded to Banking Court---Appeal was allowed accordingly. THIS JUDGMENT DELIVERED BY: AYESHA A. MALIK, JUSTICE:---.--- This appeal under section 22 of the Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001 ("FIO") is directed against judgment and decree dated 16.3.2016 passed by the Judge Banking Court-I, Gujranwala/Camp Office at Sialkot. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the Respondent filed a suit for declaration, rendition of accounts along with permanent injunction praying herein that the plaintiff is only entitled to pay the principal amount which she has already paid and that there is nothing due to the Respondent. Further that she is not liable to pay appreciation charges. The Appellant filed its application for leave to defend the suit ("PLA") against which reply was filed by the Respondent. It is stated in the PLA that the Respondent in terms of the agreement is bound to pay the appreciation charges as per the State Bank Regulations. The Banking Court on the first date of hearing dismissed the PLA vide the impugned order dated 16.3.2016 and found that the Appellant is not entitled to claim appreciation charges from the Respondent and the suit of the Respondent was decreed in her favour. 3. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the suit could not have been decreed on the first hearing. It was a suit for rendition of accounts in which the…

Deprecated: trim(): Passing null to parameter #1 ($string) of type string is deprecated in /home/digixyei/sldsystempk.com/view/master-layout/view_case.php on line 492