| Citation(s) |
|---|
| 2024 SLG 300 2024 SLD 300 2024 CLD 387 |
Lahore High Court
C.O.S. No. 33 of 2015, decision dated: 22nd March, 2023.Date of hearing: 22nd March, 2023.
Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J
Abdul Hameed Chohan and Ms. Iqra Riaz for Plaintiff. Aakif Majeed Butt, Asim Tufail Farooqi and Ms. Shamim Akhtar for Defendants.
C.O.S. No. 33 of 2015, decision dated: 22nd March, 2023.Date of hearing: 22nd March, 2023.
Before Abid Aziz Sheikh, J
Abdul Hameed Chohan and Ms. Iqra Riaz for Plaintiff. Aakif Majeed Butt, Asim Tufail Farooqi and Ms. Shamim Akhtar for Defendants.
MCB BANK LIMITED through Authorized Officer---Plaintiff
VS
Messrs CITY STEEL UAE MILLS (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and others---Defendants
Law: Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001
Section: 9,10
Law: Bank of Punjab Act, 1989
Section: 2(8)
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)--- ----Ss. 9 & 10---Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891), S. 2(8)---Suit for recovery of finance---Leave to appear, refusal of---Penal interest---Scope---Plaintiff bank produced statements of accounts which were duly verified as required under S. 2(8) of Bankers' Books Evidence Act, 1891 and S. 9(2) of Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance, 2001---No counterstatement was filed by defendant company to controvert the statement of accounts---Validity---Mere bald allegations against statement of accounts without backing of law and documented proof had no basis---Statement of accounts of defendant company showed that penal interest was charged from time to time---Such penal interest had no backing of law---Plaintiff bank excluded amount of penal interest from the liability against defendant company---High Court excluded penal interest and markup was charged on the basis of finance agreement only till its expiry---Plaintiff bank was entitled for cost of funds after the date of markup---Claim of plaintiff bank was substantiated by agreement/statement of accounts as well as finance documents---Defendant company was unable to raise any substantial question of law or fact regarding requiring recording of evidence for its resolution---High Court declined to grant leave to appear to defendant company---Suit was decreased accordingly. Hassan Ali & Co. Cotton (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Trading Corporation of Pakistan (Pvt.) Ltd and another 2017 CLD 2283; PICIC Commercial Bank Limited v. Spectrum Fisheries Limited 2006 CLD 440; National Bank of Pakistan v. Ali Akbar Spinning Mills Limited and others C.O.S. No.126 of 2011; Muhammad Saleem Khan v. MCB Bank Limited 2020 CLD 737; Trust Investment Bank Limited v. The Bank of Punjab 2021 CLD 1430; IGI Investment Bank Limited through Attorney v. Messrs Admore Gas (Pvt.) Ltd. and another 2014 CLD 1354; NIB Bank Limited v. Highnoon Textile Ltd. and 3 others 2014 CLD 763; Messrs Soneri Bank Limited through Attorneys v. Messrs Elite Publishers Limited and 3 others 2011 CLD 755; Baba Fareed Ghee Industries (Pvt.) Limited through Chief Executive…
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