Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 2162 2004 SLD 2162 2004 CLD 1657
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.388 of 1996 heard on 6-03-2003.
MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR AND MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JJ
Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN through Branch Manager --Appellant

VS

. ALLAH DITTA --Respondent Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Nawaz Akhtar R.F.A. No.385 of 1996 ref.

Law:

Section:

Banking Tribunals Ordinance (VIII of 1984) S. 6 Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.6 ¬-Banking Tribunal Jurisdiction Non claiming of, set off ¬Direction to refund excess amount Suit was disposed of by Banking Tribunal as the total liability had been paid by the defendant Tribunal observed that defendant had paid excess amount, therefore, directed the bank to refund the excess amount l Plea raised by the bank was that, neither the Tribunal had any jurisdiction under Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984, to make such direction, nor the defendant had claimed any set off or counter claim in his written statement in this behalf Validity Banking Tribunal having no such jurisdiction and defendant also did not make counter claim or set off, the decree to the extent of such direction was set aside Appeal was allowed accordingly. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J. Present appeal, filed by Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since. repealed) proceeds against judgment and decree dated 19 3 1995, whereby the then Banking Tribunal, while disposing of the appellant's suit directed it to refund a sum of Rs.40,322, being excessively paid by the respondent. 2. Briefly stated, the facts leading to the filing of the present appeal are that the appellant Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.2,52,814, including all the charges, expenses and liquidated damages, against the respondent, before the then Banking Tribunal, who issued requisite notice, under section 6(2) of the Ordinance, 1984, to the respondent, but as no reply to the show cause notice was filed within the stipulated period, therefore, an ex parte decree, dated 8 7 1993, was passed favouring the appellant. However, the same was set aside, on an application filed by the respondent, who, later on, filed the reply to the show cause notice. Ultimately, the then Banking Tribunal, after finding that the suit amount has been paid and a sum of Rs.40,322 has excessively been received by the appellant, proceeded to dispose of the suit and directed the appellant to refund the said amount to the respondent, vide judgment and decree dated 19 3 1995, hence the present…
🔒
Continue readingLogin or create an account to access the complete content.Login / Register

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