Law:

Section:

Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997) S.9 Suit for recovery of loan Competency of suit was challenged by the defendant/ borrower contending that the suit was not instituted by authorized person Power of attorney produced on record by the plaintiff Bank clearly showed that the person who instituted the suit on behalf of the plaintiff Bank was authorized to institute the same Suit properly instituted by the person in accordance with the power of attorney which was executed in his favour, was competently filed Contention of defendant/ borrower was repelled. JUDGMENT RAJA MUHAMMAD SABIR, J. -- This appeal is directed against the judgment and decree dated 5 8 1998 passed by the learned Judge Banking Court II, Lahore whereby suit of respondent Bank for a sum of Rs.33,02,157 was decreed against appellants. 2. Brief facts of the case are that appellants executed agreement, based on mark up system and availed financial facilities from the respondent Bank in accordance to its terms and conditions. Appellants failed to discharge their liability in. spite of repeated notices, therefore, the Bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs.39,92,558. Appellants filed petition for leave to appear and defend the suit but the same was declined through impugned judgment and consequently it was decreed for a sum of Rs.33,02,157 by refusing liquidated damages. 3. Learned counsel for the appellants contends that the suit filed by the Bank through Amir Nawab was incompetent. He was neither a manager nor authorized by the Board of Directors of the respondent Bank to file the suit. According to him it was violative of section 9(1) of the Banking Companies (Recovery. of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act XV of 1997 which provides that the plaint shall…

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