Case Details

Citation(s)
2004 SLG 595 2004 SLD 595 2004 CLD 752
Lahore High Court
Regular First Appeal No.448 of 1996, heard on 11-03-2003
MUHAMMAD SAYEED AKHTAR, JUSTICE MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, JUSTICE
Mian Nasir Mehmood for Appellant. Nemo for
Respondent.

AGRICULTURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK OF PAKISTAN THROUGH MANAGER

VS

SAKANDAR HAYAT

Law: Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)

Section: 6

Banking Tribunals Ordinance (LVIII of 1984)---Ss. 6 & 9---Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908), O. VIII, R.6--­Suit for recovery of loan amount---Banking 'Tribunal while decreeing suit directed Bank to refund Rs.1, 61, 911 to defendant excessively- received from him ---Validity--­Banking Tribunal had no jurisdiction to pass a decree for refund of such amount in a suit for recovery filed by Bank, particularly when no "counter-claim" or `set-off" had been claimed by defendant---High Court partly accepted appeal by modifying impugned /decree to the extent relating to refund of such amount to defendant. Regular First Appeal No.385 of 1996 (Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan v. Nawaz Akhtar) fol. JUDGMENT MIAN HAMID FAROOQ, J.---Agricultural Development Bank of Pakistan, through the filing of the present appeal, under section 9 of the Banking Tribunals Ordinance, 1984 (since repealed), has called in question judgment and decree dated 1-4-1996, whereby the then Banking Tribunal passed a decree for the recovery of Rs.4,16,041 in favour of the appellant-Bank and has also directed it to refund a sum of Rs.1,16,911, 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 the recovery of Rs.56,804, including all 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 31-3-1993 was passed favouring the appellant. However, the same was set aside, on an application filed by the respondent, who, later on, filed reply to the show-cause notice. Ultimately, the then Banking Tribunal, after finding that the appellant is only entitled for the decree of Rs.4,16,041 and a sum of Rs.1,16,911 has excessively been received by it, proceeded to pass a decree for the recovery of Rs.4,16,041 against the respondent and simultaneously directed the appellant to refund the said amount of Rs.1,16,911 to the respondent, vide judgment and…
🔒
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