BABA FAREED GHEE INDUSTRIES (PVT.) LIMITED through Chief Executive and 3
This appeal impugned the judgment and decree passed by the Banking Court, whereby the appellants challenged the decree on the grounds of an incorrect statement of account and excessive charging of mark-up. The core legal questions involved the reliability of the statement of account appended to the plaint and the legality of the mark-up charged after the expiry of the credit limit. The Lahore High Court held that the appellants' objections were merely vague assertions unsupported by any documentary evidence or specific objections in the leave to defend petition, and noted that the appellant company failed to produce its own audited accounts to counter the bank's statement. Furthermore, the court found that the Banking Court had already appropriately disallowed mark-up for a certain period to prevent double charging. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed. The key principle laid down is that bald assertions regarding a bank's statement of account, unsupported by specific pleadings in the leave to defend application or by the company's own maintained accounts, cannot be given credence.
- Can bald assertions regarding an incorrect statement of account be sustained without producing the company's own accounts or raising specific objections in the leave to defend application?
- Whether a banking court's decree can be interfered with when objections regarding mark-up and accounts are not substantiated by the record?
- Is a defendant company required to submit its own statement of accounts to controvert the bank's statement of account filed with the plaint?
ORDER
' This appeal impugns the judgment and decree dated 19-2-2001 passed by the learned Banking Court No,II, Lahore. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the record with the assistance of learned counsel for the parties. It was firstly contended by learned counsel for the appellants that the statement of account appended with the plaint by the defendant-Bank was not correct. According to him the appellant No,1 had been availing banking facilities from the defendant-Bank for a number of years but the statement of account which has been filed with the plaint started from 29-6-1998. It was his case that the defendant-Bank had allowed a fresh facility only for the purpose of adjusting the earlier facility and the amount of Rs,10,000,000 shown as a debit entry, on 29-6-1998 was on account of the aforesaid facility.
2. The objection._; of the learned counsel in respect of the statement of account are not ' well- founded and are not supported, by the record. We note that only vague assertions have been made before us by learned counsel for the appellants. He was asked to be more specific as to the objections on the statement of account. He was also asked to show if any specific objections had been taken in respect of statement of account in the petition filed by the appellants/ defendants seeking leave to appear and defend. He was unable to refer to any specific objections. He was then asked to show us if the appellant No,1 which is a limited company, had filed its own statement of account to controvert the statement of account filed by the Bank. This question was put to learned counsel because a limited company is by law required to maintain accounts. Learned counsel conceded that no such statement of accounts had been filed in Court on behalf of the appellants/defendants to substantiate the allegations made in their application seeking leave to appear and defend. In this view of the matter the bald assertions made by learned counsel for the appellants without backing by any documentary proof, cannot be given any credence.
3. It was next argued by learned counsel for the appellants that mark-up had been charged by the defendant-Bank for a period after the expiry of the limit provided to the appellant No, 1 . This assertion is also not substantiated from the record. We also note that in order to avoid the charging of mark-up twice, the learned Banking Court has disallowed the mark-up for 210 days amounting to Rs,13,57,511. On this score also we find that the judgment and decree are not open to exception.
4. As a consequence we find no merit in this appeal which is, therefore, dismissed.
Cited by 6 cases
- MCB Bank Limited through Authorized Officer vs Messrs City Steel UAE Mills 2024 CLD 387
- The BANK OF PUNJABthrough Branch/Chief Manager vs Messrs KHAN 2016 CLD 29
- The Bank of Punjab vs M/s. Khan Unique, etc. 2015 P.C.T.L.R. 117
- Bela Automotives Limited vs Habib Bank Limited 2008 P.C.T.L.R. 1103
- BELA AUTOMOTIVES LTD. vs HABIB BANK LTD. 2008 CLD 778
- BELA AUTOMOTIVES LIMITED vs HABIB BANK LIMITED 2005 CLD 893