| Case ID |
1b49e442-7243-4656-98d8-1c57192a9c82 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
Regular First Appeals Nos.329 and 283 of 1999 |
| Decision Date |
Jan 12, 2000 |
| Hearing Date |
Jan 12, 2000 |
| Decision |
The Lahore High Court dismissed the appeals filed by Citi Bank N.A. as time-barred, emphasizing the failure to file an application for condonation of delay under Section 5 of the Limitation Act, 1908. The court highlighted that the appeal was filed 13 days late without sufficient explanation for the delay. Additionally, the court ruled that claims relinquished or abandoned could not be re-agitated in view of the provisions of Order II, Rule 2(2) of the Civil Procedure Code. The judgment reiterated that the subsidiary of the bank was an independent entity and thus the bank could not claim amounts on its behalf in the suit. The court also ruled that mere entries in the statement of accounts were insufficient to prove the claim, requiring corroboration. Consequently, the appeal was dismissed with costs. |
| Summary |
In the case of Regular First Appeals Nos.329 and 283 of 1999, the Lahore High Court addressed the appeals of Citi Bank N.A. against Riaz Ahmed regarding the recovery of loans. The appeals were primarily dismissed on the grounds of being time-barred as the bank failed to file an application for condonation of delay, resulting in a 13-day delay. The court highlighted the importance of adhering to procedural mandates, particularly in relation to the Limitation Act. Furthermore, the court examined various aspects of the Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act, specifically sections pertaining to the maintainability of appeals against consent decrees and the independence of subsidiary companies in loan recovery suits. The ruling underscored that the relinquishment of claims during litigation cannot be revisited, thus reinforcing the principles of judicial consistency and the doctrine of approbate and reprobate. The decision illustrates the necessity for banks to maintain accurate records and provide corroborative evidence when seeking recovery of loan amounts. This case serves as a crucial reference for banking law practitioners and advocates in understanding the nuances of loan recovery proceedings and the critical nature of adhering to procedural timelines. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
CITI BANK N.A.,
RIAZ AHMED
|
| Judges |
IHSANULHAQ CHAUDHRY,
MUHAMMAD ZAFAR YASIN
|
| Lawyers |
Syed Salim-ud-Din Nasir,
Uzair Karamat Bhandari
|
| Petitioners |
CITI BANK N.A.
|
| Respondents |
RIAZ AHMED
|
| Citations |
2000 SLD 1894,
2000 CLC 847
|
| Other Citations |
Wali Muhammad v. Ghulam Rasool 1970 SCMR 471,
Pak American Fertilizers Ltd., Mianwali v. Amir Abdullah Khan 1984 CLC 2170,
Messrs Muhammad Siddiq Muhammad Umar v. The Australasia Bank Ltd. PLD 1966 SC 684,
The Australasia Bank Ltd. v. Messrs H.S. Mahmood Hassan Akbar PLD 1983 Kar. 431,
State v. Muhammad Abdullah 1982 PCr.LJ 658,
Elahi Bakhsh v. Mst. Sardar Begum PLD 1967 BJ 5,
Ganga Ghulam v. Sheo Mangal Bajpai AIR 1943 Oudh 83,
Prosanna Kumar Roy Choudhury v. Sint Adya Sakti Dasi AIR 1942 Cal. 586,
Haji Abdullah Khan v. Nisar Muhammad Khan PLD 1965 SC 690,
Mst. Murad Begum v. Muhammad Rafiq PLD 1974 SC 322,
Fazal Rahman v. Amir Haider 1986 SCMR 1814,
Abdul Hameed v. Abdul Qayyum 1998 SCMR 671,
Mehr Allah Ditta v. Muhammad Ali PLD 1972 SC 59
|
| Laws Involved |
Banking Companies (Recovery of Loans, Advances, Credits and Finances) Act (XV of 1997),
Limitation Act (IX of 1908),
Civil Procedure Code (V of 1908),
Bankers' Books Evidence Act (XVIII of 1891)
|
| Sections |
11,
21,
9,
5,
O. II, R.2(2),
O.XLI, Rr.2 & 27,
4
|