| Case ID |
204d4075-96ed-46ba-ad56-d1b0ee8c57c5 |
| Body |
View case body. Login to View |
| Case Number |
R.F.A. No. 795 of 2002 |
| Decision Date |
Jun 16, 2005 |
| Hearing Date |
Jun 16, 2005 |
| Decision |
The appeal was dismissed as the appellants did not raise a new plea before the Banking Court, which they attempted to introduce for the first time in the High Court. The learned Judge of the Banking Court had previously passed a decree for recovery against the appellants, which was upheld as there was no illegality in the judgment. The appellants were found to have availed a finance facility and failed to prove that no amount was due against them according to the terms of the finance agreement. Thus, the court ruled that the appeal lacked merit and was dismissed with no order as to costs. |
| Summary |
This case revolves around an appeal filed by the appellants against a decree for recovery issued by the Banking Court. The appellants contended that they had repaid their finance facility in full and argued that the bank could not claim any amount beyond the terms of the finance agreement. However, they failed to raise this argument in the lower court, leading to the High Court dismissing their appeal. The court emphasized the importance of raising all relevant pleas at the appropriate time in the legal process. The ruling highlights key aspects of financial agreements and the obligations of borrowers under such contracts. Keywords include financial recovery, banking disputes, legal appeals, and compliance with agreements. |
| Court |
Lahore High Court
|
| Entities Involved |
|
| Judges |
MIAN HAMID FAROOQ,
SYED HAMID ALI SHAH
|
| Lawyers |
Iftikhar Ullah Malik
|
| Petitioners |
another,
Ch. MUHAMMAD ASHRAF
|
| Respondents |
others,
Anwar Ali,
MUSLIM COMMERCIAL BANK LIMITED through its Manager
|
| Citations |
2005 SLD 1760,
2005 CLD 1685
|
| Other Citations |
1996 SCMR 1770,
1998 SCMR 593
|
| Laws Involved |
Financial Institutions (Recovery of Finances) Ordinance (XLVI of 2001)
|
| Sections |
9,
22
|