| Decision |
The Islamabad High Court dismissed the appeal filed by Muhammad Tariq against Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited. Tariq contended that there was no agreement regarding the markup on his credit card's outstanding balance and alleged that a portion of this balance comprised fraudulent transactions. However, the court found that Tariq had actively used the credit card, received monthly statements, and did not dispute any of the transactions, including those he later claimed were fraudulent. His failure to object to the withdrawals in a timely manner led to the principle of estoppel being applied, preventing him from challenging the transactions retrospectively. Additionally, Tariq did not provide sufficient evidence to demonstrate that the entries in his account statements were fraudulent or erroneous. As a result, the court upheld the Banking Court's decision, decreeing the recovery amount and dismissing the appeal without ordering any additional costs. |
| Summary |
In the landmark case of Muhammad Tariq versus Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited, adjudicated by the Islamabad High Court on December 20, 2017, the appellant, Muhammad Tariq, challenged the decision of the Banking Court Rawalpindi. Tariq's appeal centered on his assertion that there was no formal agreement concerning the markup on his credit card's outstanding amount. He further alleged that a significant portion of the outstanding sum consisted of fraudulent transactions, which he claimed were never authorized or withdrawn by him. Tariq contended that while he had availed the credit card facility from the bank, there was no explicit agreement detailing the payment of markup on the borrowed amount. He also highlighted that the membership form he signed did not mention any percentage of markup, thereby questioning the legitimacy of the charges levied against him.
During the proceedings, Tariq presented his case, emphasizing the absence of an agreement on markup payments and the inclusion of unauthorized transactions in his account statement. He argued that although he had used the credit card for various transactions between August 8, 1999, and March 31, 2001, the bank had unfairly incorporated fraudulent entries in his account. Tariq maintained that he had paid a total of Rs.152,055 against an amount of Rs.98,411.70 borrowed, asserting that the difference amounted to unjust charges.
On the other hand, the respondent, Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited, represented by Raja Muqsit Nawaz, defended the bank's position by stating that Tariq had requested the issuance of a credit card and had accepted the terms and conditions, which included a 60% annual markup as per the bank's policy. The bank contended that Tariq was obligated to make minimum monthly payments and had defaulted on these payments, leading to the outstanding amount of Rs.86,974.90 at the time the suit was filed. The bank further argued that Tariq had not provided credible evidence to substantiate his claims of fraudulent transactions and had instead remained silent on the matter despite receiving monthly statements.
The court meticulously examined the evidence presented by both parties. It was established that Tariq had consistently received his monthly credit card bills without raising any objections to the transactions listed therein. The principle of estoppel was invoked, indicating that Tariq's silence and lack of immediate dispute regarding the alleged fraudulent withdrawals prevented him from retrospectively challenging the legitimacy of those transactions. Moreover, Tariq failed to demonstrate how the entries in his account statements were either fraudulent or erroneous, leaving the bank's claims unrefuted.
Additionally, the court noted that Tariq had not sought to amend the outstanding amount based on the supposed fraudulent transactions or the lack of an agreement on markup payments. The adjustments made by the trial court, which reduced the claimed amount by Rs.14,000 owing to payments made by Tariq and the exclusion of penalty fees, were deemed appropriate and justified under the prevailing laws.
In conclusion, the Islamabad High Court upheld the Banking Court's decree, affirming the recovery suit filed by Standard Chartered Grindlays Bank Limited. Tariq's appeal was dismissed due to the absence of substantive evidence challenging the transactions and the agreed-upon terms of credit. This case underscores the critical importance of promptly addressing and disputing any discrepancies in financial statements and reinforces the binding nature of agreed-upon financial terms between credit card holders and financial institutions. It serves as a precedent for the enforcement of financial agreements and the legal expectations placed upon borrowers to actively monitor and contest any unauthorized or suspicious transactions within stipulated timelines. |