AGL 38.20 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (0.13%)
AIRLINK 129.30 Increased By ▲ 4.23 (3.38%)
BOP 7.85 Increased By ▲ 1.00 (14.6%)
CNERGY 4.66 Increased By ▲ 0.21 (4.72%)
DCL 8.35 Increased By ▲ 0.44 (5.56%)
DFML 38.86 Increased By ▲ 1.52 (4.07%)
DGKC 82.20 Increased By ▲ 4.43 (5.7%)
FCCL 33.64 Increased By ▲ 3.06 (10.01%)
FFBL 75.75 Increased By ▲ 6.89 (10.01%)
FFL 12.83 Increased By ▲ 0.97 (8.18%)
HUBC 110.72 Increased By ▲ 6.22 (5.95%)
HUMNL 14.03 Increased By ▲ 0.54 (4%)
KEL 5.22 Increased By ▲ 0.57 (12.26%)
KOSM 7.69 Increased By ▲ 0.52 (7.25%)
MLCF 40.08 Increased By ▲ 3.64 (9.99%)
NBP 72.51 Increased By ▲ 6.59 (10%)
OGDC 189.18 Increased By ▲ 9.65 (5.38%)
PAEL 25.74 Increased By ▲ 1.31 (5.36%)
PIBTL 7.38 Increased By ▲ 0.23 (3.22%)
PPL 153.45 Increased By ▲ 9.75 (6.78%)
PRL 25.52 Increased By ▲ 1.20 (4.93%)
PTC 17.92 Increased By ▲ 1.52 (9.27%)
SEARL 82.50 Increased By ▲ 3.93 (5%)
TELE 7.63 Increased By ▲ 0.41 (5.68%)
TOMCL 32.50 Increased By ▲ 0.53 (1.66%)
TPLP 8.48 Increased By ▲ 0.35 (4.31%)
TREET 16.74 Increased By ▲ 0.61 (3.78%)
TRG 56.01 Increased By ▲ 1.35 (2.47%)
UNITY 28.85 Increased By ▲ 1.35 (4.91%)
WTL 1.34 Increased By ▲ 0.05 (3.88%)
BR100 10,659 Increased By 569.2 (5.64%)
BR30 31,331 Increased By 1822.5 (6.18%)
KSE100 99,269 Increased By 4695.1 (4.96%)
KSE30 31,032 Increased By 1587.6 (5.39%)

LAHORE: The Lahore High Court held that electronically computer-generated statements of accounts are admissible in evidence if the same did not bear signatures.

The court also held that under Section 2 (8) of the Bankers’ Books Evidence Act, 1891, there is no need to put a certificate on such accounts.

The court passed these orders in a petition of Tasleem Fatima against the Bank of Punjab and said the appellants’ counsel has not been able to point out any law point to the contrary. The court said in view of the Electronic Transactions Ordinance, 2002, it feels no hesitation to agree with the opinion of the banking court.

The court dismissed the petition and observed that the counsel for the appellant has been unable to point out any discrepancy in the calculation and that payments made beyond the expiry date have been adjusted.

The court observed that said the markup beyond the period of expiry has not been charged and the statement of accounts attached with the plaint does not suffer from any infirmity and payments made by appellants after the expiry period have been adjusted in accounts by the banking court.

The appellants have not been able to deny any entry in the statement of accounts and have not produced any documents to rebut the same hence, the application for leave was rightly dismissed, the court concluded.

The facts of the case are that the respondent bank filed a suit for recovery of Rs 27,01,715 along with costs of funds and other amounts relating thereto against the appellant.

The respondent bank had sanctioned a loan of the amount of Rs 3 million and an amount of Rs 27,01,715 was outstanding at the time of filing of suit.

Copyright Business Recorder, 2023

Comments

Comments are closed.